Joint City County Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning everybody. Thank you for uh thank you for being here. Um it is 9:33 so we're going to go ahead and get started. We do just barely have quorum. So if anyone ends up getting up and using the bathroom, uh we won't be able to vote on anything. Um and uh so let's just begin with the uh roll call, please. Chair Baker. Uh, here. Chair Baker here. Vice Chair Lee, Mayor Prom Caviierro, Planning Commissioner Chagaris here, Commissioner Jacobs here, Council Member Copac

here, Commissioner Valentine. All right. And you said uh Commissioner Jacobs, he said that you had heard from certain members. Yes, Commissioner Valentine has a funeral. Commissioner Burton has a doctor's appointment and Chair Lee is just speaking at a cooperative extension event. I just came from that and he will be coming as soon as that's he can get here.

Okay. Should we go ahead and vote on absences for Valentine and Burton? I would move for excused absence for commissioners Valentine and Burton. Second in principle. I don't know if there's some rule about notice in advance, but if there isn't, second. All in favor, please say I. I.

All against. All right. And we will go ahead and uh wait on uh Commissioner Lee and Council Member Cabayro because um Commissioner Lee may be here and Council Member Cabayro I have not heard anything from. So we'll go ahead and wait on those. Um any adjustments to the agenda? Uh yes, Mr. Chair. If I could, I'd like to add to our agenda today for discussion. uh a change to uh the UDEO through a text amendment uh to expand the length of time we are permitted to establish a moratorum in light of discussions around the the the hypers scale data center.

We're going to go ahead and add that right after item seven if that works for folks. Thank you. So we'll do one through seven. We'll do that item then we'll move on to eight and then nine. Just a point of clarification, are we referring to specifically to mega hypers scale data centers versus other data centers? I will distinguishing between the types of data centers for the purposes of the agenda item which we can get into I think at that point.

It's just about uh UDO section uh section 3196C about the length of time that we are permitted to have a moratorium for anything. Right now it's just 12 months. This would allow us to extend that and then the discussion about data centers is like a different discussion. I think for the purpose of today we don't need to get into that level of specifics. Um and also I just want to let's go ahead and stick that in after uh agenda item seven and then we can we can get to question. Sounds good. But I think you're you're getting to a good question. Um and I don't think it's one that we need to address right here today. Yeah. Uh any announcements?

No. All right. Um approval of the minutes. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I. All those against. And the minutes are approved. Uh city and county managers priority items. None from county. Good morning. A with the city attorney's office. The city attorney's office has no priority items. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Uh we are moving full steam ahead here. Um and now we can uh get to our first item, agenda five, uh inclusion of emergency medical services into fiscal impact analysis. There we go. Good morning, members of the JC Chair Baker and members of the JCCP. Erin Kaine with the uh Durham City County I'm sorry, yeah, Durham City County Planning and Development Department. I'm going to get it's only been a year. I'm going to get that new name right at some point. Um there there's a short cover memo about this item in your packet, but we really just wanted to open this up to discussion and primarily invite uh chief uh chief of EMS Seth Kamansky from Durham County EMS to come answer your questions regarding the inclusion of EMS impacts in zoning cases. Um, I know this is something that has been of interest to several of you for quite some time and we have been working with the EM EMS department, especially Chair Kamansky, who's been great since his arrival on working with us on this and potentially moving to this being a more regular uh part of our zoning report. But, you know, we've had back and forth about uh some of the challenges and nuances of uh reporting this in the same way that we do many of the city impacts that we currently include in our staff reports. So, uh with that, I really just want to open it up to the floor for discussion and uh myself and Chief Kamansky are here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Erin. Uh questions, comments? Yes, Commissioner Jacobs. Um, well, thank you. I appreciate that this is on our agenda and we're actually talking about this and that you all are are it seems working together on this. I read the memo and if you could just clarify, chief um kind of what what is going on because I it seemed you seem it seemed to imply the memo that this was challenging and related to just um capacity. Um and I didn't know what that was related to like staff or if you could just go into like what what is going on.

Sure. So, uh I read the memo that was included with your minutes. Um and uh we were able to submit as requested uh information specifically for uh expenses related to operating dollars, personnel and so on. Um I think the gap currently that exists is our ability to highlight capital expenses. So at least in those three areas that that we've been asked to provide information, the capital is the capital expenses are going to be the challenge. Right now, our deployment model uh with Durham County MS is is probably a decade in the in the rear in terms of units available and and the units in the streets and the cost. Um and so, uh with the fire departments, for example, they rely heavily on ISO, right, in insurance service office. And so there are minimum standards for response times. That same standard does not exist for EMS codified. And so for us, deployment really is something that is chosen by uh the metrics of the community. And so there's a combination of response times, but more importantly, clinical outcomes that we monitor. Um and so currently we have no standard specifically for this this uh case on Cheek Road. Um we have no footprint on the east side in terms of a station. Um we we have base base at certain fire stations uh and it is something we've begun discussions with engineering in the county to establish some sort of a foothold, some sort of a station presence on the east side of the county. So currently our response times at best on road travel is at 14 minutes from the two closest stations to that location. Realistically, our units could be anywhere else in the county, right? They could be at the hospitals. They can be at another station uh and responding as the next closest if those first two

units are out. So, and I mean out on a call for example. So, we have we have created or completed a gap analysis that we submitted to the county manager's office uh to understand to help them understand as well where the gaps exist in terms of our personnel, in terms of our units, in terms of our stations and our deployment model. and uh submitted that along with the request for the budget this year with this project annexation. We certainly want to be at the table. We want to be part of the discussion because we want to be part of of the decisions moving forwards. All that has impact on our ability to provide that service countywide, not just in the city, but countywide. And so it is certainly something we want to be at the table to discuss. Um we we believe we have a method to properly identify. It's a little bit different than what fire and police do. We are looking at it as a per capita cost per call. Um and so I think that will get us to a really good idea of what what we would need in terms of a a resource allocation for any sort of expansion.

Okay. I so I I guess I'm hearing two things because one is the actual per capita cost but then also there's just the issue of the response time. Are you linking response time to per capita cost? So it would be based off of the unit units available. Right. And so when we look at where our current stations sit the response time and that was that was the first the first swag when we were requested for information

15 minutes frankly sounds very scary. I mean if you call 911 and you have an emergency and a medical emergency um you're you're certainly not going to be wanting to wait 14 minutes for somebody to come. Well and that may be an ambulance. I I can't speak on behalf of the fire department's response time. Um, all right. You just give me one second. I have them listed.

So, specifically to the Cheek Road uh evaluation we completed. Um, what I sent back to Aaron uh we our two closest stations would be an ambulance based out of the Leville station and an ambulance based out of Bethesda. Both of those average 14 to 18 minute response times. Uh, old Fagetville station would be a 16 to 18 minute response time. Stadium is 16 to 18 minutes as well. And our Milton Road station would be the fifth closest, 21 to 24 minutes. That's using simple Google Google travel times, right? Um, that doesn't account for traffic.

Okay. And nationally, you're saying that we don't have a standard, but are there any in terms of benchmarking with other counties or nationally? Is there some standard we could at least use at this point? The the goal is for critical calls, not for all calls, but for critical calls, nine minute arrival time. Okay. So, when we look at the spectrum of call types, lower priority calls have about an hour. If you look at nationally, whereas heart attacks, strokes, those are nine minute response times. Yeah. And do we know for those critical cause, is it still 14 minutes in Durham?

So our our average response time in Durham once the unit is receiving a call is just about over 9 minutes. Our our 90th percentile is somewhere between 14 and 15 minutes. All right. Well, this is all, you know, I'm really glad that we are having this conversation and doing this. This is really, really important. Yeah,

we don't get any more basic than this. Um, so what I would and I'm glad that you are at least providing some information for the Cheek Road resoning and I would I would request that at least if you feel like you don't have everything, if you please include the narrative that explains this whole situation. Yes, ma'am.

In the report because the the narrative is um about all what it like where things like what you just told us. So yeah, that let's have let's have we're going to have I I would suggest that we have an internal discussion as to how we would do that, where in the staff report that might go. Currently, we include the city impacts that we get from uh police, fire, environmental, and street services and so forth in the cover memo. And there's a certain format that that's done. We should probably have a conversation about whether we're going to want to try to have EMS follow that format or whether there's going to be another format that goes in the annexation. I Yeah, we we we'll yeah sir if you have any thoughts about that.

Well, I think this needs to be treated consistent with our other operational departments in in that impact analysis. So it would be for consolidated cases it would be with the FIA operational impacts and it would follow that same you know operational expenses you may not have CIP expenses that you can figure out yet and maybe that's where you kind of footnote some uh kind of uh the narrative kind of is caveed there. Yeah, we have that third column in that that we can put a we we can work on some standard language about what that standard language would be to say we don't have capital impacts at this time um but it's being worked on or something along those lines.

Yeah. Okay. But even though saying we don't have it in a certain format again having that narrative is for the context is is really important to understand. Yeah. And um are you saying that you could if you had and I guess this goes through the county funding process that are you going to be requesting what you need to come up with the data that you need as part of your budget request? So, so the yeah, as part of the gap analysis we submitted, we submitted along with the budget request um to to highlight what what we would need to get us caught up to where we need to be uh as well as the gaps in terms of deployment. So, stations that need to be built out in the east side of the county, for example, um and in other locations within the county and the city. Um and so all this information was shared with with Aaron. So that should be included and we can work on that format

so that it that works together. Obviously for us our goal is to remain consistent service countywide inclusive of the city. And so you know we we do want to make sure that we are considered of all all of the residents of the county. And I would just say to my fellow colleagues, elected officials that this is a really this also hits home with the whole conversation about uh at the state level about impacting local authority over county I mean city property tax because we can't we can't come up with the money for things like EMS stations um if we don't have the ability ability to raise the revenue for that. So I I think that's important for us to all share with our constituents.

Thank you.

Yeah. And one one thing if I could just bring So uh Chief Kamaskki and I were talking just earlier that similar to what it was requested specifically for 4802 Cheek Road which is coming to the city council on May 18th. Um and we provided those inputs. If if this is something that um JCCPC members, especially the city council, since most of the zoning cases come to you, if this is information you would like included in that staff report, could probably get that done for the cases that start coming to you in August. Um the June cases are are getting submitted to on base next week. So I think it's going to be difficult for us to get those in. But we could start with that probably with the August cases that come to you in the format that you currently get that we would just simply you'll see when you get the um the 482 cheek road cover memo. You'll see how those are that's was done for this and we can that can be replicated now that we have a system developed to do that going forward starting in August.

Go ahead.

Now I can. Good morning everyone. Um uh just as long as it's following the same format. I I don't want a process that's outside what we're already doing. I don't want to overburden staff because we're getting more and more parts of these plans or these these reviews and so whatever streamlines it and also on the council side then it just becomes more material for us to read and so it needs to be streamlined and effective and efficient and I don't know I apologize I left my phone my reading glasses and my work badge at home and had to turn around and go get them. Um interesting way. Um uh I so I whatever also needs to happen around um I know the county's process on budget is quite different than the city's process. So like for us with fire and you know it's it's very built in. We can see the the you know costbenefit analysis literally of what that decision making is. And so however that needs to be aligned with the county is really important I think.

Yeah. So I'm going to I'm going to make one thing clear. So the fiscal impact analysis that you see and the chart that you get on annexation cases will not include the EMS numbers because that's that is something city but we are basically a conduit for the material coming from budget and management services. Um and I don't see a way for us to include that in the chart. There is a there is the qualitative material in the cover memo that we can include EMS but it won't be reflected in the spreadsheet that you see. Okay. Because that's something from BMS.

Yeah. So how I mean because we were able to get essentially an updated formula from DPS which is a separate system. So like how are we going to do it? Yeah. So I I think the difference is what what I think Aaron is interpreting what you're saying is you know there's that attachment that's the very colorful tiny text spreadsheet um of all the BMS math. So DPS isn't in that. Um this won't be in that but in the cover memo there is also a table a chart um there's a chart in the in the cover memo that has more of the operational things. So that's where it would be. Um and we can also honestly Erin think about whether we need to move the DPS stuff there too. I don't know. We talk we can talk. Yeah, we can talk about that. That's fine.

Yeah, I guess ultimately just make it as streamlined as possible. Whatever inputs into our packet, make them consistent. And I and this isn't I want to talk about this later, the EAB and DOSS and whatever else. I don't want to talk about that now, but it needs to be a consistent process because applicants need to understand what the process is and we cannot have add-ons at the end at public hearings, right? It it's it's getting messy. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. Um, yeah, thinking about the operational versus the um, uh, the the capital uh, cost, I think for some of the other considerations too, we don't always have the capital. I mean, for schools, it's kind of the operational cost per student, but we do understand that there are tipping points after which, you know, we incur additional uh, you know, capital expenditures and that's critical, but it's a little bit harder to relate that to specific individual cases. Um but you know uh I really appreciate your work and hearing from you Chief Kamansky and also uh it's good timing seeing that we're in budget season. Um you know and thinking about you know what sort of requests what kind of resourcing would allow you to be able to um sort of work on that you know last kind of you know 99th 100th percentile uh to make sure that we're uh also serving the eastern part of the county uh as we are uh other parts of the city and the county. So, um I look forward to uh hearing how that's received within the county and and and then also seeing, you know, what we're getting in terms of requests in the city. Um uh you know, for the range of sort of um you know, uh uh fire emergency management, you know, other ways that that factors into our budget. Um I do have one additional uh question. I was just curious. You mentioned that, you know, one of your main uh metrics is clinical outcomes that you are able to track and I'm just curious like what that's looking like right now. appreciate you asking. Um, so, so we

follow, uh, the American Heart Association's mission lifeline. Um, and similar to bond ratings, they evaluate agencies based off of their outcomes. The highest rating you can have is gold plus. We've had a gold plus rating here in Durham County for well over a decade. So, we continue to have great clinical outcomes regardless of response times, regardless of of the uh challenges that that are out there. Um that evaluates cardiac arrest resuscitation and and I if I can for a moment brag Durham County EMS has an exceptional uh it's called Ustein data. Uh it's a it's a metric that evaluates cardiac arrest survival. Um we have a 74% survival rate when you evaluate against the utstein data. So three three out of every four people will survive cardiac arrest in Durham County. That's pretty impressive. Um so our data our clinical outcome data is pretty phenomenal. Um I encourage you to join the uh peerreview committee. We we evaluate that data quarterly. Um we have representations um from the city, from the county, from community members um and and share that data on a quarterly basis.

