Joint City County Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning everybody. Going to go ahead and get started here. Uh Chair Jacobs uh is going to be a little bit late so we're going to get started. Um so let's begin with uh roll call. Chair Jacobs, Vice Chair Baker here, Mayor Prom Cabiro, Planning Commissioner Shagaris here, Commissioner Lee here, Council Member Copek here. Commissioner Valentine here.

Thank you. Are they Are there any adjustments to the agenda? None. Okay. Approval of the minutes. Are there any motions? I move approval. Second. Minutes are approved. Uh, city and county managers priority items or I'm sorry, announcements.

Good morning. I would like to take a moment of personal privilege and introduce Erlene Thomas to you all. Many of you know her. She has recently been promoted to assistant director and will be taking over the majority of the portfolio that assistant director Bo Derrinsky handled. Bo is moving over to take care of the portfolio that our uh recently retired assistant director Grace Smith had. So um you may be seeing Erlene from time to time. I just want to congratulate her and let you all know of her in this new role. Thank you. Congratulations, Arlene.

Uh, city and county managers priority items. Good morning. Um, thank you for having me. Um, the city does not have any priority items this morning. Welcome back. Thank you. And none from the county. Right. Great. Thank you all. Um, all right. We're going to move into We are ahead of schedule. Election election of officers.

Yes. So, normally someone will go ahead and make a motion. I think we typically do chair first and then we'll do vice chair. Any nominations for chair? I move that Nate Baker be the chair of the the committee.

Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. All against any motions for vice chair make a motion that uh councilwoman Caviierro mayor prom county county oh that's right city okay

so normally we have got the practice has been it's not codified but the practice has been um whoever you know it rotates so that everyone gets a chance um so I think you have you it would be you next for the county so if you were following that practice it would be make a motion that uh uh Dr. Lee, you may vice chair of the committee. Second motion in a second. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. All those against. Right. Congratulations uh to us. [laughter]

All right, moving on. Uh so let's go with um our first item, item six on the agenda, access to parks, open space, trails, and recreation. Good morning everybody. Uh my name is Jay Buds, planner with the planning development department. Glad to be here present to you all for the first time. Um I'll be giving a presentation on access to parks, open space, trails, and recreation. So essentially, we're here to provide an update about a comp plan policy. And the comp plan policy 103 reads, "Ensure that all residents living within the urban growth boundary are within a safe 10-minute walking distance to public park land." Along with the along with the comp plan policy, there were implementation items that were created to essentially achieve those policies and the action items support those policies. And this implementation item reads for policy 103, work with Durham Parks and Recreation to define and complete the following. So essentially want to have a specific criteria of what is a safe 10-minute walk and DPR has provided that outline and that definition. And next want to have a specific qualification of what qualifies as public parkland. And lastly DPR has created a public park a public parkland walkshed map. And I'll turn it over to Austin.

Good morning everyone. Austin Bowman. I'm a senior planner with Durham Parks and Wreck and I've been working on this item with Jay. So, I'm going to walk you through these criteria that we worked together to come up with. To do this, we looked at both the citywide comprehensive plan as well as the recently adopted Durham Parks and Recreation Comprehensive System Plan to create a definition that we can uh use to help us assess this policy and progress that we're making as we're implementing the comp plan. So, for what qualifies as public parkland, this is a little different. Um, if you'll remember, the parks and recreation comprehensive system plan looks solely at DPR facilities and parks, right? Because we're only responsible for those. We can only affect change within our own system. But for this item, we kind of went with a broader definition because, as you all are well aware, there are a lot of players um in the city and the county that are also providing access to public parkland. So, um, to qualify as public parkland, um, there must be consistent public access. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be open every day, 24 hours a day, but that the access is posted, that people are well aware, and that it's consistent. The parkland must be operated and maintained by a public agency or a nonprofit. And non-developed parkland must have public plans for development and include public access. And when we say development, that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to put a parking lot in and a playground, but just that there is some intentionality between making that publicly accessible recreational land. Uh in the context specifically of DPR, we're really focused on two main types of land. our current park space which is land that we control that's already been developed and it's currently maintained by DPR and our partners and future potential park space that's land that can and will be developed and maintained by DPR as a park in the future. This is

not an exhaustive inven that doesn't provide an exhaustive inventory of land. There are other agencies in the county such as state parks, um, triangle land conservancy, eno river association, lerby creek watershed association among others that are providing accessible open space, but DPR's focus is really on those two areas. So, uh, criteria for a safe 10-minute walk, and there's actually a bullet that fell off of here that is in your memo. So, the first thing we're looking at is traffic volume and speed. Making sure that the roads that people are walking along to access our parks are comfortable and that people feel safe even if there is supportive infrastructure. And a lot of that comes down to traffic volume and speed. Um, availability of pedestrian safety measures such as signalized crosswalks, bike lanes, and other pedestrian oriented roadway interventions. That could be speed tables, other traffic calming measures. And then the the bullet that fell off of here um which is pretty important one um direct access from the ride ofway into the park via a sidewalk trail or path. So those parks need to be directly accessible or that parkland needs to be directly accessible from the public right of way. One thing we did want to take this opportunity to highlight is since the citywide comprehensive plan was adopted, the uh Durham Parks and Recreations System Plan was adopted. And that plan has slightly different access standards than just the global 10-minute walk for all residents. And part of that is born out of the fact that the parks comprehensive plan is a 10-year plan, right? So, it's a shorter planning horizon than the citywide comprehensive plan. And so it has to be a little more cognizant and in tune with the operating realities that we have. Um I think the other piece of it is recognition that

the city is currently not in a place where um a 10-minute walk for all residents is really feasible there. It's not just a question of parkland. We could always add more parks, but there's a huge component to this, which is supportive infrastructure to get people to parks, bike lanes, sidewalks, transit stops, transit routes, right? So, it's not just about pouring new parks into the system. It's about trying to find some alignment with providing infrastructure to get to existing parks and making sure infrastructure is in place to get to those new parks so that it's actually achieving this goal. So the standards that were that are in the adopted parks and recreation system plan are on your screen. So it's based on um growth patterns and definitions. So in urban areas that would be our urban core the goal is a 10-minute walk. In a suburban area that would be the access standard is 10-minute drive. In our rural areas it's a 15minute drive. So the rural areas would really be pretty much everything outside of the urban growth boundary. And uh part of the reasoning for that is if you look for example at let's say the Eno River State Park, if you map what's accessible within a 10-minute walk to any entrance to the Eno River State Park, there are no residents. There are barely any residents that live within a 10-minute walk. But there are thousands of residents that live within a 15-minute drive. and that park wasn't necessarily designed with the intention that it would be a walkable destination versus um vehicular accessible. So, just real quick, something that we are that Jay and I are working on and we're also working with our partners in the county. the um the walkshed map that is in your memo does not include some it was brought to our attention it does not include some lands that are publicly accessible and would meet the criteria

that are operating with the county. So we're working with the county as well as our other partners to get those lands in our inventory and update that walkshed map. I can tell you most of those additional facilities are in more rural areas of the city. So it does not significantly expand our walkshed area. um they mostly the the walkable area is pretty much along the main access road. It doesn't reach into neighborhoods. Um and some of those are on the screen for you. So the I guess the the so what here is we're trying to get to a place where we're being a little more nuanced and that level of service and access to parks is going to be impacted the further out you travel from the urban core of the city at least in the short term. Right? We're not in a place where it's necessarily realistic to expect those high levels of access in the more rural and sparse parts of the city and the county. The 10-minute walk is more achievable within the urban growth boundary. And we're also um looking as part of the open space plan process that'll be kicking off soon to help define the role um non-developed open space can play in expanding access to public parkland beyond traditional parks. We recognize that this is not there are multiple ways to go about this. There are multiple facilities that we can provide access to that offer different experiences and we want to make sure that we're offering a diversity of experiences but also offering experiences that are true to the community that they are in and the land that those experiences will be had on. So I think that's it and then Jay and I can take any questions you have. Thank you both so much. Any questions, comments?

