Good afternoon everyone. I'm going to go ahead and kick us off. The mayor is in transit. Um, could I please um have roll call?
Madame clerk. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor Prom. Um, Mayor Williams is delayed. He will be arriving shortly.
Mayor Prom Cabayro >> here. >> Council member Baker here. >> Council member Burrus here. Council member Cook >> here.
Council member Kopac here. Council member Wrist >> here. >> Thank you. Thank you, colleagues.
Does anyone have any announcements this afternoon? >> Yeah. Council member Cook. >> Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone. Um, I just want to say briefly that my heart goes out to Minneapolis and, um, specifically to the family of Renee Nicole Good. Um, obviously not the first person to be killed by Customs and Border Patrol. uh
in even in this recent sort of sting we've been seeing for the past year. Um but certainly feels like one of the more egregious because it was on video and by someone who is doing legal observation um and in front of their partner and uh just uh in their car. Um I know a lot of us have been doing this type of observation. Um, I've seen many of you community members out in the streets.
Um, being out here for our neighbors is something that I take very seriously. Um, and it is heart-wrenching to hear from the federal government to disbelieve what we are seeing with our own eyes and to assume something different happened than what we can clearly see happen. Uh, we know what that is. We have words for that. propaganda and gaslighting. Um, but it is meant to make us feel afraid and meant to make us not come out for our
neighbors. And I just want to state very strongly that um, we will not be intimidated by this. Um, and I appreciate the leaders throughout the country and especially the leaders in Minnesota who have stated very publicly um that they have seen the video and that they know what happened and that they will not be swayed and that justice uh will be served for this family. and just want to add my voice to those leaders across the country that uh your Durham City is uh here for the protection of our every person that lives in this city and I personally will continue to be out and if that means putting our life on the line I think we already knew the consequences of that were possible um and will continue to be out there myself and I hope and expect because I know how great Durham is that I will see my neighbors out there as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Rist.
>> Thanks, Mayor Pam. Um, yeah, I want to echo the comments from Council Member Cook and just say I'm also absolutely disgusted by the ICE shooting uh that took the life of Renee Nicole Good. Um, our hearts hearts go out to everyone in in the Twin Cities in Minneapolis. Um, we've also seen the the the disruption, the terror here in our community, um, with ICE agents here.
And so we are our hearts go out to the folks in the Twin Cities. I want to give a special shout out to Mayor Jacob Fry who actually sever of us met a little more than a year ago on the inner city visit to the Twin Cities. Great mayor and I really appreciate his colorful and direct terms about how he wanted ice out of his community. I really appreciate that.
I want to lift up Mayor Fry and as Council Member Cook said, we here on the council support our immigrant and refugee communities and we'll continue doing that even in the face of this kind of terror and disruption. Um two more things. " Um, so I just want to say to the tennis community, many of them are friends of mine. We compete together. Um, that we hear your concerns. I had a meeting actually late last year with members of DPR, with
general services, and with the ENO Community Tennis Association about this very issue. Um, and so as we kick off the budget season for 20 for the next uh budget year, I just want to let folks know that we'll be look I look forward to discussions about the CIP and how we can include in our budget appropriate funds for the continuing reservicing of courts in Durham as the tennis community thousand strong continues to grow in Durham. The last thing I'll say on a lighter note, I got a great flyer yesterday from DPR. So, for folks who are um ages 13 to 17, if you're interested in a flight simulator, the Durham Teen Center has a professional-grade flight simulator you can sign up for.
And in the afternoons at the Durham Team Center, they'll be giving folks the chance to really do like flight simulation. Pretty cool stuff. So, um DPR is working hard to make sure tennis courts are resurfaced and make sure our parks are are in good shape. But they're also doing this really innovative programming.
So if you're between 13 and 17, sign up quickly if you want to try out the flight simulator at the Derm Teen Center. So thank you, Mayor Prom. Also great to see DCM Windbush in the in the
seat there. So thanks for joining us. >> Thank you. Uh Council Member Bers, >> good afternoon.
Looking forward to a very um efficient meeting today hopefully. Um I did have the opportunity as I stated on Monday, I will be following up some business owners in Wellland Village in regards to public safety. So I did have a chance to meet with a business owner. I'm not going to disclose the name of the business, but it's a very enlightening conversation.
I want us to think exhaustfully about what community safety looks like, particularly for areas where you have business owners. This business has been there for over 50 years and um we know about the recent crime or just like the the crime that keeps occurring in that community. So want to think about the impact on that. Um when people have services they offer to a community that um is maybe probably just a little bit more disenfranchised than others and people are afraid to patronize those businesses.
We should not that that's never okay. And so thinking about it also um figuring out for go triangle or the transit there's a bus stop right there which people just feel like they lord often. So thinking about if we want to encourage people to use public
transit they have to feel safe in doing so. And so we have some areas in our community where people do not feel safe utilizing those services. Want to uplift that. Also receive feedback from members of the community in regards to East Main Street um where there is a community of folks that are unhoused who have put a couch on the sidewalk.
And then I'm also getting complaints about people um erecting fires in these areas as well as um drug use. This is a public health concern and so I want to elevate that and figure out how do we address these issues. um what I heard from business owners um what he says like it feels like this a law it's a lawless land over there and that people are allowed to have that behavior where it would not be conducted in other parts of the city. So I really want to take a deep dive and explore why we are allowing certain communities to be terrorized is what it ultimately is.
If you have fear about going out to um going to work because of gun violence or just public safety then that is not okay and acceptable. So we should make sure that as we have comfort in certain communities to offer that across Durm. So just want to uplift those conversations. I will continue to meet with people particularly our business community thinking about the cost that um business incur when they
try to hire um private security to secure to make their patrons feel safe and think about the what that impact of that is as well. So just wanted to put on the record for us all to think about it shouldn't just be one person going out community meeting with folks about the issue of public safety and want to be um exhausted how we address that and I know we have some great things in the pipeline but people need help and support now. So thank you all. Thank you, Council Member Copek.
>> Thank you, Mayor Prom. Um, so just to to echo and I share the sentiments of my colleagues, uh, Council Members Cook and Wrist about the horrific murder of Rene Nicole Good in Minneapolis by ICE. Um, none of this would have happened if not for the harmful and unnecessary policies of the Trump administration, which are making all of us less safe. and we've seen that harm here uh over time um and across communities uh in the US um and and so I appreciate them raising that and want to echo that. Uh I will continue to be out and like council member Cook said um we will not be intimidated. We will continue showing up
for our neighbors and I know uh you all will as well. Um from the Environmental Affairs Board monthly meeting last night, want to mention a couple items. first of all to acknowledge all of the input provided by the EAB uh on the UDO uh and the staff engagement on environmental issues in the UDO. Um I want to highlight the great work of general services and our urban forestry department u and keep uh Durham beautiful who are doing such important work to expand, protect and inventory our tree canopy uh with an equity lens.
org or where anyone in Durham can request a tree or trees uh on their street in their neighborhood. And so I want to encourage people to check out and take advantage of that of that resource. Uh and finally, in light of the announcement we received, I want to honor and thank uh Chief Andrews for her dedicated service as well to Durham. Uh this is a loss for our city.
Uh and I want to thank her for her steady, thoughtful, and collaborative leadership. And I wish her the best uh in whatever comes next. So thank you.
>> Thank you, Council Member Baker. Thank you all for being here. Look forward to a productive meeting. >> Thank you.
Uh I would just like to note that the mayor is back so I will be passing over chair duties to him. Thank you and good to see you Madam Limb Bush. Thanks for being here with us today. I know uh manager Ferguson is uh at a national conference.
I just wanted to say one more thing which I forgot to say earlier which is that um I am the newly appointed council member for the Durham Museum of History. And uh I went yesterday to meet with the chair of the board and the director of the museum. And what I found out yesterday that I did not know ahead of time is that there's free parking by the museum. uh which you know I'm I walked over there and it's of course accessible from the bus station if anyone wants to take the bus but I would encourage all to check it out if you haven't done so already. The um the uh the exhibits
change every six months. Um and so as as they said to me very lovely yesterday, if you don't see yourself represented, come back in a few months and see yourself represented then. Uh they try and take subsects from all over the city and all different histories. Um, and there's really meaningful uh uh permanent displays in there as well.
Um, so if you are find yourself downtown with a few moments to kill, uh, I would highly encourage everybody to head over there and check it out. Thanks. >> Okay, thank you. Um, go ahead.
>> Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Um, I just want to say thank you to my colleagues for their great remarks. Um, I want to extend I know many um current and former council members, town council members, city council members in the state of Minnesota.
Local progress, which is a national organization of progressive uh local elected leaders, has a very robust presence in Minnesota. And so my heart goes out to those communities. Um, we know that the state of Minnesota has had a rough road these
many years between the murder of George Floyd and what they're experiencing now. Um, I also very much want to thank our police chief. I cannot say um what an impact she's had on this city. Uh the success of HART, in my opinion, the best program nationally rolled out is is because of the collaborative nature of our police chief.
In many communities, that transition to an alternative to police response is adversarial. And it's because the police department feels threatened. And that is not what we've experienced here. We've experienced genuine collaboration, genuine curiosity, and a real belief that community safety comes in all forms. And that is why we are as successful as we are. And so, uh, while I am personally very happy for her and I hope she has an incredible umbrella drink, uh, waiting for her on the other side of retirement, I it is a huge loss
for this city and it will be very, very hard to replace such an incredible community leader. Thank you. >> Thank you so much uh, colleagues for your comments. Thanks everyone for being here and uh thanks for you know just being a community that's going to continue to highlight what's happening in our communities across this country.
Um obviously uh the mayors across this country we we have a very close-knit community. Um, and we'll all be together uh later this month in Washington. And this is going to be a, you know, what's happening in our streets is going to be a a really big topic of discussion um with the federal government. Um, what it feels like and what can be argued in many cases is American communities are under attack by its own government, by the American government.
That's what it feels like. and um to to have to witness such a thing. Um
I'm glad that we live in Durham because we're not afraid to speak, not afraid to speak up. And um I of course stand in solidarity as we all will um with you know uh Minneapolis and any city that's having to go through this and I'm sure they will do the same with us. Um, but we will remain steadfast here in the streets of Durham and look forward to seeing everyone tonight on the streets. Um, there was uh I I had a few other comments, but I'm just going to just hold those off and and get us going today.
Um, Miss Manager, I see there. Okay, I'm going to try and sort out the comments. I see uh people that have signed up for items, but I see general comments as well. So, I'm going to try to work through that as we're getting started and and after the consent
agenda, I will get us uh to those citizens comments. But, thanks for everyone for being here. All right. Uh, priority items.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. And um of course uh you know we are Madam Chief is announcing she's announced her retirement. Uh I deal with separation anxiety.
I hate to see her go, but I can say I am proud that she has set a template of what public service, you know, actually looks like. And uh while it feels like a loss, I think it's an actual game because we know what to look for. We know what to expect. And uh I I just appreciate having a a a leader, a police chief that is so compassionate.
Thank you. Uh that's so that's so compassionate and and has a steady hand. And um I look forward to uh her continued service as a private resident uh in this community. And um yeah, we have some big shoes to fill and I'm sure the staff will be taking care of that
process at the appropriate time. All right. I'm going to I'm having some technical issues. Go ahead.
>> Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Prom, members of council. The city manager's office has no priority items. I would like to recognize and welcome Justin Rose, our new management analyst in the city manager's office, who's sitting over to the right. Uh Justin um will be working under Mary Grace Stone King, our assistant to the city manager.
Um Justin comes with us comes to us with great experience after working in the Baltimore mayor's office. So we welcome Justin and we appreciate him joining us. >> Thank you. >> I can't wait to tell Brandon that we got you.
>> Okay, good. You know, people who normally get their life together, they move to Durham. So, welcome back. All right. Um, Madam Attorney,
>> good afternoon, Mayor Williams, Madame Mayor Prom, members of the council. It's good to see you. Uh, the city attorney's office has no priority items today. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and welcome um, Mayor, Mayor Prom, and council members. I have the board and committee report. The mayor's Hispanic Latino Committee appointment.
The nominee is Unknown name context Hernandez Cruz. The participatory budgeting steering committee appointment nomination uh goes to the youth position of Ezra B. Green and the affordable housing implementation committee. I'm requesting that that item be referred back to the clerk's office.
And that's the end of my report. >> Thank you so much. All right. At this time, I'll read the consent agenda.
Item number one, mayor's Hispanic Latino committee appointment. Number two, participatory budgeting steering steering committee appointment. Number three, affordable housing implementation commitment committee appointment.
Number uh number four, interlocal agreement with Durham Technical Community College for street and right ofway upgrades. >> I pull that one. Number five, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD continuum of care coc planning grant grant project ordinance. Number six, contract for third party administration of workers compensation and liability claims.
>> I pull that one as well. >> Number seven, cooperative group purchase contract patrol vehicle upfitting. Number eight, cooperative group purchase contract full-size rear loaders. Number nine, cooperative group purchase contract police vehicles.
Number 10, fire and emergency medical services station 19 project guaranteed maximum price amendment to the construction manager at risk contract. >> Mr. Mayor, are you ready to pull? Okay, go. Number 11, HUD grant project regulation GPR for CPF and grant project ordinance
GO amendments for home and CD CDBG. Number uh 12 first amend oops first amendment to ARPA coronavirus state local fiscal recovery funds Unknown acronym award agreement between city of Durham and hatai promise community development corporation street Joseph uh I'm sorry corporation Jose St. Joseph Historic Foundation Incorporated >> and pull that one. I think there was community as well.
>> Number 12. >> And I'll go ahead and pull the number 13 with that. >> And number 13, amendment to contract with HI promise uh CDC St. Joseph and for Fedville Street corridor neighborhood stabilization partnership implementation.
Uh number 14 in a local agreement reauthorizing the dorm bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission. >> Pull that one. Uh number 15, second amendment to
supplemental agreement number three to master agreement number 18928 for design of downtown Durham bike lanes. Me and Hunt Incorporated. Number 16, Durham County Open Space Davis construct Davis Conservation Easement Watershed Project Authorization to fund. Number 17, contract amendment number one to the professional ser professional engineering services contract with CDM Smith Incorporated for the high pressure zone improvements phase one project number 18 contract amendment number two to the professional engineering services contract with CDM Smith Incorporated for the sewer system evaluation survey services project number 19 new unified development ordinance UDO update Good presentation.
And uh number 20, consolidated annexation, Brett Moore. These are public hearings. Zoning map change Andrew Andrew Chapel Apartments. Number
22, consolidated annexation, Trenton Road, Assemblage. And number 23, which is a citizen matter as well, Unknown name context. All right. All right.
Number two. Right. Also, item number two was pulled by resident participatory budgeting steering committee. Is that the only one?
I didn't. Can you look through these? Sure. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. number two there. Okay. >> Okay.
Sounds good. >> All right. So, that is our consent agenda with the accept with items um pulled being number two, number four,
number six, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15. All right. I'll start with uh the uh citizen matter that's published on the agenda. Dale McKill, welcome.
You have three minutes. >> Welcome Could you press that button on the right, Dale? Uh, so no, in the mic in front of you. In front of you.
>> Thank you. >> There you go. >> The one that says on offering. Um, good
afternoon. My name is Dale McKielle and I was out of town when you received the CIP stoplight report about a month ago and wanted to provide some comments on that. Uh, I appreciate the um efforts that are being made to improve the CIP stoplight report, but I still have some some concerns about what was presented uh last month. And uh and this is why uh there are um about 11 projects that are in the project development pipeline that have been there for from around seven and a half years to over 10 years.
And that's how long the city has had to work on those projects. Uh if you go back and look at the data that um from the quarterly reports in the finance department, you can see how long we've been working on different phases of these projects. Uh four of the projects are in the engineering phase and just starting at the project on the left. Uh originally it was estimated that project would take four years for design. The
estimate now is it will take uh more than eight years and you can see with the other projects there are similar delays. Uh seven of the projects are in the rightway acquisition phase. Again if you look at the project on the left Unknown name context Road uh the original estimate was that project would take a year for the rideway acquisition phase. It's now um the estimate is it's going to take almost five years for rightway acquisition.
And you can see with these other projects uh there are similar delays in the rightway acquisition. Um despite these delays the all of these projects received a green light in the um stoplight report even though in September one of one of the projects the a staff member said that project should not have a green light but again it still has a green light. And at the September meeting, there was also a lot of discussion about better communication about why these projects are delayed.
And again, that information is currently not being provided in the stoplight report. The the comments that are provided are fairly um short and not very descriptive about why the projects are delayed. So, I think there's just a lot of room for improvement. Um other communities in North Carolina are dealing with federal funded projects.
uh and are able to move these projects forward. And uh I would just like to see Durham uh follow through with that. The town of Hickory, for instance, has built more than 10 miles of greenways in the last 10 years, including very difficult locations like a greenway over a US highway or over a lake. Um so I have two requests. One is that the continue to improve the stoplight report to provide oversight and accountability and that we really come to grips with um the delays in implementing the bicycle trail and sidewalk projects in Durham and that we do everything we can to move these
projects forward. So, I appreciate your time. >> Thank you so much. Thank you.
Uh, the next speaker I have is Victoria Peterson. Welcome. You have three minutes. >> Mayor, when I uh left to go to the ladies room and came back, you weren't here, and I was starting to get a little upset.
Where is my mayor at? Mhm. >> I'm glad you're here today, sir. I'm glad that you're here.
Okay. Has my uh Where's the timer at so I can >> H? >> It's good. Uh >> I can't >> Where's my timer?
So I I will know how much time. >> Oh, okay. Well, come on now. You guys needs to start following the Americans with Disability Act. That's too is it
should be right here. Here, Mr. mayor for some of us to be able to see. I'm here.
I'm going to talk a little bit about your trespassing to the city council members. I'm cut right to the chase. Sometimes folks get a little bit upset with me with me, Mr. Mayor.
I'm too old for a whole lot of foolishness. Okay. Your trespassing policy chapter I believe is what 46. I think the city attorney is here also.
It needs to be tweaked. You have some serious issues about your trespassing policy. The city manager and not her, but the city manager, whoever the city manager is, should not have the authority to trespass somebody from this city building. This building belongs to us. Us is we the people. If you're going to do that, it should be in the authority of the city attorney.
not an employee whose real responsibilities my understanding of the city manager's job is to take care of the employees not to take care the citizen the city council and those who's in my ward who's in charge so recall this statue back or your chapter 46 that's what's dealing with the trespassing There's some issues here that the citizens we have a right and to make the citizens go through 10 days is this 10. My question also, Mr. Mayor, is how come a city council member is not on this hearing? You folks had a hearing the other day and as far as I know, the two employees was the city manager and the city attorney.
And thank you, ma'am, for showing up. I appreciate that because we need that. But Miss Cook is also an
attorney and I'm I'm going to call out her name. I'm not going to beat her up, but Miss Cook, I'm asking you to help us to look at this policy to see how we can better it. I can understand if somebody's in there and they're and they're acting up acting crazy, but that's not what happened the other the other Monday night. this person and I was there.
This person was asked to leave because there were other people in the way. It took her some minutes to get out of the row. But if you understand the trespassing laws, she had not violated the city trespassing laws. When laws are vi violated, when when you're dealing with trespassing, you first have to have the correct person to state that they are trespassing.
And Mr. Mayor, can I just sort of finish that? And then and then if they have trespassed, then you cite them for trespassing. That young lady had not trespassed. And thank you, Mr.
Mayor. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Next up, >> and it was good seeing seeing you today, sir.
>> And happy new year. >> And happy new year. Next, I have Leslie St. >> Welcome.
You have three minutes. Hello. Uh, thanks for having me. I am here to talk about the UDEO engagement uh, and the process of writing the UDEO.
Um, I ask that this body require environmental and displacement impact reports regarding the UDO's unaffordable upzoning and increased use, especially for the tech industry, including likely rent and property tax hikes for each neighborhood mailed to each resident with information on where and when to give comment. This is the type of community engagement that we need. When I met with Robin at planning during their open hours and asked what happens
when I or others can no longer afford the property tax hikes that will come with their plans, he told me I could move. That's the current plan in the UDO for low-income residents. The unified development ordinance is anything but unified unless we're only talking about the unity of developers, developerbacked electeds, and real estate profiters. It will be more legible and accessible.