Thank you.

Yes. Yeah, I just want to add going back to Council Member Cabo's point about uh the information in staff reports. One of the things that we're probably going to come back to you all maybe next month, maybe after the the summer break is an agenda item just to talk specifically about staff reports. And I think over the years what's happened is every time we get a request, we want this new piece of information, the staff reports have ballooned. Um, and so we want to kind of do a little bit of a deep dive with you all about what is useful. What are the things that you all, you know, uh, that are help that are currently in there that are helpful, things maybe not so much that we're spending staff time on that you'd rather us spend staff time putting something else that isn't currently in there. So, we want to have that discussion um, you know, in the near future with you all.

Thank you. I I would request that we wait till after the break if possible. like I'm I'm just gonna say my brain's going to be pretty useless by June. Chie,

I just have a a comment um based on a personal experience my husband recently had to use. Well, not recently, maybe a year or so ago, county EMS transport. And the problem came with the billing aspect of it. I guess there's a third party contractor that does the billing and he had the VA insurance that had paid the bill and then the people kept coming back after us telling us it wasn't paid or it wasn't paid and the VA said no this is the amount that's allowed and it went back and forth and there was no progress made and we were threatened with a credit report and so he had to then use the VA and the VA went after the the billing person I don't know who that is and it was resolved. But if it had been somebody who had had to use EMS transport that had less techsavvy or didn't have the VA on their side, would they have just then gotten a bad credit report when in fact whatever insurance they were using had paid the bill? So, county or I don't know if you have any interactions with the people that actually do the billing, but our our interaction with that particular aspect of this wasn't favorable. Thank you.

I'll be glad to take that back and we can follow up and evaluate what happened with that. Chair Jacobs, also just want to acknowledge that uh Commissioner Lee is now here.

Yeah. Um, I just want to say that it's very important for the county to have the information related to EMS and Durham public schools because that are those are the direct impacts of any type of resonings um to the county budget and um and I I I know you made a comment about capital operational, but they're completely linked and especially for EMS, you don't you can't improve improve the service if you're not building stations and also purchasing vehicles which are how much is one ambulance now fully outfitted half a million 500,000

yeah so um and so and we have to order them years in advance yeah it's a the industry is at about a 32 to 36 month lead time at this point yeah for ambulance to get a new ambulance yeah three years so anyway Um, yeah. So, it they there is a direct link between the operational and the capital. Thank you.

I would say it's the same with fire. I mean, we we have to I mean, we we're purchasing trucks years before we're even ready to start building out um uh any kind of additional um personnel costs, you know, um a a class that's going to be uh be with that truck or whatever, however it's phrased. And so, I think it's not dissimilar to what the city's doing, which is why I think the county and the city working together and really figuring out the intersection on some of these issues is critical. And so, um, I know planning staff isn't necessarily in that space as much when we're talking about budget, finance, other decisions, fire, whatever, but that those process needs have to get streamlined. We can't just tell residents, well, this is hard. Well, lots of stuff's hard. We have to solve for that problem. And we also can't say, okay, we're not going to allow any development. Um, that that's on us. Um, so whatever needs to happen, whatever uh conversations need to happen between electeds and and relevant staff, that that's that's what we need to do as a system that has to interact in a lot of spaces.

So So if I can just comment to that, we I arrived here seven months ago. Um, so so there's been a lot of work that's gone into understanding gaps that exist. Uh, we've we've commissioned a new space study with our engineering department. Um, part of that includes deployment and station building and so on. Um, the last space study that was completed officially was 2013. It was refreshed in 19. We're talking 13 years, right? Um, and so lots has changed, especially postco in the medical world. So, we are evaluating new ways to do things, more streamlined ways. Um, evaluating the idea of district-based deployments from larger centralized stations in each area of the county and the city, uh, as opposed to smaller locations. Um, part part of that challenge that we have now is base space. And so, even when we're colllocating with a fire department, we get a single ambulance bay. We don't have enough bays for all the ambulances that are currently here, let alone what we need for the future. And so part of that work we're doing with engineering is to determine all that space, which is why we haven't been able to provide a good capital number for stations and so on because we don't have that space study completed yet.

Thank you. Um, Chair Baker, can I ask a follow-up question then? Um so I know several years ago fire it was part of I feel like it was a CIP ask fire did the kind of um updated mapping and GIS tool for for them I think probably three years ago now and so what is the what is the um conversation because we are colllocating EMS which I think is a smart um idea and that's how we've built the last several of our fire stations h are y'all using the same software different software what are those conversations because and most of our firefighters are also certified EMS folks. So,

Yep. So, the again that's where the difference between a firetruck and an ambulance differ. Um, fire departments require certain number of resources based off of an effective response force related to a structure fire to residents and how many people can get on scene in x amount of time. That same standard doesn't exist for EMS. So we don't have that to rely on to then show we need this much right. Um what we are doing is working with uh the the company that's doing our space study to do that same exact evaluation looking at deployment looking at demand looking at density of call volume where do we need to put resources what's the best location for that deployment model and and how do we deploy where do we need to go so we are prepared for the future. Yeah. And that's I guess what I'm saying is the fire fire we have done a lot of that work um because we did that that we bought the mapping software however many years ago. So I I guess what I'm saying is I don't want us like I understand the needs are different but clearly there are enough aligned that we're sharing space in fire stations because that's a I forgot how many of the last last four fire stations have been built that way. the needs may be different, but that is a um and and maybe that decision needs to be re-evaluated, but that's where we are in the moment. And so I what I don't want is two separate things happening that then there is actually overlap and we miss an opportunity to really align services in a streamlined fashion that has impacts on both city and county residents because at the end of the day, most of the city is county. like we're it there's not a lot of unincorporated Durham County and so the tax bill is a tax bill and we need to be as efficient as and that's not necessarily I just want to make sure staff is having those conversations and as electeds whatever we need to do to make sure that that is uh actually happening is it a conversation at joint city county I

don't know but um we have to be uh we're both in very budget constrained years and that's not going to change for the next two years and so what what are the decisions we are making um that are as efficient as possible.

You referred to a space study and a gap analysis. Is that the same thing?

Two different separate things. We did a gap analysis to understand uh more or less how far behind we are in terms of the number of units, number of personnel. Um there hasn't been expansion to Durham County EMS in terms of the number of units on the streets in quite some time. Um last year we added new personnel, no ambulances to go with that. Um and so we are in need of that expansion to to match the the demand of the call volume that's grown. We've had a 30% call volume in eight years. Um and so we need to we need to grow with that. Um the space study is done by engineering. That's how we decide where and the location of stations are going to go. Uh the the the size of those stations and so on. And that's what we're working on now. Cool. Can we get um copies of those?

Sure. That it's been submitted to through the county. I'll make sure that it gets over to you. Thank you. Um and then um to to Council Member Cabar's point, um I know that there have been pretty deep recent conversations between fire and and EMS about better coordination. Um it's pretty common that fire shows up um sort of stabilizes someone and then EMS will show up minutes later. And um can you just speak to to those conversations?

Sure. Uh the the city of Durham has 41 pieces of fire apparatus. On the best days, Durham County has 19 ambulances countywide. So while while that deployment for the fire department, which is just the city, we are countywide with far far less resources. And so that's that's why you see some of that delay. Um it again, it is not apples to apples when we're comparing deployment and we're comparing uh the way we are able to request request request those resources. Again, the fire departments can do ISO where you have to have a certain number of engines and personnel and ladders on scene in a very short amount of time in order to keep your insurance ratings low. EMS does not have that same standard to stand on.

And we uh where are response times are those are we tracking those and um have they changed over the past several years? The change where we've seen is the call holding time. And so in EMS, we have this new phase of response continuum where the 911 call rings. We are having to inevitably prioritize calls based off of the process done at the 911 center. And during that time, we've seen a greater number and longer duration of calls held. The goal is to prioritize the more critical calls to get an ambulance ahead of the less prioritized calls. As the as the world's changed, we've seen a reliance on health care more heavily accessed through EMS to the emergency room. Our volumes grown and again back to our deployment, our expansions really have not matched that.

And do we have um different target response times based on geography? Like no. No, we have target response times. The the the goal is under nine minutes. Under nine minutes. Okay. And we have averaged and that's the goal is countywide the same. Correct. Right. We we see that no matter where you live within Durham County, you should receive the same level of service. Okay.

Um have we I think this is a a planning staff question. Have we done a comprehensive review of the that fiscal impact uh model at any when was the last time we did kind of like a comprehensive review of that? Yeah, that that's Yeah, I think uh I think that was done I want to say two three years ago something like that was while Alexander was here we did that um that might have been before me. Yeah, that might have been Yeah. 3 to four years ago. Yeah. Okay.

We did that in concert with BMS to try and figure out, you know, what could and couldn't be done and how best to do it. Um, and then for like reszoning cases, subdivision applications, those kinds of things, are those being sent out to EMS, fire, schools, and then are we getting like comments? So if there's like a reasonzoning case, is everyone looking at those and then seeing if, for example, there would be an opportunity to talk to the developer and potentially negotiate over land or anything like that.

So I I can tell you that resoning cases, so no, those cases do not necessarily go to those other operational departments. Uh there is an action in the comprehensive plan to look at expanding this type of analysis to resoning cases. So things that don't have an annexation. Um part of the and I'll let Aaron chime in here in case I get any of this wrong. I think part of the the issue is for an annexation folks are required to provide us a whole lot of additional financial information and other prescriptive things about the application that they don't with reasoning. So we don't actually have that data to build that analysis out. So we would have to change kind of what is required um for by right applications because again the you know if they meet the standards they have to be approved.

Um we have folks that you know like for instance fire does look at those plans. Um but you know not all operational departments do because we're we're required we have to again approve it if it's approvable. So, schools, fire, EMS are receiving are receiving the annexation applications and have input on those. FIRE, police, they fire, police, etc. receive and the they receive information provided by the applicant regarding buildout schedule, what they're planning to build and so forth in order for BMS to do the impact analysis and the cost benefit analysis uh on the city side. We are not currently sending cases to EMS to review. We sent the one case um as kind of a test case by as requested for 482 Cheek Road. We can start doing that. If if what we have presented for 482 chief road is what you're looking for then um in talking with Chief Kamanssky that is something that can be replicated at least on a per capita operational basis uh at this time and we can include it as we have today going forward hopefully starting with the August cases that come before council. Yeah, I'll also add that on on by right approvals uh operational departments in including DPS they track what is approved they track all approvals and so their long range planning is based on what is getting approved to to be built. Um as you know DPS we have a close working relationship with them. um the information that we provide, the formulas that we use come from them, are vetted through them, but they do not have bandwidth to individually review

every single application, which is why they basically delegated us. They gave us their formula and they said, "You all plug and play this." And then at the end once units um are are actually approved in the pipeline to be built because again something may get reszoned, it may be 10, 15, 20 or never years before it gets built, right? in some cases. Um, so they track actual what is getting built so that they can adjust their long-range planning.

Correct. And we get those numbers from DPS in the fall around October every year. Um, when they get their 20th day attendance numbers, uh, we do the the formulas that are used in your zoning staff reports um to determine the projected number of public school students. Those formulas come from DPS. Uh as do the operations and capital expenditure numbers that are in your staff report. Those come from DPS. And we do we do send DPS all of our zoning um applications on a first submitt as an FYI. We don't generally hear back from them. Again, a bandwidth issue at DPS. Um we don't hear back from them. We don't generally get comments. I don't think we've ever gotten a comment. Um, and we also when when council and the county commissioners make their annexation and zoning votes, we send those also to DPS. They're on our distribution list so that they're aware.

So, they're they're they receive information on the back end. they receive it on the front end that when we get an initial application um you know somebody applies to do a PDR6 for 200 town houses or whatever it might be we send them that information so they're aware and then at the end of the process we also send it to them so that they're aware if you all have approved it or not just have a just a clarification who do you send that those resonings to inpatital Rsky and until she left uh Kristen Brookshshire. Okay.

Is it is it just numbers like uh like the calculations or are does everybody see where the cases are, what they look like, all of that? Yeah, they they get the entire packet, the entire we send them a link to a folder with all of the materials that have been submitted by the applicant. Okay. Okay. So, they do have an opportunity to provide some input. They do uh on the front end. Okay. Yeah. Mhm. Okay. Um and then are there any other questions, comments? Yeah.

I just wanted to say that we're really lucky to have chief, our new chief here, Kamansky, who has come from Wake County and also has a huge amount of experience nationally. And for us in Durham County, this is a big opportunity to do uh look at things with fresh eyes and do an analysis of what is needed and what is the best way to provide and deploy EMS services um in a way that we an a perspective that we haven't had in a very long time. And so we absolutely want to make sure that you are have that opportunity to do that. Thank you.

Yeah, Chief Kaminsky has been great to work with since he came uh six, seven months ago. He's been open communicator and it's been a very good working relationship with him. Anybody else? Chief Kaminsky, do you have anything else you want to say? No.

Okay. Thank you. All right. We are uh that was uh we spent a lot of time on that. We are still ahead of schedule. Um so let's move on to the next item. Item six, Bragtown region and Oxford Hamlin small area plan update. Good morning Right. While we get this set up, u my name is Kayla Cyel, senior planning with the PL planner with the planning and development department. Um, today I'll give you an overview of the Bragtown region in Oxford Hamlin small area plan, as well as updates on what we've been working on since we kind of started uh soft launching this the small area plan. This is the first time you all have seen this material. Okay.

Okay. Good.