Thank you. And I first want to apologize for being late. I don't know how much [laughter] information Sarah. Okay. I got locked out of my house this morning. [laughter]

And the key was not where it was supposed to be. [laughter] Um so I apologize and I so I missed the election. I I want to just take a point of privilege to say um congratulations to our new chair and vice chair. And I also just wanted to thank everyone um for the past year of having the honor of serving as chair and to say thank you to all the members of the commission for I think really important conversations that we've had over the past year. I appreciate everyone's input and also just to thank the staff because you all have been amazing and there are so many requests that we have given you for information um that were not on the agenda that you came back with right away. So, thank you so much. Um Aaron, I also want to say welcome back to you seeing you sitting over there. Um I um so I have a number this is great. I I do have a number of questions. Um so this will be adopted into the comp plan. I mean I'm sorry into the h how will this be adopted like in the UDO will for instance when there are new developments being planned or you know things like that like how just on a practical level will this have an impact?

Sure. So, um, we've been talking with Sarah, um, and I think one immediate or or short-term step is to bring some alignment between the park system plan and the comp plan, which would entail basically taking our access standard that would that is more newly adopted and moving that over to the comprehensive plan. So, those things are no longer in conflict with one another. Um, I can't speak much to how we could codify this. I'm not entirely sure that we could, Sarah. Yeah, I I think where the trying to practically apply this in developments is going to come into play is through a new process that we're trying to set up where parks and brack um looking at as development cases come through like is this a prime location where we are looking to you know fill in the gap um where their plan has identified a need for a space. uh they're working through that process now. So I don't want to get ahead of myself and I think maybe we can have you back when that process is solidified.

Yeah. Yeah. Um to Sarah's point, we are working on a um what will be hopefully a publicly accessible tool, meaning the public can access it, developers can access it, you'll all have access that kind of articulates based off of the comprehensive plan and the park system plan where our high, medium, and low priority areas for investment. Um that material is making its way through the recreation advisory commission hopefully this month or next month. Um and we are happy to come back and present that once it's been endorsed.

Okay. Because it I mean that that's to me is what the key one of the key parts is, right? I if we can incorporate this into the comp plan and then in the in the UDO um so that when projects come up this is part of what happens and I know we have amazing I'm our leaison to BPAC and just you know they have a development review very active um so just making that part of what we do um the other question I have is um you know when looking at the criteria what comes to mind is well if you're talking about access then we need to be looking at what are some of the gaps that can create more access key key parcels and you know you and I have taken a walk [laughter] recently on on something that involves that um and then also related to parking so if we're looking at um think you know that 10-minute drive is also the criteria then okay if you have a 10-minute drive well but is there adequate parking or where are people going to be parking um if it's a 10-minute drive and that also is related to what we recently looked at um so h how are you thinking about those things

yeah so it's a great question um I think really the next step is now that we have that block shed map and kind of those criteria that we have defined as for what is public park land, what is safe access, we then can zoom in and say okay so everything in this walkshed where are their gaps and that could be a combination of looking at NC DOT data as well as working with transportation department to look at some of the work they're doing is updating uh the bikew walk plan and then we can also generate from based off of where the land is and what tier it would fall in for access. We could do the same thing at kind of each tier, which is apply the access standard to the land as it relates to this and then zoom in on those and make sure there aren't any gaps or if there are what they are and figure out the solution to either parking or the direct access. I think, you know, especially as we get out of the urban core, there are a lot of parks that maybe have direct sidewalk access in, but that sidewalk access in shortly after you leave that park boundary. So, there's a real argument to be made that that's not the most accessible either.

Right. And so, you just touched on something else, which is how this has to integrate with transportation um investments and planning, which also goes back to development. So, okay. Um and then [clears throat] how are how are we looking at things like trails because um you know for instance the the rail the Durham Roxboro trail planning that we're doing we're looking at things like little park lits along there um and you know you could argue that the trail itself could be considered a park a linear park. So h how are we thinking about things like that? Yeah, that's that's something that hasn't really been accounted for yet because it's more of a case-byase basis. The Durham to Roxboro Rail Trail is a great example. American Tobacco Trail is a great example of trails that serve as more of almost as destination trails, right? It's people it's trails that people really intentionally go to that almost blend that uh gray area between just a simple linear trail and more of a park feature. Um, I think what we could do is work with staff in other departments and within DPR to identify which trails those are and start to figure out ways to include them. Maybe trail heads that have public access parking could be included in the walkshed as well.

Okay. I don't see any issue with that. I think Yeah, I think I I mean I think that's a lot of communities are looking at considering linear Sure. parks to be parks. Um even being in other countries where they develop the median in the middle of roads. Yeah. And that's a park. Um so um Okay. Well, thank you so much. Absolutely. Yes. So, thank you for your presentation. You've made mention to the uh walkshed map several times. Is that publicly available? Yeah, it should be in on the last page in your memo. Okay.

Yeah. And we can also um make that available as a web map and and send that out to you all so you can zoom in a little more. I know it's kind of hard to see the entire county at that scale. Any other questions, comments?

Yeah. Um, I was just curious looking at the walkshed map and then comparing that to the trust for public lands map for accessibility and how we should think about the intersection of those and if it's possible to kind of overlay those because it it looks like the area where the greatest need for park access is in the parts of the county where we have the least walkability. Um, so how are you thinking about the intersection integration of those? Yeah. So, the the trust for public land, the park access map that they publish, um it's a little tricky because it it is taking into account more than just geographic considerations like access to parks. There are embedded demographic factors. So, um I think Sarah alluded to this earlier. The mapping tools that we're working on developing integrate a lot of the demographic data that Trust for Public Land has and then separately includes the access data so that we can look at those things independently of one another and really dive into just access as a factor of its own and then weight that oh weight that with demographic information. Um, I think the other thing to be mindful of with the Trust for Public Land is that that survey goes to multiple agencies, not just DPR, and we only report obviously the facilities that we're responsible for. So, it also does not necessarily take into account land from Triangle Land Conservancy, Equa, um, depending on if Duke responds to it, the county, the state park. So, it's also tricky to look at it yeartoear because sometimes they don't have all of the data that they need to really get at that. I don't know if that answered your question.

So, I think yes, thank you. So one, I'm hearing that, you know, be mindful that there may be some gaps in what gets reported through TPL and that they have slightly different objectives than what you're presenting and working on to to be aware of that as well.

Yeah. So I would say the criteria that we are we have developed and that is going through that process that we can ultimately bring it back here to the council is more reflective of our comp plan and factors that are hyper relevant to Durham and excludes some things that maybe aren't as practical to assess us on that they assess other cities on like Washington DC, San Francisco. It's a very different environment and we want to make sure we're doing apples to apples and making sure that the way we're assessing land is in line with our compre the system park system plan and the citywide comprehensive plan. And so DPR will take into account state parks. Yes.

You know, yeah. And those other sorts of uh public parks and open space. Yes. They are not included in our system plan as acorage that we control um in terms of how that defines our offerings to the city. But when it comes to access, we absolutely do include it. Yeah.

Good morning everyone. Um um and maybe somebody already asked this, but so I appreciate this on council. We get this a lot with resonings and so um that question on the comp plan policy and alignment. So are how are we going to marry the two? I guess because it seems like there's an and I'm a council member who's been like I don't think it's quite frankly fair to ding an applicant for policies that are set by DPR with a real acknowledgement of limitation of resources and and and that that's real. Um, and we often are asking, you know, DPR like, "Hey, can we and it's just not a priority of theirs, right? Because they're they're looking that's their their lens is not um I believe that they are the the experts on what they're supposed to be doing. And so, as a council member, I'm going to lean very heavily on what DPR is telling us uh to make my decisions because ultimately, as a council member, I'm essentially a generalist. I'm not an expert in any of these things. Um, so just curious. Thank you.

Yeah, I can tackle that one. So, uh, two things. One, through the E process, we're going to update this policy in the comp plan to match the more recent adopted policy that is in the system plan. Um, and so then our staff reports will reflect that as applicable. In addition, um Austin mentioned briefly that you know they're developing this tool through by which in the development review process for a reasoning case we they will be able to assess and give us information about you know is this you know a prior high priority, medium priority, low priority does it meet the criteria that they've established so that they can give us a more clear like yes or no. We will figure out we have we don't have all the details worked out yet, but we will figure out how to capture that in the staff report for you all.