Yes. But uh is being able to read how you've legalized rampant real estate speculation and unaffordably upzone the city to a point where we lose the democratic process of discretionary reviews since you've granted them the keys to each neighborhood um is not what we asked for. Affordable housing is the number one demand of the city has been for many years. Um, and the UDO draft, unless it's drastically changed in this coming presentation, has failed that assignment and instead given us the exact opposite, an unaffordable
housing plan for Durham. When we have 14,000 vacant unaffordable units, a need for 25,000 affordable ones, and you give us more of what we don't need, we must go back to the drawing board, putting Durham residents needs and vision for their neighborhoods first. In a time of US oligarchy and constant war on the poor, on every front, we need you all to rise to the occasion. Politicians can't suggest they care about black and brown folks, immigrants, queer and trans people, or any other marginalized group.
They haven't made stable, dignified, affordable housing the number one issue that is a determinant of health and safety. We need stable neighborhoods. People need to be able to stay in them. People with lived experience are smarter than that.
If you've been involved in true social justice movements, you will have learned the people closest to the impact are closest to the solution. We have no homeless and low-income residents here demanding unaffordable apartments. And imagining that any of
the handouts the four member majority is approving will benefit them. As Los Angeles tenant union founder and author Trace Rosenthal says, "We don't have a housing system in the US. " We should agree that if our representatives wish to represent the people, sweeping legislation must benefit them, not a minority of wealthy investors. Thank you.
Uh, >> next speaker I have is Angel Doer. Welcome. You have three minutes. >> Uh before I get started, I would like to request um extra time. I as I am Indian autistic black woman and because of the threats recent threats to my life as well as what I'm going to discuss here today. I am subject to angry black woman syndrome and I may be result in that may result in me shaking and trembling as I
speak. So I am asking for extended time. >> You have three minutes. First of all, uh, as we were serving people at the people's table, this is an initiative that is supported by the rising majority, also a division of movement for black lives.
our lives and our uh safety were threatened by a person named Bubba Rollup on Monday night while the city council meeting was going on. So, I am requesting that the city um look into this and take a stance on this risk to our safety as we've been serving the people. The other thing I want to say is I want to address the issue with regards to the Durham Marshall Plan as well as the items that are up for discussion today.
Item 12 and item 13 with regard to Hayai Promise and uh the funds being uh transferred from St. Joseph's Historic Foundation to Pay Thai Promise CDC. I need to correct the record regarding March 23rd, 2023. The accusations that were made were initi uh were made to made against Monique Hosie Heman um as well as Diana Freeman that day disrupted a process when we successfully and unanimously got the votes for the Durham Marshall plan which I wrote and I designed.
Leo Williams, Mark Anthony Milton were both a part of that process. They both witnessed my uh labor for over nine months between July 2022 and uh March 23rd when the decision was made and the plan was approved. That plan was accredited to Hayai Promise.
Now my question about this is how is tai promise CDC responsible for this plan that I designed and wrote based off of my work with be connected durham. That's number one. Number two, how is a city staff member affiliated with this process? Why is a city staff member managing a process that is supposed to be assigned to a community development um corporation?
And I'm also requesting that there uh that this process be looked into. I am requesting a formal investigation into the establishment of Hay Thai Promise CDC as it was originally established by Angela Lee who is the former executive director at Hay Thai Heritage Center without the permission of the board and without the knowledge of the board. So I am also
requesting that any decisions be made on item 12 and 13 with regard to hey promise CDC be paused until further investigation. Thank you. I didn't need that extra time after all. >> Thank you for your comments.
>> All right. And lastly, uh no, this is moving into the pulled items number two. >> All right. Uh the first one uh number two which is the uh participatory budgeting steering committee I have an online speaker I believe uh Jacqueline Wagstaff.
Miss Wagstaff can you hear me? >> Can you hear me? >> Uh yes I can. Welcome.
You have uh three minutes. Well, first of all, I had I pulled I had to pull this item because when I signed up to speak, I was signing up to speak on citizens matter. And because your dropdown didn't allow
anything on there to speak on citizen matter, I had to pull an item to be able to speak. So, I'm going to speak about a concern that I have today. Um, Miss Doua briefly spoke on what happened to them Monday night while they were trying to serve the people at the people's table. And at such time when that was happening, the person that was harassing them verbally was calling your name out.
Mr. Mayor was insisting that the people not eat the food. It was nasty. and that he was going to meet with you following as soon as he left there, he was going to meet with you and they could come with him and eat some great food. If you are a part of this, then we all need to talk. Also, I'd like to address the fact that you made a statement earlier about you're so glad that you live in Durham where you know people have these rights to speak and you along
with the mayor pro Tim engaged in an act that was going to prevent a person from being able to come down there and have their time, their three minutes of time. I sat on this council and just like Miss Victoria said, if you're going to create a process that allows people to come in and have to plea their case, there needs to be a council member. When I sat on the school board, when we had hearings, there was always an opportunity for an elected official to sit in the hearing to have access to what is going on so they could come back to the body and report. This is not happening.
So, this whole process seems to be illegal. Also, I'm also going to make a request later on today to your legal staff because I noticed that you're now wearing meta glasses. And if you're wearing those glasses during public hearings, I need to know if the information gathered on through those glasses, will that be available to the public through a public information notice? Because that's what you're
doing. You're gathering information. you're sitting in public meetings and you're wearing glasses that can record and and basically invade people's privacy. So, I'm going to make a request today to your legal to the legal team to see where does that where do where's that middle run middle ground with these glasses?
Because if that's the case, then we all need to get a pair of metal glasses and sit in every meeting and record everything everybody's saying or doing. So, there's a lot of concerns here, but I we need to address some things that are happening right now in Durham. And even though I understand that a lot of you gave out these uh sympathy notices for Minnesota, I wholeheartedly think what happened yesterday was horrendous. But we have the same thing happening in Durham. We have people being killed every day and nobody's addressing. >> Thank you for your comments.
All right, we're going to get to our pulled items. Number four is the first one. >> That's me. I think the first >> Okay.
Yep. Number four. That's you. Council member Cook.
>> Good afternoon. Keith Unknown name context, city manager's office. >> Um, thank you, Deputy City Manager. Um, and is there also somebody from um, Derm Techch on?
>> I believe we have representatives from Durham Techch, the CFO and the construction manager present. >> This is going to be a joint a joint question uh, which is that I see that we're and I'm really excited about these improvements. I want to say very unabashedly like super excited about this. This was something that I had been talking to folks about um, for some time and I'm excited to see them on the agenda.
I know that there were several improvements that were being looked at at this stretch of roadway in addition to just this. I know there was like a pedestrian crosswalk which sounds like it's in the plan. Um, but there were
some other things. I think utility lines was one of them and some other things that we were talking about that all sort of needed to be improved on this stretch of roadway. Um, and previously there was some conversation about doing all in one go since we were already going to have to block off the roadway and do the breaking of the ground. And I was just wondering what happened to those conversations and what all pieces of those improvements we were doing.
>> Let me begin by um we remember the in the totality of of of those conversations that that included I believe visits to the campus uh by members of council. Uh all of those were a part of the deliberations that led to where we are today. um as funding began to be be provided um from the county and the state to do the project um and the pencils began to get sharpened in terms of actual pricing uh it became necessary to make some decisions about scoping and and the amount of budget yet available. And so literally where the negotiations
landed with respect to all the things we desired to do came down to some things that we needed to do and and support that was not available to the budget um to al to to to deal with infrastructure and access and supporting kinds of things like that and to perhaps top it off with with the with some landscaping. So we simply from a budgetary standpoint and the dollars we were able to manage to uh make available from the project from the city's resources in the CIP u that that was about what we could cover and in conversations the u the specifications before you was where it landed. >> Are there other funding sources that y'all are looking at and to be done sort of concurrently? And this might be a I don't know if this is a question for y'all or outside of the city. Well, I I'll try again because I I believe there the the funding from Derm Durham Tech's perspective is is defined and finite um as frankly as ours based on decisions we made about the the uh efficacy of the
CIP at this point in time. So the recommended amount is based on our consultations with our finance department about what we can make available currently. I don't know that we have disposed of what we were intending to do in in its totality. what we've brought forward to you today is what we can afford to do based on the resources available.
>> Great. That's from the city side. I'm just curious if y'all have had any conversations with other funding sources. >> Uh yes, I'm Andy Kle.
I'm vice president, chief financial officer at Durham Techch. Uh in regard to your comp uh Councilman Cook, in regard to the uh power lines, uh we have received funding from Durham County to handle that project. That project is right now currently underway. We're uh developing a uh duck bank that will allow us to move uh all the power lines along that stretch of Lawson underground. >> Okay. and uh the uh the crosswalk uh at
the the uh western end of the uh property uh near uh Bacon Street uh that is in the uh in the project also along with a stop sign at that location and there will be uh through money we've received from the uh from the county uh additional a widing of the sidewalks in that area and a median uh that will be uh nicely uh landscaped. >> Yeah. Great. Okay.
Great. That sounds good to me. I just I wanted to I feel like I want to make sure that while we're spending money that we're like if y'all have other pathways of gaining funds that we're like utilizing all of them and making sure that our money is going to be used in the most efficient way possible, which was my concern was that we were going to miss the bearing of the lines while we were already digging up the street for the sidewalks. And so it sounds like all of that is being done at the same time, which is exactly what I wanted to hear. Um, do we have any updates on uh there was some affordable housing conversations that were going on too? Just while y'all are
sure it's not super gerine, but just while you're here. >> Well, yes. Uh uh last week uh the uh property was uh sold to the uh Durham Techch Properties and that closing happened last week. uh the uh contractor uh in the process now of beginning to to bid that project and I don't have the exact uh time frame in front of me but uh the uh the goal is to have that project uh complete in about 18 months.
>> Amazing. Awesome. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome.
>> Those are my questions. Thank you. Anyone else? >> I guess that's it.
>> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Hey, good afternoon. Heather Galotti, risk management finance department.
That's me, too. So, I'll just keep going. Um, okay. I just have a few
questions about this. My first question is, do we are we required to carry this insurance? >> It the TPA >> just any any type of um >> it's not is an administrator not insurance. >> Okay.
Sorry. Are we are we required to have this? >> We are not necessarily required to have this or we do have excess insurance coverage that prefers that we have a TPA, but it's not technically required by policy. >> Okay.
Um, sorry. And I know that the memo talked about some like added it costs if we were to do this without the administrator. >> Can you just talk a little bit about like what that would look like? >> Absolutely.
Yes. So typically you would use what we call a rimma system which is a risk management information system. So we need to be able to manage all the claims that come into the city both for work comp and for liabilities. So we have over 400 claims that are filed every year against the city. So we need to maintain those records in some way. Historically the city did have at one point a separate system which would
would require then the TPA or whoever is administering the claims to communicate with us so then we can manage the financials and the reserves. So we would have to hire or I guess contract out for separate tech. So we could manage claims internally and then communicate that to the TPA back and forth. So with this vendor and many vendors now that offer these services, they use proprietary software system.
They give us real-time access to that. >> Okay. And it ends up being at least comparably less expensive because we don't have to deal with >> significantly less expensive. Yeah.
So for us to to purchase our own in um system, our rim system would be essentially probably two to $300,000 a year to manage that contract. Um and then again would have to communicate out with the TPA so we could have real-time access to notes and again reserving and financials. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, it just sounds it seems interesting because I know we're setting aside the money anyway to be in the fund and then it's like it feels
like we're sort of paying in addition to the actual settlements that we also have to like pay to >> pay for the service. >> Yes. >> Yes. If we didn't use a TPA service, we would have to self-administer here, which means I would have to hire more staff.
We wouldn't have a medical network. There would be a lot of additional costs that we don't have, and we don't have the resources either. So, >> yeah, it it does seem like it's more, but if we were to self- administer, we would have to increase our staff substantially. >> Okay, thank you.
Super helpful. You're welcome. My questions on that. Thanks.
>> All right. Item number 10. >> Peterson are going to vote on this, right? No, >> not not today.
>> Okay. As long as it's not the >> Not today, sir. All right. Number 10. Fire emergency medical service station 19 project guaranteed maximum price
amendment to the construction manager at risk contract. >> Hi, I'm Jessica Killian with Turner Towns and I'm representing the project management division um of general services. We've got a lot of people here to support this project. So um I'm looking forward to answering your questions.
>> Yeah. So, I pulled this one and and for me, uh, I I mainly wanted to ask the city to highlight, um, some of the efforts under the high performance building policy, um, some of the decisions being made around, um, having this building be net zero, um, and what sort of the barriers are in the short term of being able to do that, uh, and what the the city's plans are and and in supporting organizations plans are uh, to be able to support that in the future uh, under the future capital investment uh, the planning. So, >> y I'm going to have um our sustainability um one of our sustainability um folks from staff and then Evan Connell from Optima just come up here just in case. But in general, we've um been following the high performance building building policy since we started design with this project. Um even though it hadn't been adopted when when we started design um
we're also pursuing lead certification which is one of the requirements of the high performance building policy. Um we're right at a lead gold if not all the way to lead platinum level right now. The one of the big things with the city's high performance building policy is that carbon neutrality net zero. Um and so we've been tracking towards that for the whole time.
We've got geothermal systems. Um it's an all electric building. Um we've got solar. Um what happened recently with our design though is that we're getting electricity from Duke Energy.
Duke Energy has recently changed their policy in that they don't allow buildings to feed more into the grid with solar and other sustainable uh measures than um than the building needs. So in our instance, we need about 150 175 kilowatts to run the building um during daylight hours. And so um our plan was to generate twice that amount so that we were feeding into the grid to compensate when this building um runs 24/7 at night when we're not generating solar. Um but those policies changed a little bit and so now um we have a potential additional CIP ask to get
battery backup so that we can still feed double um but we aren't >> sorry I don't know where that came from. Um, but we aren't. So, we can still feed double, but we aren't feeding the gran at the same time. So, we're holding on to it.
>> Yeah. Well, thank you for baking this into the plan and having an alternative with the the changing policy. And also, will the city be able to calculate the savings uh to the city over time through these investments? >> Yeah, we already have those calculations.
We're just working on changing them from energy to cost. So, yeah. >> Thanks, Mr. I just, you know, high level want to commend staff and our consultants.
This is the first major construction project in the city of Durham that falls under we, I mean, we passed a climate action plan before I got on council. This is the first major construction project that's now aligning those construction goals with our goals in the climate action plan. I think it's great stuff. I know there's a lot to learn. I know Duke Energy may not always be easy to work with, so I appreciate you working through the details, but making this work in a way that reaches our net zero goals and our carbon neutrality goals. So, thank you so much.
>> Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. Next item is number 12 and 12 and 13 are >> me.
Yes. >> And I know that we have like a lot of people in the room for this. Um hi. >> Hey folks.
>> Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, Madame Mayor Pro Tim, members of council, Sama Alustin, Office of Economic and Workforce Development. >> Um, my questions are going to be both for you and I believe for Tim. So, um, I just and I talked to the manager about this earlier today, but wanted to follow up on a couple of things. Um I my understanding is that at the time that the fiscal agent gave their notice that they were not no longer going to be serving in this role that we were still under the understanding that we had to find an external fiscal agent that the
city could not serve. And so at that time did we start looking for alternative fiscal agents for this project? So I just want to clarify the answer is sort of but I want to make a distinction between what promise was responsible for and doing and what the city was responsible for and doing. So the city isn't party to the fiscal agency agreement and so the city was not officially responsible for that replacement process.
Was hat promise under that impression and is that what I as staff advised them? Yes. And did they start down the process of trying to identify new potential options? Yes.
>> Okay. And so the reason this is coming before us is because the the fiscal agency role is coming back to the city. Otherwise, would this not come back before us? So, procedurally, um, I'm going to defer to legal on that, but my understanding is that the reason
that this is coming back before us is because we have two grant agreements that list the fiscal agent as part of the grant agreement, as part of the grantee, and we are that relationship is no longer going to exist. And so we are amending contracts um to correct for that. >> Did I see that we've got a hoverer. Did you did you want to add anything to that?
>> Uh yes. Good afternoon. Carlos Jesus with the city attorney's office. So um this is 12 where we're changing the funds or just >> this one is just 12.
>> Yeah. So we're changing also the uh source of funding in this project. So, it's it's changing from federal funds to city funds. And because of the uh resolution for city manager authority, uh we're technically changing um the balance of city funds that are going to be expended in this contract because it's no longer federal funds, which it we are custodians of, but it's not ours. So, it's a little slight distinction. So
that is why it's coming back because of the change of of the source of funds as well as the removal of the fiscal agent. Um it is technically a termination um but a mutual termination because they decided to step out of the contract. So um for that reason as well uh we found it best to bring it before this body. >> Why are the fund sources changing?
>> Uh that's more for ease of >> Okay, great. Oh, I love >> quickly, so I'll let him answer that. >> People are just springing up all over the room. Okay.
>> Uh Tim Flor, finance director. So, yeah, a couple things. So, I I believe this is item 12 and there is no fund swap on this one. That is that is actually item 13.
So, I want to be clear about that. Um the uh reason I think I think technically we probably did not need to bring this to council. I think out of abundance of caution, I believe I'm the one who sort of asked that this come to council only because of it was paired
with item number 13 and I thought it best that they come together as a package as opposed to just one. So the real specific reason, the real technical reason that this item is uh item 12 is there is because of item 13 which we are doing a funding swap. And so I'm happy to talk through that now if you if you like or if you want to deal with the fiscal um uh agency piece now we can we can deal with that one if you like. >> Okay.
I can do either order. Um >> I I suggest we stick with 12 since this is item 12. >> Okay. Great.
Um so can you can you just talk about the role of a fiscal agent? >> Yeah. So for uh for ARPA purposes really what what we do is when we when we we received the 53 $52 million worth of ARPA funding um there we wanted to make sure that we were going to appropriately expend and manage those financial resources. And so as part of the process for the federal government, there was a risk assessment that that we went through internally with the different
organizations to ensure that they had a solid fiscal understanding of the federal regulations and that we we knew that these agencies who were going to get the subreient funding was going to be able to manage those financial resources consistent with federal guidelines. And so based upon that risk assessment assessment that was done, we determined whether or not there needed to be a fiscal agent. And so if you were an established organization that had a solid financial track record, we did not nec you you passed the risk assessment and you you were not required to have a fiscal agent. Where there were higher risk agencies, we did require that there was there was a fiscal agency.
It wasn't that we required them to do that. The city ultimately could have taken on that responsibility. However, our resources were very limited and so we did not want to get in the habit of every time we felt like someone needed that assistance that we were going to be able to do it because we had have a finite resource. And so so that fiscal agency respon
requirement was part of uh where the agency did not meet the risk assessment and uh and so we we are looking for them to be um compliant from a fiscal standpoint. Okay. And and so as Miss Alson was just saying, technically we were not in contract with that fiscal agent. We were asking that our recipients find their own fiscal agent.
And so in this situation, we would not have been able to find a new one for this. This would have been >> the options would be they either find a fiscal agent that we thought was okay. >> So we did have discussions and so so as we have moved through this process, right? So we've had ARPA funding for a number of years. And so as we have met all of the uh uh obligation requirements, we are the ARPA team has sort of shifted now to more of a monitoring. And so in this situation, um, we evaluated what the financial, uh, um, oversight was was needed and finance staff in conjunction with the ARPA team and, uh, uh, Miss Summers, we recognized
that we would be able to move that function inhouse and that we would be able to serve in that capacity because we now have those uh, resources on the ARPA team to sort of manage the um, those financial resources. >> Do we have other um funding that we've moved in house as a f are we serving as the financial agent for any other funding through our budget? >> No, we considered it but uh ultimately we did not need to to do that. >> Okay.
And >> and so I will I will also say as as sort of an outgrowth of finance doing it, there are now administrative costs that were part of that contract that there will this will result in financial savings on that contract. that they will potentially be able to then put back into the project and so they they will be for project needs versus you know administrative needs. >> Okay. Um that's that's great. Okay. Um can you so and and as the the fiscal agent this is just like after the
decision on how to spend the money is made then we would be serving as the backup for like ensuring that it was done appropriately. There's no decision making that is coming from the fiscal agent. Is that right? >> Correct.
I mean we're we will be working directly with with the Hatai group to ensure that um I mean we will be reviewing the invoices making sure that uh all the supporting documentation is there. It's almost really what we're sort of doing now anyway on a lot of that as as they submit for payment. We are ensuring that all the documentation is in place, that we have all the supporting documentation, and that should there be a federal audit of of this, which I would fully expect there there would be, that we have we've checked all of the boxes of all the financial requirements. >> Okay.
