2026-10-07 - Joint City County Planning Committee

02:14morning everybody. Chris, are we good?

02:18>> All right. Good morning everybody. Um,

02:20we don't currently have quorum. I think

02:22uh we have a few folks running late, so

02:24they should be here any minute now. But

02:26we're going to go ahead and get started.

02:29Um it's 9:33 and we are getting started

02:33on the joint city county planning

02:35committee uh meeting on October 7th. Um

02:39can we get a roll call please?

02:44>> Chair Baker

02:45>> here.

02:45>> Vice Chief Vice Chair Lee.

02:49Uh, Mayor Prom Cababiierro,

02:52Planning Commissioner Shagaris,

02:55Planning Commission

02:58>> here,

03:00>> Commissioner Jacobs

03:01>> here,

03:02>> Council Member Copek,

03:04>> Commissioner Valentine,

03:05>> Commissioner Valentine is walking

03:06through the door. Perfect timing,

03:08Commissioner.

03:14>> All right. Good morning. Uh, adjustments

03:16to the agenda. But we're just going to

03:18go ahead and move um six above five. But

03:23other than that, we're good. Okay,

03:26that's the only adjustment to the

03:27agenda. Any announcements?

03:34All right, we now have quorum. So, um

03:37can I get are there any comments on uh

03:40the minutes from September 2nd?

03:45If not, uh, can I get a motion to

03:47approve the minutes from September 2nd?

03:50>> Second.

03:50>> All right, we've got a motion and a

03:52second. All in favor, please say I. I.

03:55>> I.

03:57>> All right, the minutes from September

03:582nd have passed. Uh, city and county

04:01managers priority items.

04:07>> Good morning, Adrian Miles with the city

04:08attorney's office. The city has no

04:10priority items this morning.

04:13Curtis Massie from the county attorney's

04:15office and the county has no priority

04:17items.

04:19>> All right, getting started with the

04:21agenda here. We are again moving six

04:24above five. So, let's go ahead and jump

04:26into

04:28and council member Copac is here. I know

04:30that know that you wanted to be here for

04:31this agenda item, too. So, I'm glad

04:33you're here. Uh the green building

04:35commitments item six.

05:13All righty. Good morning everybody. My

05:15name is Brianna. Good morning. My name

05:17is Brianna Beetle, research planning

05:18specialist with the re with the the

05:19planning and development uh department.

05:22And today I'm going to be discussing

05:23with you all this project we've been

05:24working on the last couple of months. um

05:26researching green building

05:27certifications and how these

05:29certifications that we've been um that

05:31we're seeing a lot with applicants um

05:32relate with some compound policies

05:34surrounding greenbased infrastructure.

05:38All right. So, as I stated previously um

05:41a lot of these certifications have been

05:43reoccurring with um our offers and so we

05:45wanted to be making some recommendations

05:46for how these policies should be

05:48interpreted and whether or not they meet

05:50policy standards. Um, just as a quick

05:53aside, we're not going to be asking for

05:55any changes to the comp plan today. Um,

05:56so we do not um, foresee any vote

05:58needing to take place. We're just asking

06:00for general feedback and consensus on

06:03today.

06:06All righty. And just a little overview

06:07of today's presentation. Today we're

06:09going to be um talking about some

06:11background where this project came from

06:12and then letting you guys know um our

06:15analysis um and our findings with the

06:17certifications and how they and how they

06:18relate to policies 49, 96, and 108. Just

06:22as a quick um reminder of what those

06:24policies are, 49 um looks at energy

06:26efficiency, air quality, and material

06:29selection. 96 is looking at heat island

06:31mitigation and 108 looks at storm water

06:34and touches on a little bit more on heat

06:36island mitigation. And then we're going

06:38to be talking about some recommendations

06:40and how these certifications can um

06:42relate to those policies and how we

06:44recommend changing those policies as

06:46commentary a little bit.