Okay. Thanks. All right. So, just as a refresher, um, here's the definition we use for what a small area plan is. It's an engagement and planning exercise to dive into issues specific to a community. As always, we use the Durham comprehensive plan as our guide to make sure we're consistent with the overall growth management strategy for Durham. And as you're also aware, uh a smaller plan is not legally binding. Um it's a guidance document, but from there we can draft um zoning changes, UDO text amendment changes along with informing budget decisions. Since our comprehensive plan was adopted, we've undertaken three small area planning projects. You'll hear about the Lakewood West End Lion Park after this. Um that project is further along this one. And then for the Bragtown region, we have a web page. It's pending some updates after this updates to you all. Um and it has an interactive map that as we go along with the project, you're planning to add layers to. so folks um can understand some of the more technical elements of the project including paper streets where the flood planes are, public lands, vacant lots etc. So as background um this area was selected based on a number of qualities that we thought an area might need or benefit from a small area plan. We wanted these plans to be useful but also narrow in scope to really get at the key issues. Um so we have the web page. This was uh shared last February. At the bottom here it has a longer list of selection criteria that we used in our initial list building for areas um to look at. It also has a long list of possible plan components.

um we are using that list to tailor each small area plan to what they might need or to what the community is saying they might need. Um but there could be a whole range of of things included in the small area plan. So for this area, my next couple of slides are specific to the Bragtown region um and how that boundary was drawn and chosen. So, as mentioned in the memo, there are different ways to draw a planning boundary. We need this to help limit our scope, but also grapple with the potential area of influence for development um or capital projects. So this small area plan includes it's it's quite large um and it includes multiple neighborhoods and follows along major roads um and flood plane as the kind of natural and physical boundaries of the area. the place type map um here and it's also an attachment you can zoom in further gives an indication of how some of the areas might develop particularly in the northeast part kind of that brown colors um mixed residential neighborhood kind of the purpleish colors are going to be the mixeduse neighborhood or transit opportunity areas. Um so that's where there's still a lot of potential for future growth. Let's see. Um, so there are a number of characteristics that make this place a good candidate for digging further into with residents. There are two transit opportunity areas. So Oxford Commons in the north and the super compares compares food shopping center in the south. There's been a lot of recent development activity, especially around Harbor and kind of Cub Creek area. There are still some large parcels remaining that developers could subdivide and also request annexation. Um there are some neighborhoods that are

still in well and septic but they are really close to the city limits. So they could be connected. So that's a conversation we want to have as part of this process um either through city initiatives or developer um resources. And um obviously there are flood plane and protected lands that we need to work around. There's a a number of city and county owned land and paper streets that we can als we also discuss with residents. And then of course the capital projects that green line kind of towards the middle is the Durham to Roxboro rail trail. There are future roadways on our maps. There's vision zero projects on Roxboro. Um so there's a this has a a lot going for it as far as a smaller plan goes. So moving on, how we've approached starting the project and um resident engagement on this plan so far, we learned from our past projects that sharing engagement input across projects is a really valuable starting point. Um many departments go out and we ask similar questions of residents and luckily over the past few years staff have gotten better at recording that input and sharing it across departments. So for this project, um, these are just some of the recent data sets that I pulled to begin scoping out this project to get a kind of baseline of what folks are saying are primary concerns in the area. So we're not starting with scratch from scratch, like what's your ideal Durham like we did for our comprehensive plan. Um, we're starting with some more specific questions, which I'll I'll get to. Now, we can only go so far before needing to hear from residents um early on to inform the scope of work. Like I said before, there's many ways to design a smaller planning project. Um, our approach so far is to be as tailored as possible to for this area. So, we had two really important conversations with residents who are already plugged into city county work or they're part of

neighborhood associations. Um, we just sent a call out whoever was kind of already plugged in, paying attention to start this conversation with us and to build a contact list and networks um for as we get further along in engagement. So at the time that we had these conversations, we were actively engaging on the new UDO. Um so we also wanted to make that cross collaboration possible. Um folks in in Bagtown and Oxford Hamlin, for example, th those neighborhood associations were really focused on making sure that they had input on new since that public hearing was coming up. We did hear some um key themes and concerns from that small group um that I'll go on and explain how we're trying to address them. I think number one is just the planning areas feels too large and overwhelming. Um there are groups that maybe don't feel comfortable advocating or speaking on behalf of other groups. So definitely a need for authentic engagement and representation. uh they had limited concerns about limited capacity to participate as volunteers. That's something we hear um occasionally, but also especially in light of the new UDO being a big project at that time. Um they were also a little concerned about time and effort uh leading to meaningful outcomes. of a lot of folks in the community have been involved in planning projects in the past and have not seen some of the maybe some of the infrastructure projects they've advocated for over the years. So wanting to have the smaller plan have meaningful outcomes for them. Um, so and I'll just run through these uh interest in working kind of with staff a little bit closer on some of the technical analysis before we started before we start bigger

engagement. And then um at the time and this has shifted the that group at least wanted to focus more on the new UDO leading up into the public hearings prior to the project pause. So there and there's some other logistic concerns about not having the central gathering space like some of other communities in Durham. Um so there is an attachment um that from a resident who submitted these these concerns. This is just a summary so you can see that uh written in their own words if you like and we can certainly talk about these some more. But from this discussion uh we adjusted our original scope. Our original scope was a little broad um kind of oriented around large categories that we typically see in a smaller brand like transportation and land use and environmental sensitivity. So trying to drill down on okay specifically for this project what could be the most impactful things we look at and focus our conversations and our deliverables around those. Um so these are the key deliverables so far. They are all interconnected, but right now it's kind of one way of organizing how you think about them. We're going to be looking at public lands, what opportunities there are for development on those or or preservation of those paper streets. Uh there are a number of interesting paper streets and opportunities for connectivity. um in Braggtown specifically those annexations and utilities for the county area as I mentioned before is a key issue that uh is relevant to kind of that segment of the study area those two big shopping centers Oxford Commons and the super compare foods those are commercial redevelopment opportunities that could have a big impact that there's no application for them now so it would be a good time to start visioning for what those could be and how those could change and then of course Roxboro always comes up as a major concern. So looking at that with the transportation

department um both with their vision zero projects and also how better connectivity can happen um either taking advantage of those paper streets or um some of the other projects they have in the pipeline. Sorry, this is really small. These are um a few of the these are the phases of the project. Um we let's see we shifted our schedule to make room for a few more consultations with residents um this this spring. So this is a smaller group of residents who are interested in in having input on how our engagement plan is set up and also some of the technical analysis. Um, and I should mention that to deal with the large boundary we're trying to address, uh, we've created some sub areas that this group has has or not that that the group of residents have looked at, um, that we're going to be talking with them about next week. So, this is a a map of the potential sub areas that could help deal with that concern about the the boundary being so large. Um, and then on the left is just how we how we divided up these areas. um and where we draw that drew those boundaries there. Um I think it's probably obvious to say not not each the boundaries for certain neighborhoods are not always well defined. People have different perspectives on them. Um so for this planning area, we're just trying to get manageable hold in what land area we're looking at. Okay. So what's next? Um, we have two conversations scheduled with residents next week, May 14th and June 4th to go over the technical work we've done to look at public a narrow down list of public lands that have some potential for development. Um, some paper streets that also um could use community discussion and also infrastructure needs

that mentioned that that water and sewer um discussion in the Oxford Hamlin area. And then in June uh looking at uh an engagement plan for the fall. like input from residents on how be most effective to reach out to folks especially such a large area and um yeah continued conversations with residents. So right now on track for potential adoption process next spring maybe early fall depending on council schedule and things like that. Um but yeah so y'all may have some more questions on any of these parts of our process. So I will end there and hear from you all. Thanks.

You should go.

Okay. Well, I'll talk then. Um, thank you for this presentation. I really appreciate it. This is actually um um the northern boundary of this is a few steps away from my neighborhood. So, I'm very interested in this here. The the question I have is about the community engagement. Um, a lot of times what we hear is people saying, you know, they didn't have an opportunity to speak um or contribute. How are we engaging with the community? And the reason I want to ask this is because I want to make sure that we're going into those uncomfortable spaces as well to hear from uncomfortable groups about what they may the challenges they may have with this. Obviously, I mean I I mean I think that area, especially this southern part that's close to 85 and kind of up to the northeast is is really a good place for some um planning around it, but um there's always going to be someone who disagrees and I want to make sure that we're hearing the disagreements as well to help us to form. So my question is so you said you had 10 people had you had 10 pieces 10 people provide feedback. I want to know how we are intentionally trying to get into the community advocates spaces so that we can hear from them as well.

Yeah great question. So, um, th those early conversations were really early conversations, just whoever we could catch who are already plugged into city and county networks and then going from there, building our contact list. Um, so definitely didn't expect to have a big a big turnout with those early conversations, but we are planning to have a combination of virtual and in-person engagement. The inperson engagement is a little bit trickier because of the lack of a gathering space. There is an elementary school kind of centered in the middle, which might work for us. Um, what what elementary school? Uh, Lake View. Uh, Lake View is not an ele Oh, sorry. But just

Yeah. Maybe even Sandy Ridge. Sandy Ridge is right. Huh. Like I mean, it's it's not an elementary school, but it's definitely a school that's right there on uh Denfield. Yeah. Dearborn. Yeah. Yeah. That that could definitely be a space. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Alternative school. Alter alternative school. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Apologies. I think it comes up as elementary on the map. Sorry. I think it used to be maybe. Okay. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No worries. Um so because there are some active organizations already in that in the general area. Um they they've definitely had an interest in helping build that engagement plan like you're saying, wanting to expand representation, make sure we're hearing from folks. So, we haven't gotten too far in our engagement planning because we want to build from that from their foundation and their experience. Um, especially language access. Um, the Roxboro Street businesses, we would need to focus a lot on language access there. Um, so a variety of of techniques. Um, and then seeing what residents have to say has been effective for them. Bragtown has hosted Bratown is community has hosted several events over the past few years. Really good at reaching out to folks. So relying on our networks there.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. I just wanted to make sure that we're getting in spaces where not not everyone is engaged to know to read this or even hear the announcements from the county or the county or the city. And I just want to make sure that we're intentionally um reaching into those places to get feedback. Um yeah. So thank you. Thank you, Council Member Thank you. Um I appreciate that. Um Cher Lee, I know that I know Bragtown and Hamlin Oxford have had pretty developed neighborhood groups and have certainly been involved in a lot of our resonings. Um and so I'm guessing you that's why you started there because of that. Um, can we what is the outreach to property owners, not not residential, commercial, because there is a lot to y'all's point and then DDI and you may want to reach out to them many years ago now, probably five or six years ago. I think it was in relation to um Northgate Mall ended up doing a lot of outreach into that corridor into the business owners just to have an understanding of who owns the dirt and it's a lot of Latino owned businesses in that corridor and that is different. They're not renters. They they bought their dirt a long time ago. Smart idea. Um, and I really want to make sure we're doing a lot of good, intentional, thoughtful engagement directly to those commercial owner properties because as things redevelop there, it's going to be important that we are real clear that we're not doing land grabs. We're not right. Um, and and they're longtime commercial owners in a lot of cases. Um, so that's one big question. And then going back with the commercial property owners, KMAD got sold many years ago that is now an out ofstate owner. Um that whole they bought the whole complex and I want to

say it's out of New York. Um which is not great because the previous owner was a little bit more community-minded, but um I think they own the whole strip, the old movie theater and all on the other side where all the smaller locally local Latino businesses are. And then where the Troa is, that's a huge property

like when you drive behind it, like you forget there's another Yeah. Uh there's a whole other amount of concrete which is crazy. I mean, taught our kids to drive in that parking lot because it's so big. Um um but I just we've we've seen some interesting things happen with our dated commercial spaces. Northgate Mall, you know, um the Food Lion in um um

Lakewood, right? Um and so I remember this was when Pat Young was planning director. I was like, "What's the deal with these giant parking lots?" And he was like in the '9s for whatever reason the ratios were so and that's when these a lot of these were built in the 80s and 90s. So I just don't want to obviously yes residents but there's a lot of opportunity for really good um redevelopment of of of maybe not and we have an example now in Hillsboro

although that's not locally owned. I wouldn't the interesting thing that we can have a conversation about that. Um most of the businesses that are going there are corporate chains. So uh we Okay. Uh, so we don't there's there's always um yeah, but um I will say that the the project that I've seen some that I I know we did a resoning on many years ago that is promising is on is on Duke where where the developer came in and partnered with Durham Tech that's being built out right now right near the Staples. And so having conversations with those kinds of developers who are really interested in that redevelopment of commercial but then had the the ability and the interest in in um that kind of more communityminded redevelopment. I just want to make sure that we're we're we're not missing opportunities as we have these conversations. So I'm just lifting that up now. Um, that's one thing I really appreciate that y'all have divided up the neighborhood into smaller sections because we know Oxford Hamlin has very different needs than Bragtown. They're further out. They're almost all in the county. They're the ones who struggled with some of the well septic issues. Uh, and then this came up on Monday night. Um, and I didn't phrase it well and it was late. Um, again, the opportunity for residents to understand when there's connections to sewer and water, like they may not know that there's already infrastructure very close to their house. It might be expensive, but like we need to do better outreach. I'm a firm believer at the end of the day, I would much rather have everybody on city water. I septics and wells. Yeah. I mean, yeah, if you live out in Pson County in the middle of nowhere, that's that's the that's the option you've got. But in Durham County and especially if you're close to city limits and know we cannot go annex folks

like we did before. But we need to give folks opportunities to understand what is close to them and and what what the cost might be and then ultimately is there a way to help some folks who are you know on tight budgets get access to good clean water and better and better infrastructure at the end of the day. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so just to build on some of the comments, um, and first of all, thank you for your presentation and for this work. Um, in terms of the engagement, um, do we do any kind of stipending to help with the the outreach for the folks who have the networks into their neighborhoods?

Yes, we have a a a budget for stipens that we could provide. Um, we just haven't got a stipen planned for that yet. All right. So, that can help. So, we have a budget, but we haven't used it yet. uh for this project. Yes.