And so anyway, when you were talking about like high-risisk agencies, that was a determination that Durham City made when we were delegating our ARPA funds out. That wasn't a requirement that came down from the federal >> The risk assessment was a requirement. Yes. >> The risk assessment was Okay.
Yes. >> Okay. Um, >> so we were just as it's all part of our
due diligence as as we were working to um award these contracts. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Um I'm I'm now curious about the funding source change.
I don't know if other folks have >> Do you want to do y'all want to stay on the fisc >> and then Yeah. Okay. >> All right. We can go to 13.
>> Oh, no. >> Oh, this go ahead. My bad. Um so just want to follow up with you um in terms of like I know that you say that the Fed has um provided the risk management aspect but how are we this is a relatively new organization so it's about three years old.
What criteria did you use now determined that they do not need a fiscal agent like just what what changed the matter? >> Before we did require them to have the fiscal agent but now um and that we could have the city could have served in that capacity had we had the resources. What I'm saying now is that because we've now worked through getting all the contracts awarded, we now have in-house capacity to sort of step into that role to ensure that they are uh financially
compliant. And so, and it it it is I think it results in just fewer financial transactions by the size of the payments. So, we are able to sort of serve in that role because we now have the the the the manpower to do it. >> Okay.
I thought I read in one of the reports that the recommendation was not to have a fiscal agent for this entity or am I >> not believe it separate? >> Okay, I want to clarify that. Okay. >> All right.
And I think I had another question about that, but I'm going go we can move to 13 as well. >> Are there any other questions on number 12? >> Oh, wait. I did have a followup.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. So, now that the Hey Tai CDC is out, I noticed for this not out um St.
Joseph his historic that's a part of mission of this was to help revitalize. So has that changed now since they are no longer partners? The use of a fiscal agent or not changes nothing about the mission or the scope
of what Hat Promise CDC has to deliver as a part of the grant compliance. >> Okay. And is there any I was trying to find an original contract, but there is there like the um direction for like the MLOU like the actual grant agreement and then like just an update on the scope of work and what's been accomplished to date? That is possible, but that's not Oh my god.
>> Sorry. >> Sorry about that. >> Sorry. Can you um >> Yeah, I want to make sure I understood the question.
Let us take a three minute recess. >> It's cold. >> I was like, what is that? >> Turn. She's going to take advantage of this three minute resource.
>> Yes. No. >> And I just want you to hear that call that out all the way out. >> Summer, you know, you were sitting in that uli affinity group. What in the world? >> Y'all are playing.
All right, let's bring it back to order, please. >> I apologize about that disruption. >> I apologize about that. I just saw water just going everywhere.
I was like, what's going on over here? Okay. So, as I was stating, I just like is there um just wanted to compare like the original contract, but also like the update on progress to goal at this point for what they've completed um the CDC and where can I find that information? >> Okay.
>> Sorry, thought it was on. Apologize. First question is original contracts which are all part of the record and all part of the council's agenda stack. So staff can make those available no problem. And then the second part of the question is are we today giving any kind of update and the answer is no not related to these amendments.
>> Okay. Well just in general I like an update on progress to goals. So it doesn't have to come today. understand what we're doing today, but just I'm a new council member so I've been here for a month.
So, um just want to make sure I have clarity on it because I'm just trying to ensure like again this is a newer organization and so just want to just be clear about what's actually happening and then because I don't know what separate the relationship and I'm not going to get to that right now. So just want to just kind of do a little bit more due diligence and learn more about it. But thank you though. >> Thank you.
Right. >> Also I have a citizen sign up to speak Doer. Good. Welcome.
You have three minutes. >> Thank you. I am um going to state again that I am an autistic black woman and so I might need more time. We'll see.
Um first of all, and this is this speaks to being autistic. I'm a pattern recognizer. Um and in the words of Kendrick Lamar, somebody is lying. Okay, a lot of somebody's lying. This fiscal agent part that happened
um came about later after the decision was made to approve this plan to revitalize the Hay Thai community through what was temporarily called the Durham Marshall Plan. Elaine O'Neal when she was the mayor and Mr. Mayor, you know this very well. Um, asked me to, uh, scale the work that I was doing on the Fagville Street corridor fellows project to a community development level based on a promise that she made on June 13th of 2022 at Monument of Faith.
" She reached out to me. She said that there was a pot of money, $32 million potentially, for us to work with. During the nine-month process that I was at the helm of this work, 12 million of that was assigned to Hay Thai Reborn Justice Movement because they were doing um work with formerly
incarcerated people and they needed to have funding in order to get a matching grant, a matching per grant. " So, what did that leave us with? that left us with $10 million to do the Hate Tai Healing Task Force work that was yet to be named and was temporarily named by Mark Anthony Middleton because he said in order for us to put this on the work session agenda, it needed to have a name. Hence, the name became the Durham Marshall Plan.
Now, let's talk about what happened prior to this process, prior to July 2022. Because the meeting that I'm referring to, y'all were there. That was June 13, 2022. But prior to that, I was involved in a private affinity group that Summer
Austin was a part of, Nicole Thompson was a part of, Keith uh Unknown name context's a part of, several people were a part of in terms of trying to determine um how to bring the uli sponsorship, whatever they called it, to hater heritage center. Angela Lee invited me because I was doing the work. I was doing the work from Hatai Heritage Center. I was using the work to elevate the entire community and because that community includes the last building standing from the promise of urban renewal, a promise that was never fulfilled.
I prioritized the Hatah Heritage Center in that work. Angela Lee stole credit for my work and I want that to be on record. >> Thank you for your comments. I do have you for item number 13.
Would you like to continue now or would you like to >> I would. Thank you. >> All right. You have three minutes.
>> One second. Colleagues, are there any more questions for item number 12 before we move on? >> All right. I'll start with you your comments.
Um, Miss Doia, >> I want to I want to state for the record that I was told that um another proposal was submitted to the former uh city manager, Wanda Page, um for some discretionary funds that she had um up to $50 million. And so this potential 10 million that was laid aside by Mark Anthony Middleton was supposed to potentially come out of that. Um, I later found out that a version of my original plan was submitted to Awanda Page and therefore I suffered a lot of stressful interactions by people in this affinity group um that pretty much uh caused me to have uh what's equated to a nervous breakdown. They call it a major anxiety attack, by the way. It was a nervous breakdown. So, I want that to be known on the
record. Um, when this item was also presented alongside the Durham Marshall plan, it was called the Fagetville Street corridor study and the ULI something or another. That plan did not get approved. There was another plan that was similar that was submitted by the Hesser family.
That plan also did not get approved. The plan that got approved was the Durham Marshall plan that was written and designed by me, Angel Isette Doer, with my co-chair who had become Kendra Presley. Um, again, the affinity group that led to this uli situation that happened in May of 2022, it included um recommendations that I actually made. I shared my strategies with the actual project manager. The project manager um position was offered to me temporarily, but Summer Austin in a particular meeting in February 2022 said that I was not capable of being the project manager
because I didn't have real estate experience nor real estate language. Summer Austin does not know me. She doesn't know what kind of language or experience that I have. I like for that to be on the record as well.
Uh so again, private meetings leading to this uli situation that was never approved. Um the way that the money was supposedly dispersed and why we ended up with $10 million which was equivalent to the $10 million that Mark Anthony Middleton said that he had set aside. This is the reason why it was so easy to do the bait and switch because that's what this is. It is a bait and switch.
It is a shell game. Now you all fought and you were there because you called me on the phone. Leo, remember that? And you were asking me about this meeting to make the determination now that Hey Heritage Cent's board did know about the process and they had to vote on it. Do you
remember that? I hope you do. If you don't, that's okay because we can pull it back up. You know, it's it's on the record.
>> Um, >> thank you for your comments. >> That time, >> thank you. resulted in the board voting on this and they had no knowledge of what was going on. Keith Unknown name context, you were written in that.
>> Thank you for your comments, Miss Doia. Your time is up. >> Just make sure that that stuff is on the record and I will be happy to answer any questions about this >> because I wrote and designed the program. >> Ma, you're out of order.
Thank you. >> I'm not out of order. >> Uh, and I did have another speaker um that was on number 12. Um, it's Leslie St.
Dre. Sorry, I missed you there. Hello. I was hoping to seed my time to Angel.
Is that a possibility? >> No, >> just that's a part of the rules. >> They don't do that anymore. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you.
All right. Also, I have um >> Miss Amanda Wallace, can you hear me? >> Amanda Wallace, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you, but I have to wait for them to unmute you.
>> Okay, welcome. You have three minutes. Item number 13. >> Okay, so my name is Amanda Wallace, and I'm here to ask council to pause and send agenda items 12 and 13 back to staff for further investigation.
I would also like to acknowledge that I would be there in person, but the city convenient conveniently waited to lift this unconstitutional ban until next week, so I couldn't be there. But I'll see you in person very soon, Leo and Javier, since I know y'all were the real ones behind this unconstitutional um attempt to silence my freedom of speech. I also want to put on the record that I condemn
the actions of the citizen who terrorized people simply simply feeding the community during the Monday um city council meeting. This has no place in this city. >> You should tell your friend Leo since he said he was there for you. >> But back to the agenda item.
>> Thank you. >> Back to the agenda item. I first learned about the Marshall plan and the $10 million set aside for Hatai during this campaign trail when Leo continued to campaign on it and how much he was allegedly doing for the community. When I started to look into this plan and the money, I realized that this was nothing more than an empty promise very similar to the many promises made to the Hatai community over the years.
The approved plan was developed by Angel Doer and Kendra Presley. Yet a copied version of this work was later credited to Hatai Promise CDC. That is what you call stealing intellectual property and this needs to be investigated immediately. How can we ensure that Hatah Promise has
the knowledge to implement this plan if they weren't even the ones to develop it? And now the city is recommending that Promise keep the $10 million without a fiscal sponsor. Shanetta, you saw that right. They they are recommending that they have no fiscal sponsor for $10 million.
And I'm very familiar with the fiscal sponsorship um sponsorship process. And so I don't understand how this is possible. So I need staff and the council to give a better explanation because I've read the supporting documents and I do not get how this is happening. If they were too much of a risk in 2013, how are they not now?
And how is it that the city um and how is this now the city's money but the city is potentially going to act as a fiscal sponsorship? I mean again this just all sounds very fishy and removing fiscal sp fiscal oversight before these issues are investigating investigated sets a dangerous pre precedent for ARPA funds. And over a year later, this money
continues to just sit in the coffers while people remain unhoused, food insecure, and people are dying in the streets because of lack of resources. So, what is the true plan for this money? Is the city waiting for more bulldozers to come to town or more gentrifiers to move in to invest in hat? I mean, just inquiring minds would like to know.
And I don't hear the buzzer, but I would like to yield my time um to to really get some answers to these questions. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. All right, colleagues.
>> 13. >> Um, yeah, I mean this I'm going to follow up on the question about the changing of the funding, but also maybe since we've just heard multiple questions about it. I know that you just talked about the fiscal agent, but maybe you could just break it down for us one more time what a fiscal agent does and why what does what the city's role will be and then >> certainly Tim Flora, finance director.
Yeah. So, a fiscal sponsor really is just ensuring that the financial management of the project is compliant with federal regulations. And so, what we'll be doing, they will be doing their bookkeeping. we will just be ensuring that um when we get request for payments that we all of the supporting documentation is needing.
So it's not just we're going to give you an invoice and we're going to write you a check for that invoice. We are looking for the supporting documentation behind what is the work of that invoice making sure that it is reasonable and acceptable uh for federal regulations >> and then can you talk about the funding change? >> Yes. So um as far so the funding that that we use so let me just kind of start from the beginning. I know there's some new uh council members and so so we received uh as part of the uh um co 19 pandemic we received the American Rescue Plan Act funding in the amount of $52 million.
And so of that $52 million there there were certain restrictions um that that money needed to be spent on. One of the buckets of money that could be used for that was revenue replacement. And so the revenue replacement was it was to uh if if during the pandemic agencies had a loss of revenue, you could if you could document it, you could replace that money uh that was lost with ARPA funds. And so it would be just general uh like general fund expenditure money.
Along with that, with the federal government, Treasury guidelines, they gave us a $10 million standard allowance. And so, you could choose, it was a onetime option. You can either do the calculations and show that you lost a x amount of revenue or you could take the standard allowance. Because we did all those calculations and we didn't get anywhere near $10 million, we chose the
$10 million allowance. And so basically of the $52 million, $10 million of that really could be spent on anything the city deemed uh worthy with a few exceptions. You cannot spend it on pensions. You cannot spend it on legal lawsuit settlements.
Um and you cannot suspend it on debt service. Those were the three restrictions for the revenue. Otherwise, you could spend revenue replacement money on any normal programming that would be done in the in the city. the city chose while a lot of organizations just chose to use that as just general revenue um and uh the city specifically wanted to address um the issues of what that money really was intended for and so it remained as part of the ARPA funding it happens uh and so of that revenue replacement there's not as many federal requirements on there specifically what you have to spend that money on. Since we chose to use all of that money
for ARPA funding, that $10 million allowed us to be more flexible. The technical word would be fungeible. The money is fungeable, but um in essence, it's we have more flexibility with that pot of money. It just happens to be that Hatai Promise was part of that.
So, some of those programs and since this was a bigger program and since we did not um we we were hoping we were we were uh requiring all of the recipients of the ARPA funding to meet all of the uh deadline set by the federal government, which was by uh December of 2024, you had to have the funds obligated. By December of 2026, you have to have the funding spent. With the revenue replacement, you do not necessarily have to. We have to show that we spent $10 million, but it doesn't have to be any specific program. And so what we are doing, what we were taking this opportunity to do was because we're down to one year because there is it's a big contract and there are still needs, we wanted to give them a little extra time. And so what we are just uh proposing
what we proposed to do was we are just taking the funding that would have gone from ARPA for this project. we're swapping it out with an expenditure that we already have spent that would have qualified uh which what it and ultimately what it does is it just pulls it out of all of the all of the additional strings attached to the uh those federal requirements. We are choosing though to still treat this as an ARPA project. So we are still monitoring as if it is an ARPA project.
However, what we are what it does allow us to do is it does allow us to extend that deadline. Um, and so just as a as a heads up, we have to have all the expenditures in by the end of this uh this calendar year. So we've got we're basically now down to to 12 months to spend that money. The ARPA team will be active for six months after that as we sort of wind down the ARPA team. And so really what we're doing is we're sort of giving uh this project a six-month extension uh which it just happens to be because this project fell within that
revenue replacement funding source. I know that was kind of a long drawn out. >> That was a long time. So we we've done a switcheroo in essence to allow more time because we had time restraints on one pot of money.
We switched it out. Where where are we now putting that ARPA money where did it come from? Where is it? >> So we have been uh evaluating that and I suspect the the the best way to manage that is we were we are going to swap it out with our health fund.
So money that we have spent uh already expenditures we spent with the health fun the funding that we used for our health fund we are just going to sort of swap it out >> that's already expended or yeah okay >> yes >> interesting >> and absolutely legal there's no there is no um there there are no restrictions on that. >> Okay. Um, well, that answers a lot of my questions which were about deadlines. Um, so I'm going to be done for now, but I might have something later. Thank you. That was really a helpful explanation.
>> Any other questions on that? >> All right. Um, so with all the changings of the source of funding, um, where, uh, what's happening to the funds that we're holding right now? Like are they active?
already acrewing interest or uh and I do like the idea of you know if if we don't have an external fiscal agent it's coming back to be managed by us and paid out based on invoices. I appreciate the redundancy there. I appreciate the u the uh the safety and management of that. Uh and it seems that we'll be able to put more money into the actual projects of it going out but what what happens to these types of funds?
Are they do they acrew interest? And >> so uh in this situation, yes. So this is this was uh the way the federal government designed this ARPA program uh they gave us the money upfront. So yes, so that money uh we received it. Uh what we do not expend of those ARPA proceeds has to be returned to the federal government at the end of this calendar
year. we are earning interest on uh the uh the funds that we have sitting in our bank accounts. And so we we we set those funds aside and what we chose to do because we decided to expand some of our programming. What we uh how we are funding the ARPA team, those administrative costs are being paid for um out of the interest um that that we are generating off of uh the ARPA funds that were received.
That's really helpful and I I'm glad you guys are doing that. Um um >> yeah, go ahead. >> Um and this may be for deputy city manager when Bush. Is there a way to get a list of all the expenditures from hey um the CDC like to see like what they've actually spent the money on just for information?
>> Yes, we can get that information too if you want some general feedback. exhaustive list of all give it to you. >> Okay. Just but no, we can just like not
today. We just I want to exhaust a list of every all the expenditures on behalf of this. Um absolutely. >> Okay.
Thank you. >> Thanks. Um my only other question was um were there any other things that we called ARPA funding that were actually the revenue replacement or was that was this one only that we uh revenue replacement was $10 million. 7 million.
And so, yes, there are other projects that that are in that revenue uh replacement category. >> What do you I I think uh I don't know specifically which ones are in that. I mean, we we're treating all of them as if they are all just regular ARPA, so they're all under the same requirements. I would have to pull pull those projects, but I think everything's we're moving along with those.
>> Okay. >> Those contracts. And was it were we generally like splitting up funding sources when we were doing the ARPA money because it this wasn't the full amount that we
>> I I think what we we did in in this particular I think we did break out a piece of it because we knew that uh of this hey promise uh because we knew that there was there were not going to be any issues that they would be able to get fulfill those contracts by that time. There was a little bit more higher risk on the timing just because it was a big amount. So, we we did sort of break off a piece of that, okay, >> and use the other ARPA funding. Um, and I I think maybe some of those other projects we put in the revenue replacement might have been higher risk projects that we we sort of identified as potentially we let's put them over here.
Let's fund them specifically in this bucket just in case there might be issues and we need to >> Yeah, that was actually my next question, which was that I know we saw a list and we had like several projects at the end that we were like worried about timing. Are we going to be using these funds for any other projects? Are there any other projects that we're going to be seeing a an added timeline for? Or is everyone else set to do their expenditures by the end of the fiscal year? >> Maybe that's not prepared for now. Or
>> I would add that we are in the process of assessing all of those contracts. There were initially 35 nonprofit organizations. So, we have a stoplight report with the green, yellow, red, and we have some um in the red that we are uh actively um intervening with those organizations to try to get them on track or um reassign those funds to another um organization, another nonprofit organization, or self-fulfill scope of work. So, we're not there yet.
Uh we have deadlines. the opera team has set deadlines and we're meeting they meet weekly to go over all of those contracts and so we are in the process of making that determination. I think we're trying to make the final decision by February in terms of any of those that we do not feel that they can absolut they absolutely cannot fulfill the contract. >> You meet weekly with all of them?
>> I do not meet they meet weekly the team. >> Oh, okay. Still okay still. Okay.
Yes. Great. Thank you. Those are all my questions. >> Yeah. And and I would say we we are very
proactive in monitoring this because it is not our intent to give the federal government any of that ARPA money back. So um we are coming up with plans contingencies as to how we make ensure that all that money is expended by the end of the year. >> Yes, that thank you. That is my expectation and I and I appreciate that y'all are >> that is our expectation as well.
>> Yeah. I have a a question. So you talked a bit about how you're continuing to view it as ARPA funds even though it may not technically be ARPA funds and that gives you this flexibility to give uh you know a longer timeline. I know one issue why the longer timeline has perhaps been needed is because of restrictions around use of funds.
Um uh and is it also then possible with this level of flexibility you have to allow for a broader set of uses uh of those funds in order to make sure that it gets spent appropriately in a way that serves the community. >> Uh so technically yes. So you could uh since we were pulling that out from under the revenue replacement funding it
could be used for a broader use. Although it really it really sort of already had that freedom. They just we just were operating under the same guidelines restrictions for the revenue replacement money as we were for the regular ARPA funding. But technically, yes, there there we could expand that scope if it needed to be expanded.
>> Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions for item 13? Okay. Thank you.
Um moving on is item 14. Uh Council Member Rrist, I have that as your pulled item. So, Bill Judge, assistant transportation director. >> Seeing you, I guess Hannah's on leave and she >> uh not yet.
>> Not yet. Okay. Um I just had just a couple things. First of all, I just want to appreciate the reauthorization of BPAC um with the with this kind of I guess renewed ILA with the county,
right? Um, BPAC, as you know, is one of the most effective commissions we have as a city. So, I really appreciate the renewing that. I just had one question about about the um actual terms of this.