Thank you. I appreciate that. That's helpful information. Um I guess secondly, and this has come up with a few of our cases. This is really park, but it is around open space. And I've raised it a couple of times. When we have and when we passed the place type map, we knew that this was going to be broad and it wouldn't be the details of a um a specific reasoning, but we um it's fine to say this should be open space when it's publicly held land. I cons consistently have real reservations when we have a private property owner who has not been told that their parcel has been designated open space in our place type map. And I will continue to raise that. I'm looking at attorneys. Um and so um since we were having this conversation on open space and parks, I I really want us to look at what are those larger parcels that we have identified. And while I understand that that's a priority unless unless the government has a plan on purchasing that land from those homeown or from that property owner, I don't feel comfortable with saying you can't develop this because 75% of this parcel is designated open space in our place map. So, and I may ask Scott to chime in on on how it is that we mapped the recreation open space place type. Um we have I think well Scott why don't you talk quickly about kind of the criteria that we use to identify um and then if you would how the future county open city county open space plan might amend that. There we go. So in the comprehensive plan, we we tried to balance the kind of two very important goals of preserving environmentally sensitive areas through zoning and whatever the means we have and then understanding that people have the right to develop their property and making something

green on a land use plan does not preserve that or ensure that it's open space forever. So we tried to be realistic in uh what we designated as recreation open space focusing mostly on what is um likely going to be remain in that state because of ownership whether it's done by the city state federal government and proper private property that through existing regulatory tools would likely remain undeveloped. the portions of property that were in the floodway, which is um almost all development is prohibited in the floodway. Undeveloped flood plane properties um areas that have um uh significant natural heritage areas which we typically ask applicants to preserve through the resoning process. So, we tried to avoid designating any complete property that wasn't owned by the government as recreation open space. There are some instances where that happened because the entire property is in the flood plane or the floodway or so there are a handful of properties that council member Cabiera where it is a private property and it's designated as open space. That being said, we can't, as my our attorneys are glaring at me, we can't through the regulatory process say you can't develop anything on your property. So through the zoning process, we would have to allow the new UDO process, we'd have to allow some development on those. And then as with the um open space plan, which we are very soon going to be under contract and underway on that, we'll talk about that to you next month. um we will look at those properties in particular ones that are designated open space in on the place type map to see which ones we should focus towards acquisition.

Thank you. I would say one more last thing and when you come across those in a case it's really up to you as a council member to say okay this the ideal probably would be open space but we have to allow something on this property. So it's kind of a a policy decision on you all if it is designated open space on the the place type map but the applicant is asking for something else.

Yeah. I think for me what would be helpful is and we have this I know that there I know so I was the DOS leazison for many years on council and I sat on DOS before I was a council member. Um so I think for me and we did this I know the county has an open space land acquisition fund. The city does as well as we are doing that work. If there are properties that are held in private and we see as a high priority, we need to have the money to buy them. I don't think it's fair to tell a land owner or a property owner, even if you're like, oh, 75% of this parcel is designated on this map, if we're not going to purchase it, then we should not be telling them what to do. That is my fundamental opinion. I understand that may not be popular opinion, but at least at this point, and it also just sets us up uh to have interesting conversations at levels of government I'd rather not have conversations with. Um so I think that that's the that's my main concern and we have funds and if that means that that is a decision that council also needs to make which is to increase the amount of dollars then I would rather be told you need to increase the amount of dollars. We need to find the money and give folks the opportunity to have their land purchased at a fair market value. Thank you.

And

yeah, great conversation. Um, [clears throat] I would suggest that the city um work with the county on that because um this is also a conversation Austin and I had on a recent walk because the county, you know, we have a fund that we invest, you know, half a million dollars in every year, $500,000, and that gives us the ability to respond when there are opportunities. Um it is often I will say um that land owners actually come to us and they want to put a conservation easement on their property or they want to donate land um to be protected. It um we are very fortunate. Um and so it is we've been able to because we have the funding and we have the staff and I don't know what that would look like. I know we have a very small but mighty open space um department, but um we've been able to take advantage of federal and state uh con funding for grants to be able to protect and purchase properties. So, you know, staff is also an issue, but it we have we have been able to acquire and protect a lot of farmland and open space to your point and with the development pressures in our community um and with what's going on, we have to be ready to act quickly when there is an opportunity. I so there we're we have an example here locally uh for you all to look at for this and I do strongly support that being able to do that. I I think it's a you you will I think every dollar that we have invested we've gotten at least $4 return on that. So it is a very good investment.

Yeah. And the city does have an open space, at least we did, an open space um person. Um and we have I think it's 100,000 or 150,000 that we give every year if I'm not mistaken. I don't um but I know that's not enough, right? But it was started a number of years ago. I'm no longer the DOS leaison. So maybe DOSS uh can ask that as a budget request for those folks who are the DOSS leaison now. Um and I know city of Raleigh also does a lot of land purchasing in Durham County. And the other thing I just want to mention is in terms of what is on the map, I think what's going to be important is for instance, we have two open space plans. We have the Little River um open space plan. We have the East Durham open space plan. Once you have land that has been identified for open space, then yes, it should be on our future place type map. So hopefully we're going to have those designations come out of the plan.

Not to jump a month ahead because I'll bring the open bring an update on the open space plan to you all next uh month. But that is the one of the main priorities of the open space plan to identify those areas and essentially kind of having two buckets. land that we already have in our inventory that we want to protect and then look at the privately owned land that we can evaluate through the um zoning process and then looking at land that we can acquire to protect also. So, kind of trying to build a fine line and looking at the land that we already have to ensure that it's protected, but also looking at new new land and maybe beef up that um that land acquisition budget. That's a goal. And then I'll ensure U mayor prom Cabierro that in the plan there's a fiscal analysis to look at what we need and what we already have and kind of look at how those dollars match up.

Mhm.

Great. Um so I've got a few a few questions. So one of my questions is about private open space. So when we think about the way the city has grown out, we we developed neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods had parks. Eventually, we hit a point where we started developing neighborhoods without public parks and just kind of private open space and almost like rings of a tree growing outward. That has now made it difficult to go back to the old ways and setting aside also these requirements around storm water and having an HOA um that can maintain private open space. But it would now make it difficult to uh incorporate public parks into new neighborhoods for parks, parks and recreation because now you have to sort of cross a sea of neighborhoods that don't have public parks that have private parks and so there's a there's a cost associated with that. Um so my question is so these private open spaces um how exclusionary can they be? we're not counting them. If someone shows up and they're not acting the right way, they don't look the right way to an HOA, how exclusionary can they be? And I've firsthand experience have been kicked off of a private park before um because we were meeting about we had a political meeting and it was a private park and private streets and so we were kicked out of the entire development um by private police. So, just wanted to ask that. Yeah, I I can't speak to their the actual policies because to your point, it varies by HOA and often the practice of allowing or disallowing someone is complaint driven, right? It's not posted anywhere, but if there's someone in the park, they contact the HOA. I don't like this. And then it's kind of a

personal level decision as to whether to ask those folks to leave. I can say that from our perspective when we are reviewing a development that's profering land or or attempting to provide some recreation space, we some of the criteria we're using to review that are it's pretty explicit about how it feels. So things that for example, recreational land that's in the back of a neighborhood, you have to walk through the entire neighborhood to get to in front of people's homes. that doesn't feel comfortable for homeowners and it also doesn't feel comfortable for prospective park users. So, we're trying to discourage that. Um, we're also trying to discourage profering land to the city that is pretty much unusable, that is entirely floodplane or entirely protected. Not because that land doesn't deserve to be protected, that's not the issue at hand, but calling that recreation space or an active space when we can't do anything to activate it is a little misleading. So, I think a lot of what we see in terms of practices of exclusion really comes down to where they put that land and how they activate it within the development. It's not so much a policy issue at the HOA level, if that makes sense.

Uh, and do are these private lands, do they have the private open space, do they have public access easements on them? I have no idea. I think that's up to, and Sarah can correct me if I'm wrong, that's up to the applicant. I don't think we can if it's private open space. I'm not sure that we can require them to have an access easement uh abuing it or going through it.

Yeah, that's correct. Most are private. Um, one of the things that we can look towards the future is if there are some that meet kind of the criteria but maybe are, you know, further out of the network, harder to maintain, that maybe if situationally they work, but they're of a certain size where we're okay with a private entity like an HOA maintaining them, we could entertain having a public access easement and then being, you know, kind of marketed as more open to the public but not burden DPR with their maintenance. So, we haven't really crossed that bridge yet, but I think that is one of the things that we could explore in specific situations.