06:50Okay. So this project emerged from like

06:53I said earlier us receiving many

06:54profiters um promising to get one of

06:56these green building certifications. Um

06:58but we wanted to see uh what these

07:00certifications won for were for one for

07:03one thing but also like what they

07:04address which led to this project. And

07:07in analyzing these certifications and

07:08their technical documents um we had kind

07:10of two main concerns going in. um one

07:13how um how applicable each of these

07:16certifications were to the polic were to

07:18the policies in the comp plan and two um

07:20we wanted to see if they had any type of

07:22um uh timing mechanism or

07:24pre-certification pre-approval um that

07:27could show intent to go forward with

07:29these promise certifications. So kind of

07:31looking at that enforcability aspect of

07:33it all.

07:36Okay. And so what were our findings? Um

07:40luckily most green building

07:41certifications were pretty holistic and

07:43address um a wide range of topics and

07:45the most common structure that we saw

07:47was having some sort of minimum

07:48requirements um with additional options

07:50to receive um any credit um to hit those

07:53certifications um to hit those uh

07:56certification scores. Um and luckily

07:58most green certifications green building

08:00certifications also had that type of um

08:02pre-certification pre-approval or um

08:05that timing mechanism that we were

08:06looking for to have some to have um as

08:08an enforcement mechanism. And just

08:11touching on this last note right here

08:13regarding Greenguard. Um we were

08:16Greenguard was one of the certifications

08:17that we had researched and we came to

08:19the conclusion that Greenguard is not a

08:22green building certification and is more

08:24of a materials certification. but we're

08:26going to get into that in a couple more

08:27slides.

08:32So, starting out with policy 49, policy

08:3449 largely addressed um like I said

08:36earlier, energy efficiency, air quality,

08:39and material selection. Um and what was

08:41a great finding was that all the

08:43certifications that we looked at um

08:46touch on um like had some type of

08:47minimum requirements related to these

08:49three components in some way. Um, but a

08:52lot some certifications did have more

08:54minimum requirements than others. Uh,

08:56but and like a couple of them did have

08:58like some additional things that you

09:00could do for like extra points to earn

09:01the credit, but they all did have some

09:03um but they all did have some type of

09:04minimum requirements while more some had

09:06more than others.

09:08And there was multiple ways to hit on

09:10these um um on these different policy 49

09:13components. Um [snorts] this really big

09:16one that we saw was this HERS score,

09:17this home energy rating score. And we

09:20saw that five out of seven

09:21certifications referenced the HERS score

09:23in some capacity and which was really

09:25great because the HER score does

09:26correctly correlate to having um more

09:28home efficiency and lower utility costs.

09:31And as for air quality, one common way

09:33that we saw to hit on that was through

09:36low VOC materials. VOCC standing for

09:38volatile organic compounds.

09:41It sounds like a sounds like a mouthful.

09:43Um but those are essentially chemicals

09:46um that are in paints, glues, acrylics,

09:48um etc. that can be within the home and

09:50they can very easily get into the

09:52atmosphere and can be very toxic. So,

09:53it's very important to keep those levels

09:55low, which we're going to touch on green

09:57guard a little bit more with that one

09:58because green guard actually is a

10:00certification that does look at VOCC

10:02materials and um it ensures that V that

10:05those VC materials are kept at low

10:08levels. And what was really great was

10:10that we saw that green guard was um an

10:12option with other green building

10:14certifications to get that credit for

10:16material selection. So we saw that in

10:18LEAD for example that getting green

10:20guard gold could be counted as a credit

10:22towards getting certification getting

10:24certified with LEAD.

10:29And then policy 96 policy 96 tackled

10:32heat island mitigation and we saw that

10:35four out of seven the certifications had

10:37um relevant standards to this policy. So

10:38they somehow they reference heat island

10:40mitigation in some capacity. However, we

10:42saw that only one certification,

10:44enterprise screen communities, had any

10:46minimum standards for this policy. The

10:48rest of the certifications um had these

10:50optional or additional things that you

10:52could do but were not required unlike

10:54enterprise had.

10:58And then lastly, policy 108. The main

11:00theme with this one was addressing green

11:02rainwater or storm water infrastructure.