There's a couple changes in the in the in the um in the um ILA. So, one uh and this gets back to the with the clerk's office and appointments to the to boards and commissions. So it says um add the city county clerk's office shall send new member applications to the staff liaison andor commission to provide recommendations to the council and the board before appointment. And I know this is an issue for a lot of boards like they'd like to have the ability to recommend to the council who they should appoint.
So the way this language reads it says shall send new member applications to the staff liazison andor commission. I think the commission would like to see those. And so can we just say and the commission instead of andor? >> Um yes I think we can make that change or either yeah we can probably we can amend it um before it's executed. I think that's relatively minor change. >> Yeah if we made that change
>> and I know that I know >> attorney I think for that left but >> I've got Mr. Hernand still here. Yeah >> there you are. I'm sorry.
>> Yes. Yes, we can before uh it's executed uh we can make the change in on base that way when you vote on it on the Monday uh meeting it is up to date so we can we can go in there and modify it. >> Thanks. >> Great.
That's it. Thank you so much. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
Uh the next item is item 15 and uh Council Member Copek, I have you as that item. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Prom. Um so quick question on the downtown bike lanes item.
Uh you okay as well? Thank you so much. Okay, great. Uh, so I'm excited to see the the not only the forward progress but also the identification of additional funds to go beyond some of the base level uh street calming that was provisioned for some of these corridors. My main question for you is that you know given this opportunity to now do additional design does that in any way reset the clock on some of those projects because they'll be enhanced or will some of that work still be able to
move forward and the additional design and the work that results will sort of build on that? I asked because some of these projects were, I believe, planned to have been completed already. Uh, and if we wait until, you know, fiscal year 27 for the completion of the design, you know, that kind of pushes back the implementation of some of these important, you know, projects for the safety of our street networks. >> So, yes, uh, Bill Judge, City of Durham Transportation.
And the uh so by adding these additional elements, we are extending the design time for the projects and extending the uh completion date for the consultant helping us with the design, which then will be a corresponding delay in terms of when we actually get the projects out to bid for construction. Um the negative would be if we were to proceed without it then we would have to go back and yeah either turning it into two projects or add these elements later. We think overall while it is a a time delay of a few months that we'll end up with a much
better project and a seamless single project versus two separate projects. >> Thank you for that. It seemed like some of them were were simply, you know, pavement marking to start, right? Like paint on the road and then this additional design allows for some more physical enhancements to that.
It probably depends on which street we're talking about what the project is. Um, and so I'm curious if there's some way to to do that implementation first and then and then do the other later. I understand that that may be inefficient. You don't want to do that, but I'm curious about that possibility.
And also I just want to uh inquire about the threemonth delay you said u that you think this would add just another few months to the project and so the fact that some of them haven't been implemented yet it's it's other other causes. >> Um correct I mean they're all the the three corridors are all in the being packaged together as a single project at this point. Um for efficiency we have a single consultant working on all three projects. Um, so yeah, the while we're only doing some additional work on
really two of the three corridors, um, yeah, we're extending the overall design time to allow that additional work to be incorporated. >> And you think that's a few months >> in addition to the current timelines? >> Correct. And I didn't check the stop.
>> I don't remember the exact the previous completion date for the consultant, but um, the new one, yeah, is uh, February of next year. So it it's extending it I think. Yeah, I think previously the contract was ending sometime this summer. So I think it's more than three months.
I think it's probably more like Yeah. 6 to 8 months, but I don't remember. I don't have that exact number. >> Thank you, Mr.
Dutch. >> Thank you. Anyone else have any Okay, Council Member Unknown name context. Uh yeah, so this is um this is going to be a completely different kind of uh facility than we that we than we have in any part of our city for the most part, right? Um so we're going to have truly protected um bike lanes um using uh using a material that's easy
to place on on existing pavement. Correct. >> Uh correct. I mean, we are we're pretty excited about it actually in terms of some of the additional elements that are being added.
They are things that um fright frankly we weren't sure we would be able to get some of our partners with the fire emergency services impacted residents um where it uh property owners along the corridor to agree to but um we've been working through that as part of the current level of design and yeah we've gotten consensus. So um so yeah so you will see a more robust set of elements than we currently have which are primarily paint and flexible posts. >> Yeah, I just want to raise that because this we're all going to see this and this is going to be something different. It's not going to be those kind of cheap flex posts that >> get bent over all the time. This is going to be a very robust uh uh new infrastructure that's really I think making biking much more prominent. Um we
are lo and so you've been working with the property owners along there as well because we are going to be losing of course um some beloved on street parking on some of this and I guess my that's my only heartburn is um is uh you know uh sort of unveiling a new a new form of infrastructure um and hopefully hopefully people accept it uh okay without uh too much too much being too upset about about losing this this on street parking. >> Yes, we have. We've uh I mean parking on street parking critical for many of those businesses. So uh we are sensitive to it.
We are trying to maintain as much parking as possible but yeah there and identify other areas. So I don't believe the total net loss is that significant but for certain businesses in the proximity it is you know parking's a little half a block or a block further than maybe they currently have. So
>> all right thank you. >> Also do want to say appreciate the raised intersections is also that's a new thing. We haven't been we haven't done that yet in Durham, have we? >> No.
Um not um yeah not to this level. We have some more decorative type treatments at a number of intersections, but this will be yeah, more of a, you know, more of a physical raised intersection, >> right? And I know BPAC in in their comments in virtually every case recommends raised intersections and we've, you know, we've said we've not done that. That's not part of our I guess part of our code, but it's great that we're actually doing that because I think that's one of the reforms that the bike and pedestrian community really wants to see to make it safer for pedestrians to walk at that level across.
So, appreciate that. >> Yes. Thank you. Anyone else?
Okay, thank you. Um that is the last pulled item that I have. So I think next up we have our um presentation from staff. Um uh number 19, the new unified development ordinance update.
And here they all come. >> You want to take a break? >> Okay. I can ask.
Uh uh council members, I'm sorry I called you all up here before I hold council members. This is slated to be a 45 minute presentation potentially with longer questions and comments from us. Do folks just give me a thumbs up if you'd like to take a five minute break. Okay, we are um recess for five minutes.
We will be back at 2:52. Thank you so much. all their items.
Okay, I'm going to go ahead and bring us back. It is 2:52. My colleagues are back. Um, I'll just keep us moving until the mayor's back.
So, I'll be asking staff. I will go teacher mode. Please sit in your seats and let us keep going. Thank you.
>> Yeah, I taught elementary school for a long time, y'all. Uh uh good afternoon. Thank you for being here with us. Um do you want us I think it's pretty long.
It's a it's a long presentation. So do you want us to kind of like group our questions? I want us to be efficient and also not wait till the very end either. >> Every time.
Uh I was actually going to suggest um asking questions sort of with by topic as as we present. for one, it'll help break things up and I don't want you to forget them and so it's I'd rather engage on one topic at a time. >> Perfect. So that is how we're going to do it. So colleagues, please if you know we're going to have kind of opportunities throughout the the the
presentation, but don't just shout out your question. Please wait to be called on and at that opportunity. Thank you. I'm gonna pass it off.
>> Great. Thank you. Uh Bo Dinsky uh with the planning and development department with me. I've got Robin Schultz uh and Lisa Miller as well may assist or may need to assist.
Uh we're here to provide an update on the new unified development ordinance project. Uh we did present uh we did provide this presentation to the board of county commissioners on on Monday for their work session. There we go. Uh so just a sort of a reminder um in terms of the project structure uh we have contracted with code studio who has functioned as our technical consultant in terms of drafting putting together graphics and and really uh carrying the heavy load on the project.
Uh we also um contracted with a consultant TG Allen and Associates Dr. Dr. Tana Allen has uh worked with engagement ambassadors and really contributed a great deal in terms of uh getting engagement on the project uh focused engagement with specific um
communities that had previously or typically been underrepresented in uh land use decision-m um so as planning staff has uh worked in terms of broad engagement efforts which we've talked about a great deal um and I'll talk a little bit more later. I'll also note here in terms of the structure of the project um and as you saw in your your memo packet uh we've been going through the joint city county planning committee and sort of using them as some of you all we've been using them as a a bit of a steering committee throughout the process uh with monthly updates and seeking direction on the project uh throughout and it has been a uh there have been a lot of updates as you see here um fall of 2024 uh is when the We released what we called the first of four modules. Um this was the zoning districts maps and uses. Uh spring it was the development standards which apply to which apply to all of the districts. And then fall 25
this last fall subdivision infrastructure which also included our environmental standards. And here we are early 2026 um where we will be releasing uh sort of the the fourth module which is full draft including the administrative section. Uh I will just note you know moving with each module uh we held um virtual sessions inerson sessions we've had ongoing office hours where community members come could come and speak with planners uh and discuss the project um given sort of the dense nature as you will see given the long presentation um it's really been the most effective way or one of the most effective ways to to engage on um this project so we can sit down and really go through the details um I will also So, uh note now that we're sort of pivoting um towards the uh end of the project, now our focus on engagement is really on um sending folks towards the engagement process, let them know how to um engage in the adoption process and how to get
input uh to you all as decision makers. Some specifics about the upcoming uh project timeline. Uh we are wrapping up the entire draft as it is or currently sort of going through some final reviews and some final tweaks to the administrative section. Um February 24th there is a special planning commission meeting scheduled uh which will be the first of two meetings where we expect the planning commission to uh hear the item, have the public hearing as well as a presentation from from staff.
Um there is a joint public hearing scheduled for uh you all and the county commissioners April 22nd and we will uh bring that to work session in May with the hopes of an adoption prior to the end of the school year. So uh a little bit of a reminder in terms of what the role of the UDO is. Uh the comprehensive plan um was adopted
October 2023 after four years of uh significant engagement engagement with the community. Um this was the community's vision. Um this this was a deliberate process that also um I must note uh there was great deal of um effort spent in hearing the voices of folks um that hadn't been represented previously. uh the direct um language that we heard and direction that we got from the community was directly placed into this conference conservative plan.
So I think it's really important um when we we talk about the the implementation of the conference plan and of course the EDO we recognize that this is uh our effort um to uh sort of deliver on the promises we made by uh the adoption of the plan. Uh there's 30 action items that speak to the UDO in the comp plan. One of them specifically talks about uh or there's a policy that talks about um creating districts that align with the adopted place type map. Um and again we'll talk
a little bit more about that. Uh of course the other theme that you'll hear or that you all are very familiar with um is the uh growth manager strategy in terms of the urban growth boundary concentration of growth uh within the UDO itself. Of course is the development rules and so these are sort of the specific regulations with the intent of transforming uh the play site map um sort of vision into the uh rules and regulations for each property. So uh they should align There we go.
So, just general goals of the project. Um, housing choice and affordability, right? So, comprehensive plan talked a lot about allowing for a mix of housing types throughout all of Durham, encouraging the creation of more affordable housing and of course just different types of housing. You know, we all have different housing needs. Community has different housing needs and find ways to provide a mix of those throughout the community rather than having them uh segregated. Uh in terms of the built environment, um the hope of the or the goal of the
project is to facilitate more transit oriented and pedestrian friendly development uh while continuing to uh recognize and preserve Durham's existing character. Uh also looking to increase open space, protect uh tree canopy, also uh make sure that we've got um stringent rules as it relates to the uh replacement of forestation. U promoting sustainable development as we densify. Um again you concentrating growth inside the UGB uh and preserving um rural areas outside uh grow in and up and not out.
I will also um state uh one of the big goals of the project is creating a more accessible, more usable, better organized ordinance. Uh this includes more graphics, more tables, uh less zoning districts that all sort of mean the same thing. more of an emphasis on form rather than density. Uh doing um the best we can to create more predictable outcomes so that that's very clear what the regulations allow um
compared to the current code. The example that I've been um saying for the last uh at least a year and a half probably is uh currently someone comes into the development services center and is looking for answers about setbacks. depending on where they live, it may take four different references in the code to tell them, you know, where they could put their house or where they could put their accessory structure. Um, and so really the the hope is that we create a document that is uh easy for us to administer, easy for the community to expect what could be built, um, easier for uh, applicants to understand their expectations and of course easier for you all as the decision makers.
So just uh I'll I won't spend too much time here. Um but I will say just in terms of some of the things that the UDO uh does regulate, right? It lays out the or prescribes the application processes, permit types, um all all of the public notice procedures, uh the responsibilities for different bodies
and what they may or may not approve. Uh it includes our enforcement guidelines as well. Um it will codify these zoning districts, the ones that I've uh mentioned already. Um and of course these zoning districts will include you know land use, building size, site design, open space, etc.
Some things that this this is not and this is certainly uh been a theme as we've engaged with the community, you know, trying to establish clear expectations on on on the project itself. It is not the building code which includes includes accessibility requirements. It's not minimum housing code, of course. Uh we we still have other regulations like our storm water development code that um meet development among others.
Um and then just a reminder uh we do not have the ability to um impose design elements on uh single family or any development using residential code. So one, two, three, four units at a time. Uh we also cannot uh regulate uh the cost of
housing um also known as inclusionary zoning. So, so this slide just really represents um the types of things that the UDO regulates, right? Like the massing of a building, the lot and form, the size, where the building can go, how tall it can be, how wide it has to be, how uh what's the maximum width, um building exterior, so windows and doors, entry features, other design requirements, um use and density, so the types of use or the ways that the property is used. um as well as the number of dwelling units.
Uh and then site design. This is you know things like uh parking, parking dimensions, circulation, solid waste facilities, the screening of a site, uh open space, street coverage. Um the the document is hundreds and hundreds of pages. So much of it is site design. Um we can talk about that all day. So these these are the types of fidel regulations uh that are in in the ordinance.
So that the first module uh that was released fall of 24 um this the content was really the zoning districts um two pages uh of regulations for each generally in most instances. Um I'll show a better example later. Here's the list of the new proposed zoning districts. Now you'll see um we're introducing uh mixeduse districts RX and CX with various types based on uh the allowable height.
Um our current code does have a mixeduse district. Um I will say that it is used on a limited basis and there's quite a bit of opportunity for improvement. Um, also with the comp plan's uh focus on 50-minute communities and and more mix of uses um expanding those districts and sort of right sizing them where appropriate um is it'll be more effective uh with having the multiple districts. You'll see here the list of the residential districts as well as
commercial. Um a couple of those will look very similar to uh our current districts. Um employment centers and then uh more community focused districts. This is which of these are are new.
I'll just point out that a civic district park conservation uh those those are very new and then university college that's not new but it is being uh expanded a bit in terms of the way that we have thought about it as you all know as you've recently adopted uh the changes to the UC district. Again, the districts themselves, um, I've already talked about the height and density uses in terms of the regulations. Uh, what I want to point out here is, um, each district, I'm sorry, each property in Durham, um, city and county, uh, proposing to to reszone all of them to align, uh, with the place type map. Uh so you know what we've sort of grappled with and what you know we've uh been seeking direction on from JCCPC and make and feedback from the community
is ensuring that the zoning districts uh match the vision in the comp plan. And so uh the zoning map is uh the attempt at matching that. Here's the example of the uh two-page district standards. Um RB residential suburban.
So this particular district is uh most similar to our existing RS20 and and you'll just you know I want to point out uh the use of graphics for one uh the tableing just you know being able to see yes you know the street side setback there you go um and so in a lot of ways we'll be able to uh you know just from a customer service standpoint it'll be night and day better than currently what we have to do when folks come in. Um but the uh the RB like I said residential suburban um this is more suburban uh area and much of the standards are similar to RS20. So the the use table um you know
obviously we have a table of use uses in our current code and the proposed code where each district is assigned sort of a yes no or yes with particular conditions or limited standards as they're called uh in the in the table itself. Um, this is something I just want to really highlight here where while engaging with the community, while working with the JCCPC. Um, you know, we made we have made some changes to the draft over the course of of the project and I think we're pretty excited about some of these changes. Um, so, uh, one of those just being um an allowance for neighborhood scale non-residential in the RD district.
So, we'll we'll talk more in a bit, but the RD district is um probably the most common mapped district for the established residential place type. Um this with 5,000 foot lots, fairly similar to our RU5. Um so, we're proposing that if uh if you obtain a special use permit from the board of adjustment, you can provide small scale,
commercial, retail, restaurant up to 5,000 square feet. Um the idea behind this provision of course is uh right we want to see more walkable neighborhoods. We want to see neighborhood services closer to where uh residents live where where the neighbors are. Um and we recognize that you know through our regulations we we can only sort of set up the framework where the market will then provide those services, right?
And so obviously the comp plan uh you know the place type map shows neighborhood services areas obviously through zoning we will do that as well. But we we don't have the uh you know we don't know who's going to want to sell the property. We don't know uh if there's a shift in in development pattern that a particular corner or particular street may make it more viable. And so we really wanted to uh open up the opportunity to see those those coffee shops, those small retail spaces, those dental offices, you know, uh other other neighborhood scale services that that folks could could walk to. So, uh they don't have to uh get into a car and and and drive
necessarily to to go to the places that they need. U also you'll see um through looking through the code that there's increased areas where agriculture uses are allowed. Uh the current code's already fairly permissive. Um we worked a great deal um with many stakeholders in the community to just ensure that uh urban urban agriculture was very much a very real and and viable um thing and was not the room barriers um for folks to be able to uh grow their own food or grow food for their community or or obviously uh others.
Uh there is a bit of a shift to legislative decisions over quasi judicial in some instances. Um just one example I used there and and well two examples. one we've already we've already made. Um there's some fairly impactful land use decisions that were going to board of adjustment for minor special use permits. Just using u uh schools for for an example, right? very impactful, a lot of interest whenever a school is is proposed and the
quasi judicial process that the board of adjustment um runs under is uh much less equitable in a sense that uh interested parties. You know, they may be expected to hire uh experts for sworn testimony. They may uh not have the time, right? They have shorter notice than the applicant. the applicant knows they're uh proposing the project right when they they come up with the idea whereas the residents you know have 10 days 15 days and so uh in instances for some of these pretty substantial uses uh schools churches etc um they'll be required to be in the civic uh zoning district which would be a legislative decision which of course allows uh residents the opportunity to you know provide their feedback to to you all or the county commissioners um as a part of the process rather than um the it being simply outlined um in the quasi judicial uh procedures. Um and then yeah, so and this is there's
a whole lot of just changes that that are to be that are made due to the uh sort of the abandonment of development tiers. Um so current current um or the previous comp plan and and subsequently our current UDO references uh development tiers for many regulations obviously uh making those tweaks to live new standards and other areas uh where tiers are an issue. >> Just walk and L and P and then the L what is >> yeah great question. So L well P is permitted right?
So that is allowed in that district. Um L limited would be the limited use standards. And so that would mean that there would be u maybe there's an additional uh landscape landscaping required additional screening requirements. Maybe it's only required if you are 500 ft from a particular residential use.
Uh you know I certainly don't remember all of them but uh just the the idea that it's it's allowed as long as you do X. Any other questions while we pause? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Um you you might have already said I might have just missed it
but um you were talking about moving from quasi judicial to legislative and you mentioned the schools example but I think I missed if you said moving that to away from the quasi judicial process to what is that? >> That's correct. Yeah. So uh schools places of worship because they would require the civic district they would require a resigning >> legislative.
Yep. opposed to and I'll also just point out here while we got the table up um if there's a dash there's no then it's prohibited right so yes and no so you know if you look if you look at the use I'll just if a of light or concrete plant you know that's not going to be permitted in RD district and so there'll be a dash uh also if there is an M so we are not getting rid of all special use permits obviously there's still times where it is very much appropriate to go through that quazi judicial procedure um both minor which goes to board of adjustment or major which would go to you all. Um that would be what the M's are in the table when you look at that. So and and some of them are extra fun where you see an
LNM and that's where there are limited standards they have to meet and they have to obtain the special use from >> Is there a key for that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I this is a great table, but do you have definitions for for our uses somewhere? >> Many of them are defined that is in the administrative section of the of the ordinance. Um, so, >> uh, there is not a definition necessary for all of them.
>> Okay. Yeah. I'm just curious like we've got agriculture and then we've got like bonafideed farms, which is an interesting >> both of those are defined terms in the in the code. >> And then I'm assuming we've also got it for like congregate living and co- livingiving.