Yeah, I can give you kind of an example of where we've applied that. Recently, there was an applicant with a lot of sightraints and they couldn't grant a trail easement wide enough that we could build and maintain it per our standards. So the agreement that we worked out was that they would build it, maintain it in that smaller easement, but they would put a public access easement over the entire trail profile along the entire width such that it is publicly accessible, but for their development considerations, it's no longer a burden to us to try and have to build and maintain in a in a suboptimal condition.

Okay, great. Um yeah, I think you know my dream, you know, when I was a staff planner decade ago, um we required I worked for a municipality in Texas, we required for every 100 units of in a new subdivision, you had to have 1acre park. If it was 130 units, you had to have 1.3 acres of of public dedicated park. And the requirement was had to be centrally located and everything needed to be fronting onto it. So it really made this um it was almost subjective. And when we as staff planners were looking at the subdivision, we could say, "No, you're not doing a good enough job of centralizing and really celebrating this this public dedicated parkland that the developer constructed the you know the the um the park um improvements. So, um just something to to think about. I think that's important. And I do think that if we need to strike this some sort of middle ground where we're not getting new public parkland in every new development in the future, if it has to be for purposes of maintenance and fiscal responsibility, park uh parks and recreation, some sort of private privately maintained um development that it has is at least has the standards of a public park and also has the public access easement so that you can't be excluded. ed for speech or kick off people who you just don't don't like. Um so I think that those are those are important. I think one um going back to like what's the purpose of this? I think one purpose of this is um this isn't the comprehensive plan is metrics is measuring where we are where we want to go and and the success and and how we're getting there regardless of what we do around this information. I think having this information is important. Um, and with that regard, I I am interested in this idea of shifting from kind of

looking at 10-minute walk to 10-minute drive in suburban area. Although, what are we calling the the suburban areas? Is that just anything outside of the old

That's aation. Great question. That's something we want to actively work with planning on. It is not defined just because there's not there are a bunch of different metrics that people endorse. Some people endorse population density, others endorse housing density as that criteria. That's something we're working with planning to define. And hopefully we would be once we can define whatever metric constitutes urban, suburban, and rural that can be mapped again so that there's a precise acknowledgement on your part and of the public as to where which policy or where which uh criteria applies.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah. Um because I think that's important because obviously there's a lot of land yet to be developed. Um, I don't want us to have the low standards of like 70s sprawl. Um, I want us to go back to, you know, if our goal is walkability, if our goal is actually walkability, um, in in practice, not just in, um, commentary, then I think we need to be serious about that. Um, and part of that is having the right metrics and measuring it the right way. Um, I I don't I I I actually don't love the idea of measuring it differently, like saying that we're, you know, we're having success when um we have a 10-minute drive in the suburban area. I also think that we need to acknowledge the realities. But I do want the message to to be very clear. You know, when we build in a connected, mixeduse, walkable way, uh your daily needs and desires are much closer to you and and can be more walkable. Um, so, um, just something that I'm I'm wrestling with there. I don't know if I have, you know, a clear answer or not, but

yeah, I mean, I I understand your point and I think this both the comprehensive plan and our system plan agree that that's the ideal. That's what we would love to have. I think the consultant team at the time felt like if we just strictly adopted that 10-minute walk, we were basically setting a goal for DPR that they would never be able to meet across that planning horizon. And that kind of felt unfair and like it didn't give them enough guidance as to how they need to progress to that goal. Um, I think to maybe address it more at the policy level, we DPR can collaborate with planning to figure out how that standard gets transcribed over so that it makes it clear that there are ideals that we have that we would love for you to meet, but this is more of the the bare minimum. You need to be meeting this. This is our standard, but we also have a vision and an aspirational goal of a 10-minute walk.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, if you if I could, you know, I think that another way to kind of look at this is, you know, incremental as kind of the suburban area starts to the inside the UGB starts to fill out with development, you're going to have maybe larger, sparser parks, right, at that 10-minute drive. And as that continues to urbanize over time, the parks will also fill in, eventually getting to the 10-minute walk. So, I think of it as kind of an incremental step, like we're trying to get there, but this is what we can attain reasonably um in the near future. Yes.

Thank you. I I appreciate um the all the the commentary and I know we've got more on the agenda. I would love to know like we say that and I think I've asked for this before like 10 minute like what is the how how how dense do you actually have to be to do a 10-minute like we we say that but like how many how many units have to be on the ground for like just taking any region of the city because this comes up in our resoning all the time like we we we had cases well we hear from resident well it's denser well that's the point like that's the whole point of the comp plan was anything on the inside of the UGB is going to be denser And so when we have 10 minute 15 minute I would love to know like I mean I live in a in a and I was lucky and I understand this is part of the city is mostly unaffordable now. Um I live in a community I can I can get downtown in 20 minutes on a walk. I can get to two parks within 5 minutes of my house. And that's great. How much denser would we have to be out in Southeast Durham to achieve a 10-minute city? Right? Like I think that that's I I don't think people actually un like we're does that make sense? People are coming and being like well we're not honoring the comp plan and then they're saying well we don't want density. It's like friend you're not going to get the park and the bus and the commercial if you don't have lots of neighbors around you and so how many neighbors is that?

Yeah. So that's a really great point and I think both DPR and planning would sympathize with that sentiment. Um so I think there there's two ways to kind of go about that. One is we could look at our um existing. So as part of this walkshed, each park has been assigned their own walkshed. So what we could do was look at the parks that have a larger walkshed and just get an average of housing density within that walkshed just so you could kind of understand. But it's tricky because the network that it's built off of is actually about street density. And you can have high street density but low housing density and you can have high street density with high housing density. Um, so I think that's something we can pow-wow about. I think and then get back to you. I think the other thing that we could also look at that might get to your point is on the other side of that spectrum of adding more parks is we could look at our average walkshed size and the land that is not within the 10-minute walk shed and give you kind of an estimate about of how many parks it would take to fill that gap because I think that's another piece that's not I think sometimes especially the public doesn't understand the enormity of investment and land it would take to get everyone there.

Thank you. That would be really really helpful because it's it's hard to um at least for me, you know, like I'm I I need examples. I It's I always say give me a picture to tell me the thing that you're trying to tell me. And that's quite frankly the the average user like let's be real. So, okay. Thank you.

Totally. I know this item has gone on really long, but it is really important. Um, I wanted to just I'm looking at the walkshed map and I know since we're talking about rural has been one of the criteria which is really outside of the urban growth boundary. Just to clarify the the the the end that is the goal will be to include county parks on the map and also the state land or as well just to clarify.

Yes, that's the intent. We have already gotten most of that information into the map. We are working with Celeste and county open space as well as some of our NGO partners to make sure that it's exhaustive before we publish that again. But yes, that is the intent is that the map would include both and also distinguish between the walkshed associated with DPR land and the walkshed associated with non DPR land, but they would all be on one map. Okay. Because like just looking at this like Little River is not on here. Little River Regional Park and obvious and the city and the county are collaborating on the new park in Eastm which you know that's another big need area when you look at this the south

what is it the south um you know which park I'm talking about. I I do I'm full disclosure terrible with names. Okay senior moment so it's not I want to it's not South park south. Well, anyway, it's a it's a huge park, South something. South something that the city and the county are investing in along near Falls Lake in East Durham, which is one of those park desert areas. Um, so yeah. Yeah, I think there are a couple of follow-up items that I've heard. We will include Southland. Southland. Southland. There you go. You got there before I did. Um, we will include Commissioner Jacobs wants everyone to watch out for.

Okay. Yeah. You know, so I Yeah, I think you know it's Yeah, we need to have a a complete Yeah, we'll make sure that updated map comes back to you in a follow. Okay. Thank you.

A request to just add more work on the table. Um my understanding of the place types maps is that water is marked as open space like the whole part of East Durham that is Falls Lake. There's a few other water Lake Mickey Orange factory lake and my I'd asked this previously and it I guess that ruling came down from the Biden administration that water areas should be included as the count. Is there any way to get that split up? Because unless you have a boat, you know, going out on a lake doesn't really count. So that way we could get a better feel for how much actual land we have for open space instead of land and water counting as the measurement for open space.