Okay, great. I think that can be helpful because folks are putting a lot of time in, a lot of labor in and they have the relationships, right? Uh so, okay. Uh very glad to hear that. Second, so building on the the yeah, the uh the commercial uh area with super compare. Um, yeah, it's very clear there's an absentee outofstate corporate landlord there. Uh, with severe infrastructure needs. Um, I think it's called State Street, which is the the the entry road off of East Club. I mean, it's just in horrific shape, right? And you have a lot of smaller commercial businesses that are operating there. So for both commercial and residential purposes like it it needs to be addressed, right? Um but that is owned by this out of state developer who has not been returning my calls uh or even answering the phone for weeks. Um no seriously. Yeah. And so like what is are there any and this may not be a question for you but it's more just a general question for us is like do we have any points of leverage? Do we have anything that they want or need that we can use to get them to be responsive? So, even if it's not answered today, I would like to to to explore that. Um because I don't think it's acceptable to let infrastructure deteriorate and be non-responsive to the city and to neighbors. And this isn't this is a long-term and this is financial and it's going to c I mean I think we need to figure out I mean it's not just I mean we know we have local uh land publicly held land that has some real opportunity. There could be some commercial that that that folks are letting things decline because they don't actually have uh the capital to redevelop it. And so what what are what are going to be the

opportunities moving forward for again private public because that's the only way we're going to guarantee it gets redeveloped like that the small local businesses are able to stay right I mean people call the compare you know Latino downtown right so um that we don't like the the risk is if it gets redeveloped or whatever then all of those small businesses get pushed out and that's also not a solution and so the the commercial activity on that corridor is just as important at least to me as the residential as the as the environmental concerns that we're hearing. We have to figure out and this is a long-term and we don't have the money right now but like what does that look like? What have other communities done to do that redaptive use? I mean we've done it with some other community. I know Sophia's Pizza, right? Like there have been some spaces in the city that the city has used public dollars because there's been um I mean obviously American Tobacco is lifted up, right? We have some examples and um we're going to have to think about it that way because at least for immigrant communities that corridor is key and and we can't just let it essentially just gentrify and become you know um you know like a less vibrant corridor even though it does need some some real support.

Yeah. And I definitely share your interest in thinking about the big picture and the longer term like you've shared. I think there's there's that longer term visioning and thinking about the city's role in that and also just like the immediate short-term experience and needs, you know, of residents and and commercial operators there, too. So, but yeah, I know this is probably one you've been thinking about for years. So,

um, great comments from everyone. Just to piggy back on what um Mayor Pro Timm just said um you know since I've been in Durham for more than 40 years um you know we we also um need to give recognition to all of the immigrant um businesses that have literally revitalized that part of Durham. I mean, Brag, that commercial area, Brag Town along, uh, Club and Roxboro, um, before we had, uh, immigrants come in and, you know, open new businesses and start fixing up the houses in that neighborhood, it was it did not have that vibrancy and vitality and was not an economically thriving area. So, um, yeah, I just want to follow up on the conversation about the that we heard from residents that the it's such a big area and um because we did get an email about that and also I did have a conversation with a resident yesterday about that. Um what so one of the things that came up in my conversation yesterday was about kind of prioritizing certain areas working on certain ones first then others like the fact that it's being broken up into different areas I mean how how do you think that will impact your approach?

Yeah. So at first um just looking at some of the more technical uh mapping aspects of it, starting with just paper streets as an example, there are very few if if no paper streets in that Oxford Hamlin area. So that would be not really be something that we'd focus on for that area. Um so as far as the technical work and the deliverables, we could break it up like that. engagement is still a big question how that would um how that would pan out if we were to separate it by sections of the community because there are some cross-connecting concerns especially transportation

that overlap multiple sub areas right um but we I mean we can be flexible I'd love for the resident group that I'm working with to help inform that um for how we structure that yeah okay and um in terms of the publicly owned land. Um, is there who what type of publicly owned land? Is it just city or is it county 2 or what what is DHA?

Yes, all the above. So, um, doing a first pass on first where those properties are located. Um, there's one county parcel um and then there was a few city and then a number of DHA. the DHA uh lots are mostly developed or if they were to be redeveloped by DHA they would be more or less the same use there. Um so we are not really bringing those up as like a major discussion unless folks in a community say that is something they want to talk about and then we can incorporate that in the small area plan. Um but one constraint is that a lot of the the city owned land is within a flood plane that flood plane boundary. um

and uh or very very small slivers of thought it was transportation project I got left over to the city. Um so there's really only about seven properties uh that are pretty small looking like infill residential lots but still potential and we're going to look at them, analyze them and well the flood plane is still important and you know it's an ecosystem and it can help with um with flooding. Yes. Yeah, managing that, right? Yeah, I didn't dismiss those those parcels with flood pin. We're going to check against our place type map to see that they're open space, designated open space.

So, one of my and also I wasn't clear is all of the what is all the small area study area within the urban growth boundary? Yes. Okay. because I know it's some of them are still in the county but within the

I think what would be really helpful when I looked at these maps is seeing an asset map that like shows you know where is transit where are schools where is the library where where is you know where are the businesses you know DHA property um you know I think what you know the the parks Like for me when I look at that it's like that I I I I think it would be important to also have that as one of the maps that everyone's looking at even at this point. Um because that's going to really drive a lot of

Yeah. And also

knowing which are the still undeveloped big parcels or the parcels that are ripe for redevelopment the you know the commercial. So I think that that would be helpful as well. Um one more question. Oh, is there a concern um when looking at the future place type map versus the current zoning? Are there any um key areas that we'd run into issues around down zoning issues on the site just in this plan? Because that would be important to know about too. Morning. I'm Scott Whiteitman. Um, there are some properties in Braggtown that in order to implement the place type map as it's currently adopted would be a downzoning. So, we'll have to address that issue as we're going through this process if the the law stays the way it does.

Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else? Um, I want to associate myself with all of the questions and comments from colleagues. I agree with uh I think just about everything that was said. Um, I do have some questions and comments myself. Um, first of all, I really think the benefit of of these of this is that it will result in a plan, but also the process of developing the plan is as important, if not more important, because that's really where you get to bring together people, including people that should be talking to each other and maybe never have. Um, you can bring people in into a room who all agree with each other, which is there's benefits to that. You can also bring people into a room who don't agree with each other and they can hash it out, find common ground, at least respect one another even if they continue to have disagreements. And so I think there a lot of opportunities there reaching out to land owners saying this is we're working through visions and and all of that. Um so I I think that there are a lot of opportunities um not just with whatever is the final work product is on paper um but with the actual process itself. Um I'm curious if you have held or are are are planning to hold kind of topic specific stakeholder type meetings. Um even if they're kind of short saying hey this little time frame we're going to go backtoback. This is going to be about transportation. This is going to be about with b with with business owners to council member Cavo's point. This is going to be with the land owners. Um and just make sure that all those key stakeholders are are engaged in in kind of upfront

um and on a more or less topic specific uh in a topic specific way. Um and actually that's not a question. I just I think that that would be a good idea. Just something to to that I'm throwing out there. Um, I mean the reality is collaboration with land owners is and developers is is a vital part of um actual implementation of this. And I think that that um is is obviously a big opportunity um to a point that has been brought up I think by several folks up here getting ahead of those conversations on redevelopment um so that we're not just reacting to a bad idea that a developer wants um to do but getting in front of that and saying these are some opportunities. These ones are heavily endorsed by the local and citywide community. Um and and we encourage you to to uh to look at this. Um and then also are there ways that we can explore different kinds of tools? So you know talked about zoning, talked about budget, but you know um plugging into CIP. Is there anywhere we want to apply an MSD? Uh I know that's probably unlikely, but synthetic tiffs. Are there tools that other communities are using that we don't have available including even state enabled tools that we could potentially lobby for or something like that even if this kind of like learning opportunity even if it's not applicable directly in um this particular area at this particular time. Um, also these conversations with land owners might be an opportunity for because of the weird zoning situation that we're in um voluntary reasonzonings on on the part of uh certain land owners. You know, is there a carrot and

a stick and negotiation and conversation that can be that can be had to achieve a better outcome for everybody and and try and search for those win-wins? Um, also are there opportunities uh within the LDC to reference small area plans so that it can the regulations can be kind of tailored in certain areas. So maybe um prioritizing certain kinds of density bonuses in in certain places or certain kinds of open space that are desired by the community. um sustainability because that is a uh you know a voluntary kind of like checklist. You can build your points the way that you want to. Are there certain kinds of sustainability elements that um that are are best tailored? Maybe not, but but might be something worth exploring. Um also, how does the plan once it is adopted plug into and inform our various other processes like the CIP, participatory budgeting? I know Greensboro has done a lot of of um coordination between their CIP and participatory budgeting in the past. Um, and then I do think coming back to the point that you uh made during your presentation about implementation uh that that folks want to see something implemented and so what are those one two three things that could be done pretty soon after and and prioritize but not losing the fact losing you know that this is an opportunity to capture a lot of really good ideas that might not get implemented within one or two years might not get implemented in five years but they're good ideas and and this is a place where we can store those store those ideas for when the opportunities may arise in the future. Um, also uh coming to Commissioner Lee's uh question about engagement, what are the different diverse kinds of engagement? Some

people, you know, pop up pop-up engagement, you know, five minutes, they they'll give you five minutes input. They don't have more time, but then they know that it's happening. They provide their one or two sentences. Um some people will want to show up week in and week out and ve have very deep engagement. So meeting people where they are on engagement uh and also physically meeting them and are there different kinds of engagement like walking down a street with a group of people those kinds of things to look at a specific rideway or an intersection or something like that. um how can this plug into the strategic plan to end homelessness because there are going to be some probably some tough conversations about uh locations uh for uh different types of facilities. I don't know if this something to to keep in mind um already talked about commercial. Oh, coming back to point made by Mayor Prom Cabayro about these there are a lot of really cherished businesses obviously in buildings that are aging on infrastructure that is aging in an urban design that is outdated and autoentric. How do we make sure that we are balancing keeping those beloved businesses as as as the priority while also teeing up um you know responsible redevelopment or just at least you know if a developer is like I'm going to kick everybody out and redevelop my property making sure that they do it the right way but at the same time priority being to protect the um important businesses that are already there. Um and also just the plan just showing what we want, you know, the vision, the community vision, um that balances what people within the small area plan want with the needs of the broader city. So balancing those and then also bringing

in of course expertise and best practices um that that uh you as a as a planner bring to the table. Um I think that that's that's important. It's a it is a plan. It is one something that we want to give teeth to in certain ways that we can that we want to explore different tools. We want to have those conversations. But it's also like a marketing tool to say um you know we have we may be able to uh invest uh make capital investments. Uh there may be some zoning changes or other kinds of policy tools but at the very least this is the vision. And um this is a marketing tool and also the storytelling um aspect of it as well. And um to um Commissioner Jacob's point kind of there there are some great stories here and can we capture some of those stories and then yeah uh urban design you know I think that bringing in great urban design humans are visual creatures pictures all the time everywhere. Are there any needs that we have in terms of conducting like an urban design cheret? Um are there interests in that and bringing all the the stakeholders to the table for for those kinds of things. So those are those are my comments. Um anybody else?

Thank you. And for I didn't say thank you at the beginning of mine. This was great. And obviously you got our brainstorming maybe too much. Sorry about that. Um A few years ago, BPAC did a kind of I think it was like a walk analysis of Roxboro. Yeah. So, um going and and having that input um and then like just thinking about Vision Zero and all right. So, I just don't want to lose the one of the things that I I really appreciated about the Bragtown community several years ago now was when they were I think this is an area where we have decent transit and so there's some other areas where the bus line isn't great, right? like but this is an area we're extending I think it's 9A down you know like you can see the the possibilities and so I don't want to lose um side of that as as well and I think that I wasn't able to it was probably their retreat three or four years ago now um and they did that and I thought that they had come up with some pretty um important um um conversations on on what to do in that corridor you know where it jumps residential to commercial. Yeah.

I just want to say this is a lot for you to a lot.

Yes. And we appreciate what you are doing and we know that you you're not you you have limited powers, but um but it's great for us to talk about it at least to dream. Um and I just I I this came up at our work session on Monday. I actually asked planning staff um cuz we were going over the work plan and I said well you know h how like you know so much work went into the wall town small area plan like is it you know and we've been disappointed right with what we're seeing at Northgate but what is so what how is it being used now and I was really glad to hear Sarah respond that it is you know been very helpful in conversations with the developer And so to your point um chair Baker that it is important um I think to get as many stakeholders involved now and to build those relationships and so that when everyone is invested in the plan we will have a better chance of it actually being implemented and also to remember that it is because it's a public private partnership and there are public opportunities is that we also need to figure out ways to prioritize the public investments that are necessary to deliver in some ways for the community. Um, and I forgot to mention on the assets, we have a farmers market too in there. And you know, and is there some way to think creatively um thinking about the value of the businesses that are there to think creatively about um institutionalizing opportunities kind of like a popup, you know, flea market stall kind of thing on the weekends, which we've seen happen

out there. But is there a way to actually make an investment in that so publicly so that we can make sure that people can can do that? Yeah. And it's not just up to the you know other people. So final comments I one thing I will say is I think I said a lot of things that are also applicable to the next item. Um, so I won't I won't be I won't elaborate quite as much on the next one. Um, but we are a little bit over time. So, thank you so much for the presentation. We're really excited to see the next steps. Yeah, thank you so much for the feedback.