>> Those are also defined. >> Great. I will find them. Thanks. But I don't think for example I don't think retail is defined or a restaurant necessarily but um obviously the >> the ones that I hopefully have questions about will have definitions and and where and I can find them in the tell me again where they are. >> So so the definition section is in the administrative um portion of the draft which is the one component that we have not yet >> um that's part of the fourth model.
>> Okay. So I'm not missing it. Okay cool. Yeah, I I always say that that section is not necessarily the flashiest, right?
But it it has a lot of very important uh sections. There was something on there. So the uh the place type method was adopted as a part of the comprehensive plan. Um as I sort of repeated or said earlier, you know, each uh the entire county uh all the properties have a designated place type.
The intent here with the UDO project and the zoning district is that they uh they align. Um it's not 100% onetoone as as you'll see and we'll talk about that a little bit more later. Um but for established residential most of them are mapped RB RDRX3 uh our transit opportunity areas. Uh so right that's where our transit corridors are and we want to or our frequent bus stops and transit access. We want a a walkable mixeduse um dense so we want to see our our most intense development. Uh and then of course neighborhood services, the CN that I talked about
earlier, CX3, CX-5, sort of smaller scale but still mixeduse uh pedestrian friendly uh development regulations. This here is we've had this posted online um since the first module um where you uh can go online, you can see the proposed zoning map in multiple viewers, you can see it in a side by side, you can search your property and see what it is today and what it is tomorrow as we've engaged this community. Um there's a tool where uh map feedback can be or I'm sorry feedback on the map can be inputed directly. Um so just um certainly for you you all's awareness and and the community um this is a really really a great tool to you know provide and say hey we don't think that that particular property is uh or or that particular district is appropriate for that place type or and obviously we have heard this through our engagement you know is that place type right today because you know it's been two years or maybe they have different opinions.
All right. Okay. So, we'll be digging
into uh how the new UDO will be implementing the conference of plan. Really looking at it in four separate uh categories. The first will be housing. Second will be transportation.
You know, how will the new UDO support uh vision zero 50-minute communities framework? And then of course environment, how will the new UDO incentivize sustainable development, protect our natural resources? And then there's a few issues that don't really fit into categories that we'll um speak on at the end and potentially uh hear some direction. Speaking speaking on housing, right? So the the conference of plan sort of just pulling some themes from from the comp plan, some you know a mix of policies and actions um you know focusing the development on within the urban growth boundary in including more infill units where we have existing infrastructure. I think I think you all are very aware um in terms of the benefits of this um a mix of housing types and a mix of densities in new neighborhoods um along with supportive non-residential uses and
pedestrian friendly design and infrastructure. Uh also of note um the retrofit of aging and vacant shopping centers to mixuse transit supportive developments that include housing. Um right so that's why you know we have a lot of TOA areas that are sort of shopping centers that are you know function as as very large surface parking lots right and so uh place I imagine the the redevelopment of many of the shopping centers uh the incremental change of existing developments uh to incorporate a variety of housing options with a mix of units heights densities again getting to the point of uh providing housing for you know we all have different housing needs different sized families, different um expectations uh within these existing neighborhoods as well. Um also including uh allowing new uses as I already talked about with uh the neighborhood scale commercial and really just you know uh finding ways to to make more walkable neighborhoods or more walkable neighborhoods in our existing uh places
and then of course creating an incentive uh structure for affordable housing for both uh new and infield development. So some of the ways that the UDO tries to um address uh the comprehensive plan or try and implement the comprehensive plan right through in terms of focusing development within the UGB you know a big chunk of this is is done by the map itself right by uh you know having the RA uh which is our rural preserve uh zoning district um very similar to our current RR being mapped outside the UGB and um by by focusing the the districts that allow more intense development within um obviously allowing this housing uh you know looking at our uh densest districts that allow residential uses RD residential and then the CX and RX mixeduse districts. Um we are including some height um bonuses which uh and density bonuses for both um if you provide compact units and more affordable units. uh this
is through most of the or this is through those residential districts in the UGB. I'll get into details of that in a minute. Um and then of course you know these mixeduse districts the CXs uh you know sort of focusing that density along existing high frequency transit corridors. And so I just emphasize again you know going from the sort of the comp plan to the UDO a big part of that is is sort of the mapping of the districts themselves.
done. So talking a bit about the map itself. Uh so the four res residential districts are residential preserve. This is the RA district similar to RR 3 acre lots, you know, think, uh, one family, uh, think agriculture uses, um, you know, wershed protection.
Uh, residential suburban RB, very similar to RS20. So, 20,000 foot lots, more suburban style development. That's the yellow on the outskirts. And, and forgive me, the RA is the the green.
um RC uh manufactured home park. Um this aligns with a uh an item in the comprehensive plan um where it's a district uh that will be mapped for existing manufactured home parks um and will allow manufactured homes home parks. Um the intention is to preserve our existing right because that's uh some of our um sort of existing um affordable housing. And so uh that that zoning district will apply to um existing obviously could could be used for um subsequent uh new proposed manufactured home parks or RV parks.
Um and then RD is residential neighborhood. Uh this is most closely uh it resembles our RU5 or RU52 districts. Um and this is uh currently being proposed uh belonging to established residential type within the city. So the um the yellow uh being the RB um
are areas um much of them not not all but much of them are areas that are uh outside of the the city but within the UGB talk a bit specifically about the RD zoning district as that is uh most prominent district in the established residential place type. Um you'll see here this is the uh sort of the the graphics for that that two-pager that I showed you earlier or the version of the two-pager. So the base requirements for the RD uh 5,000 foot minimum lot size. Uh you'll you'll still be able to have an accessory dwelling unit.
Uh obviously no affordable affordability requirement as I started the presentation saying that we don't have the legal authority to do that. uh no limitations on uh the unit size um other than uh setbacks or height restrictions of course. Um but as uh that lot is developing that there are two options uh for them or two
additional options that are optional um development frameworks and uh these are all considered by right these would all be approved at the staff staff level. Um the second one or I'm sorry option two RD2 as we've we've termed it is uh fairly similar to our small lot uh small house option that we have currently that is allowed in the urban tier you know so roughly I don't know how the roughly between two or four miles around downtown. Um the one change to it of course is the allowance or making it easier for the units to be uh for rent, not just for sale, right? So you don't have to subdivide them.
Many of the small lots that we see today are are just or you know for sale units. Uh we're our hope is to see again a mix of for sale and and for rent. um the one unit per 1250. I think we've actually uh um that aligns
with the the current um current code. And so in this instance, the maximum size for each unit would be 1,200 square feet with 800 square foot footprint. Um they do have some flexibility in terms of uh the design itself, right? So whether that be multiple units in one um or or what you see here.
So, so when you see these graphics, we're obviously showing examples. Of course, not every lot in Durham, um, you know, is a perfect rectangle as as shown here. So, there may be some um different configurations that you'll see. So, that that is the the compact option um for RD. I I'll just pause here and see if we have any questions on that. I was uh really intrigued um at how we were talking about generating you know something economically affordable through design and um so I don't necessarily have a
question but I just wanted to really highlight that because you know this document is going to be our you know our operating document and and I I think what I'm most intrigued about is how our decisions you know, align or, you know, how do we it's like we have the UDO and I know that we can press, you know, applicants when they come before us. But I'm really interested in how, you know, moving forward, this is going to better align with what we're, you know, wanting as a council and and I hope that, you know, we we continue to reflect and make sure that we're using this to guide our way forward. Um, but but this is uh really helpful. I was I was holding my question because we're talking about affordability um you know and and there was a slide earlier where we talked about housing uh affordability and environment and there was something else out of legislative or whatever but uh this is helpful to see utilizing design to encourage or incentivize affordability.
Yeah, that's that's certainly the intention, right? Is uh with housing typically being priced at, you know, cost per square foot by putting that cap on the size of the unit that could be provided. Of course, in our current framework in the urban tier, you know, we see many folks building up to that 1,200 foot line, right? I will say that fairly recently, we've we've got uh some of our smaller scale de developers have gotten a little more creative and they're providing more units that are even smaller.
um right like we've seen um more of more of that which I think does speak to offering different housing types in these existing neighborhoods that otherwise are fairly uh unaffordable you know obviously that's relative but um and so it speaks to that and of course the increased density um contributes to some of our uh more walkable community goals. One one more question. Um I on this legislative front, it's probably not the sexiest section, but I think it's some really big things that we need to talk about in there. Uh in regards to affordability,
for example, the uh I don't know if it's the state housing code or board code, whatever, when they determine, you know, no longer being able to use euro lumber, well, that made things way more expensive, >> you know, uh and we never talk about that. And then you think about the labor that we have to pay in the building process. Um I I'm really interested in digging down into the multiple factors that cause development to be so expensive. And you know as I'm looking at this these diagrams here how uh we are doing our part by utilizing design and you know and incentive programs to encourage more affordability. But I I don't want to, you know, and hopefully our UDO can help us, you know, have this conversation with our state leaders, but I I don't want to just, you know, not have that that that dialogue to happen. And and as we're trying to get more affordable, there are two major things we can do at the state level that are that are policy that could really bring
down the cost. And I don't know if that's federal or what, but >> you know, um, so I just wanted to put that out there. Those are two things I'm really interested in um that affect the cost of the building process. And then of course we did what we did in SCAD which was also affecting the process.
Um but yeah just putting it out there >> just one question. So on on this option two you just described the compact option. So so is the assumption there that these like these small these are like uh 1,200 square foot maximum unit size. This is there's no affordability no affordability requirement. is the assumption that this is kind of workforce housing is that sort of >> I mean yeah certainly you know a lot of that we we can't dictate but yeah it's you know we have seen with the existing small lot option and and I don't have the numbers in front of me but obviously there a a new um home that is a small lot is substantially is priced lower than a a standard 5,000 foot lot right just the cost of land dictates that I mean then obviously the the 5,000 the base you know looking at
this example here you know it's going to be a much larger home subsequently it would be priced higher. So, so yeah, I mean I think that's fair to say that you know the intent is just to to make sure that we have multiple degradations of of housing options and subsequently prices >> and that so and again option two the compact option would be would be that's a buy right scenario in the RD district. >> So can you tell me right now under our current zoning rules the small lot option what do you have to do to to like to sort of be able to use the small lot option? So, they submit a a subdivision plat um to to staff staff level review and then submit a building permit.
And we've seen I mean I don't have the most recent numbers uh several hundred of those built since 2019 when they were first allowed uh by the expanding housing choices. >> So, so it's a it's a modest review process. You got to apply for that. You got to get the approvals. It takes some But that's not a super cumbersome process or how long does that take to get the approval for a small lot? I mean it's it's the same as the standard lot.
Forgive me. The the plaid itself may be an additional uh process, but it's um it's fairly smooth, >> but it's not by right still. >> It is by right. >> Oh, the small is by right.
>> It is by right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's your point.
All of this is by right. That's that's the point. These are optin. These are like opt-in districts.
So, >> so the base would be on the left there, but all of these are allowing different things that are not discretionary review, but they're saying you can opt in and so therefore it subjects them to potential additional requirements that are in the code or not in the code. So, a question on the affordable option and maybe you're going to talk more about this, but I'm curious about the >> the focus on 80% and 30%. >> Uh, are you coming to that? >> Yes.
Can I can I >> will be happy to wait. >> Yeah. Awesome.
>> Yeah. Just the >> the last Oh, you're still on that picture. Sorry, I was looking at my slide. So yeah, the only one where it's like if you want it even denser is where you apply that affordability piece of it, right?
You can do the middle, right? Like the denser you the denser you want it to go, like then you have to pony up affordability. >> Okay, >> great. So I'll talk a bit about this third affordable option.
Uh just as council member Copek um queued me up. So um you can seek or seek by right you can choose to um get a one unit per 625t lot area. You'll see here that we've shown you know multiple multiplexes on that same existing lot. There's uh probably a multitude of of ways to to develop it. I'll say that we probably anticipate the affordable option going, you know, because of sort of the math on it, we expect those to be, you know, not two or
three units, right? This probably is um more like eight units on the same lot. Um, so they get that additional density if they provide uh at least 8% of the units at 80% AMI or 4% of units at 30% AMI. And I'll just speak to these numbers in general uh and sort of why it's proposed at that number.
Obviously, um, we're here, you know, if there's additional uh, feedback from you all or direction as it relates to those numbers, that's that's what we're here for. Um, our current code has an affordable housing density bonus. Uh, and that the required percentage for that affordable housing density bonus is 15%. That has been in place for a a lot of years um, uh, I believe since at least the '9s and we've gotten I believe eight units um, with that existing percentage. So it was certainly our thought that you know we wanted to encourage the use of the bonus. We did not want to carry forward
uh an incentive structure that sort of stayed on the shelf and didn't actually create any units. And so uh our our first thought process was to reduce from that 15. We then took a a look at what was being profered at the resounding stages, right? And you know what the percentages were that uh applicants were uh profering um given the the risk that comes with the reasoning application and the length of time that goes through the approval process.
It was our assumption that we could increase from um what you all were seeing at city council or what was being approved at city council. 9%. Um obviously most of those were developments that uh were larger, right? You didn't you don't see a lot of property units with your you know 30 unit town developments that's larger. Um so we also knew that we couldn't go too too much greater than that uh 5%. And so
one thing I'll just add um the city of Minne Minneapolis's inclusionary um zoning policy of course and of course that is uh different state law. We're not in a place where where that could be our ordinance but their ordinance is 80% or I'm sorry 8% uh at 60 and uh 4% at 30. the 4% uh 30 obviously the the thought process there is if you're providing that deeper um affordability without uh without subsidy right then we're open to um a less stringent uh structure and so that's where how we landed on the 8 8% and 4% um the 8% AMI that's uh consistent with the current uh for sale definition uh in our code now for affordable >> do these rounded up when it's so if it's an 8plex are they choosing between doing one unit at 80% or doing one unit at 30%.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> So just to capture what you just stated about the 8% and the 4% there wasn't actually any empirical information about the actual need here in Durm. It's just based on trends and patterns.
So it wasn't anything to form how this would actually benefit our existing community and what the needs are existing housing market is. Just want to clarify that. >> Yeah, the the need for uh housing um at those affordabilities both 30% 80% and 60 60% later is greater than um what this incentive structure would provide. Obviously this is just one tool in the toolbox to try and try and get at those affordable units.
Um there's thousands of affordable units that have been profited as a part of resonings. there will still be reszonings. So there will still be profer units and then obviously there are the affordable units that either nonprofit or um government government monies are going to. So this is really just uh provided by the market. So it's really just a supplement. It's not intended to meet uh 100% of the needs which is why um that
that number itself didn't drive it. It's really like right now just to in terms of the growth and pattern comparison right now it's eight over 25 years. Forgive me. Now it's like we're getting almost none.
And so that was sort of the the thought process is these would be more than what we're currently getting. >> Yeah. >> Were you done? >> I had to follow up on Shanetta Shenetta's comment.
Um uh previously in the JCCPC meeting, we've we've talked about um further incentivizing 100% um and more deeply affordable. And I know right now we're just looking at the RD district on the slide, but just in general, is that something that we're getting clo because I know that we weren't quite there yet and figuring out what we're going to do, but are we closer to what we want to do there? >> Yeah, as as I you'll hear this a lot where we're stealing from other parts of the uh country. um somewhat loosely modeled after a program city of Austin's
doing um we will be uh creating incentives just like this and uh allowances in terms of height as well um for 100% affordable options I mean on a weekly basis right like we have these lack projects where um we we keep finding barriers and and uh parts in the process that are making it more difficult to have these affordable units come online and so one of the things that is not in the the text just yet. Again, we're still sort of working working through it is uh a path for 100% affordable that is u for one easier and and then of course and further incentivized. Um, I'm just I'm I'm getting a bit stuck on the on the fact that the option number two doesn't have any minimum lot size because what I heard you saying was that we kind of based the percentages on the affordable option three over like the profers that we were sort of seeing
as we're getting projects in front of us which seem actually more akin to option number two. And so now it's like we've sort of excluded our ability to get any affordability in option number two just for the hope that there will be some choice of option three. And so I'm I guess I'm confused because like no minimum lot size. So that could be I mean we're looking at four units because this is a scaled down picture, but that's not that's not necessarily what this is going to look like because there's no minimum lot size.
It could look like a lot more units densely compacted and no affordability requirement at all. >> That that is correct. If it's a if if it's a larger lot, um again, the the math modeling was that the it would be one unit per the same amount that we would allow. So, but if they right if it if they didn't if they didn't subdivide and they had a larger lot, it could look a lot different in terms of uh how the the structures that that's provided.
That is correct. But the um the assumption um I'm sorry the assumption the the framework again is the the same as the current small lot. >> Can you explain that on the sub? Yeah, just help me understand that better.
>> Yeah, just to speak to that a little bit more. There's no minimum lot size because there are some housing types which do not have like a you cannot do attached town homes if you have a lot size or um something like that because they don't have they wouldn't meet the setbacks, right? Because it's wall wall. Um so even though there's no minimum lot size, they are still held to the size from the parent parcel.
So at 5,000 square feet, the base lot, you divide that by 1250 and they can only always get four. So it's showing four because that's like the max they could do. But this could also be like a multiplex. It could be um a multiplex of four units. It could be four town homes, etc. And none of those have a base or a minimum lot size themselves.
But they are still held to the density of the 5,000 square foot that they um of that parent parcel. Does that clarify things? >> Yes. So I think I think where I'm confused is I'm like, okay, so what we see in front Yes.
We we see the scaled up projects that come in front of us where there's like a hundred lots theoretically that are being that are being included in these mass projects, right? And then what we would then see is like 400 units available on a 100 lot project and no affordability, which is like way less than what we're getting now in terms of affordable housing. >> Yeah. One of the uh sorry one of the reasons for that sort of framework was as we have seen you know like I said several hundred of these small lots which are somewhat more affordable they're all for sale and so we're trying to create a framework where we could have uh for rent options using using this options and so that was why
um sort of opening up for both um by not having that because you had the minimum lot size but what we would then see is just that right there and really trying to see a little bit more than just the same, you know, for sale product, >> right? I guess I Yeah, I mean, I hear that. >> And just to follow up on that, I I understand what you're saying about the larger So, I think the way to address that would be we could institute the minimum lot size, right? And then and recognize that we could probably see more for sale as a part of the the compact, which, you know, that may be the case anyway, right?
Because that's probably uh more attractive, I think, on a lot by lot basis. Um there's a couple other factors, right? Like we're the storm water code is still the same. Uh limitations on grading are still the same.
And so at at a in terms of just how many units that you would see using this option, it there would be some limitation on it that from other regulations. >> Okay. I mean, to me, it just feels like we it's like every minor shift has like
consequences that maybe I just like can't foresee because I just like don't understand the code well enough for that. Um, so I hear what you're saying and I understand like that we have some some push to have rental options and and for sale options and I understand that. I guess I'm just confused about like what stops this from having and I want to say also that I what I really want to see too is that like we're allowing our small developers to do this work right on single lots. Like I I I think this is really useful for our local developers to be able to like purchase single lots and do that build as opposed to like what we're seeing is like the ability to buy like dozens of lots at a time and do these mass projects that just like aren't accessible to our local developers. So, um I do want to incentivize that in some ways, but I'm just like worried that we what we'll see is that this sort of gets transposed into like a bunch of lots that are right next door to each other and then we lose any affordable housing options that we could have had there. >> Yeah, I think that's a great point and
it's definitely we can um sort of come back and think a little bit more about like a scaling mechanism for sure. Um as part of this presentation, we're trying to get feedback from you all. So, that's really helpful for us as we keep moving forward and come back to you. One thing that I did want to talk about too is that uh as Bo mentioned earlier, uh since option two and option three are voluntary.
Um and uh applicants can always build under option one, we can assign additional uh development standards to two and three. And so in part of that we are trying to um add sort of more uh requirements to option two but not to three. Right. >> Um so >> that's what Yeah.
>> Yeah. So we have a sustainable development matrix that I'll talk a little bit about later. Um so you know if you do want to do two you have to do more. Uh additionally things like infill standards so they'll have height restrictions that affordable housing won't have um and things of that nature as well. Um but definitely uh heard your um your insight >> scaling up. Thanks.
>> Yeah, thank you for that. And you know it is helpful to see how versus our current code which I feel uh incentivizes more of those larger developments that this opens up the possibility for more of that smaller local uh scale development. So I really like that with option two. I mean getting at kind of council member Cook's point I mean you know if the concern is about this being applied at a very very large scale >> you know you have here an example of you know 5,000 square foot lot.