Thank you. So for the place time map purposes they are def the public lakes and reservoirs are designated as recreation open space and really the the primary reason for that category is to show areas in the place type map where there won't be jobs or houses because that's where we have to provide services and that sort of thing. So I think on the place type map you wouldn't having a separate category for water or lakes wouldn't help you all in your policym um deliberations. I think if it was important to you all for the analysis we do on the I think that did come from the Biden administration that you know 30% of the land in the county should be um permanently protected open space. if it was important to exclude the areas that were in water, I think that that is an option. Um, but I think what we showed, we did that analysis about a year ago, and what we showed is we we're fairly close. We still have a long way to go. Um, if we remove the lakes, then we would have even longer to go.

What is the current percentage? I mean, if 30% of the county is supposed to be preserved or whatever for open space under the Biden administration, how much of that is water? Do you guys know? Does anybody know? Don't know for sure. I don't know if we have accurate data. Um, okay. That'd be interesting to know because like I said, geography of the lakes

basically discriminating against anybody that doesn't have a boat. Great. Thank you. Um just couple other comments here. Uh then we can move on. Um unless anyone else has anything else to say, but uh I I think one of the reasons why this conversation is so important is because walkability isn't just about infrastructure and connectivity and the design of our streets. It's also about the proximity of uses to wherever you are in any given moment, particularly where you live. And parks is one of those pieces, one of those uses. Um, and in addition to parks, we need to look at many other kinds of uses. Can people walk to the grocery store? Can people um walk to their jobs or walk to trains to get to their jobs? So, I think um you know, this is one really important piece. We've got um parks and recreation here with us and and working on this and so um all of your work is appreciated. Um, the other thing I'll say is, um, I've always learned the walk shed as a five-minute walk. Um, and I know that there are two cities in the United States that have achieved 100% of residents living within a 5-minute walk. So, to me, a 10-minute walk, doubling that is is already kind of a compromise. And so, I think um that's just something that that I'm thinking about is, you know, being thoughtful about um how we are thinking about how far people will actually be willing to walk to get to to get to get somewhere. Um, I think 10-minute walk, I mean, there are a lot of other factors besides just distance. You know, five minute walk across a parking lot, people will drive. Um, but just something to to for us to be thinking about when we when we are considering how we can shift our city from vast majority of us driving everywhere to at least expanding the transportation options that people have.

Uh, Boston and San Francisco. Any other comments? Thank you guys so much. Thank you for your presentation. The next uh item here is item seven on the agenda. It's the new UDO update. Good morning. Uh Binsky, plan development uh here once again to provide an update on the new unified development ordinance. I've also got uh Lisa Miller with me and they'll assist on update on our uh engagement for the project. So you'll have seen um this slide several times. um more than several probably a dozen. Um this uh just showing how uh the project has been released and how we've engaged with uh the community and of course how how we've interacted with with you all to some degree. Um uh fall 24 uh zoning districts uh a draft of the map as well as a draft of the use table was released. uh spring in 2004, uh we released a draft of our development standards which would apply uh to all all districts. Um this past fall, uh our subdivision and infrastructure standards as well as environmental regulations were released. Um and now moving into 2026, uh we'll we'll be releasing a administration section and that'll be as a part of the full draft. So so it will not be separated out as a separate module. it'll just be included um with the full document.

There we go. Uh in regards to the adoption timeline, um this slide represents uh some specific uh milestones and meeting dates uh per your request. Um we're finishing up the completion of the draft uh now. um we'll begin uh engaging with the community and conducting outreach in regards to uh the adoption process with the community. I'll I'll defer and let Lisa speak to some of the specifics on that in a moment. Um there's a special planning commission meeting scheduled for February 24th. Uh there will be a second of the item um we expect it to be uh discussed and move forward on March 10th um with uh recommendation. Special joint public hearing with both city council county commissioners um is scheduled in April or to be scheduled in April. Uh all of this with the anticipated adoption date uh to be in in May. Uh first week in May show have a work session item going over with both governing bodies. um with the uh UDO to be adopted. I will note that um in addition to this of course uh as most of you know or all of you know um we've gone through uh presentation with county commissioners this week presentation tomorrow with with city council uh going into details of most of the project again not not entire the entire project as we're still wrapping some of it up. Um this uh project timeline um certainly with the April public hearing uh with the May work session items is contingent on um the plan commission not continuing the item. So they'll have obviously we've accommodated uh two meetings for both public hearing and and the discussion and their action but just

wanted to sort of daylight that for for you all. Thank you. At the December JCCPC meeting, I thought that there was clarification that we can basically tell planning commission that they can't continue it. I can't remember what what was

Yeah. So the December JCCPC we discussed or you all discussed um the possibility of an expedited hearing and we decided not to do that uh in lie of or you all decided not to do that um because we were able to accommodate having two meetings for a plan commission um in order to do that we would have the time schedule doesn't work uh because that would have to go before both city council and county commissioners prior to okay see I yeah I would have I was fine with the two because I was under the impression that then that's it. Like you get two, we're not continuing it. The thing needs to be adopted in June of 2026.

I I agree. If we're going to have two designated meetings for planning commission, we need still need to stick to our schedule. Um, you know, it's a really, really hard to schedule a joint public hearing with all elected officials on the city council and the county commission to get a date and now we have a date set for that. So, that date needs to be set in stone for April for the joint meeting for the elected bodies. Yeah, we at the last discussion towards the end I think the notion of instead we per staff perceived it as instead of doing the expedited hearing which would preclude planning commission from um continuing the item and and being able to discuss it more than once the notion that having the two meetings then takes that out of that realm. So we didn't proceed with that realm because those agenda items would would have had to go in January. So we don't have time to do that now. So we are now in the realm of relying on the planning commission sticking to this schedule.

Thank you. I So I I landed on the tube. Council member Baker really wanted the planning commission to hear it twice, which I was I thought that was a fair request. And so that to me the the was like that was the compromise is you get to listen to it twice but you don't get to continue it. I just want to be real clear there's going to be a lot of public pressure. Folks want this to go on and on and on and I am not okay with that. The UDO is mapping to the comprehensive plan. The UDO rewrite is not an opportunity to relitigate the the the policy adoption of the comprehensive plan because people don't like it. This has been going on. We we increased Pat Young. Pat Young's budget in I feel like 2018 or 2019 budget to get the comp plan done. We are in 2026. We need to move on as a community and be this needs to be put to bed. Uh and so I I just want to this is the space to have these conversations and I don't know what needs to happen but and I may be the only voice but then you're going to hear me very loudly from now until we adopt in June that people are manipulating this process because they don't like the outcomes. And I understand that the place that you have that conversation is in elections.

So if I could chime in and just say that, you know, legally under the UDO, we if we were to designate it expedited, they could only consider it once and not twice. And so that took that off the table. I apologize if that was not sufficiently clear last time. I I was not clear on that. So I now I understand. Um, I think that this is a good moment for um, folks to reach out to our planning commission and have conversations with them about the importance of no one wants this adopted more than staff, let me tell you. Um, but I think this is a moment where, you know, that kind of um, working together with the planning commission would be helpful.

I I I agree. I I don't I'm not concerned if if we collectively come together and this was the, you know, the compromise that that was struck. Um I think if we come together and speak to to the planning commission which we have appointed and message that this was the the balance that that we struck here and uh the expectation is that um you will make a recommendation at the March 10th meeting. I think that they will listen.

We have our representative [laughter] here from the planning commission Sarah. So, if you could make sure that you um help explain the timeline to the commission. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that on this process. And um uh no, I'll read it all myself and try to reach out to everybody and make sure that we have any questions answered before the meetings. I mean that's always we try to encourage that with people sending emails to us including anybody and the public you know please you don't have to save everything to the meeting. You can email us ahead of time. We do read the emails. We get it. We listen to it and then we can evaluate it and do our homework ahead of time and that makes the meetings more efficient and try to move through this. We have a meeting next week where I guess um this I'll I'll bring it up. The importance of doing the homework ahead of time. Um one thing I've been wondering about is why and I don't even know if this is legally possible. Why is it all just one big blob? Why can't we I mean and you only do it every five years or every Why can't you take it and put it like certain this section can be done and then the next year something you can't do it a section at a time and then that way it would be more efficient. It would be updated more recent more timely. No, it has to be one big blob.