11:04And it also touched on heat island

11:06mitigation a little bit more. And same

11:08thing we saw that four out of seven of

11:09these certifications as well um touched

11:11on um touch on this theme as well. Um

11:15but the difference was that no

11:16certifications here had any minimum

11:18requirements um just these non-required

11:20additional things that could be done to

11:21earn some credit towards the

11:23certification.

11:26So some general recommendations that we

11:28are looking to make is one um in order

11:31to meet these policies we're asking that

11:33um that the certification must have that

11:35tie and mechanism that we were talking

11:36about beforehands um before certificate

11:39of compliance. So this is going to

11:40remove energy star and green globes as

11:43um certifications that we are looking to

11:45consider because they do not have that

11:47time and mechanism to promise beforehand

11:49that they will get the certification.

11:51And then as we reasoned earlier, green

11:53guard is not going to be counted as a

11:55green building certification because it

11:57does look at more of materials rather

11:59than the building as a whole itself.

12:04And then our policies um relating to

12:06policy 49 um would be these kind of

12:10three touch points here um to meet the

12:12policy. number one having that same

12:15timing mechanism once again prior to COC

12:17that pre-approval that pre-builds um

12:19certification that we can have um also

12:21adding the HERS index as a target um and

12:25then also once again having green guard

12:27as a qualifier for certified low VOCC

12:29materials once again

12:34let me go back really quickly um and

12:37this below here is um just some

12:39suggestions on how we how we intend to

12:41make these uh changes within the within

12:43the policy commentary itself. We're not

12:45be changing um the policy, just the

12:47commentary to give some more guidance to

12:49applicants for the future.

12:52And then as for policy 96, um our

12:56recommendations here is number one,

12:58commitment um a commitment to enterprise

13:00green communities um their pre-build

13:01approval would be the only green

13:03building certification that would be

13:04able to meet this policy. um instead if

13:09uh applicants did not want to go through

13:10enterprise they would have to commit to

13:12other mitigation strategies which can be

13:14found in these certifications they just

13:16weren't required was the almost the main

13:18thing that we're running into. So

13:20looking within these uh standards to see

13:21like what are the strategies that they

13:23have and using those um instead of the

13:25green building certification itself

13:27counting and um and then right down

13:31here.

13:34Yes. And then um changes to commentary

13:36will include different green different

13:38green um green infrastructure measures

13:41um such as we have we have highlighted

13:44below shaded or permeable hardscape

13:46vegetative walls or roofs and reflective

13:48or light colored materials.

13:52And then finally um policy 108 our

13:55recommendations for here for policy 108

13:57would be that no green building

13:59certification would meet this policy um

14:01at least of the green build the green

14:03building certifications that we have

14:04researched. Um offers will need to

14:07commit to specific rainwater or storm

14:09water green infrastructure features

14:11instead of a green building

14:12certification itself. Um and any um any

14:17text commitments should be analyzed on a

14:18case to on a case- by case basis and

14:20should be done in partnership with the

14:22storm water review um to look at more

14:24green infrastructure practices. Um so

14:26because of that we are not recommending

14:28any changes to this policy commentary

14:31and that is all we have for today. Any

14:33questions?

14:35>> Awesome. Um this is perfect. Thank you

14:38so much for this uh great presentation.

14:40Um great work. we have our regulations

14:42and then above our regulation we have

14:43our expectations and we really need this

14:46kind of work and y'all to to take the

14:48lead on that and I think that that's

14:49that's what this has done. Uh questions,

14:51comments, colleagues, I'm looking to my

14:53left here first.

14:54>> Council member want to go after.

14:57>> Yeah, absolutely.

15:01>> Good morning everyone. Um uh keep going.

15:04Not this one. Not this one. I guess it's

15:06around Energy Star. So, it used to be

15:08with Energy Star that you would as a

15:11builder you had to have a certifier go

15:15through the building, do all kinds of

15:17tests, and then that's what let the home

15:19be energy certified. Is that just a

15:20different process than it used to be?