Is there any like conversation about like what the upper limit is on that in the development of this like or is there an upper limit on it like how should we think about that? >> I mean I I think our thought process on that and again you know we're here to hear from you all but there's no limit on the scale for the 5,000 foot lots. And so in those same areas where council member Cooks, you know, using that example that somebody would come through and build a bunch of little units that have no income restriction, well, they could also build a bunch of the
uh single family 5,000 foot that would have no income restriction and be, you know, roughly two $300,000 more each. And so that that's sort of where we're Even at a larger scale, option two can get us more units that are at a, you know, per per square foot or I guess not per square foot, per unit cost a lot less than what we would see in the in the base option. >> Correct. Yeah.
So that's, you know, again, I think we'd be open to some sort of some sort of cap, but I don't I think given the where we expect it to be developed, that's not that's not what we've proposed. >> Thank you. I just want to say I appreciate this. We've had these conversations at JCCPC a bit.
We what we want to incentivize is best use of land, most effective use of land. And folks who build houses, build what you make is easy. They they're they're there. They run a business.
That's what they're there for. Um and so if you incentivize whatever you make harder to build is what they're not going to build. So if
we want while while we see that option two may have some things that you know we don't love, we don't want to make it that option one is the easiest thing because then that's what we're going to get a lot of. Uh we want to see um not large single family homes um because we're not that's still going to be allowed. A 5,000 foot lot's still going to be allowed. And so I think that that to me at least is the the purpose of finding that kind of middle ground which is like we have the very you know very loose restrictions because you're providing affordability.
We want to p we want that path. Providing affordable housing is difficult. It's not an easy thing. It the folks who are going to be in that space are going to have a lot more hoops to jump through to get the subsidy.
And so only folks who have real expertise in that are going to be able to follow that path. Um whereas the option two is kind of the the in some cases a sweet spot and it's based off what we've seen and the success that we've seen with expanding housing choice. So the at least for me that idea
isn't just out of nowhere. That idea is based on six years of of seeing what's been happening since we loosened some of our regulations back in 2019. I just real quick one one thing that um again not not a cap on this particular housing product being provided but uh we we are proposing a distinction sort of under four acres and greater than 4 acres in terms of tree coverage as well as uh the infill standards right so recognizing that in some or many instances this is uh creating sort of infield development um we we're carrying over I think Robin already said this but the height restrictions and setback back um restrictions in our in our current infill standards. Uh that along with the uh additional tree coverage are required at 4 acres. There's also a few other I think sort of trips at four acres and at that point um you know it may not it's certainly less viable for the developer to provide all small houses right like you know and again we don't see this
because this isn't something that um we see because they go through reszoning they don't have this this limitation but you know is it you know it would be much more profitable at that point to stick with stay with the option one base if they were doing such a large scale. Um, again, that's somewhat speculative, but I think that 4acre um cap sort of speaks to that. >> Yeah, I appreciate the conversation here both uh with you all and my colleagues about the sort of like the implications and sort of hypotheticals with these different options and given that option two doesn't require affordability. Um, but it seems like none of this happens in a vacuum, right?
So if someone were to acquire like a hundred 5,000 foot lots and build 400 of these smaller homes, right? At some point like there's a there's a market dynamic, right? So So is it not correct that if you had like 400 homes then in the market that you've then got to sell like if you're going to prices all at some point like the market does adjust, right? So supply and demand is part of what we're going for here is having more supply that will drive potentially prices down. Correct.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think that combined with sort of the infrastructure uh comment that uh council copy made. >> U yeah. Are we looking at um facilitating and and streamlining the process of making it easy to feed units into the subsidized housing realm?
>> The answer to that is yes. Um I I certainly uh and I will I will not um commit anything certainly but but we know that as we um continue to uh if if if we see success with this we're going to make sure that we have to have the infrastructure in place for smallcale developers or or even large scale developers to uh you know whether it be through compliance, whether it be through education, whether it be just through coordination. um we need to uh do the best we can to make it as easy as possible to provide these these affordable units.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Um and then um to what degree would you say option number two, the compact option is a carry forward existing regul what >> to what degree are you attempting to carry forward existing regulations and just kind of simplify it through this method? I've already discussed at, you know, JCCPC that I don't like that option.
I like option three. I would like to us just to uh, you know, steer developers toward uh, option three. Um, I worry about this being applied in certain parts of our city where there might be smaller scale, uh, somewhat affordable, uh, single family housing units or even duplexes that might get torn down and replaced with more expensive, you know, smaller lot. So, I'm just curious like to what degree do you think this is being this this is an attempt to carry forward kind of existing regulations? >> I think that's a a fair um fair way to
call it. I will say though it's carrying forward with additional tree coverage requirements that today don't exist at all. Um additional uh sustainability requirements today which don't exist exist at all. Additional design requirements today that don't exist at all.
So I think it is fair to say that it is modeled after the current code but it it is a more stringent version. I'm just I'm curious because I where I thought you were going to go somewhere different when we were talking about the um restrictions that started at 4 acres and I was wondering if y'all like talked about doing maximum lot sizes restrictions at all or is that not a conversation? I mean to me it seems like we're kind of not interested in having like single family homes on large lots, right? And so like just curious if there was conversation about disincentivizing that usage. >> There has not been conversation in terms
of providing or including a cap on that. Obviously uh finances themselves, right? Like the number of lots equal amount of profit for developers. And so that sort of incentivizes the smaller lots um themselves.
So that has not been a part of the conversation. But you're right, you know, we do not want to see large single family, you know, large lot subdivisions. >> Yeah. Okay.
It's just it's just something to think about. I mean, I'm I'm also like kind of curious about the underlying sort of economic theory behind these choices. Like I'm I'm kind of with my colleague here like disincclined to appreciate option two. I mean, uh, I wish that it were so easy as supply and demand, but like we know that that's not a thing that works with housing in that most simplistic theory. Um, and and it is worrisome to me that we're like sort of losing this ability to um to ask for
any affordability in two out of the three baseline options or like buy right options. And so nothing has to be made better or presented better to us because it's just going to be automatically granted um in two out of the three of those. And what we know and what all of us have sort of been running over the past couple of years, those of us who have run, well, everyone here has run an election over the past couple of years, um that affordable housing has been a huge priority. And that as what we're seeing is that housing is getting less and less affordable as like all sorts of prices and costs rise and um except for our lovely city employees like mostly wages are not increasing, right?
And um we're seeing fixed income folks and like all sorts of folks that are stuck behind. Um and then it just worries me that like two out of the three of these are not including any affordable options at all. So, um, that is that's my that's my concern with it. >> And and I I just want to make sure I I
want us to go deeper into that conversation at some point. Um, I think that and because and I think if we can find a middle ground understanding, Council Member Cook, around, you know, whether supply and demand matters or not, whether, you know, subsidizing these things matter or not, and how we get there. I think we're going to find our solution because I I wholeheartedly believe wholeheartedly believe the supply and demand is a major factor uh in addition to other things and you know um as I talked about earlier you know the cost to build and we are going to force affordability then I think about the end user you know we're it's going to be paid for at some point somewhere you know affordable housing to me it doesn't mean that the structure is cheaper to build it means that it's going to be paid for somewhere some Okay. Um, and and I I just want us to not have that conversation on the surface.
I think we need to go deep and I I think uh part of our retreat hopefully we can get into some phil philosophical conversations and dialogue as well. >> So, um, >> can I respond to that? I just want to be
clear that I like >> I do think that we're going to have to put money in and I think that that is the answer. It's not >> it's not like depend on privatization for everything. It's not going to >> We know corporations are m profit maximizing. They're just they're never going to prioritize affordability in the way that ideally a government would.
I know that's not true of all levels of government, but hopefully this body will be prioritizing. And like we are going to have to put money in. And I just want to make sure that we are setting ourselves up with our UDO in a way that like takes us closer to our goals that like maybe supply and demand might help us a certain part of the way, but it's not going to take us all the way there. Um it it just isn't.
It's like it has never been successful in that way. And so like I don't want our entire UDO to be set for the next 10 years in a way that doesn't allow us to like move towards our values and actually like put our money where our mouths are and like start really providing that house. >> Yeah. And that's my whole point like the money that we put in is money that's going to come from the people who are going to live there. So it's I I look at local government as a jigsaw puzzle. Um,
so I I that's what I I think that when we have this conversation, it's going to be so rich and I think that we're gonna it's going to get us really far. Um, and and I'm just looking forward to that. So, I'll go here and then come over here. >> Yeah, the healthy discussion.
I I mean, I think both things are true here, right? I think the notion that that supply and demand doesn't matter, like I don't understand that. I think it's been well documented in the last year. The rental rates have actually stabilized across a triangle with increase of housing.
So like that's well documented. At the same time, we can't rely to council member Cook's comments. We can't rely on the market. And well, I should say this is one way we produce affordable housing, right, through profers.
We've also got mission line developers that do that. We've also got public housing. There's different ways we can create affordable units. It's also true that we may that the market itself may not create those units that are 30% and below, right?
And that's the role of like housing bonds, the housing authority. So there's different ways we create a vulnerable housing. This is one of the tools and I think we're trying to increase our ability to use this tool through the through the through the
private developers that we're increasing the the supply of affordable housing, but that's not it's not enough. We're going to need more bond funds. We're going to need other financing tools to to reach those goals. It's it's all the above.
>> Yep. Because everything's going up, but wages. So, I I I think you're right. Um multiple things are true.
Council Mayor Pro. >> Yeah, I'll be quick because I know we we're past time technically for the amount that we allotted for this presentation. several 15 maybe almost close to 15 minutes. Um just so two things I there was a presentation that um the subcommittee chair for land use presented to joint city county planning.
I encourage my colleagues to go see that one. Uh he is an affordable development provider. He is in the weeds on this every single day. I will say that the scale of the problem for us of affordability is a billion dollars.
Uh that that is what it's going to cost us and those are units that are already identified. That's that's need now, not need in the future. I mean, well, it is need in the future, but it's like we know what the scale is. Um, so when we say we're going to solve affordability, we're not serving affordability as a local government. We need to have
partners at the federal and state level, and we know that right now those partners are not aligned with our our values and our mission as a city government. So, I just want to be real clear as we're having this conversation. It is a billion dollars. Uh, I am open and want to use every tool at my disposal.
Some of that's going to be bond money. Some of that's going to be private developers partnering with affordable housing developers and doing litec. Uh we saw that about a month and a half ago where we had 100% LITC resoning in front of us. That's another tool.
There's a lot there. I was just really because sometimes public is hearing this or press captures this. This is one small incremental tool and there is a lot of really robust data around affordability and land regulation and efficiency of your land regulation is one of the many many tools. It's not going to get us all of it. And I want to say because a lot the the percentage of housing that is produced by the private market in this country is overwhelming compared to public housing or government. The harder we make it to
deliver units, they're going to default to whatever that is. And if the default is a large single family home, that's what they're going to build. And we need our rules to allow flexibility on that. Thank you.
That's >> I'm back. Sorry. And he left. Um uh Council Member Baker, you have >> Yeah, let's go.
>> Sure. So this this this slide is uh sort of a continuation of the same topic, right? So uh the the map um you'll see the blue. What we've done here is uh we've shown sort of the increase in density that's being proposed versus the existing. So the heavier the blue, the the bigger change. And so what you see there on especially on the outskirts right it's RS20 going to R to RD which is you know
20,000 foot lot minimum to 5,000 foot lot minimums and so um not to drag us back to the last slide but uh that itself is sort of that is sort of the upzoning that we've talked about or a portion of it at least um in in those areas if those areas are uh mapped with that greater density greater intensity as as the comp plan um calls for. Then that's where we get the 5,000 foot lots of course. Then the RD2 option is to you know I guess uh address the issue of just getting those single large single family on those 5,000 foot lots. Um so this map shows the gray area they're non those are districts that are not residential.
Um and then of course the white is um county. Um any questions on this? This is really just showing where the the start and I think council member Baker this was actually something that you had asked for during um our meetings with JCCPC. The asterisk on this is I mean there's not actually one up there is um
that we're kind of showing uh you know on the outskirts of the city greater change in density but we talked about during JCCPC many of those areas are already covered by HOAs which have their own layer of restrictions because everything we annex uh has an HOA applied to it. Yeah, just for further clarity, uh this is just based on the regulations. This isn't based on the density that is existing or potentially vacancy that's there, undeveloped land. This is just, you know, zoning district to district and what those standards are.
And and sort of the lighter blues, those are your your RS8s or RS10s. >> Thank you. I'm going to keep this going. >> I'm here for that.
Um all right. I mentioned this early. Whoops. I do not want to go backwards. Uh all right. So many parcels located within the UGB uh that are also established residential place type are proposed to be RB uh
instead of RD. So right all of established residential RD except for these um proposes RD. This is they're outside the city limits. Um they're going to require an annexation to build at that intensity anyway.
So, for one, it's just more reflective of of, you know, what that uh what those properties and what that area looks like today. And it's also uh a little bit clearer to residents in terms of what's allowed now. Um and so before they go through that public hearing process. Uh and like council member Baker noted, you know, many of these um areas, existing residential subdivisions do have private covenants um which would limit these various housing types or intensities. All right. Uh, so the mixeduse districts that I talked about an hour ago, uh, sort of the the CX districts, um, they're mapped to align, uh, with the
RX, of course, either the apartment, townhouse, neighborhood place type, mixed residential, uh, downtown, and our toas. That's my favorite place type. Um many of these areas are replacing you know low inensity commercial zoning districts uh with higher intensity zoning districts in order to facilitate uh increased density and disincentivized autocentric developments. So of course they also have uh use limitations and and similar requirements in terms of vehicle vehiclecentric um requirements.
They also have additional design requirements um as it relates to better pedestrian access. Uh these mixeduse districts also include a similar affordability incentive structure and compact incentive structure. >> It's not on council member Ris. Council member Baker next. >> Council member Baker thought you wanted us to keep going. >> So we have like commercial I know we have we have like commercial and then we
have commercial mixed use, right? Um the mixed use does not require a mix of uses. Is that right? It allows a mix of uses, doesn't require mix of uses.
Is that right? >> So, uh, we're currently working on a provision where at a certain size there would be a requirement. Um, we are we are not recommending requiring a mix of uses uh for smaller I don't remember the do you remember the low 200 >> I don't want to say the wrong area but but is a works. >> Yes. say larger scale would require and then I'll just also note the CX20 CX8 would require ground level non-residential this is similar to what we have today downtown right like CX20 would be really within the loop >> it would require ground floor non-residential >> res like on every frontage >> yes obviously there'd be some allowance for service and and whatnot but
Uh th this slide really just lays out, you know, sort of the design requirements I already briefly referenced. I won't go through it, but these mixed use districts are form- based, right? The idea um again similar to uh 9th Street or Patterson Place or the recently adopted uh page Miami uh the corresponding incentive structure um for compact units or affordability. Uh one distinction I'll make here is it's not based on density.
It's based on the height of uh the multif family buildings or mixed use buildings. And the other um distinction or one of the other distinctions is rather than 80% AMI it's 60% AMI. This aligns with both more what we see profered and the current uh definition in today's UDO. You'll see that for the compact option obviously uh we for a you know if for a four story or sixtory uh apartment building we didn't think it made sense to require all of them to be compact but
just you know 25% of them to be 450 again uh that is a a housing product that we see downtown we we don't see it elsewhere obviously we may see it in some of these toas um at a lower price point any questions here before we >> Okay, this compact option I really don't like um I I don't I don't see why we height incentives are so precious. Um there are so rare opportunities where a developer actually wants to go up and provide something for that and to just have it be for really small units. I I feel like we need to reserve that very precious commodity of of allowing additional height for something that's actually truly affordable. And that's I think that's something that's really important.
Um I also think that it's really important that we do aim for those because we we want we want height in around transit, right? We want parts of our city. We want we don't want to be a monocentric city anymore. We want to
be a polyentric city and we want to build that. We want to be able to build out transit so that we have rapid transit going from center to center around our city. And I just I think that it's very important that that includes truly affordable, you know, at least somewhat 60% 30% AMI affordable units. Um I I think that's very important and I think that uh we aim for those heights and I think that anything above existing heights today should be should be counted as as essentially a density bonus to get those units.
Thank you. We have that now, right? That density bonus with height. >> We uh in our downtown Yes, we have a version of hyponus.
>> How often is it used? >> Not often. >> How long has it been there? >> Uh
2011. >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> yeah. >> That's what I remember.
I think that that's where I'm at. I mean, the nice thing about the UDO is a we can do amendments when needed. I think that we have these tools. They're not working.
We need to try something like I think it's not going to help us, you know, and we we we've had maybe we just council member Baker and I just need to stop because we do this at JCCPC every single every single month or whenever there's a module presented. Um, so I I think that that's my whole point. My whole point is we have we have the development patterns that we have because of the rules we've allowed and then financing associated with that. If we want something different and the comprehensive plan has imagined something different which was already passed we have to have different rules that align with that plan. You don't you don't get the things we want just you know people respond to what you allow and we have to allow different things if we want the building community to respond differently and we're not those folks like we don't I don't build housing I just have to figure out how to
provide government subsidy for affordability. uh council. >> Don't be afraid. Just a few things to that.
One is we're talking about recalibrating the density bonus and affordable housing. Um two, we can't give density away for free or we shouldn't give density away for free. And if we do, then there's no incentive to to do a density bonus because you can just go get a go get a um a legislative change and get your density. Three, um the recent uh state legislation that has said uh municipalities can go one direction and one direction only.
You once you give that density away now it's gone. You can't go back. Um that is what the recent uh legislation at the state level said in 2025. So I think I think it's very very very important that we this specific issue that we do not give density away for free on a large scale
um in this UDO rewrite. >> Thank you. I just don't understand how you build a city. We're just going to keep doing this.
I don't I don't understand how you build a city without density. Like I from just a pure and I am not an urban planner but I have traveled a lot. I have been in lots of cities. I've lived in large cities.
They're they're cities because they're dense. That's what that's like a defining quality of them. So, I don't understand like and I don't understand why we would imagine a comp plan. Like I don't get how you get this like 10 minute what did we talk about yesterday?
This five minute walk shed. There's not a way to accomplish that if we don't change the rules around how many people and how closely they're living together. I don't I just don't understand from a philosophical point like you're going to give density away if you want to create anything close to walkability. >> I never said don't do density.
I'm in fact let's let's do density. Let's do density. Especially when we're thinking
about creating polyentric city when we're thinking about being more pedestrian oriented and transit oriented density is very important. What I'm saying is when we get density we also need to get affordable units for we need to be an equitable city. We need to be a just city. This is how we do it.
>> Sorry, we we don't have the legislative power to do that. So, I think that that's that I guess and I'm going to let it go here because I'm trying to be respectful of my colleagues, but I I I ultimately think that to your point, mayor, these are I think that it is our job as elected leaders like we live whether and I've said this before and maybe not on this council, we live in a capitalistic society whether we like it or not. And it is un I don't think it is transparent with the public to say that a we have power we do not have. To the council member's point, we have had zoning powers stripped. I can do less now than I could in 2019. And I I I think that we are so limited and we have we haven't been able to get
the things we want. 20 years of a height density that people can't utilize. I think that there's evidence and we have to make decisions based on evidence at least in my opinion. And the evidence suggests that we have to have a different way forward than we are if we're ever going to really achieve some of our goals.
Some of those are affordability, some of those are efficient land use for many reasons, sustainable reasons, all kinds of things. And I'm going to stop talking now. >> All right, real quick. >> Again, we need to recalibrate.
Uh we do have legislative authority for uh voluntary inclusionary density bonuses and we need to use them and we need to use them effectively and this is our our opportunity to do that. What at what point uh thinking of stories and I I may be getting into commercial here but um or residents too. At what point does building structures go from wood to steel, sticks to steel? >> Five. All right. Um, yeah, I I I was I always think about the economics of it and and
that's why I I'm I think this conversation, this dialogue is so rich and I think that we need to make sure we create some space for it. So, um, we're going to put this on the agenda retreat because I I I think it's important, you know, and I think we we bring these skill sets to the table and I'm okay with, you know, naming my bias. I like to see it practically ran out and I if I don't have the the authority to carry out something idealistic, then how do we make it happen in practice? And and what I do love about what we're doing here is we're encouraging affordability through design.