All the different chapters speak to each other, right? There's going to be like hyperlinks in one chapter to another chapter. There's consolidation of items. Um there's really a lot of good information in in um the packet for the city council work session tomorrow if you want to take a look at that. But but um yeah, I totally understand the desire to like do one piece at a time um incrementally. But but for a UDO, part of this is making the UDO more accessible and like more democratic for for everyone. And the new UDO is going to be so much easier for ordinary people to just open up and understand than the current one. And um to do that, it all has to be at once. Well, coming from the pharmaceutical industry, there is nobody who has more paperwork to look at that relates to other things. And you have, you know, production records and you have log books and you have how to do this. And in the thing that tells you how to do something, you have a whole section where other things are referenced and those also are reviewed on an a two-year, three year. Everything is reviewed on a set schedule. It's all documented what it references to. And so everything is linked and it's all reviewed instead of just going, "Oh, hey, you have to read everything once every 5 years." I don't know. It just seems like there should be a better way to be able to do it more frequently and maintain the linkages. That's just my two cents worth.

Sure. Sure. So we don't have to worry about, you know, planning commission can't put it off or you have to read everything. Yeah. If I may, in add in addition to everything that council member Baker just said, which I agree with, um because we are implementing the place types and it requires new districts, it would be impossible to uh sort of incrementally or piece by piece because the new you couldn't you'd be referencing something that doesn't exist. So I think that's really one difference is having those new districts which in order to implement the place type map we've we have to do that um because there wouldn't be another way to translate that. So I I think that um in order to implement place time map it's the only way to do it.

All right. Well, if you can send me the link to whatever package is going to you guys. Can can we send Okay.

Could we um so this is going to be taken up February. Um maybe what we could do is get this information to the planning commission um you know as soon as possible so that you all can start looking at it now or whenever. I mean we we actually discussed it at our work session yesterday. Um no sorry Monday. Um so after the city council looks at it get it to you all so that people can start have even more time. We're talking map January, right? Um for folks to start looking at it and asking questions to your point. Yeah.

Ahead of time. Um and then my understanding is that the so the special meeting is the end of February and then the meeting the beginning of March is going to have not many items on it and it's going to be specifically for the second go at the UDO and there's not going to be other reasonzonings. I is that happening? Okay. Can you say that again? I'm sorry.

The agenda for the since the end of February is specifically a special meeting for the UDO that the March meeting is doesn't have any other agenda items on it and it's also going to be only UDO to clear up questions that were asked at the February meeting. But I mean, is there a limit on time? If there are questions on at the February meeting and then they have to be resolved by the March meeting which is only two to three weeks, is there a 30-day public notice? Is there some time a time limit or do we technically if and if that's the case then technically we have to have everything done and questions asked prior to the February meeting. I think that goes back to uh Commissioner Jacob's comment of getting everything to and all that information and your point um getting that point across to all the planning commissioners is hey look at it now um start putting together your questions and your comments start talking amongst yourselves and um submit those questions and comments um and then there you're right the timeline between the February 24th and March 10th is is tight but um it's kind of what we have to work with.

I have another suggestion. I know this is a burden for staff, but we often do this um at the county level, which is um you know, not, you know, violating the quorum for a meeting, but having the opportunity for, you know, two commissioners to meet with staff. Um so I would that's another possibility is for planning commissioners what would be for you all three people is that right or how many without violating open meetings law okay so three people of eight so it could be six or seven

okay so basically setting up the opportunity um whenever it makes sense on that timeline for staff, planning staff to be able to meet with small groups of planning commissioners um to also be able to ask staff directly their questions before the meeting. I think that I would suggest that as well.

Commissioner, just a process clarification. This is for Chair Shaggeras. Um there was a subcommittee of the planning commission that began review parts of the uh UDO update back in September October. I know they haven't received this full information that we're going to be seeing now, you know, in work session tomorrow. What's the status of that initial review? How far did that get? Um, uh, are there plans for that subcommittee to then be more deeply engaged and help bring it to the full commission? How is that sort of connecting in now?

Oh, we had a update at the December meeting, but the chair of that committee, Commissioner Richie, was out. He had just had a new baby, so it was just very brief. they'd had been meeting with that subcommittee had been meeting with members of city staff and getting a deeper understanding of of of things. I will reach out to them and see if they have any specific questions or perhaps have they asked you specifically, Bo, what's been going on in those meetings.

Uh yeah, so we um we we met with them. We've discussed uh went went over the project and and details at length. Um obviously uh we would be open to meeting with other members and small groups as u chair Jacobs mentioned. Um it was really uh time well spent working with the subcommittee. Um obviously was it's sort of the second version of the subcommittee the plan commission has had over the course of this project. Um so yeah that was exactly what I was going to say. Then there's also subcommittees for DOST and EAB I think that have been working on stuff. So maybe we just they need to have some clarity around here's the last ideal date to get all your your comments and questions in

Is it scheduled for us in April already? Okay. All right. That's

okay. So could be um uh Chair Shagaris that February 24th if there are a bunch of comments and questions that can't be answered by March 10th, they could be answered by April or sometime before then and even if not presented in a formal way, uh commissioners could get their questions answered or if they have comments incorporated into the EDO in some way. I would suggest that we are proactive and maybe go ahead and schedule, you know, a couple two or three meetings with groups from the planning commission between the 24th and the 10th to try and work through questions, clarifications, etc. So that when you get to the 10th, uh the goal is a little more attainable to try and get a recommendation. I think that also there is space for uh there will probably not be enough time for us to address everything necessarily. And so a recommendation with some hey you know we recommend four um but we you know also recommend these specific you know edits or changes or whatever and that moves forward. So that keeps it out of like the constant cycle uh and then lets us we do have a little bit of time there before we get to the governing bodies just because of notice and everything to make some additional tweaks. Um but that's my recommendation as a way to kind of make this all work.

What was the date for both county and city? The public the joint public hearing is April 22nd at 7 p.m. Okay. Can we have calendar invites for that? I thought the clerks were sending those out. I don't have it on my calendar. Nope. Uh, I'm looking at my calendar. You're What was the date? April. Diana sent it up. So, I will ask her. I will shoot her a message and have her Can you tell me the date again? Just make sure. April 22nd, 7 p.m. Yeah. Nope. Do it that way.

Okay. Thank you. That's why I was Thank you. Okay. Thank you for for I was like, what's going on? Chair, I I don't uh have a question about how we're proceeding, but I I would like to make a comment. Uh first, let me just say that I agree with the compromise uh that was uh brokered back in back in December. So, I I agree with that, but I want to go on record and acknowledge the work of the planning commission. Um, sometimes there is not a a value placed on their work that

should be. And so, I'm going to acknowledge that here today. The second thing I'd like to say is is that the work that's done in in that uh particular uh commission is important because our residents see it as the last um barrier or rail I should say for the policy deciders decide. And so that's their opportunity to engage uh in a way that's a little different uh when it comes to the deciders having to decide. And so I value that and uh in a perfect world I would like for them to have an opportunity uh to have more involvement. Um but I just wanted to place um some value on the work that's done there and then some importance to to our residents. And I want to say that I value that. Um sometimes uh in these positions it's not always comfortable. Um but it's not about being comfortable, right? So our our residents um deserve to hear or are deserve our residents deserve for us to hear um whatever whatever it is uh that they they have to say with regards to issues that are important for the entire community. And so I just want to go on record and say that.

Thank you for those comments. I completely agree. Um, actually everyone sitting here on JCCPC right now is or was on Planning Commission. Um, definitely value Planning Commission's work. I try to from time to time send them an email saying thank you for everything that you do um and and respect um the work that they do. So, I definitely want us all to collectively um show our appreciation regularly to to the planning commission. I um you know when I was on planning commission and there was an expedited hearing uh that kind of pissed me off when that happened but um but it's understandable that it happens from hopefully just time to time um and this was you know I think a fair compromise um seeing a very important document twice um and that doesn't prohibit additional comments or commentary from planning commissioners um either collectively or individually being able to speak and provide comments in other ways as well. So, um but yeah, I appreciate those those comments. Yeah.

Yes. Thank you. As somebody who is on the planning commission and talking to people who are previously on it, being dissed for being volunteers, you're not paid. You're not elected. Let's just bypass the commission. um you're not experienced, but we are in fact all involved members of the community. And you know, like Commissioner Valentine said, it is our responsibility to listen to the people and take their input and do the best we can. Thank you. Heard and thank you. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Um, if there's no additional questions about the scheduling, which I don't think there are, I'll uh [laughter] um I'll uh allow Lee Miller to speak on engagement.