All right, moving on to the Lakewood West End and Lion Parks malaria plan update. Right. Good morning. My name is Sarah Long and I'm a senior planner with the planning and development department. And as we get this set up, um, as you said, this is for the Lakewood, Weston, and Lion Park small area plan. So, this plan is actually underway. Um, as Kayla said, the purpose of these plans is really to engage residents to identify needs and priorities. We've spoken about this a lot. We have a couple of focal um, the things that we're focusing on for this specific area. And we also have at this point a pretty comprehensive list of community needs that may be addressed by this plan or kind of future plans or the work of other departments. So, this is our second small area plan. As you know, um the Walltown smaller plan was adopted in 2025. Um we started this plan actually in August of 2025 and the current planned tenative adoption is for September 2026. Now the Lakewood Weston and Lion Parks area plan is kind of in between in terms of size of Walltown being smaller and Bracktown being much larger. Uh the anchor point is Shops at Lakewood and we included the residential areas around shops at Lakewood. We also included areas of the Lakewood Park, Weston and Lion Park neighborhoods. Um as you mentioned before, the this plan doesn't define um the boundaries of those neighborhoods, but rather these are the focal points that we thought would be useful for a small area plan. So there is there is a portion of Lakewood Park which is really around shops at Lakewood. We have most of Lion Park and

a portion of the Weston neighborhood. And initially when we did the boundaries of this, it was just the uh Lakewood Park Shops at Lakewood area and Lion Park. But after discussing this with the um neighborhood association, we recognized that it was important to include um at least a portion of the Weston neighborhood. So these are some of the characteristics that we use in determining this area. Um the big thing really is the transit opportunity area which is again the anchor of the commercial aspect of this project. There's also an adjacent commercial corridor that runs along Chapel Hill Road. Um there is also the the possibility of the redevelopment of shops at Lakewood. I know that like a couple years back there were some ideas around that and some sort of um there's a neighborhood meeting around that possibility and we wanted to really get ahead of any concrete plans. There's also two large vacant properties in the area. Um one by Lion Park you have the old um armory site and then also there is a vacant property to the northwest of Shops at Lakewood as well. And in this area, we've noticed that there's um it's an area that has quite a large historically marginalized population and underresourced communities. We were able to identify that using the equity index um through the equity green equitable green infrastructure project and also just through the work that's been done with um sorry with the um the be heard Durham. Uh there's quite a bit of um of qualitative data there and also neighborhood stories that talk about particularly the West End and Lion Park neighborhoods. Um as I mentioned this is a fairly historic area. So there's some historic sites and resources Paulie Murray Center. There is a um a portion of a historic um neighborhood area and

also there is a historic site on Chapel Hill Road. And in addition to that there's quite a bit of county and cityowned land in the area. A lot of that is Maplewood Cemetery and the parks. Um we were able to look at a couple of other parcels and there are a few paper streets that we included um and we're including in our analysis and getting um resident feedback on. And then finally there are a couple of capital improvement projects. As I mentioned before, a lot of this area has been identified through the equal green infrastructure project. So there's some projects that are going on or sort of started during this planning process. So identifying the plan deliverables for this project, one of the big deliverables are recommendations for shops at Lakewood. Um any potential future redevelopment. So looking at kind of what exists there now, um speaking with land owners, speaking with kind of the two largest land owners, um which is the scrap exchange and Brody Co. on the side where the food line is. Getting an idea of what the not just the community but also business owners and organizations in that area would like to see and having policies and recommendations um based on that input as well as some staff analysis on what the sort of form of a potential redevelopment could look like. And so that's looking at um in terms of building location intensity and also connectivity throughout the shopping center itself. In that we're also including some paper sheet recommendations. Like I mentioned, there are quite a few. Uh there's an ongoing project with a paper streetet that is sort of separate to this um that's paper shoot along um the scrap exchange, but it is included in our broader conversation about connectivity. Um we're also identifying streams um and any flooding concerns. We are working with ESS to inform folks on storm water uh improvements that are happening in the area. um and also an assessment of some of the vacant parcels and what that could look like when we look at

redevelopment of shops at Lakewood in the commercial corridor. So, project kickoff, as I said, we started this in August of 2025. Um we spoke with residents um businesses and organization members and really wanted to get at the key themes and concerns of the area. Um, among those understandably is the shops at Lakewood and what people want to see there. The main um, thing that we heard from from residents and business owners alike is that they want to keep the grocery store there. Um, there was also input around better use of the parking lot and more services. Some of those um, or health services. Um, there's a lot of talk of wanting a pharmacy there. So, kind of thinking about what can be done to attract certain uses in the area when we're thinking about what redevelopment looks like. In addition, there was feedback and interest in talking about parks and connectivity. So, we have Lion Park. There's a lot of interest on what's happening with Lion Park and what's going to what it's going to look like moving forward, but also connectivity to other parks in the area. We have a few other parks in the area and also um just right outside of the project area. There are a couple of parks that people also are thinking about how they can get to where they're walking or by bike. And in terms of transportation and safety, this was actually the we heard the most about um interest in transportation safety outside of of shops at Lakewood. There's a lot of concerns around traffic calming, around um walking in and access to sidewalks, whether that's sidewalk quality or increasing sidewalks, particularly around the main arteries, and traffic calming in general sort of along those residential streets. And understandably, although a lot of interest in affordable housing, increasing it, and also maintaining affordable housing in the area, um there are quite a few um apartment buildings and um sort of that are that we know are affordable and also some uh Durham community land trust properties in the area. So, there's a lot of questions about how can those be

maintained as any future redevelopment happens. And then in general there was interest in public services and that's everything from sidewalks to improving bus stops um and increasing benches and access to trash cans because it's an area people walk a lot in this area. People move through the area a lot. Um so there's interest in how do we improve those services that supports the folks who are coming through it and also just the neighborhood environment in general. So from that initial from that initial uh project launch and through our own analysis, we came up with a few focus topics uh focusing on transportation safety as I mentioned before and we prioritized that because it was um a big focus point for that initial engagement and also the transportation is working on projects at the moment that we wanted to collaborate on. We want to focus also on connectivity and parks. So, access to parks um that are we can currently use and also updates on Lion Park and then how people get to those parks. So, thinking about areas where those paper shoots could be used as trails or other ways to connect different portions of the area. There was also interest in neighborhood identity and history. So, kind of talking about um what those historic resources are, what can be done to preserve those resources, and what types of ideas people have for um building sort of around those and with those. and then of course the shops at Lakewood redevelopment. So we approached this through large scale topic specific engagement some smaller focus groups and partnering with city departments on those engagement efforts and as I mentioned before there is a transportation projects that are happening in the area. So this has been identified as a priority area for the vision zero project. Um, also with the green infrastructure project, there was specifically a traffic calming um, project that was being proposed for several of the streets in the area. In terms of environmental street services, we're looking at improvements to waterhed through um, some storm water infrastructure. And there is also an

ongoing effort to pave some of the streets in the area. And on top of that, there's also the office for performance and innovation. Um, and this is their second year of the Love Your Block Grant. and they use this they wanted to focus specifically on this area in terms of community-led projects for improvement primarily focusing on um sort of community beauty projects. So sort of looking at like beautifification around parks but also looking at some potential uh traffic calming um sort of small scale traffic calming projects. And so for the transportation focus, we started with this as I said before because there's an ongoing um engagement uh around transportation EGI projects and they actually started this. We were able to time it so that we can engage with them in December. Um so they actually came and did specific engagement on their traffic calming projects. We were also able to bring in folks from the bike walk plan. It provides some information about what some of the suggestions were for the area. None of those none of those suggestions ended up being in the current prioritization, but we use those when we're thinking about the small area plan and how we can in how we can include those ideas in terms of connectivity in the area. And then we have mapbased engagement where people identified specific geographic areas where they wanted to see improvements and they gave suggestions for that. So that's going into our um our policies and action items as well as helping transportation to prioritize um certain improvements in the area. On April 16th, just recently, we had an engagement around parks open space and connectivity and the so Lion Park really is the the largest park in the area and unfortunately it's a part of the NCDQ's pre-regulatory landfill pro program. So that is currently closed. We had folks from DPR come and they could provide some updates about that um where we are in that process and how uh community

members can get more information about it. But there are quite a few parks in the area where we um also got feedback on improvements people wanted to see and also thinking about how they get to those to those parks. Um, we had some engagement around the the sort of few um, city-owned parcels that aren't the cemetery and aren't parks. Um, but mainly around the um, around the paper streets and what people would like to see in those areas. And we were able to um, sort of prioritize a couple of paper streets. And of course um like I mentioned before environmental streets and services were were there and they also presented information about their own green infrastructure project and um the storm water improvements happening in the area. So shops at Lakewood that's the engagement that we're going to be having tomorrow um on May 7th. We've already had some conversations. Um we've had conversations with folks who are trying to who are organizations and businesses and people who are trying to actively organize those organization and businesses to kind of have a formal or informal kind of collective of um owners, businesses and organizations who can make decisions about what business looks like moving forward and what land use decisions are happening moving forward. Um, at the moment there are no current redevelopment plans and as I mentioned before the shopping center is really broken up into two main sections of two main land owners. You have the scrap exchange on one side um and then you have Brody call on the other. The scrap exchange actually um they're they've changed leadership recently and we're kind of at this good time where they're looking forward to doing a reuse arts district in the area. they're going to start their own engagement for that, but they've expressed interest in using this process and this plan as a way to get that um preliminary information about what people would like to see. Uh we've had conversations with Brody Co. They are so Brody Co is a little bit different from some of the develop developers that we've seen in the past. They are based in Eastern North

Carolina. They do focus on commercial areas and they have expressed interest in getting that community feedback. um that initial sort of a neighborhood meeting that they got, there was a lot of negative feedback from that. Um they sort of took a step back from there um and have shown interest to in having a conversation with scrap exchange. So that's something that we're looking forward to in the future um very near future really in this summer having a conversation with scrap exchange when we look at the redevelopment of the the shopping center kind of having things be more cohesive. Um, and so we have an engagement plan for May 7th. And one of the activities we're going to do for that is actually a sort of diagramming and mapping activity where people can give feedback on how they move through the shopping center. Um, in addition to some of the things they want to see there, looking at kind of building placement, looking at what a potential redevelopment could be, um, how they enter into that area, and then also how it connects to the other commercial corridors. So, we're looking at really at opportunities for redevelopment, but also how we connect that shopping center to um the commercial quarters and thinking about this as a 15-minute community. And so, the next steps after we have this May 7th engagement, we have another virtual opportunity on May 13th. And then we will have um further engagements or large scale engagements in July that are specifically going to talk about the plan. Um the the recommendations from staff um and in addition to that we'll be having a sort of a beginning of a community conversation with business owners, organizations. It's going to be at the tail end of this project. So looking at the staff recommendations for shops at Lakewood, but the goal is to sort of start a series of engagements um or series of meetings with businesses, organizations, and community members to sort of think about what the revitalization of Shops at Lakewood

looks like and how they connect the Shops of Lakewood to the um the Chapel Hill Road Corridor, not so the Chapel Hill Street corridor. As I mentioned before, we have gonna continue our engagement on the topic specific um areas. We have a plan draft released in June and we'll have engagement a couple more engagement opportunities in June and July um around that draft and the plan is to start the planning commission adoption in our September meeting. This is additional information about our upcoming events. Thank you so much. Uh colleagues, comments, questions. Thank you. I really appreciate this. Um several years ago now, I just want to make sure that we're transparent with the scrap exchange. And this was would have been when Tom Bonfield was city manager. The city gave scrap exchange money. Um, and so I just want to make sure that that is part of the conversation as they thinking about redevelopment. And I think it was to stabilize the other part of the commercial so that they could get stable rents from tenants. And so as they're moving forward in their conversations, I don't want to lose sight that like in my opinion, they don't just get to do what they want because there's already been public um investment into that property. So I just want to highlight that. Um I know that was a number of years ago now. Probably 2018 2019.

Yeah. Yeah. Um I think it was maybe a little earlier than that even. Yeah. I was on council. So I joined January 2018. It was sometime after that. Um

and so that's one side, you know, of the property. But I it was that kind of vision of a arts district, but also potentially housing because of the size of the the parking lot. Now things changed and I know the multif family um financing is is really tricky um especially now but I just don't want to lose sight of that there was a a vision of a comprehensive um use of that land that it did include a a a piece around housing um and then is there a way that we can track so this is an area that's gentrified quickly I would say in a way that maybe Roxboro like the the Bragtown area hasn't faced not that there hasn't been gentrification but the pressure is very different Um, and so, uh, I kind of see it as fage like Walltown's kind of on the other side, Lakewood's in the middle, and Bradtown not there. Uh, so when we're talking about tracking demographics, I I would be and I and I don't include Lion Park in the same way as I do Lakewood. I think partly because there so because DCLT for um um DCLT ha and uh and the Weston in particular there was real um key investments made.

Um and so I think there's been a housing stabilization there that a lot other neighborhoods in Durham and in the kind of inner core didn't get the benefit of. Um, and so I I think that in that storytelling piece around this small area plan, I think there's also some lessons learned about how do we actually do neighborhood stabilization uh comparison to right there, one, two, three neighborhoods um and how different each one has has um has developed in the last 20 years and what does that look like when you have that real investment of like something like DCLT? Um it's important for us as we think about other parts of the city. Um and and again, how do we ensure that that neighborhood vibrancy is able to stay

um there's some really other critically important good things that have happened in that corridor, but I I we all remember what that corridor looked like 15 years ago and it's not the same. Yeah. Thank you. I did want to mention we are talking with Scrappy Change about their um the funds that they have received. um they are open to talking about how that's going to be incorporated into their redevelopment plans. They also did receive specific funding for affordable housing. So that's definitely a part of the conversation. Thank you, Sher Jacobs.

Um so I just first of all I want to repeat everything that we said as as Sher Baker said, but I think all of the issues that were raised a lot of them still apply to this as well. And I think again the asset mapping is really important. Um and you know related to that because I was going to make the same point.

Um you know the west end um is we've seen from the data has had the least amount has not had the same level of gentrification and increase in tax values because of the investments by the Durham Community Land Trust. As a m matter of fact, the county we recently um through our ARPA funding provided $1.5 million to DCT and they were able to and I believe it's with in this area. they were able to um buy apartments on Anderson right near Lakewood Elementary School and the parcel next door to then be potentially in the future build in another apartment building. Um so um yeah, I think honestly with both of the plans being able to note where is there um already uh some type of affordable housing that is by you know it is some under some type of restrictions whether it's the 30-year like San Kofa Landing which is in the other plan versus the DCLT properties Um, I think also I just want to lift up related to scrap exchange. I agree. I remember actually Duke was even involved in the conversations about the Lakewood redevelopment. There were challenges related to infrastructure that were going to be very costly under the parking lot to get access to things like water and sewer. But um the I I want to lift up the role of Aluro specifically in in Lakewood because the investments that they have made which frankly with county funding because

they've gotten several doted grants to develop um that amazing um you know outside area there that's incredible which they keep expanding um and connecting to the neighborhood on but they have been up against not um friendly um collaboration with at least the previous u owner of that um of the shopping center there. Um, so I hope that that we'll see a change with that and you know um and the skateboard park that's going up at the scrap and then of course Lakewood social that business there is a big gathering place. So it's it's very it has its own unique features. I think with this with this um small area plan there is less opportunity for the com kind of residential. We don't see it's mostly developed except for the Lakewood Shopping Center, right? There's not a lot of maybe infill but not a lot of big um development redevelopment opportunities. Um but the connectivity

and the improvements and all of that will be really really important. I was wondering why um if that map um of just the the um more of like the land the picture map um you know like that shows the what you would see like that one. Yeah. Why is that piece um some of that commercial along West Chapel Hill Street not included? Isn't that like the co-op and a lot of those small businesses there? Why is that not included in the small area planning?