15:23I believe it is the same process, but

15:25also what we ran into with Energy Star

15:27as well. Um, Energy Star really just

15:29looked at um energy efficiency um

15:31instead of like the building as a whole.

15:33So kind of the same in the same vein as

15:35um green guard. It kind of hits on that

15:37one component um rather than green cert

15:40like green certification as a whole.

15:42>> Okay. Can we get a cost breakdown of

15:44every single program that it would cost?

15:46That would be really helpful.

15:47>> Absolutely.

15:48>> Um I appreciate this. I I don't want to

15:52ding people because they couldn't get

15:54lead, which also has issues quite

15:57frankly. Um, and I don't I guess what

16:02I'm worried about is it's hard to do

16:04some of this, right? It's not

16:05straightforward and and that's a

16:07structural issue of this country, right?

16:09Like this is we don't believe in climate

16:11science in this country, right? Um, so I

16:14think I'm a little bit concerned around,

16:16okay, well, you could get Lovoc

16:18materials in a house, right? But because

16:20you couldn't pony up for lead, then

16:22we're kind of punishing you in a way.

16:24And I will say that a lowvoc house is

16:26better than no Lovak house. I would say

16:29an energy certified house or building is

16:31still better than no Energy Star. So I

16:35appreciate the work and I think it's

16:36right. But we have to give flexibility

16:38especially since we are literally not

16:40allowed to do this, right? This is why

16:41it's all encouraged. It's all it's not

16:43in our UDO. We can't put it in our UDO.

16:45Um and so I I think it's right, but I we

16:50have to allow flexibility. Um and I

16:54worry that we are going to end up

16:57hurting ourselves in a process of trying

16:59achieve while good solid goal

17:04you know

17:06it it's like unintended consequences

17:08right where people are just not going to

17:10they're going to look at the cost of

17:11some of these higher standards let's

17:13just say what they are right more total

17:15more you know comprehensive they're

17:17going to look at that cost and they're

17:18going to say yeah I'm not going to

17:20profer that necessarily I might profer

17:22native plantings or I might give more

17:23door affordable housing, but that's just

17:25not something I'm going to pursue.

17:27Whereas maybe they would have been more

17:29open had it been, you know, a lower bar

17:32to entry. So that's just where I'm at.

17:34>> Can I piggy back?

17:37>> I I hear you saying like don't let

17:39perfect be the enemy of good.

17:41>> So I think just in general, is there a

17:44way to even have different levels?

17:47>> Yeah. um like you know meeting this

17:50highest level versus you know the

17:52minimum level or something like that

17:54that would give some flexibility.

17:57>> Yeah. Like I'll just say like the Energy

17:59Star program. No, it's been many years.

18:01My husband was an Energy Star certifier

18:03for builders for many years. It is not

18:05an easy thing to get.

18:07>> Um the tests that you do on those homes

18:09and those buildings, it's pretty

18:11thorough. Um and I don't Yeah. Like is

18:15there a way to tar it like okay good

18:17effort above average versus an A right

18:21like the same I want the approach to be

18:22the same way we approach grading a thing

18:26right like I many of us have been in

18:28spaces where we have a rubric a

18:30candidate may not be ex like exceeding

18:32or a student may not be exceeding but

18:34that doesn't mean that there weren't

18:37expectations met if that makes sense.

18:42>> Good morning.