Good morning, everyone. Uh I'm going to talk just uh Lisa Miller, Planning and Development Department. Um I'm going to talk briefly about um the module 3 engagement that was just finishing up uh when we met with you in December. Um and then talk about the shift that we're taking as we are moving into this uh public hearing and adoption process that we're just talking about the schedule for. So um for module 3 engagement which again it covered uh public infrastructure, streets and streetscapes, environmental protection, all those kinds of things. We took a similar approach to previous modules where we really tried to use our um input mechanism as also an education tool. So you'll see on the screen here connecting comprehensive plan policy. So what's in the in the adopted comprehensive plan that is relevant to this particular uh trunch of topics. Um how does how do the existing standards uh play out in our current UDO? how is the draft proposed new UDO different than what's existing and how is it implementing that comp plan policy and then also um as has been mentioned a few times with this project so much of uh ways that we're making this more accessible is by uh the work that our consultants are doing in in the kind of graphic examples. So including those um including opportunities for folks to give kind of a a temperature check. How supportive are you of this direction after going through that kind of um ladder of things? And then what additional feedback do you have for us for tweaks to this as we move forward uh to a full draft um to move through the process. So um similarly to previous modules of engagement like the um the arrows uh illustration two slides back for this module we had inperson um virtual engagement expanded office

hours um uh lots of meetings with different stakeholders. um some of the those folks have come up in conversation this morning, but you know, BPAC, EAB, uh Farmland Protection Board, Homebuilders Association, all kinds of different folks um that we've been in conversation along the way, uh and are continuing to do so this week and next and um as we're we're moving forward. So, um we are now uh oh uh I just wanted to share a few highlights from kind of the results of that. that um we were able to collect uh over 1300 survey responses which is fantastic and a huge huge part of that um effort was through the work of uh TG Allen and associates Dr. To Tana Allen who's been managing our engagement ambassador program uh for the last two years um and the approximately 20 engagement ambassadors who collected the majority of those responses. they've been doing such excellent work and just want to put our thanks uh to them on the record here as well as uh continuing to tell them that um we had really good representation which is what we find when we're working with engagement ambassadors. These are folks who are invested in our community um often embedded in folks who are underrepresented in local government. Um, so we did have really great uh kind of spread of um geography, age, uh gender, uh things like that. We did have um a lower we did not have any folks respond to our Spanish survey, which if you all remember what's happening in our community in particular in November, we were not surprised by that. Um we did still have 12% of our respondents who are uh Latino, Latino, Latina. Um, so it wasn't that we we didn't hear from that part of our community, even though it was a real struggle during that time frame in particular. Um, we had 20% of the folks who responded who are in the

16 to 24 year old range, which is awesome. Um, 14% who identify as LGBTQIA. Um, 20% who they or someone in their household have a disability. Um, and 54% are renters. um and another uh 20% who have some alternate living situation um rather than renting or owning. Um so really great uh diversity of perspectives that we are getting from folks in this um which we're really excited about and again uh huge thanks to our ambassadors as we did that. Um so now moving forward um as we were all just discussing at length uh we are moving into the public hearing uh and adoption process which obviously is coming up very quickly. So, our effort right now, uh, some of you may remember when we got to this point with the comprehensive plan process, we really shifted our efforts to, uh, awareness, like we have this full draft. We want to make sure people know it, know what's in it, and we want to do our best to help people understand how the public hearing process works. Um, so putting out information around, you know, what what are the details of like how you sign up and speak at a public hearing, when are these things scheduled, we have set up a special adoption process page um on the website. If you just go to engaged.com-process, you'll get to um where we're going to be adding links to the meetings, the recordings, the agendas, everything like that. Um, so really just trying to focus our efforts on making sure people can funnel their input, their efforts into being part of that process because we know it is a lot harder for folks to be engaged in that because it just feels like there's a lot of barriers. So, um, that's our shift right now. We are doing, um, you'll see on the flyer there, we're doing the kind of, uh, regional branch, uh, additional office

hours again just to kind of be available in different parts of the county. again um so that it's a little bit easier for folks to come to us. We're continuing to meet with different stakeholders um you know like we I met with somebody from BPAC yesterday. We've got you know public art folks next week, farmland protection board. So we're doing those conversations as well kind of recognizing at this point in the process. A lot of that will be coming kind of to the planning commission in the packet and at the meeting because we want to make sure um you know those boards have a chance to vote on something and and issue it. um and and given the timeline that will be necessary. So um I think that it we are also in addition to um focusing on that education how to get involved in the process. Um we are still asking folks to give feedback on the map if they have that um and we'll be collecting that. Um so that'll that'll be part of what we'll be bringing to the public hearings as well. So, I think that is it on the engagement updates and unless you all want to ask questions about that right now, I'm going to hand it back to Bo. I just [clears throat] I just have a quick question. This is awesome about having the just the increasing the opportunities for the chats. Um, and and by the way, your engagement through the past almost two years has been amazing. Um, it really has. I I I dare to say I I wonder if there's any uh community who has had as robust a community engagement process around the UDO. Um I'm wondering will we have hard copies of the proposed um UDO at all the libraries?

Yeah, that's a great reminder. U we did that with the comprehensive plan and we can do that with um when we have the full draft uh which should be later this month. we can get those. We've got a great relationship with this library staff. I highly recommend that and making sure that people know that there are hard copies available at all. Yeah, we can put that in um engaged newsletter in the planning notification service push. Great. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you.

Uh thank you for for that update. Um we still have a little bit more. Are you going to go through administration? Okay, go ahead.

Almost there. Uh, Bod Brinsky again. Um, as uh you all are aware, we've taken um each piece of the draft and and brought it before you and uh presented it to you. This is sort of the last um article that you all will see. You may see some other tweaks, you know, and updates uh as we continue with the adoption process. Um but as a body, this is sort of the the end of each piece being brought forward to you. Um the administration section really is sort of the nuts and bolts in terms of how things work. Uh you know codifying administrative procedures, application procedures, uh particular permit requirements um which obviously there are subsequent permit requirements um in terms of applications and checklists but this is how all that's um codified. Our zoning enforcement procedures um also how we handle non-conformities will be a part of this section. um [clears throat] uh many of the tweaks and updates um and I'll just go through a few of them here that were in your memo. Uh not all of them, sorry, Lisa. Um but we uh you know, removing references, old references, outdated or defunct plans u [sighs] and advisory bodies that that may no longer exist. uh correcting all the departmental name references um to align with recent reorganizations and and uh department name changes. Um modifying our application requirements for site plans so it's a little bit clear on what's required in terms of uh level of um work proposed and level of improvements required. Um also you'll see or you may have already seen the uh change um of the name from unified development ordinance to land development code. Um this is obviously needed to minimize confusion um as we move forward with you know two versions of an ordinance. Um you'll probably still hear us say new UDO quite a bit um when engaging with the public, right?

Because we don't, you know, we don't want to change our message halfway through the process. But but obviously moving forward, land development code um will be the name of the ordinance. Uh and and that's really it. Obviously, if you all have any questions um about this section um admittedly this one um being the last one uh you know still still some tweaks and and changes probably um as we further refine um some of the sort of application processes. Um but this um I would say it's not not necessarily the flashiest section, right? This is where a lot of the um we spend a lot of our time uh when we're reviewing plans as this dictates a lot of applicability and and that's all I have questions comments any I I welcome the change from UDIO to LDC. I can't even describe how many times I've heard like unity development code or you like what what are we unifying that's

um yes

and uh with regard to engagement um you know staff I think you know I'm I'm not afraid of making critiques but I think that this engagement really is some of the best that I've seen for a for a code process. Um that's a huge number. The number you present the 1300 of just for the the fourth module. I mean that's amazing. It really is. So uh kudos to you on that. Um and obviously your engagement is so important because this is however many hundreds of pages. Um we know that the devil is in the details and if you delete one sentence it could mean nothing or it could mean everything. And so really it's about the messengers. Um the plan department is in the weeds on this. You all are the ones who have the power to create the message of what this is actually doing. Um what is the takeaway for for the public and so um yeah it's it's a big responsibility to to to be able to to message that all accurately. Um so that is the end of um that agenda item and that completes our agenda for today. Any final comments from folks? Yeah,

just a couple questions. So just to clarify then in kind of the parlance of this process the administration section is that considered module 4? Yes, that's correct.