So, it wasn't included in So, it wasn't included in the scope of the smaller plan because they had quite a bit of focus. They had a specific sort of design plan that happened there and there was a new zoning district that was developed commercial infill. So, it wasn't so much that this isn't a part of the area that's important. we were thinking about that in terms of connectivity, but rather we wanted to make sure in terms of our land use and sort of zoning questions, we were focusing on areas that weren't a part of that um initial work. So, I don't actually have the date of when that happened. Do you know?

I don't know if maybe that should be looked at again because like connectivity to those businesses and things like that or Yeah. So, we did about 10 years ago, we created the we did a process with the property owners on Chapel Hill Street and created the commercial infill zoning district. Yeah.

Kind of addressed their issues at the time. The real a big reason why we didn't include it in the boundary of this neighborhood plan or small area plan as Sarah mentioned before we kind of added the west end neighborhood at the end of the beginning of the process because we got requests from the the neighbors there but we wanted to leave the Chapel Hill Street corridor kind of wanted to keep those together and we hadn't really engaged with those property owners. So that would we can include that in a future small area plan for the other neighborhoods in that area, but since we hadn't we hadn't really reach out to the property owners, we didn't want to add them kind of after the fact. Yeah.

Yeah. I'll just say I was I was thinking the same thing. I'm like, oh, but it's wrapping around this really critical space. But that's it's always going to be hard to draw boundaries to a small area plan. There's always going to be really important things on the edges and um you know scope creep you know it um it's it gets harder and harder as you as you reach further and further out. So um pluses and minuses. Did you have anything else Mr. Jacobs? Anybody else? I guess one thing that when you were talking about the parks um and you know we've we talked about this many many years ago um about how to fully utilize school facilities uh especially at night and on the weekends and I still don't think we're doing a good job of that in Durham you know um for people to be able to you know walk on, you know, tracks or, you know, play on school grounds at on the weekends and at night. And how do we how are we looking at those as kind of parks as well with the, you know, we're investing a lot of resources in them um as a community and that land. And I think it's worth talking about that and thinking about how we how do we actually do that in Durham. That's a good point. Do we Is there are there agreements between parks and wreck and DPS about

No. And we've had conversations with DPS in the past and I do not speak for DPS, but there are some concerns from them about shared facilities and security and etc. And so my understanding is those conversations happen periodically, but I don't think there's progress

opportunity for Yeah, I mean I know for in some cases funding for extra personnel for right and I mean that like with as many budget constraints as there are um it's a money as is always almost always the case I should say maybe not always almost always the case it's often about money and funding right like they're going to have to have personnel on potentially on facilities and and and think about that cost and when you have the giant list of things that they need it just becomes hard to to figure out.

I think it would be worth just even having a sense of what does that look like because especially with, you know, the with our comprehensive land use plan saying that we want people to, you know, have access to open space and parks and it it could be end up in the long run cheaper to not have to build a separate park if there's something that is located nearby. Anyway, it's just something to think about. Definitely. Definitely. And I know kind of informally people will sneak on to, you know, school properties and and use them and it's an enforcement thing too. Um few council member Kobach, did you have any? No. Okay. Uh and I will also second the things from that I said from uh the the last item. Um shops at Lakewood, huge opportunities there obviously. Um, and so many assets there already. Um, it's kind of like the commercial with the tiny little car and people keep getting out. It's like how how can you pack so many beloved businesses and institutions into one really small space. It's also interesting because it's this kind of aged shopping center, but it's actually really comfortable to walk along there. And you can do it when it's hot and sunny out because you're shaded and when it's raining out and it's wide and the frontage along those businesses is actually quite nice. You can do window shopping. You know, there's um bright black candle and all that. Um, so it's it's hard to imagine um a scenario where that would ever in the near future get uh recommended for kind of like redevelopment of that specific building. I can't imagine that that we would recommend anything like

that. The parking lot just seems like it has huge amounts of opportunity for housing and civic space and just a a whole new way of thinking. There's incredible transit access there. Numerous bus stops along there with I think 15inute intervals, free bus taking you straight into downtown um or south into um the South Square area. um really a huge opportunity for doing redevelopment and doing it right. So I'll just come back, you know, as I as I so often do to you can fit great things in with great design and how important that is and making sure that you're not shoving things, you know, ideas down people's throat. They're not saying like you're going to get a whole bunch of density without uh you know maybe there's a public plaza and playgrounds and other things like that and lifting up this amazing um little um civic space next to El Futuro and um which right next to that is just a fenced off vacant property that has a huge opportunity could front onto that. Um there's that connection up to the street that's behind the shopping uh area which isn't super pleasant looking on the back end back side of those buildings. Um so just enormous amounts of opportunity when it comes to um Lakewood and engaging with those land owners. Um there's vacant spots within the the shopping center as well. I know that um our former employee Tom Dawson is also on the board of this the scrap exchange. So that's an interesting opportunity for engagement with them as well. So I can't emphasize enough just how important I think that that um getting that right is is going to be. Getting

the vision for that property right is going to be. Um, there's also the co the I don't know if it's owned by CASA, but the fenced off I believe it needs a b a bunch of remediation within the neighborhood. Um, and a couple years ago CASA had reszoned it. I think it's CASA. Yeah. Um, do we do we have any sense of the opportunities there? Um, I know that there's a lot of remediation that's needed. So,

yeah. So Kakasa um they conducted a an independent environmental assessment of that area and they found it to be highly contaminated. So it's adjacent to the Lion Park and it seems like a lot of the contamination issues that we have at Lion Park on that site as well. So they actually don't own it. They didn't move forward with um with purchasing it because of that.

Okay. Yeah. And of course you do some d remediation's so expensive. Once you do some digging in, it stirs up all the bad stuff in there too. So, um, yeah, that'll be an interesting what do you do with that? I think is an interesting question. Um, engagement types, I know we talked about this on the last item, but I know that, um, Lion Park Community Center, great great spot for engagement. Um, I don't know if there has been engagement of kind of like walking or doing popups because there I know that there are events at Shops of Lakewood and other spots. Um, but if any of that has happened, uh, I think that the middle school, Lakewood Middle School, uh, is

it's just below that. It's just below that. But I I do think that they have engaged with with the planning team. They have one of their um, civic teachers has engaged their students and they also had some students come to our last engagement.

Cool. That's awesome. Um and again speaks to you know there we've got boundaries here on a map but you know if you're on the edge I don't I don't think that it precludes you from um participating. Uh there are a lot of um vacant buildings or or several vacant buildings um in this area too and along Chapel Hill Road. Um, and then I agree with the comments about it. It it'd be interesting to see uh the community land trust properties as well because I do think that that has played a big role in um you know lessening the impacts of gentrification and displacement. But I look forward to I'm going to try and make that the meeting tomorrow. I look forward to future meetings and seeing uh what you all come up with.

Yes. Yeah. Two things. Can y'all send us a list of the community meetings for both small area plans when y'all have them? Just so that we know. Yes.

Um like I can't come tomorrow. It's too short notice. Um and then second um how is it going to be? Oh well. Oh uh Elfuto did get PB money as well. Yeah. Um this is what it was for some of the longer like more established um apartment complexes in the area. Can we also get that as like a list of those even if they're privately held because as we're thinking about you know naturally affordable whatever Noah naturally occurring affordable housing having understanding where those properties are in the area and what the opportunities are there when we think about neighborhood stabilization we don't have the money but one day we will

it's a great point yeah great point all right thank you so I just want I I think the other thing that is unique about this area compared to the bragg town small area plan is the number of nonprofits. Um not only um and I think about the scrap exchange portion of Lakewood but also along Chapel Hill Street and yeah and making and along with a lot of small businesses. So how making sure we in include them.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation for your work. We are now going to item seven and a half. Um discussion of uh the the moratorum the data center moratorum discussion of the text amendment lengthening the amount of time for any moratorium.

So I think to maybe I'll just speak a little bit teeing this teeing this up. So um we uh had originally proposed a 2-year moratorum to that would give us time to look and study the the issue of uh hypers scale data centers. Um, we discovered provisions, archaic provisions never before used in the UDO that self-impose uh certain requirements for going through uh the moratorium process that limited us to two months without taking it to the planning commission. And so that's what we ended up voting on on Monday. So putting in place a two-month moratorum um and then up to 12 months uh with planning commission review. So that's that's where we are also as I understand the mortorium language is is al was also carried forward into the LBC. So that might be something for us to to take a look at as well. Um and do you want to add anything regarding sorry regarding the text amendment? I'll just finish up and then you can if you if either of you want to add anything onto what I've said then or correct anything that I've said you can feel free to

so um so a few different avenues here because I know that there's a a range of interest in how to move forward here. So um we have these two months. Uh we have procedures in the unified development ordinance. Um this would follow the um a portion of the procedures with under under text amendment actually to go through the moratorum take it through the planning commission uh which is joint city and county and then take the moratorum to each of their respective bodies. that would give us 12 months moratorum. Um there's also interest in having longer moratorum and so that would require amending the text uh to the unified development ordinance regarding moratorum. It is our regulation self-imposed upon us. Uh and that would allow additional flexibility. We wanted to go longer, we could go longer. And so I think for me there's a question of how long would that take? I want to hear uh uh county's reaction to that, but that is a strong desire on the part of I think every me almost every member of city council spoke on Monday was interested in having something longer than 12 months. And so, um I think I've teed everything up there and would appreciate any reaction from the county attorneys. Can

I ask a question?

Sure. So what we're discussing here is just the the limits of what you all ran into, right? Not the actual um moratorum because that's that's going to be individual board's decisions. Correct. So, um, what council member Copac has has raised here is essentially initiating a text amendment to the unified development ordinance that would hit the delete button on these provisions that self-impose requirements regarding moratoria, which would give us more flexibility on moving forward and we and adopting a longer moratorum. I'm not quite there yet at this point. I'm just broadly trying to tee up that conversation uh about moratorum and give us all the context to then move on to that discussion. Um but I want to hear from the attorneys first.

Um and to answer uh Dr. Lee's uh question, the way that the UDO is currently written, it does require a moratorum that would affect both jurisdictions to come before this body. So I don't believe that's a discussion that is happening today that we're just discussing the text amendment and the text amendment would require action by both bodies if it were to affect both jurisdictions. So that is why I believe it's coming before joint county planning because those text amendments do come before you all. Um and you are correct that it would have to it would follow the same um requirements as normal text amendments. would have to go to the planning commission for review and then they would make a determination or recommendation and then it would come to the various governing bodies.

Attorney Massie, do you do you want to add anything?

Well, this is of course the first I was told about this proposal. U so I'd like to take a look at the UDO provisions. um in terms of what is the process and how it would play out. Um to chair Lee's my chair Lee's question, the moratorum each body can adopt separate ones. They don't have to be a jointly adopted moratorum. Okay. So, I'm I'm slightly confused about this whole thing, right? Because so we had a discussion about a um what was it on our work session? It was it was just a um proclamation, right?

We just discussed Yeah. discussion, right? It was general discussion about us issuing either a proclamation or something like that just from us um about data centers. It didn't have to do with the EUDO. It was just our our board level's decision not to approve that sort of thing kind of going forward. So, how how does that inter how would that interact with the UDL? Because that was just a separate um thing that was put forth by one of our commissioners going forward. Sir, and I realize you had had to leave the meeting.

Yeah. Yeah, I did. Monday there there was no proclamation. Uh it was more of a discussion about the board's interest in

this issue of a mor. So, it originated with with something being sent by one of the commissioners and we said, "Well, we don't want to go to that just yet. We want to discuss it a little bit further about specifics." So, let's just open discussion about it. We didn't have it wasn't a proclamation or anything on the actual agenda. We removed that and said, "Let's just have a discussion so we can form ideas on what it wants to what we want to say." There was no intersection of the UDO there. I'm sorry. Hold on. my my my glasses started playing music. But um so I'm I'm confused about the intersection between the UDL and what like the different level of how this this works. Do you want to speak first and then council member Copek? I would just say sir the the intersection is to adopt a moratorum beyond the state statutes. There are also procedures set out in the UDO about how it has to be originated and who is supposed to review it before submission to the respective bodies. Um, just to catch you up where things left on Monday at the work session, sir. Several questions were raised by the commissioners, most notably Commissioner Jacobs, and u, those were referred over to the county manager and county attorney to look into several matters that were identified and then report back into the board. Yeah, I'll just I'll just add um kind of three major restrictions here. Constitution of the United States, state,

and you know how the state is is so restrictive on what local governments can do. Well, we have regulations that restrict us even further than what the state uh restricts us. So those are kind of the the three major places where we have restrictions on and and procedures on on how to uh enact a moratorum and um yeah if you need clarity let us know.

Yeah. Um and you know sort of build on where we're at for the city. So from uh our recent meeting um you know we did u you know have a kind of a a joint desire to move forward with a process of exploring um the moratorium for hypers scale data centers. Um my understanding is we will be going it will be going to the planning commission for review. I don't know if we have a date for that if that will be the next planning commission meeting. Uh and I also think it's really important that we have discussions with the county. Um, it's great to hear that we can have separate resolutions. It doesn't have to be the exact same thing, which obviously simplifies the process a bit, but it's really important that we collaborate. Um, and I think there are some important questions, you know, raised about some of the details to make sure we get that right. So, we're sort of in the 60-day period. Um but as part of that when we get to the point of uh of voting I believe in support of a hypers scale data center moratorum we want to not have the time limit uh of 12 months that's currently in the UDO. So that's where it intersects and maybe I'm just restating what's been said. Um but my question then is would that uh because that also has to go through the planning commission right as a text amendment. So would that run concurrently at the next uh or future planning commission meeting to both uh review the the hypers scale data center mortorium and also the text amendment to the UDO to remove the 12 month limit.