18:43>> Go ahead. Yeah. [clears throat] Good

18:45morning GCCPC members. I'm Payton

18:47Burgess with the planning and

18:48development department working on a

18:50little bit of a sore voice so I

18:52apologize. Um, one of the things that we

18:55tried to do with this research uh

18:57project is build in options and

19:00flexibility. So what like the main

19:03reason with Energy Star is that there's

19:06not a sort of guaranteed certification

19:08option that can happen before COC. And

19:11so when we ran into, you know, the issue

19:14with not having a timing mechanism, what

19:16we kept seeing was, oh, this will be

19:17provided back to the city within 12

19:19months of receiving the COC. And there's

19:23not, you know, sort of a a metric on

19:25staff's end that we can ensure that one,

19:27that gets checked for, and two, you

19:29know, if if people are living in the

19:30building and the building is occupied

19:32and they don't get their Energy Star

19:33certification, our goal is not to kick

19:35people out of the building because they

19:37didn't, you know, successfully complete

19:39Energy Star. Um so it's not necessarily

19:42trying to hit a higher standard. That is

19:45one thing that we looked at. Um we just

19:47wanted you all to have the information

19:48about what you know the different levels

19:50of certifications were. Um but our

19:53recommended changes to the policy do

19:54include um options such as utilizing low

19:58VOCC materials and committing to getting

20:02the HERS um the home energy rating

20:04system index target score which is

20:06utilized by Energy Star. Um but that's a

20:09metric that can be received before

20:11certificate of compliance so that it's

20:13something that just the city can make

20:15sure on our end um is achieved before

20:18people actually move in and before the

20:20project is complete. Um so the the goal

20:22wasn't to necessarily raise the bar. Um

20:25the goal was to provide information to

20:27you all to to see maybe where the bar is

20:29in comparison to other things. Um, but

20:32you would receive credit to meet the

20:35policy and exceed UDO standards for

20:38doing the HERS index, for utilizing low

20:40VOCC materials. Um, the only issue with

20:42Energy Star, it is it's a great program.

20:44It just isn't something that we can

20:46guarantee through the zoning system

20:48happens because there isn't that timing

20:50metric before COC.

20:52>> I have a follow-up if that's okay. Can

20:53we get information? because it used to

20:55be that you would get the building

20:56energy starred and that is what then

20:58your home when it goes for market is an

21:01energy star home. So that's how it's

21:03being sold which means that there's not

21:04a person in that house. So um that would

21:07be because I just had this conversation

21:10with a developer who was trying to do an

21:11energy store and they said the same

21:12thing and I'm like that's not actually

21:14how the program works and so can we just

21:17get some background information at least

21:18it didn't used to work that way. I'm

21:20being very transparent and that was a

21:23decade ago. Maybe it's different than it

21:24used to be, but it had to be to be

21:27Energy Star certified for sale anyway.

21:29Like if you wanted to market your home

21:31that way, there was a process that got

21:34you certified and then you were able to

21:36share that with the consumer. So that's

21:39why it should be able to get before CI

21:43um COC.

21:44>> Yeah. I think um so I think part of what

21:46you're mentioning is the the HERS score

21:48that we've talked about um because that

21:50is actually like the HERS home energy

21:52rating system index target is a metric

21:56created by the Energy Star program. So I

21:59>> So that's how it's being sold. This

22:01house or this building is scored

22:02whatever on this test. And so you and

22:04there that that's your kind of um

22:08uh

22:10standard as a buyer, right? like, okay,

22:12if I want a lower energy cost, I can say

22:14that this score, this building or this

22:16apartment or this whatever score this

22:17and so I have an understanding of what

22:18my energy bill is going to be. Okay,

22:20thank you.

22:20>> This score would meet the energy star

22:22standards. It's just not technically

22:23certified yet.

22:24>> Okay, thank you.

22:25>> Yeah, absolutely.

22:26>> I'm going to go to my right. Oh, did you

22:28want to say something? Go ahead.

22:29>> If I could just I think the other thing

22:30that we're trying to do to Payton's

22:32point about flexibility is you'll see

22:34some of these systems have different

22:35levels like I think lead is the most

22:37famous one with like you know golden

22:38silver, golden plat whatever, right? So

22:40we're not specifying a level in this

22:43commentary. We're just saying you could

22:44pick from these to further give people

22:46options. The cost implications, my

22:50understanding is kind of twofold. One is

22:52the improvements that you make to the

22:55structure in terms of, you know, uh

22:57higher RV value insulation or whatever.