Okay. Um and then just understanding you know the engagement that has already been done the the hard work that's been done both by planning commission EAB DOSS and just our residents who sought to educate themselves and engage in this process as we think about the weeks to come before we close this. Um what are the level of potential changes we can anticipate from what has been proposed thus far in the three modules that have already come before this body? I'm a new member obviously. Uh and when we get to the end of the process like what should we anticipate there?

So uh that's a great question because obviously we'll continue to hear you know we're we're going to EAB tomorrow and obviously the ones that Lisa already referenced. So we continue to hear there may be minor tweaks uh refinements after plan commission. Um our we plan on any changes that have been made or will be made to bring them forward to you all sort of in this in the inter room. Um but don't expect any major shifts to be quite frank uh we expect probably minor tweaks here and there to better implement what's already you know what you all have already uh recommended or that we move forward with. Um so I I don't expect any substantial uh modifications between now and adoption unless of course directed otherwise.

Okay. Thank you. And is uh EAB tonight? Will you be coming this evening? Is tonight? LSA tomorrow. Yeah. Yes. And I'm just curious too about whether you know in some perhaps some of the more formal um uh input processes through our appointed boards and commissions. Um, will there be feedback to those boards and commissions about the input they provided and what was decided to be included versus not of their recommendations and and and some why perhaps it's a form like this evening, right? When you go before the body and they have that chance sort of what is that back and forth communication process with those bodies?

Yeah. Uh, council member Quebec, I really appreciate that question because I literally just walked over and spoke to Robin about this exact topic. Um, so as Council [clears throat] Member Baker said, there's subcommittees um that many of these boards commissions have and we have received feedback and we've had a lot of um very valuable ongoing back and forth communications uh oftent times either through the presentations at their meeting but also offline um one-on-one uh conversations like Lisa discussed. Um and in one of the things that we've really tried to do is you know say yes we can make that modification you know that is a great recommendation or no we cannot because you know sometimes it's prohibited by law sometimes it's something we're already doing in another section or so we've been really really uh thorough and transparent in our communication our ongoing back and forth with each of these bodies and uh what I had mentioned Robin earlier was uh in you know much like we will with the engagement with the community you know showing uh how that communication played out with you all in terms of what we heard and what we and what changes we were able to make um based on that feedback so that you have that as a part of your decision-m

Thank you. Um can you just let us know just like by email or something that when it's like going live the full draft just as JCCPC because I have had lots of folks ask me like when's it going to be done, when's it going to be done? Um um and then um yeah, that would be because I need to print it, too. Like I'm going to I do I'm old, y'all. I like I still write. Like I need to print it. Yeah. Well, I I will just say they've done some studies. You do better writing than typing. You remember more. Yeah, exactly. They've

So, yeah. So, I'm just gonna say that. Um anyway, um so so I know cuz my Yes. What? What did you say? I missed what you said. Oh. Oh, yeah. There you go. Um so yeah, that was just so we know. Um I will I will be damaging trees and printing the whole thing out and I apologize for that.

Oh no, I'm forgetting what I was going to say. Um yeah, I I would just like to say that as our county liaison to both BPAC and EAB, I have seen firsthand how rigorous the engagement has been from our boards and commissions. very engaged and with with Robin uh you know I mean really um you know EAB I think it was like pages and pages and pages of recommendations um and and also with BPAC also very so there has been incredibly serious and rigorous um exchange um we are we we have such amazing boards and commissions in Durham and and expertise um in addition to planning commission um that [clears throat] have have really uh had input and also I have seen our staff be very responsive so and I know um you know chair Baker has al is on AAB with me he has seen that as well

oh okay was now Matt okay um but you know you've seen that as well so um so I just wanted to share that but also So um related to the process um I mean each of these you know we which you will see on your agenda today the staff memo about the UDO references every single time a part of the UDO has come before the JCCPC it has a link to the memo a link to the video but also I'm assuming this has also happened with the planning commission, have they been briefed on all of the modules as they have come up as well or how how has the planning commission been briefed or included in the in the

so in the Yeah, so we've made multiple uh presentations to the planning commission. I don't remember if it was with each module or if it was scheduled based on another timing factor. Um but we had and it has has been some time since we did this but we have you know when the districts were released we sat down um with plan commission and went through uh the district and the standards we've had followup um but I don't think it was uh the same same cadence okay

it would we have had just highle overviews so as far as I know so people can do their homework ahead of time email links to all of it to all of them and then we can go ahead and push push or I can go ahead and push and say, "Hey, please look at all of this as you can ahead of time." Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Anything else, guys? All right. Well, uh

could I really Sorry. There's one thing I wanted to mention that is a huge effort that uh is related to the public hearing process that you all may know, but I just wanted to mention really quickly. So, we are putting together signs to put out all over the community, but we've identified 20 to 30 locations that are designed differently, hopefully catching people's attention about the public hearing. We're sending out notices to owners and renters across the entire county for both public hearings, which is a huge effort. Our admin team has been stellar, and there's so much that goes into that. We're uh so that and doing a halfpage ad in the newspaper. So, just wanted to let you all know there's also all of those things that we're doing for the public hearings specifically. They're not engagement, but are trying to help get the word out as well.

Is it like yard signs you're putting out? Um, so it's like the zoning signs, but designed specifically for this project. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Is it Are we Are they bilingual by chance? So, they have the notice on them about how to like the it has both the ADA and the um language access uh notes on them in English and Spanish.

Is there and we may not have budget for this, but I know PB runs social media ads. I don't know if it's worth doing that, but you might want to talk to participatory budgeting. Um I think that was one of their main re like they they went over their goal of residents voting and I think that their social media ads probably helped do that. Okay. I can find out. Um I know we've worked with them on their like Spanish Facebook page for the city. Um but I can talk with Carmen and folks to see what what we can do. I've heard some comments from citizens about I don't think they completely understand that all emails and public comments are a official part of the record and then that's why maybe they wait until the last minute to come to all of the meetings and say what they have to say there or email their stuff in like the day before. I don't know if part of the public awareness campaign can be like, "Hey, the emails you guys send through and everything is it's somewhere in the public record for reference. You don't just have to wait till the last minute. You can come to the meeting and speak. It's your right. We still have freedom of speech in this country." But the fact that maybe reiterate that anything they do email through is received and is permanently preserved.

Yeah, that's a great point. Um, so we have a little like how to stay involved in the adoption process uh flyer that we adapted from our comprehensive plan process and it does specifically mention like emailing comments uh ahead of the public hearing to both the planning commission and the governing boards. But I think that's something we can call out in some of the notices that we put out specifically as well. And if I could just add that just for clarification, every we are mailing a letter to every single property owner and resident, right, Lisa? Like tenant like Yes. Yes.

So that every everybody will get one. Um it is costing us to the tune of over $120,000 just in letter notices. So we had to have a special budget asked last year to put that money in our budget to do this. So, um, everyone is getting a letter. That's for for the public hearings for all the public hearings. Yes. Kind all at once. Uh, no, we'll do two separate because we legally we have to notice the public hearing at planning commission separately from the one that'll be a joint one uh in April.

We should make sure to post our letters when we get them so folks can say, "I didn't get one." Well, I did. So, um um just so those of us who have robust social media presence um because I think it'll help affirm um um that yeah, we all got letters. It's important. Yeah. Everything that you all do social media wise, other things to like help people know about this, we super appreciate.

Anything else, y'all? All right. Well, um just want to say thank you for electing me chair. Um, as part of this, I think we're really going to be focused on the UDO over the next until it's adopted. That's I can't imagine we're going to have capacity for significantly more than that. Um, and of course, we've sort of served as a de facto steering committee throughout this process and we are on the home stretch. So, that's going to be a big I think continue to be a big focus for the first half of the year. Um, but I do just want to say to each of you that I hope that if you have um planning ideas um that you feel very open to to bringing them here uh bringing them to me and we can we can discuss them. Um, same goes to to you, U, Chair Chagaras, that I hope that you're a true liaison, that you're you don't just feel like you're taking stuff from here and taking it to the planning commission, but that you're taking stuff from the planning commission here and feel empowered to bring ideas to this space as well. Um, so that we can we can work through them and think about how we can we can do good planning. And then um and then I will be of course working with you um director Young to to set the agendas for for these. Um so again just door is open and if you have good planning ideas and thoughts, studies, anything that you have on your mind, please feel free to to bring it. Uh and with that uh we are adjourned at 11:17. Thank you all so much.