Yeah, thank you uh council member Copac. And I do think there is a bit of a caveat um around reviewing things separately um because we have the joint uh planning department. So that adds a little bit of a an additional complicating because we don't have enough complicating uh matters here. Um and so you have your question. I think I'd add on to your question. Can we get it done in two months? Can could we hypothetically get it done? I think also There is a certain amount of would the commission would the county commission be open to entertaining amending the UDO to remove the provisions um around moratorum. So

yeah uh Robin Schultz planning development um just wanted to speak a little bit on the text amendments. So the only real requirement for text amendments that are staff initiated which is what this would be is that it has to go before you all as a board for the JCCPC. Um so I think right now it says that the moratorum language is going in June for the planning commission. I don't that much might be what we initially thought but those two things could run concurrently. Um we could use this meeting as the required JCCPC so long as we got clear direction from you all on that language. So essentially, if you don't want a year, you know, what would you like, etc. Um, and just knowing that it would go before planning commission uh in early June. The thing also to consider is that the 60 days ends around July 4th, correct? You all do not meet in July. Um, your June agenda is pretty um you've got a lot on there, including the budget. Um, but we could we could make that happen. I'm pretty sure

if Sarah thinks so. I'm not gonna

Okay. I think that what Robin said was probably the crux of my confusion. Right. And so, and I do appreciate what you just said. So, we're the governing body of the UDO, right? That right here. Right. We're in a Right. So if we as long as we're we're not setting the morator like the the actual moratorum this body can actually change the tech. Can we can we change the the text? No, we can't we can't go. It has to go to the both and then I don't want to speak out of turn. What has to happen with most things, text amendments or whatever is it gets heard at JCCPC first, then we kind of say yay or nay or make these changes and it comes back if we have changes then it typically has to go to planning commission and then it has to be adopted by both boards. So that is what happens whenever there's a change to the UDO and a text amendment at the end of the day is a change to the UDO. if we would like a text amendment and I'm saying if we would basically b this would be the hearing quote not really a hearing but whatever consultation um now planning commission would hear it in June and then ostensibly either in June or maybe August but then the mortoriums the 60 days happened both the board of county commissioners and the city council would have to approve it before we go on break because then we run into the 60-day moratorum that the city council passed The county is in a whole other thing because y'all haven't done anything. But the city, our thing ends in early July. So, we are in a tight timeline when we think about that. Um, I I have a another thing, but I don't know if you want to have the rest of this conversation and then move to the other thing. So, it's your your call because you're the chair.

What is your other thing? Yep. Okay. So, I mean, we're under I mean, the county is going to do what the county is going to do, but there in my mind, we can add a text amendment or put a thing in the LDC or whatever. like 12 months is even if we're all interested in a longer time which I I think I mean if the if the max is given 32 months I say we do is it 32 months is that the max that is the longest that my understanding that is the longest that yes

um so I feel like we should attempt for that just my go and I do think that part of it is and and we we are hearing from some health facilities and folks like there is some real specific tailored language that we have to put in to whatever we are doing and it's going to have to be carefully thought out. Um it could be that they are not like a moratorium is for a thing but like we have the ability at least my understanding is to say those kinds are not allowed within our LDC when we adopt because we have a tiered approach. I know that's something that the mayor has talked about and that's what I perceive it as as a tiered approach. It's not a blanket moratorum. It's like within this framework for this purpose for this thing you're you're fine. It it is one of the you know do you tie it to energy use whatever there's constraints that I think we will be allowed to put in the code that is I think ultimately what the community and what we're seeing across the country are the impacts on water and energy use and those are the things that people rightfully so do not want in anyone's backyard.

Yeah. Yeah. And I'll just say the more the purpose of the more time is not to say we don't want this thing and so we're not going to have it. It is to say we need to pause and in the interim go through the process of studying this issue which is a rapidly evolving and changing issue having dramatic impacts on communities where these things are located. Studying the best practices which are also evolving quite rapidly. um studying the impacts, collaborating with uh different utilities and what those kinds of impacts would be and then um and then putting in place drafting up and testing out new reg I mean that all takes a lot of time to to do all of that and and that is why we are looking at you know ultimately why we are looking at a a prolonged um time period. We don't need to decide right now the details of how long it is, what it applies to, if there are size or energy thresholds. What what we are discussing here is really about is it important that we open up the the opportunity to go over 12 months? um because that would require a a text amendment which it sounds like could be done laboriously but could be done um within the next two months. And

um I think I think I speak for the county commission. There wouldn't be any objections that I know of for extending it. you know, um, thinking about just thinking about all the the different commissioners and where they kind of where they stand on this. I don't think there'd be any objections for us to move forward with putting out a longer time frame, even up to even 24 months or so. Um, I'll let uh, Commissioner Jacobs speak, but I just don't I don't see any there would be any objections. So, if we started that process now, send something to the planning commission so they can go and then we can all get our votes in in June, I think we can I think we can make it on a shorter time frame. Go ahead, Commissioner Jacobs.

Well, I just first of all, two things for me. One is if this is the meeting where normally we would be looking at actual language. I want to know as best as possible what is the language that we're putting we're going to be putting forward because normally that's what this body does is it reviews specific language and we give the you know to your point modify up down then it goes to the planning commission. So first of all I want to know what is the language that we're talking about as best we can right now. that's then going to go to planning commission. Second thing is I I would appreciate knowing what is the city council considering in terms of the language for your resolution. Frankly, there's been very little collaboration on this. Um we have you know the sid the county has made significant financial investments in RTP and Treyburn and frankly we are you know RTP and Treyburn are generate a huge amount of the jobs and the uh economic activity in Durham County and we don't understand even what is the role of any type of data center at this point in Durham. Um, and we also we need to hear from folks in RTP and Treyburn about we need to get some, you know, be educated and know what we're even talking about. We just approved a new ordinance RTP 3.0. I don't personally even know what does our UDO say about the unincorporated areas. Um obviously we want to protect our watershed in northern Durham. We don't want hyperscale mega data centers. Absolutely

not in jeopardizing our watersheds, our farmland. Again, we've made huge investments from the county side in that. But I don't feel informed at all about this issue. And I I hope that there is going to be conversations between our staff with our economic development director related to RTP because um I I don't I don't even know what is what are we referring to when we say you're using the terminology hypers scale because I don't I don't know what the city is looking at at this point and what the city does will impact um RTP and Treyburn because um that's where a lot of utilities come from. You know, we the county has invested in $30 million in the city's pump station, Snow Hill, uh to serve Treyburn. So, you know, we are all linked and we just need to be make very educated, thoughtful, informed decisions. And so I I I just want to put that out there that um you know all data centers are not alike and we need to know what we're talking about

and what the implications are.

Absolutely, Commissioner Jacobs. Um and thank you so much for for that um statement. I think that's all really really important. Um and I think that is exactly what this is this is all about. Um and your your first question um what is the language? We know what the language is here. The language is to delete the additional restrictions that we have placed on ourselves to free us up to be able to pass um moratorium language. and the mortorium language does not have to be the same for the county as it does for the city. I think that there are certain things and this is where it's both complicated and also an asset to have the same planning department um for the city and the county. But again to your first question, what is the language? The language that we're talking about here is just referring to the text in the UDO that places additional restrictions beyond what the state enabling legislation is on how to go through the process of devel of of adopting moratorum. That's all we're talking about right now. Um, of course, the mortorium again is to you you said um how do we even define a hyperscape? That is part of the reason for the moratorum. We don't have definitions. We we it is such a rapidly evolving situation. There are new kinds of data centers being um built weekly at this point and so studying what what are the issues being cool collected about it. That is the the purpose of the moratorum. But again, I just want to emphasize today is not about the length beyond just saying we want to give ourselves a space to have something longer than 12 months. It's also not

about what the moratorium would actually apply to. That is for uh future collaboration conversations um and ultimately the language that would go into um the the moratorum. Did you want to say something? Okay. You and then do you still want to say something? Okay, I'll let you guys decide who you want to speak for.

So, I I think I would suggest um I don't generally I don't love it when the ordinance repeats things that are in state statute because then if state statute changes or something, you know, so on top of that, this goes beyond state statute. So, I think and we've got it pulled up. I think we would look to delete everything from B forward because it's it's and just saying you know leave A that says if we do a moratorum it's in compliance with general statutes and it just defers to them because the other thing in addition to the time limitation is also imposing a plan commission public hearing which is not required by state law and and and resolution and that eats up additional time which kind of defeats the purpose of being able to act swiftly to put a moratorum in place. So that would be my recommendation if we were going to move forward is to basically only keep a and delete everything else. Um I will also say we could get this queued up to go to planning commission uh in June at the beginning of June and then get it to the last governing body meetings in June as well. So we're going to be assuming then because the agenda items for those are going to be due before it actually goes to planning commission. So, we're going to be assuming that planning commission is going to, you know, act on and move it along. Um, the other thing I will say is just from a practical standpoint, we we do have a joint ordinance um and a joint department. And while you know, certainly each governing body can adopt their own thing and go their own way. Um, I think that creates a lot of practical problems and potentially some opens us up for some issues. Um so I would and I've asked both administrations this that if we could coordinate that would be preferable. Um yeah just as we move forward

copac and then mayor co.

Yeah thank you for that. Um so I appreciate the signal of of potential support just around the time length in your proposal for how to be able to address that. Right. And so that helps us deal with like kind of the length of the moratorum. Um, and I hear your your encouragement for us to work in kind of collaboration uh on this with the county. And I think there's good good reason for that. I also hear uh Commissioner Jacobs your your statement about the importance of of getting educated on this issue because there are real nuances here and in getting what we want to achieve, we want to make sure there aren't unintended consequences. So um I guess my question is in the spirit of what chair Baker has shared of the moratorum allowing us the time to explore the issue and put the proper regulations in place. Uh is there a concern that doing so would have some would have unintended consequences while we are evaluating it under um the terms of a moratorum. Um because I think it's what I'm hearing. It's like that that that by putting the mortorium in place to allow us to study it and get the regulations right that that would create unintended consequences um during that time period of impacting something you know in trap some aspect of kind of necessary social infrastructure for example that could be disrupted by that. um you know and and and I guess like if that is the concern, what steps can we take and what's the form to do that you know in the next 60 days to be able to kind of mitigate some of those concerns and do we have time to be able to to to do that? So

so I think one of the things and I know I've seen it in the proposed resolution on the city side is some exemptions, right? So for instance um there may be institutions that um need or are planning kind of a small data center that is not an independent standalone data center. It just serves their institution right that's not a hypers scale center and so um there I think having carving out exemptions in the moratorum so that those things can continue to proceed is a relatively straightforward way to address that. If there are other, you know, concerns, we can certainly look at that as um the moratoria or ordinances get crafted. Um but I think that's relatively straightforward to address.

I was just going to I apologize, Mayor Prom. I just wanted to to add on to what um Director Young stated there. There the current city um ordinance does provide exemptions for those incidental data centers. It also as required by state law exempts certain types of projects that have already been permitted and that are already existing. Um that's it does that's the state law is not specific to data centers is specific to projects that would otherwise be affected by the data by the moratorum. So I just wanted to clarify that as well.

Yeah. Council member Baker, can you send the actual the original ordinance language, not what we adopted because it's not the same to commissioners because at least from what I heard that language so there was a little bit of conrnation on the Duke Health side of what we passed on Monday night, but they were fine with it because it was just 60 days, but the language was different and they did raise that. So I think that that original language is different than what we passed. I mean, there's still except exceptions, but it's not the same identical language. And so I think that that's the space that um that I think needs to be that original ordinance language is what needs to be sent to county commissioners. Um those were the to your point, Commissioner Jacobs, what is already in Trayburn is not affected by what we did Monday. whatever we're thinking what whatever RTP is anticipating that is because it's it's it's tied to a use of a business or an entity current like it's it's it's not a um and and there is going to be nuance there's been conversations around square footage and things like that and so um I think if council member Baker can send you the original ordinance I think there will be a lot of questions answered my question is just on this um thing that we can we have that highlight wherever it went. Where did it go?

Okay. Um but by my understanding and I don't Hold on. I want to pull this up because I want to make sure I have the dates right. Planning commission in June doesn't meet until June 9th. We meet on June 3,

but we could add it as a supplemental if we needed to. Right. I just want folks to understand that like if if there's a hangup today about like if if JCCP me JCCPC members don't feel comfortable for whatever reason, technically there is a timeline where we would see actual language because we could do it on the third. It's tight, but you just I mean we've done this before. you just added as a supplemental item to the J to the two planning commissions agenda in June and you added as a supplemental item but I don't know the county commissioner's calendar I'm just looking at council's calendar so I just want to name that is that this is a hangup that people don't feel like they can move forward today there is technically a possibility on a timeline as far as I see it

um thank you it would be good to see the language but I do want to clarify that As far as I know and what from what I've been told is that stakeholders in Treyburn and RTB have not been included for input and in the conversation. Don't want to make any assumptions about their specific plans and needs. Um and they they need to that's why I said to please make sure that our economic development director is part our staffs are working together. Um and also yes we want to make sure that Duke Health the VA as well that we are again not making assumptions that we are definitely communicating and making informed decisions and that's why I was asking you know what is some definition or threshold when we're talking about a mega center you know hypers scale like what are we talking about here because if we do a threeyear or 32-month moratorum. I don't want to have unintended consequences that are going to um have negative impacts that are not intended just related to basically having jobs for people in our community that are not associated with these terrible um situations that we're all are well aware of that we don't want for our community. But we also uh I don't want to be a broken record about this, but I I just want to make sure that we are communicating.

Absolutely. Yes. 100%. Yeah. But that's that's separate from this that I just want to I want to make sure that's separate that we're clear that that's that's separate. That's for us to discuss after this, right? And I just want us to move forward with this as so that we can get to that step. That's what I want to do. Yeah, but it you're teeing up the conversations we need to have over the next,

right? But but I want to make the point if the city moves forward with certain language and their resolution because we are connected related to access to utilities and things like that. It will impact places like Treyburn and RTP where the county has jurisdiction but is and may but I don't want to I don't need to repeat myself.

Heard heard. Thank you, Commissioner Jacobs. Every single council member on Monday night, I know you don't necessarily go and listen to our meetings, has said we part of the reason we did a 60-day moratorum. Part of the reason we are approaching this in a different manner is because we are all interested in working and collaborating with the county because we have a merged city county planning department and just for their benefit, not working together is not really a a um an outcome anyone is interested in. and we took plenty of heat on Monday night with residents who were not particularly pleased with us and how we are approaching this. So, I can say that was a unanimous uh um decision by council on Monday night. Every single person said that that's not one of us. That's not two of us. It's not a majority of us. It was seven of us. So, I I hear your concerns and I will say that there is no intent or desire on the city council's part to not work collaboratively with whichever department needs to be worked with.