Uh but I do run into a little trouble of putting on documentation, you know, if you want to do this, then you must give this without getting into the financing of it. I I I always go back to it. I sell chicken for a living. So, you know, it it I think about it in that black and white term. You know, it's like, all right, I want to go higher, but I got to do affordability and affordable housing and like, all right, I still have to pay for that, and it costs just as much as the market rate. So, do I charge the market rate more?
And well, now we're talking about how people can afford to live, you know? So, I I think this is a rich conversation is what I'm saying. Uh, we probably won't solve it today, but we're going to work on making some space for us to have this this conversation. Council member Cook, >> thank you.
Um could you just help me be like help me understand more the density bonus that we had previously because I don't it's not as simple as like height it it was not ubiquitous across all of the zoning rate. Is that true? >> So the we have we have multiple versions and I don't >> the height one I want to know specific >> the height one was in our in our design districts. >> Okay.
>> Um >> solely >> solely which so downtown like I said there's four of them. Um Lisa here, do you remember the specifics? >> Yeah, just in terms of what we were given and what? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think one important distinction is we don't so like downtown, we don't have density requirements. There's not a compact option. Uh you there are height bonuses that are allowable and we've
adjusted since the design district was put in place downtown in 2010 2011 adjusted what that was based on what we were getting and trying to make sure that we were getting what we wanted. Affordable housing is one of those things. There were, you know, we tried out sustainability, public art, public parking, all these different things, but compact units was not one of the things that was included that would get you a a height bonus in in the design districts. >> Okay.
>> And and affordability was one of the ways, but it it's never been used. >> Okay. But it's only in those in those four areas. >> Yeah.
Where the design is. Okay. And then and then there's we we have a another affordable density bonus that is just is not based on height but on density and that's throughout the jurisdiction. Right. >> Yeah. >> I just I want to be careful because I feel like that we really oversimplify this conversation about the density bonus and I feel like I hear it's like it's never been used or it's rarely used um and then therefore we should get rid of it which is maybe not like always the answer like maybe it is somewhere in the middle like it wasn't used because of
what other limitations. And I just think it's important to like understand where it was, whether it was being used or why not, and like be able to move from there. So that Thank you. >> Could staff if it would be helpful for planning staff if they could send us the presentation we got at Joint City County Planning around density bonuses across the city and the research that y'all did around that so that colleagues could see that because it's not just Durham where it's been underutilized.
It's in many, many communities that have really struggled. All the different tools and ways that people have tried to think about prompting affordability. At least it was helpful for me. Thank you.
>> Continue. >> Sure. Um, so >> we can speak fast too, you know. >> Yeah.
To put a to put a button on this, which is the first of our four topics we're going to go cover. Uh, obviously with a comprehensive plan that's calling for greater density, obviously uh recognizing the limitations of the of the existing affordable density bonus and that reduction. Same is somewhat true with RD um the compact option. Really just trying to allow that that density.
If if you all deem otherwise, of course, we will. you know, that's why we're here, right? To to get that
direction direction from you. So, um, this is, uh, our consultant code studio and and of course our attempt at sort of trying to thread the getting additional density while still offering that bonus. At this time, I'll hand it over to, uh, Robin Schultz to speak about transportation and environment. >> Yeah, the incredible news is that I will not be talking about housing at all.
Um, all right. So sort of similarly to the way that Bose started um I'm going to talk first about the sort of policy guiding um where the UDO has started um or the new UDO project in drafting. And so uh when thinking about transportation it started with both the vision zero action plan and the comprehensive plan. Um so the vision zero action plan uh being that we have no traffic fatalities uh for pedestrians uh bicyclists um anyone at all in terms of transportation. Right? So really using that as a guidepost uh for our new transportation improvements as well as the comprehensive plan uh which calls
for complete street design uh for all new streets uh including things like reducing vehicle travel lane widths in order to reduce speeds and uh uh reduce the amount of time that pedestrians spend in the rideway um while also still providing safe and comfortable options for people who want to bike and walk and roll right and reach transit. Um we know that a major barrier is that folks don't feel safe doing those things. Um and development obviously plays a big role in that. Uh so also thinking about uh increasing connectivity um really focusing on pedestrian friendly development uh creating direct routes, reducing travel distance uh and enhancing safety.
Uh so to that end, the new UDO uh for starters uh requires complete streets for all new streets that are constructed. Um, this is something that we worked on with uh Lauren Grove, the city's vision zero coordinator. Um, and so you'll see that it includes things uh both from NACTA, which you all adopted a
resolution uh from the National Association for City Transportation Officials uh on adopting their standards into street design. So that's going to feature things like smaller lane widths, um really making explicit when bicycle facilities are required, uh wider planting merges, uh for those street trees, uh and you know, transit facilities so that we do have standards when those are required. Um as part of the vision zero action plan, they will be adopting a street design manual. And this is supposed to be sort of uh I don't want to speak for transportation, but kind of the end- all beall, right?
So thinking about road diets um you know not just new streets but any any scenario in which we are changing our streets like what it should look like. Um the UDO cannot accomplish that. Um so what we've done is instead created those two new street designs or excuse me two new street uh categories for the streets that we see that are constructed most often by private development. And those are going to be the streets in new neighborhoods uh and streets within mixeduse districts.
Um, additionally, uh, we are retaining the street connectivity and block size standards from a text amendment, um, actually that council member Nate Baker worked on. Um, so we're keeping all of that. Um, we are also trying to, you know, provide increased density and mixed use development along those transit corridors, right? Really thinking about um, growing in um, and additionally, we have uh, new development standards that really focus on pedestrian friendly design.
uh you know reducing the amount of time uh that pedestrians spend in rideway and the amount of land that's dedicated to vehicles. Um so really trying to put street uh require buildings closer to the street. Um decreasing driveway widths and we also have uh new types of required pedestrian access. Uh really trying to get at uh the pedestrian experience in the built environment rather than focusing on parking.
Moving from there talking a little bit about the environment. Um so the environmental section uh the comp plan has a lot to say about the environment. This is a big uh a big topic for
residents. Um some of the larger goals are establishing 30% of the county as permanently conserved. Um 55% tree coverage within the city limits, prioritizing preservation over replacement and native species when possible. uh attempting to encourage green infrastructure and those innovative storm water practices and really uh thinking about increasing open space and tree coverage standards.
So the new EDO is tackling a few tackling this in a few different ways, right? So increasing density within that existing UGB um so that we stop seeing so many uh sprawling uh you know developments. Um, additionally creating new zoning districts that are uh specifically designed to further those strategic goals around conservation and recreation planning from uh the comprehensive plan. So that's the park and conservation zoning districts. Um we exist we're retaining all of our existing standards for street trees, landscaping uh mass grading and phase development which you all recently approved in 2023.
Um, additionally, uh, increasing things like the species diversity requirements, um, and native species incentives from the existing ordinance. Um, and additionally requiring the preservation of existing plant material, uh, whenever a transition, which is, uh, which was once called a landscape buffer is required. So, in the current ordinance, that is usually only required when a 30-foot buffer is being provided. We are saying that anytime that a buffer is being provided, if that vegetation is there that it should stay um unless that it is uh you know invasive um or otherwise unwanted.
Um so some other things that we've done um tree protection, tree coverage and open space. This is this has lived in two different spots in the UDO. It's been kind of confusing. You can count tree coverage towards open space in the current UDO.
We are trying to sort of separate this out a little bit more so it's very clear what you are providing and why. So tree coverage and open space are now in one section but they are separate requirements here. And so there's no longer you know a passive
open space standard. It is uh more specific and reflects the goals from the comprehensive plan a bit better. Um another big thing that we've done is uh the Tuscaloosa Lakewood neighborhood protection overlay has a 7% tree coverage requirement. Um, so that is only in one small part of the city.
We are expanding that to any RD parcel that is less than 4 acres. Um, this is a pretty huge move even if it doesn't seem like a lot. Um, but that does uh require both that it is native um and that it um be uh undeveloped. Um so that's a big move um in terms of infill development.
It this does not replace um any of the other landscaping requirements that we have. So it would be uh in addition to um additionally we've removed conservation subdivisions from the UDO. This is something that sort of functions as a tool uh to provide compact development within the rural residential zoning district. Currently we have had like a lot of residents um uh not really
uh support this. So instead what we've done is instead of providing conservation subdivision as a way to get increased density within the rural residential uh we've instead taken those primary conservation areas um from those standards and instead required them for any new subdivision. Um so that's also a big a big shift for us. Um and sort of lastly on that sort of point um we're allowing Pedmont prairies to count towards your tree coverage requirements.
Um this is also a pretty cool uh uh new new take. Um essentially right now you can't count area towards tree coverage if it doesn't have 60% coverage of trees. Um prairies are grass and forb dominated and therefore do not have that coverage. However, they are an important ecological facet of uh our native ecology.
Uh and Durham County Openspace just did a a study on them as well. So that's pretty cool. So allowing those to count so that we are not providing any incentive for those to be uh removed where possible.
Just a quick question. Do you and this is exploratory. Do we have like maybe AI capabilities to take this information and um I guess create a display of what it would look like example housing with x amount of percentage street coverage from you know initial to actual finished develop pro uh project. Um, I don't know anything about AI because I am scared of it, but I think probably yes.
Um, we were trying to get at a little bit in this diagram right here. So, you'll see that um, on the left, those two little squares are going to be 7% of those lots that have to be retained forest cover or replanted with native vegetation, right? So, you'll see the little house on the front, etc. Um, however, once you get above 4 acres, which is that site, the larger neighborhood on the right, you have to do 22%. So, that's that's one of those other things that we were trying to get at earlier with the RD2 um uh
conversation around, you know, if you have a large lot, what is sort of limiting you from just putting a million things, right? So, one being that once you hit 4 acres, you have to do 22% tree coverage, whereas 400 4 acres and below, that's 7%. Um, so that's just one of those strategies. Um, I believe that we could use AI, but I um we'll we'll talk more about that.
>> Yeah, I I just I would love to see it and I don't want to become Texas, you know, just no trees. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Um, just out of curiosity, and this is one slide back, but uh were there was there a conversation around the masquerading or phase development >> and changing that and why? Yeah.
Why did it get left? >> Yeah. So essentially since it was recently adopted and we haven't heard policy direction from you all to shift that we are trying to retain it. Um additionally there have been talks around shifting it. Um I think it's sort of hard for us to measure the effectiveness of that ordinance right now because there are so many projects which were essentially grandfathered or permitted under the previous and so
their sedimentation or their erosion etc into those waterways is sort of um happening at the same time as ones which are now held under those standards. So that's that's one part. Um, additionally, one thing that we did do that I did not mention, um, we've been working with Ryan Eves to sort of talk about what we can do. Um, the thing about messing around with this portion of the ordinance is that it has to go before the sedimentation commission, which is fine.
Um, however, it does, you know, create an additional roadblock. And so, one thing that we found was that we could increase, we do have what's called high quality wersheds right now in our ordinance, and they have um, higher standards. And so right now it's I believe it is don't quote me but it's going to be the watershed protection overlays wershed and so we've done is in uh include third fork yes where we also have the total maximum daily load plan um we've also included the lake creek wershed um because we've seen a lot of development
there and that also institutes those additional standards and a 20 uh acre rating limit. Um, however, if you all would like us to further explore um different uh grading approaches, that's something that we're also open to hearing as part of this. I mean, I'd be interested, I think, in in at least seeing and and comparing to maybe other like kind of high standard environmental protection on this issue and just just to see because I feel like yeah, I mean, even if we aren't able to study, I think we all know that there is there is impact there and so like it would be nice at least to see the options and and if we could make it a little bit more stringent, this seems like a a good time to do it. Certainly overhauling >> we can pull that together for you. >> Um all right so some of the other things um we've expanded the list of elements that can count towards open space and
we've really created an incentive structure around things um that we've heard from residents and also the concert or the comp plan excuse me. So having a new incentive structure for public art um public plazas and courtyards um and a new requirement for the preservation of natural and cultural resources that's also included within the open space table. Uh definitely recommend checking that out. Essentially what's happened is that within those conservation subdivision standards that I mentioned before they were sort of split between required tree coverage standards and the preservation of natural and cultural resources.
So that's how they've sort of been um taken out of the existing ordinance for rural residential and replied to all new subdivisions. So that's sort of the the the dichotomy of that. Um it also establishes a new sustainable development matrix. Um essentially what this is is that it provides a lot of different options so that you know the different development patterns you get within the UGB uh will hopefully densify more sustainably. Um so different opportunities for things that we can't
actually uh require by state law. Um so thinking around uh you know they are you were required to have a certain number of points and then they are technically optional because there are none that you were required to do. Um so how are we we are then uh taking things that we've heard from our environmental affairs board from um from the New Horiance a lot of really great stakeholders who had a vested interest in making our UDO more sustainable. Um, so it includes things like increased conservation measures, landscape, uh, native landscaping, you know, green storm water, um, command, green building.
Is this dying or am I just moving too far away? >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, we also have new standards uh, for decreasing light trespass.
this came. Uh I want to just, you know, give a shout out once again to the New Hope Bird Alliance who really had an interest in talking um through uh oh gosh, not vision zero, what is it? Um dark sky.
Yes, thank you all. Um so really trying to incorporate those standards where possible. So we have new light trespass um standards for those things, especially when adjacent to natural areas to try and um decrease the the impact on wildlife. Um and so talking a little bit more about riparian buffers.
Um we're >> Sorry, we have just one quick question. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. So a question about the flexibility about what counts toward required open space standards.
Uh so I'll start by saying I'm a huge advocate of finding ways to incentivize uh public art and other cultural resources which are critically important to our health as individuals and the community. I'm just trying to understand if that will be well defined about what could count in the point system. Um because it it's different perhaps to have a plaza with a public art display, you know, versus it it it may be something less substantial. Yeah. >> That then limits the ability for folks to have space to be outdoors in nature
with each other. And so will that be well delineated about >> what what what does count? >> Yeah. , etc.
And then public art, public plazas, um things like that are below as things that you can include but are not required to, but you can use those as tools to get towards um your requirement. And there is like a public art can only count as 1% total. Um, so generally we haven't seen a lot of public art for open space because uh 1% of your site often is a lot of square footage, right? And so what we've done is instead incentivize public art by saying that if you provide public art that goes before the public art commission, it doesn't need to actually meet that square footage standard, but you still can get the 1%. However, the 1% will never get you to the to the finish line. we will still need to do um you know either um preservation of
natural and cultural resources or other kinds of like flexible space or public plazas etc. So that's how it's sort of set up. Um however if you all when looking at that table have input on how they're weighted right that's a policy decision on how we implement the comprehensive plan and we we certainly welcome that as you start reviewing. >> Thank you.
Mhm. So lastly, just going to talk a little bit about the riparian buffer standards. Um we are retaining all of our existing riparian buffer standards. As you all probably know, we are both in the Jordan basin and the news basin.
We have the delegated authority for review in the Jordan base. The state retained it in the news. Um the noose has also updated their standards. Um and we have not updated our match. currently the way that the riparian buffer standards function in the UDO is that they are they're sort of combined right um and I think because previously the Jordan and the new standards were more similar um
however instead we are adopting by reference so that it is very clear who has the authority what you allowed to do etc um we are retaining like I said all of our standards uh even when they're more strict it's very hard to make these more strict um because there is state law that says that we are not supposed to um however we do have a federal storm water permit connected to the clean water act which then supersedes um state jurisdiction in that way. So since there is a clear connection to a higher law we can we can keep what we have. So we are retaining our standards where they are more strict. Um, additionally, uh, we have the we are establishing a new watershed protection overlay. Essentially name, um, right now, uh, the Little Mickey, sorry, the Little River Lake Mickey district, um, is delineated, uh, into essentially what's kind of like three different overlays, but they're not done. So, name, and they use the future land use map, which is now
defunct because we have the place type map. Uh so we are changing that instead to the little the lake Mickey little river 3 and it essentially matches uh the existing bounds all of which is to say that there is no increase in the allowable impervious through any of the watershed protection overlays or in the amount of land that is currently contained within those. Uh and lastly we worked with uh staff uh in storm water um and some folks over in environmental and street services uh to really think about steep slopes. And one thing that we've done is uh required that any disturbed sleep slope be required uh be con reconstructed at a grade of 3 to one rather than 2:1.
Um this is something that they recommended as a way to reduce downslope erosion uh and further minimize grading and the removal of vegetation. Uh this came about largely as a way to help implement the the TMDL plan that I mentioned earlier for Third Fork Creek. So trying to pull it all together. Um, one nice thing about working with Code Studio is that, uh, we were able to ask
them for graphics to really help, especially as we were engaging. So, this is an example of what an RD neighborhood might look like. On the left, you'll see the plan view. On the right, you will see um, a 3D version.
Uh, you'll see um, both that there's uh, a riparian area in the top left. You'll see tree coverage of 22% preserved throughout the site. You'll see required street trees which are separate as a landscaping requirement as well as lots um and SEM storm water control measures. Um I just wanted to go through a few of these just to show this is an example of both the street type.
Um so this is the neighborhood two street type which on street parking. Um it featured units uh and units with driveway access. One of the street sections is that they um do not permit uh both on street parking on both sides of the street at the same time. Right? We're trying to decrease the amount of time that pedestrians spend in the ride ofway. So you have the two travel lanes and then
you have the the one uh bump out for on street parking, right? Really trying to reduce our lane width and reduce the amount of time that people spend uh in car centric areas. Um, additionally, this is a a pictorial representation of what the RD2 compact option would look like when incorporated within a neighborhood. It's a cottage a cottage court style development.
So, you'll see that instead of the one unit, they have six um they are smaller units um at capped at,200 ft um or an 800 uh square footprint. Um, you'll also see those the the the same uh street type running north, neighborhood two, and neighborhood one is running to the south. Uh, and lastly, this is just what an example of an RD3 housing option might look like. Um, so you'll see that it is, I think, a stacked multiplex, so eight units, four on the top, four on the bottom with one of those being income restricted uh at 80% um for 30 years.
And that is also with the in one or neighborhood one street type. Uh and that being said, I think that's it for me and I'll pass it back to Bo. Yeah, Bo B's back. He'll be more efficient at this time.
Um so just going to go run through a few issues uh for discussion. Um so in terms of the mapping of course uh we're proposing the uh proactively reszoning and implementing the place type map through the zoning districts. Uh this does entail densification within the urban growth boundary as um talked about earlier. A lot of that is accomplished through the uh RD but it's also uh accomplished through the mixeduse districts which allow greater densities in the TOAS.
So, uh, that was one I talked about earlier where a lot of the uponities were occurring. You know, it's in places like I said that currently allow residential, but they have density limits. Um, I'm speaking of many of our shopping centers. Uh, just one thing to
note, um, because it's not one to one, right? There's different zoning districts that uh, may meet the place type map. You all deal with this couple times a month, right? When um, thinking about uh, sort of a mixed neighborhood, right?
there's, you know, so therefore RX3 or potentially RX5 or RD could all um meet that place type. The example we've got here, there's multiple CX zoning districts that may be appropriate for a TOA. Um so sort of to the conversation earlier, CX3, CX5, CX8, CX20. These are all mixed use.
These are all uh transit oriented developments uh just with scale of intensity. And so um we we have done our best uh both um from a a mapping logic standpoint and from an engagement standpoint of of trying to um right size but there is some um very certainly some variability. Uh just to note the legislation that was referenced uh a couple hours ago um December 24 there was a limitation
placed on local government um in terms of uh the the downzoning of non-residential properties. Um this is something that we are uh currently fleshing out in terms of the administrative section. Um but what it does mean is that the new UDO will uh will not apply to existing non-conforming uses or existing non-conforming situations and that it would uh apply to new development. It also means that there are instances uh where um a development or a property may have um a current right to construct it at particular height or a particular density that we would not propose the reduction of.
So, and I'll just I guess to get the details of of the example we've got here. >> And the map you just showed. Yeah. So, the map shows those darker or whatever different color. Those are the those are the essentially the uh the uh mixed use districts >> the Y and downtown.
>> Yeah. Just that example there, you know, it points at sort of the the height caps for CX3 or CX-5 currently. if you've got a uh maybe a CC district or CG, you might be able to build to a particular height, uh the CX3 would would be a a down zoning from that height standpoint. And so there's um we've gone through and and adjust to that.
And so that that's sort of the justification for why we've chosen um a particular district where it looks like there may be um multiple multiple that would work. Uh this slide's really just and this was I think a discussion that we had at JCCCCPC as well, but you know there sort of a misnomer that uh after the adoption of of this new UDO that there would be no subsequent um resoning requests or there would be no more public hearings. Um I'll just first state that uh there's no changes to public hearing process. If anything, there's uh the new UDO includes additional notification requirements um and and the same requirements. I also note that over half
of the resonings that you all are hearing um today are all related to annexations. Um those same annexations would still require resonings and they would still go before the same process and you all would have the same legislative authority. Um, as talked about earlier, obviously new schools, places of worship, and government facilities, those would all require resonings. Um, that is currently not the case.
Um, so in some ways there may be an increase in resoning requests. And then obviously there's a a significant portion of the resonings that um, you see today that you would continue to see just due to applicants wishing to develop differently than what the current zoning allows or what the current place type envisioned. Um, and and we thoroughly expect that to continue. Are you saying the new UDO will not take away our ability to still legislate this process?
>> You will still have the same legislative authority. >> Thank you. >> Uh just briefly, all of the uh content
is available online at engaged Durham. In addition to all the content, there's a a plethora of engagement materials that we put together through um our engagement events, um our presentations and memos to um joint city county planning committee. I will also um give a a plug for our code connects which uh our consultant code studio will walk through in detail. uh much lengthier and even more boring than the dense uh presentation you've seen so far in terms of going through uh each component of the ordinance and explaining um the requirements.
And so for for you all others that are interested u you know please uh go to the website and and feel free to watch these. Um the last thing that I'll say um you all you know we're here to support you. We're here to uh draft what you all want to see and what the comp plan or the adopt comp plan um states. So if you have questions um and you want to meet with us individually or as a
group small group um we are open to that and I I thoroughly encourage that as it is a a large dense document and it's difficult to uh respond to all questions uh in this forum. So that that's it and thank you all. >> Thank you. Well, we had our share of questions during, but are there any additional >> colleagues?
Yep. >> Thank you so much. Um, and congratulations on making it to where we are. It's a big This is a big deal.
This is a generational change. Um the UDO shapes the city that we live in and um we will leave the city that we build to future generations just as we inherit the city that that was built um that that we live in today. And uh every little tweak matters. I mean, we're we're in a zoning district right now.
Um uses are applied to this spot. Um dimensional standards were applied at the time that something was was built. You know, it it affects everything and
it's it's a big deal. Um so a few questions. One is what hap so right now we get some we'll get like a zone reszoning with a development plan sometimes. Um what happens to that?
Do we still have development plans? >> So you >> uh yes we will still have development plans. Um the applicant would just have the ability to make such commitments or limitations. >> Okay.
Um so so like in a scenario where let's say we have 30 to 40 or 50 acres of an aging mall or um strip center or something like that and there's a desire to to redevelop it and a plan is created uh between the community and also the land owner. How would we make sure that the developer carries out that plan? Would
they reszone to like a CX something with a development plan? >> Highly spec. Yes, you it would most likely be reszone CX and I don't know the which particular uh grade. Um but yeah, if they uh as a I guess part of part part of why I'm hesitating so much many of the shopping centers, certainly the ones that are or the ones that are placed type to TOA um were proactively uh recommending CX zoning. um if they uh wanted to redevelop um and it was a different district or maybe a higher level CX for example um then a development plan would be uh an option for them and obviously that would be a way to commit to various requirements or you know things that have been discussed with community. >> Okay.
Okay. And so there's been a lot of organizing on certain major sites throughout the city. One example being Northgate Mall. It's one of these interesting situations where the existing zoning regulations are old and random and um there are issues with it.
But one reason why the neighborhood and the community have been able to have any say whatsoever is because of one little strange little provision or lack thereof. How are we going to I know that that's some you maybe don't need to answer that right now, but that's on our radar screen and we're working on it. That's all I need to know. >> Yeah.
Yeah. I think uh using that site and there's nothing unique about that site as it relates to um this provision but there's a a maximum height that um they can develop too I insinuated or I referenced earlier about you know certain height regulations the new districts that would be applied and how they would they expect to be consistent or obviously they could be greater. Um, so that was
uh one of one of the sites that I was thinking of. >> Do you uh think that there are provisions or or elements of the draft UDO of this and we're going to change it to land development code, right? Um that incentivize gentrification. I think that um the UDO is uh baking or there's definitely as it's proposed um more opportunities for in infield development um and smallcale uh commercial um and so those two you know infill residential small scale commercial I think at times can certainly uh could could contribute to elements of gentrification idea >> has that um Has that framework been something has that lens been something that we've been looking through as we've been going through the drafting in an attempt to one add tools that would
limit gentrification or two not add fuel to the fire of gentrification? >> Sure. I mean, I I think uh to to really answer your question, I think we need to talk a little bit about specific uh what gentrification means or what components are because obviously through zoning by itself, right? Like it's just it's a regulatory framework.
Um I think there's a whole lot more uh efforts that are not related to zoning or not related to the code at all. Um would be the way to really mitigate those. And then how do we make sure that in you know we've we've annexed 7,188 acres since 2017. That's half the area of Manhattan. How do we make sure that in what land remains in the county that that get gets annexed into the city that we are growing in a not in a more sustainable way that's not completely 100% carentric. Council member Baker, much of the presentation we talked about today talked about the uh sustainability requirements that the new UDO would
include as well as the street hypologies with complete streets. And so much of that is to address uh the requirements for many of those developments that have been annexed. >> But they could still there could still be a development that has a large that's 100% single family homes. So we uh the current draft would allow um more than single family, right?
Expanding when two family would be permitted um for sure, but it would still be legal for a developer to to build single family. >> Okay. So we this doesn't solve all of our all of our issues. This isn't a um you know, set it and forget it.
this is uh some additional tools and some changes and then we still need to stay focused on making sure that we're making good decisions. Um, so Council Baker, if I will just to further um better answer that question. We there is a planned district that is included that we didn't go over here
because it's actually requires a base district which is one of the others and a site of a certain size um as they come forward with a reasonzoning uh with a development plan. It would be a plan district and that plan district would require a mix of housing. So, so yes, it would be uh potentially legal if there was a 101 acre site that was zoned RD for um 100% single family, but the the sites that would be proposing the resoning or annexation we'd anticipate would be a play district. >> I have a um long list of kind of additional and more in the weeds comments.
not going to bring those up today because uh it's been a long meeting, but I do want to just bring up what I'm so excited about. So, I've been advocating for a new EDO since I joined the planning commission in 2018. Would have loved it back then, but I'm glad that it's happening now. This is so so important. We are changing overhauling the DNA that shapes the
world that future generations will live in that we will live in. Um you talked about the accessibility and readability of the document. That's not a small deal. That is a huge deal.
Um it is the current document is so confusing, so difficult to access. Things are located in strange places. Um and the document that you're presenting today is just going to be I mean it's like democratizing this whole process. It's going to be so much easier for people ordinary people to open it up and understand where things are supposed to be and and understand uh the rules.
Um so I'm very excited about that. I'm excited to get away from the tears which um which reinforced our monocentric thinking and moving toward a more polyentric uh framework of growth. Um even just building orientation, the existing regulations essentially put the building back in the middle of the parcel and surround it with parking. And this does the exact opposite and brings buildings up to the sidewalk and parking behind. And that is a massive change. Um
better street design. and you showed us two crosssections um that'll go in uh as we you know continue to work on the um you know the other uh work that we're doing on streets. Um I think uh sustainability standards incentives that that's huge that matrix that you presented that's a that's a big piece that we don't have today. um design standards.
We have barely any design standards outside of the design districts today. And now this will be more broadly applied across across the city to benefit pedestrians and transit riders and people on their feet, not just in their cars. Um I'm excited about the quasi judicial hearings moving to to legislative. I think that's important.
I think quasi judicial hearings are there's a place for them, but they're strange and pretty inaccessible to people. um neighborhood scale nonres non-residential that is huge. Um trying to weave in kind of the daily needs that
people have into the neighborhoods that people live in um in a in a contextually compatible way. Um and I will also just say I'm I'm I'm actually happy with the engagement that's that's been done so far. Um it's pretty robust for a code process. Um most places just are happy with the engagement that they did their comp plan and then they do the code.
Um but you all have done a lot of work and of course the hardest part is in front of us here in January, February and through the adoption process. So um those are those are things I really want to celebrate and lift up. Um this is a really big deal. Um, we should, if there are big things, we should work on those immediately.
Um, and not save those until the very end. Um, and and talk it out, uh, Council Member Caviierro, and try and try and find a place where we are all satisfied. Um, and then I will, you know, I have a long a long list of of other other items that I'm interested in talking with you all about from
short-term rentals to data centers. and um we'll look forward to having those conversations with you >> colleagues. Council member Brist. >> Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. Um yeah, first of all, like thank you so much for all the work that's gone into this. This is a massive amount of work. Appreciate the work you've done, consultants, the engagement process.
Um and appreciate that ultimately like the details matter so much here. I know there's a lot to pour through, but this is a amazing body of work and appreciate that. Um I'm glad that Council Baker celebrated so many good things about this. I think there are a whole lot of things to like here.
I love the creativity trying some new things when the the the things we have on the books of density bonuses have not been working. So trying some new things and that we'll keep evolving that. So appreciate that. I'm also glad you clarified that with like we love our resoning hearings, right?
We love doing those. So glad to clarify that those are going to continue. We're not going to that's not going to end in the city of Durham. Um I have a bunch of questions too. I'm just let me just ask one that's that's in the details or in the weeds and that is we because we went through this pretty quickly but there is a new zoning district that we're calling manufactured home park right can you
tell me how we define manufactured home >> yeah we it'll be >> and if it's yeah if it's we can also if you want to do we can do this offline as well I'm just because I know there's different there's there's modular homes there's homes there's different kinds of ways we can and I know I guess the reason I bring this up is that that manufactured homes as they're done now. This is we're not talking about the old school like pre76 old mobile homes. Manufactured homes done well can be a very efficient way and affordable way to de deliver housing. And I noticed that that we only allow um I think manufactured housing in a couple of >> districts.
So like is this not a tool that could be one way we can build housing more efficiently and more affordably and should we not allow that in all over the city? Council member >> because in some ways because you know folks again there's a lot of misconceptions about manra housing. The ones built today are probably indistinguishable from stickuilt housing. Right. So it's a it's a source of housing that is actually could be one that we want to look at as a way to create more affordable and efficient
home. >> Yeah. Yeah. So manufactured home um so modular would be considered stick built >> right because that's built on site.
Sorry manufactur is like factory built. >> Yeah. So we had this conversation just yesterday actually in terms of you know our current code manufacturing homes are limited to uh a park or um an RR and so yeah that we're certainly uh sort of looking at that and trying to consider you know again that's why we're here right feedback from you all if you want to expand it because we do we do know that that would be a a potential option for additional affordable >> love to talk more thanks >> Cook. Um, yeah.
I just want to appreciate y'all. This is a lot of work that goes into this. I also want to appreciate that we have a city planner on council and I thank you for just being on this council with you for the past couple of years has been a real learning experience for me. Um, so I just want to appreciate all the work I know that you put into it as well. And um, and you also mentioned a couple things that you actually like helped format in there which is really impressive. Um, so just
lots of work. Um, I I am curious. I didn't really feel like we got an answer to Council Member Baker's question, so I'm just going to ask it again, which is the question of whether we developed tool or we developed this with a anti-displacement framework, whether that was a priority when we were looking um at this new UDO. >> So, so the the tools for anti-placement, anti-displacement are really outside the realm of of zoning.
And so really just you know these are the regulations for development and how we expect or would expect uh a particular property to to grow and develop. So um there's all types of other uh you know factors that go into uh the displacement that uh through zoning alone um are very limited. Um, >> yeah. I mean, I understand the limitations and and I'm not trying to like say anything about this, but I mean, we we talk about like the power of even numbers, right? If you're having a conversation about like race and
displacement, uh, how you present numbers even can impact that conversation. And so like I know that zoning isn't the end all be all, but certainly there are impacts in like the language that we use and the and the um the outcome that we're sort of looking for. And um so I just do want to make sure that that is a priority because it's a priority for me and also that like we are taking all this amazing community engagement that we did and like having something that reflects back that that engagement was like utilized in the process. um and being able to like sort of communicate that back to uh to folks who did engage. So that feels really important to me too. Um and I do have some more questions and mainly I'm kind of interested in I know that other cities in the in the state are doing are doing uh uh displacement analyses um on their uh on their redistricting as
part of their like application process. and I am curious about adding some of that in. Um so that's just something that I'll follow up with you. Just want to appreciate all of that work and um yeah, I know colleagues that were like very divided on um housing and affordability.
Um this isn't like something that's unique to Durham. uh this division exists all across the country and um and I know that some of us have really really strong feelings about it and um and they I hope all come from good places. Um we are going to have to find some some middle ground and that is just what that's going to have to look like and we've got a few months where we really have to like dig deep and have those serious conversations and we're going to have some long nights here and that's that because this is a this is a big document. land use impacts all of us.
It impacts the way that the city runs. It impacts every single one of our residents. Uh and we owe it to them to sit here and have those conversations. We were all elected and um and we all represent an important
voice and we really need to find some middle ground. So um just want to say that I'm like I know none of us are looking forward to it, but I am in it for the long haul. Um ready to have those conversations. I know we're already tired, but it's only January.
So, um, I hope everyone is ready to do that and, um, looking forward to having those conversations. Thanks. >> Good afternoon. I know I've been very quiet because I love to let the stars shine and do their thing.
Um, I wanted to take a second to address, I think, a really important point that Council Member Cook has brought up about the displacement analysis. We did do a version of that with a comprehensive plan and I think that we could we're going to try my staff behind me is probably like we're going to do what? Um we're going to try to overlay that against the map that you saw with like the change in density kind of see how that lines up to essentially update that displacement analysis to look at what it might look like now with the new district. So I think that is something we can do for you all
>> colleagues. Any other comments? I'll come to you last time. >> I'll just say thank you to staff for your work on this.
Thanks to my colleagues for engaging in this. I am very much looking forward to digging into this further with you all in the coming weeks and months to get this at a place that really serves our communities and reflects our values. So, thank you all. >> Thank you.
Council member Go ahead, May Pro. >> Thank you. I just first want to so I am now the only council member who's been up here through a comp plan uh adoption uh now through UDO. Uh one thing I do want to remind colleagues at the count county commission also get to approve.
We are not the only voices in this uh and their voice is critical and I I will go back and watch their work session. They heard this on Monday night. um joint city county um joint city county planning committee is made up of both county commissioners and council members
and so we have had the opportunity to hear some of those voices in those conversations. I encourage uh council colleagues to go back if you have the time to watch. We've had some really great robust hard conversations at JCCPC with our county uh county commission colleagues. So I really encourage folks as we are um uh moving towards this uh I also want to say that the goal is to do adoption by June.
Uh the longer that our rules are not enforceable and not tied to our comprehensive plan I think it puts us at a disadvantage a very large disadvantage. So I will be pushing everyone uh to get their questions in to have their moments of however I didn't like this part but overall I'm okay with it. We are not going to love everything. There's a lot that it was shown today that I'm deeply proud of and I'm really really thankful for staff. And then there's other parts that I have, you know, some concern around around like how is that going to actually affect uh the the amount of units that we get in the ground. Um and that's going to be
the case for all of us. So, uh happy to have conversations with all of you. Um I am not a planner. Uh I'm not a housing expert, but I have been doing this job for a long time.
Um, and I came into this with some awareness and and understanding of of of housing and development. Uh, even though it's at a high level, um, I I want to thank staff. This was an incredible process. I have had conversations with residents from other community.
I'm thinking of the folks who came for the dark sky initiative. A lot of those residents were from Chapel Hill and they were able to utilize your office hours, uh, ask a lot of questions of you. People have set up extra meetings, following up with residents, the language access piece of this, the types of different demographics of folks that was presented to us yesterday in the engagement update at JCCCPC. It's incredible work and I think it's a reflection of the long work that this city has done around equity and we're going to keep saying that word in the
city of Durham. It's a commitment that many councils have made prior to us that we will continue to do. And it's a commitment that city staff has done in planning, in engagement all across the city to serve our residences to the best of our ability. And so I just am always so proud of what we do and how we do it.
And planning is just super responsive. It's a lot of folks don't understand land use. And so you have to meet people really where they're at. and I'm incredibly proud of of planning staff and and just the response that you've given to community and I know that there's still a lot to do but um we're going to get there and I look forward to uh voting yes on this when we get there.
Thank you. >> All right. Well, of course, again, thank you staff. This is a very dense and complex document, but I want to thank you for the colors in the document.
I I it's the simple things. Thank you. It's it it gives it a little personality. Uh also, I want to thank
you for the uh the um the acronyms. They're they're closer to the actual um you know, the wording. I appreciate it. It's a much more inviting document to to read.
I am uh very black and white when it comes to, you know, the ability to live. You know, I I like to have foundational documents to be black and white. We can get mushy on top of that, but um you know, I I want to be very careful of trying to um I I look at, you know, affordability, you know, as very subjective. And I I think that to the extent that we can, you know, affordability through design is providing the option for there to be, you know, affordable options. Um, but I don't know if our UDO is going to be able to dictate, you know, the wages that someone may has or, you know, or where they live in town. Uh, I don't know if a the UDO can actually dictate
um, you know, the the differentiation between gentrification and revitalization. But I think that you know uh not causing one and encouraging the other is very important and I think that that's also going to come within our decisions. Um I want to be very matterof fact in our UDO. I don't want it to be symbolic.
uh and I understand you know the the you know the the the the focus on those issues that we talked about earlier but also at the same time you know I there there is a basic very matter of fact that you know the more options you have to provide for more people then the the more accessible it's going to be but the more exclusive it is then the more expensive it's going to be you cannot ignore that you know uh so um for me I I I just want to be very very matter of about it and and I'm looking forward to that. There are a lot of things in this that I really really really do like. Um and you know I think that it will be up to us and when it
comes to you know policy decisions that we make in other areas um to help mitigate some of the factors that that you know um helps determine what's affordable and what's not. But I don't want to say this unit is affordable, but I'm going to charge you on the back end in other ways to makes everything else more expensive and call it affordable housing. Um, so if someone takes a base option and build all of that and you know that if it's legal, they it's on them. But I don't think that's what's going to happen if if building more benefits them and us and the end user, the resident.
uh and and so providing these options. Um I I can appreciate that. Um this is again a very big document and I appreciate the time that's gone into it. Um it one thing I hope we do as policy makers is we take ourselves out of it. We take ourselves out of it and think about the people that we're representing. Um there are people who still want to be able to
own a home. you know, there are people who want a single family home and and I think it does matter where it is, you know, and if you want a single family home inside the city, then you're going to pay for it. Uh you cannot ignore that the most valuable real estate starts in the middle and goes out. If it's the other way around, then we've done a really bad problem with sprawl.
I also know that there are people that still want to drive. They don't want to wait. Now, I mean, you're not going to have bus rapper transit in suburban Durham. Uh so I know that you know uh we we can we can build with interest trajeing in a particular direction but I I want to be very realistic and very practical of where we are now and not harm the people who are living here now and making it uncomfortable for them but also you know just encourage a direction these street designs.
I mean New York and DC does it they do it already and and it's an amazing experience and I hope that we can do that here. We have some interstates going through the city, making them in Roxboro, Duke and Greg. We have some really good test subjects
we can we can redesign those streets on. U but yeah, I just appreciate you all making this document more accessible, helping us understand that. Um we don't have to be experts to make decisions on these. We have to be policy makers and that's what we are.
And that's why I hope that we can have a deep dive philosophical conversation amongst us. uh so that we're able to hear one another and get you know find that um I don't know if it's middle ground. I think it's more so what works for the constituency and so um I think that will be a representation of all of us and we are a representation of the people of this city. So that being said thank you all thank you colleagues this was rich and I look forward to us continuing the conversation and at this time we can settle the agenda.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I have items uh consent items 1 through 18, GBA public hearings items 20 through 22. >> All right. Entertain a motion.
>> It's been moved the properly second to settle the agenda. All in favor? >> I. All oppose.
All right. Thank you so much. One last thing. Bye.
>> Thank you, colleagues. Um, I need to request an excused absence for the um Monday meeting, the first Monday meeting in February. Um, I think it's a second. Second.
>> Yeah, February 2nd. That's all. Thank you. >> Uh, I move that we grant and excuse absence for you.
>> All right. Moved and properly seconded. All in favor? >> All right.
All opposed. All right. Thank you all so much. Um, enjoy your week. Your week. That way.