I am very optimistic that we will all be on the same page here pretty pretty soon, but we definitely need to communicate with one another very very well. Yeah,

Baker. So, I guess with that in mind, um, from a planning department standpoint, what is what's your perspective on if the council moves forward on June 15th? U, but the county commissioners are not yet ready to do so with your interest in having us have aligned language. Um, that's the first question. And then the second question will be what are the steps we can take between now and then? What is the right forum to convene in um conversations to have in order to get to a place to minimize the likelihood of that happening?

Can I ask a clarif My understanding is the only thing we're trying to do in June is deal with a text amendment to to to limit the moratorium. Then there would be separate I mean like well no because if we if we address the time frame yeah go go ahead direct yeah I think part of the issue is as Robin said like the time clock on the 60-day moratorum ends July 4th right July July 3rd

July 3rd thank you math is hard calendar math is harder um and so there's going to be a gap if the city does not adopt another moratorum or to extend the moratorum basically before they go on on their break, you know, at their last meeting. So, one of the things that I was going to kind of seek clarification is if we're going the route of eliminating this from the UDO, then we we don't have to have the moratorum public hearing at planning commission. If we structure it in the agenda on the 15th, then this is just for council, right? Because we got to solve the council kind of gap problem. Um, if the text amendment item goes first on the agenda, then that is out of the ordinance and we make it like effective upon adoption. So, it's effective immediately and then you all can go ahead and have a public hearing that night to go ahead and extend your um your moratorum for whatever period of time. I think my main interest in terms of coordinating is where I think we would potentially uh be opening ourselves up for some issues is if for instance the two bodies uh adopted moratoria that were drastically different in time frame right if one body says we can do this in a year and the other body says no it's going to take us two and a half I think we're opening ourselves up for exposure right so I think if the county comes later down the road and they just sync up with whatever longer time frame the city has adopted I think that would or close to it. It doesn't have to be exact, but I just I'm concerned about there being a big discrepancy in the time frame because I think that does open us up.

That's absolutely right. Yeah. It's not um let's do this and then we think about what to do next. We need to be here in the next few weeks thinking about what we are going to be doing next because uh basically in the same meeting where we would be adopting this text amendment is when we would be and we'd have to have the 10-day notice before that adopting the the ordinance per not these procedures but the procedures that we'd have to follow in the state enablement legislation. I have a question. So is the intent um to be the same language of the initial ordinance language you presented council or are there going to be changes to that language?

Let's I think we can use that as a starting point but I I can't imagine that we won't be tweaking that language. So my suggestion is that attorneys on both and I know the city attorney's office has it. The attorneys on the county's office gets that language. County commissioners get that language. And then on the county side, obviously planning already has it. Whoever y'all need on the county side to see that. You've mentioned uh your um economic development folks. Uh then once the county attorney's office has it and county commissioners have it, they need to decide who is it in their own entity that needs to see that language and provide feedback. Right? So I think that's a step one. I would say on the city side, our office of economic and workforce development folks need to see it. Um and if there are we don't do RTP, that's a county thing. same thing. If there are stakeholders that the county and Commissioner Jacobs, you've listed them, that the county feels needs to be involved, then that is that is on in my opinion, that's the burden on the county to to work with those stakeholders that they support and fund and and whatnot. Um if if the goal is to the timeline in June, which makes sense to me on the city side, we would probably have to do the same thing, but I don't I think sending that initial drafted language that has already happened is the right first step because if there has to be tweaks, it's going to come from there.

So, thank you. When would thinking about the clock then when would this come before the board of county commissioners to be able to evaluate I guess informally or yeah we can do it on um to chair Lee's point um on the 22nd of June like this language you know removing that being that would be that would be for a for a vote right because on the on the text amendment but also possibly if you wanted to a moratorum Yeah. Um

but from this point forward, from today going forward, when would it come before you next to give you time to evaluate? Is that a future work session? Is that I guess that would be the the time, right, to consider. So we don't have to have it at the work session. We can independently review it and then we can vote on it. We can have it on the agenda. It doesn't have to be on a work session in order for us to vote for it in a regular session. But we do have the June work session.

Yeah. I mean, we can we could we can get it we could get it to the text amendment and if we want to do the resolution, but um it does it's not a requirement

because I think in in an ideal world ideal ideal world, two things would be true. one, we'd get to a place where the county and city were both comfortable with language and two, the county would also be ready to move forward with a moratorum um so we could really sync them up and so we can you know mitigate the concerns that we have and I just want to make sure that we're giving the this has moved fast on the city side and so you know you know I think um I will speak for myself but like um I think that engagement is really critical with y'all. Um, this has been moving quickly, so it was not an oversight, but it's just this is the first time that we together in an appropriate venue since we decided to take it up. Yeah, I appreciate your comments and I I think that I I would hope that we would all be on the same accord and um I think that we'll set ourselves up for success if we can have some type of a group. um you know make sure that the appropriate staff are working together, our attorneys, our economic development staff, obviously city county manager and possibly even representatives from um you know our elected bodies just I I think communication and collaboration are the key making sure that we get all the input we need and yeah let's try to aim to be successful and for us to work together. I think a great example was what we just did with the E and I was I wanted to mention that in our meeting today. I want to really thank our planning staff um who uh Aaron

and Sarah and then um count who was there? Oh. Oh, that's right. and Payton and also um city council member uh Burus and and Copac and then I was there and commissioner um Valentine and it was fantastic. I mean we spent a while together and I feel like it was really productive um experience and I I mean that's what I would think would be a great model for us to do something like that. So yeah, we all want to be on the same we want to be successful here and you know I think that's way we're going to do that is by everyone just

we don't have time for that. I'm sorry. If we're trying to adopt this, if we're trying to adopt an a moratorum in in June by county commission and the city council, which is what it seems like we're saying the how long did this thing take this last thing was a working group? It was like an hour and a half. No, I'm saying how many months? Like we're in May. I'm trying to figure this out to adoption. I mean, it doesn't have to be that way, but it seems like we're trying to do that. I don't think it was. Yeah, just a schedule meeting.

Chair Shagar, I have a question or a suggestion. Um, I don't see any verbiage up there that limits the number of back-to-back 60-day moratoriums you could have to allow everybody more breathing room. Could city council just before the 60 first 60-day moratorum expires have another one while all of these other things are going on behind the scenes?

I think that's I appreciate that. I think that might even add more complications because then we have to go through the process again to adopt another moratorum. I think honestly as kind of hectic as I think the next 60 days are going to be, I do think that this is is probably a little bit less especially and then July folks are off. I think this is probably this is probably the best route forward. But I do I'm glad we're I'm glad we're trying to brainstorm here some some of the ideas. But that's just my that's my thought. Yeah. Good. Did you have anything else, Chair Shagar?

No, thank you.

No, regarding uh Chair um Commissioner Jacob's um point about communication, I do think that of the informal communication that we have is necessary. And then I I could see setting up a meeting and and sitting down and just saying like, are we all on the same page? I could see it being hour, hour and a half. So definitely something to for us to think about whether we want to set something up like that. I just wanted to make get some clarity on what's proposed today because as I say it was a bit of a surprise and what I first heard was lifting the one-year limit on a moratorum. But then when director Young was talking, she said basically to delete everything from 1 3196 be on and that's a little more extensive. Now I haven't done a side by side with what's in 60D 107 but one thing that's in our process in the UDO is it moratorum would go through the planning commission. If part of the proposal is get rid of that, I'm not offering an opinion. I just want to make sure that since this was such a surprise, the commissioners are aware that that's what's apparently now being proposed. And it's also I'm going to point out that under the UDO, there's a lot of bodies that can propose a text amendment. JCCPC is not one of them. So, this is really becoming more unusual. And that's why I want to make sure my clients understand

yes what's happening.

Absolutely. And I I'll I'll speak to that. So planning um and thank you for raising that and my apologies that you know we and I'll take some of that responsibility that you were not better informed about this conversation. Things are moving quickly. Um so I just ask for some grace on that. So um regarding planning commission, planning commission would review the text the text amendment that would pull them out of the process of adopting a moratorum. So they would become very very aware and in fact would even be able to weigh in and and make that recommendation to the um elected bodies. A and then also to your second point this would become staff staff initiated a staff initiated text amendment. So,

can I just would uh do you have any follow-up questions or comments on that? No, sir. And and I understand it's a fast process. I'm just trying to make sure that Yeah, absolutely. The commissioners understand some of the ramifications of what's being proposed for action today. Yeah. And thank you for that. We do actually have a JCCPC meeting in early June that we could bring language to um if that would be more comfortable for you all before it goes to planning commission on the 9th and then to the city council on the 15th for the moratorum language for the text amendment. Okay. Because the text amendment language is going to be deleting B onward.

Right. if I've heard some stirrings about what that would look like so we can just bring it to you all just just to have it so you can all see it before it goes beforeation. U all right council member come back

and just to sort of formalize I want to reiterate what commissioner Jacob said uh and thank staff the E working group I thought was really effective and so I think that language will be coming back to the JCCPC at at some point to review. I think it helped um get us on the same page, alleviate potential concerns of our joint bodies and also of community. So um could we have something similarly that right now and say that you know Jacobs and you know Chair Baker or others who Commissioner Alam or others who would want to be involved to just have that discussion to help with the comfort and the alignment? I'm sorry I spaced out for like five seconds here. You're saying

yeah bring the informally bring the mortorium language here so that we can this could be the no just have a have an informal working group of folks want to raise their hand to be a part of it for members of city council and county commission to sit down with the language together uh with staff the mortorium language the mortorium language yeah like we did with the e so okay because I think that's sort of what you were recommending and I saw value in that have a meeting said have a and let's do it quickly because this is moving

one. Oops. One other thing from a procedural standpoint just um to kind of assuage any concerns. JCCPC review of a text amendment is not mandated. Right? It even says this uh this responsibility does not create a legal obligation for review of text amendments. And furthermore, the city and county managers can decide that something is important enough and not warranting a delay and direct me to move beyond y'all with and would not bring something here. So, there's not a procedural problem with having this discussion, giving us direction today. We're happy to just bring the language back as an FYI. Um, just know next month, just know that agenda items will already have been submitted and be in motion. Um, you know, but again, all we're doing is just deleting B through whatever.

Uh, mayor prom.

Yeah, thank you. I just the I just I appreciate the E example being raised. It is a different timeline that was presented to JCCPC in like February. The meeting happened like a a week ago. It's coming back to us. That is not this is a like a third of the timeline. So while I appreciate that saying that process if if the intent and on the city side my understanding is the intent is we have to deal with this by June 15th that is our last meeting that may be separate than the county but we're also saying we want the same thing. So if folks want to set up a a process around that is that is a quick turnaround and I want to emphasize that I want to happen in June. Oh, we didn't have enough time. If folks are committing to this the model that was set up by E that was like a three-month process. We don't have three months. So that's all I want to say. I don't want to be on that subcommittee. I like I'm good.

I don't It wasn't really a three-month process. It was just it took two months ago. It just took like a month to get scheduled. That was the only issue. But it could be like one representative from the county and one representative from the city and if y'all can meet like this week or next week. I hear you has to be fast. Yes, that's all. In the next I mean we we need in the next couple weeks. The next few weeks actually. It doesn't happen have to happen immediately. Yeah. So we'll be we'll be ready to go. It'll be me and Netta, I'm sure. So, we're we're ready to go. All right. Let's meet right after this meeting. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding.

All right. Anybody else? I'm sorry. Sorry. But you were formally suggesting that it' be you and Commissioner Alam who would be a part of that. I'm pretty sure. Okay. So, then can we identify a person or persons for the city? I'm going to do that right this second. I'm just saying I'm just saying it helps move things along. just like let's just decide. I mean so we can do it. Should we do it? Okay. No, we're set. Look at there. See, pressure pressure makes diamond, right? Let's go. All right.

One thing the like the language folks don't have anything that they can even react to at this point. So people are like operating from a place of like not knowing anything. Um, so if if that can be done quickly, I think it will help alleviate some of the concern that I am hearing. Yes, we can share the original language. We are I do not foresee moving forward with that original language, but I I do think it's something to work off of. All right. Anything else, attorneys? No. I I will share um what was drafted with this the county attorney's office today. Uh we've already had not on this conversation but preliminary combinations about uh what the city had worked on prior to Monday. So we absolutely will share what we have.

Okay. With the with the county commission first with Well, I was with the county attorney's office and then I'll allow them to disseminate it in the way that they Okay. Is that what the process you'd prefer? That'll be Yes, sir. That'll be simplest. And that way we know as we push it on out to the board and let the commissioners know what we have because you've got the draft that existed prior then you have the version that was apparently adopted and just trying to make sure people understand. Yeah. What's absolutely being moving forward.

Cool. Cool. Comm collected. Anything else, Director Young, that you want to add to the conversation? So just to recap, staff is moving forward with the staff initiated repeal of everything except that part A of the section under 319 whatever it is. Um we are going to bring that back as an FYI next month to you all. It's going to go to planning commission June 9th, city council June 15th, board of county commissioners June 22nd for adoption of the text amendment. We will at the very least also be stacking a moratorum extension for the city on the June 15th agenda as well. Correct.

That's correct. Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I got straight the plan. Yeah. And just to count uh Mayor Prom's point to make sure that we just need to have one meeting, everyone's communicating, I would suggest that both attorneys are at that meeting.

Um and someone from the planning department, whoever Sarah might designate, um and our economic development directors and then the elected officials in that way. And then also from the city and county manager's office, whoever they would designate. Um I know our deputy county manager um Jones has been was the point person I think working on this. So just any appropriate and then you know having everyone in the in the room whether it's virtual or in person whatever is the quickest or works best for people but okay

and I don't know if anyone has any other suggestions of people to be

I think that's a a good a good list. I will um work with um Shay to to set that up. All right. Are you guys having fun? Uh, we used to joke about planning emergencies. We spend a lot of time talking about planning issues for things that are happening in Durham. And it's interesting to spend this much time talking about something that is not in Durham at all. Um, but is is important. Okay. Thank you all for that. That was 7.5. Uh we have uh one final item which was which is item 8 fiscal year 26 work program community planning projects.

Good uh afternoon. Now um there this is our newish monthly item. There's been no changes since last month and you've kind of heard updates on the things that are the two small area plans which are coming up soon. So I'm happy to answer any questions if you'd like. Otherwise, I will make this brief. Any questions? Great. Thank you for sharing. Thank you for showing us. And uh we are we're only an hour 7 minutes over. It's too bad. So, uh we are adjourned at 12:37. Thank you everybody.