23:00Um, and then there's the cost of the

23:03certification of hiring the independent

23:05third-party consultant to come do all

23:07the testing and do that and that um that

23:10in and of itself can kind of be a

23:12barrier. So, we can we can do a little

23:14digging as to um kind of what those

23:17costs might be. It'll be harder to kind

23:20of put a cost together on what the um

23:23improvements to the structure cells may

23:25be because it's such a wide range of

23:26options, but we can we can research the

23:29other. Can I have a and this doesn't

23:31affect y'all's department, but is there

23:33a way because I see our targets

23:35especially around affordable housing and

23:37this isn't um planning necessarily. It

23:39may fall to legal. Is there a way

23:42especially if we are funding a project

23:44from the city that we can have a subsidy

23:47pool so if it's we want our you know

23:51litec deals we want the things that the

23:53city is subsidizing to maybe meet that

23:55green standard right but that builder

23:57maybe can't afford it right is there a

24:00way to create

24:02um public money so that they could

24:04achieve it right we under I you know

24:06like that's that's a question that I

24:09have and I know it's not falling to

24:10planning, but I want the nice things,

24:13right? Everybody wants nice things. I

24:15can't afford a hybrid plug-in. It's too

24:17damn expensive, right? So, I'm going to

24:18go get a gas car because that's what I

24:20can afford. And if we want some of these

24:22things to happen, we're going to have to

24:23subsidize it. And we can't subsidize

24:25private, but maybe we can achieve it in

24:28in the things that are publicly funded.

24:29>> And can I just add, we we have adopted

24:32that policy. Um, recently we Durham

24:35County, we and you could get a copy of

24:38it. we adopted a, you know,

24:41sustainability, green building, whatever

24:44policy that applies to all of our

24:46projects and including ones that are

24:50funded with, you know, like the 300 and

24:52500 East Main Street. Um, so we we

24:56recently adopted that.

24:59>> Go ahead. Yes. Thank you, chair. That

25:00Thank you for your presentation. And so

25:03to the the issue of credits uh your your

25:06colleague just spoke uh a little bit

25:08about that. Uh but on the issue of of

25:11flexibility certainly that helps to to

25:13bridge the gap with regards to

25:15certification. Correct.

25:16>> Yeah absolutely. A lot of them ran on

25:18like um a point a pointsbased system

25:20where like they have those minimum

25:21requirements but there's multiple

25:22different avenues in order to achieve

25:24points. So like for like material

25:26selection for example like they had like

25:27a basement requirement of like maybe

25:29like this level of VOCC materials but

25:31you can also use this type of material

25:32in your home this type of material. They

25:34had different many different avenues in

25:36order to get that credit.

25:37>> Can you provide some some additional

25:39examples?

25:41>> Um let me give me one second to think.

25:44Want to use energy efficiency.

25:50>> Payton Burgess again. Hello. [laughter]

25:54Um, when you say credits, are you

25:58talking about the for the policy or for

26:00like the certification?

26:01>> The certification. Yeah, the

26:03certification itself.

26:04>> Oh, um, they are all so very different.

26:06Uh, attachment A in your packet. It's

26:09like this master spreadsheet that kind

26:11of breaks down some of the different

26:13things. Um,

26:14>> I I merely asked the question. I mean, I

26:16have the packet, but sometimes it's good

26:18for the the public to to hear some of

26:21the things and have some context. So

26:22that's why I asked the question. Yeah.

26:23>> Yeah. Absolutely. What we found was that

26:25some of them focused on different things

26:26like energy starve for example that we

26:28looked at was very focused on um minimum

26:31requirements for energy efficiency

26:33standards but it didn't have any

26:34standards and really any other category.

26:36Whereas lead for example had minimum

26:39requirements in energy efficiency. It

26:41also had minimum requirements and I

26:42think water efficiency. Um it also had

26:45requirements about site selection. Um,

26:48and so just like looking at the

26:50different certifications and and one

26:52thing that we wanted to do with this

26:53whole project was like sort of comparing

26:55apples to oranges, right? Like these are

26:57all green building certifications, but

26:59they all do different things. So putting

27:02them into categories of okay, what

27:05exactly do they do? Where do we have

27:07those minimum standards? Where are maybe

27:09other certifications going above and

27:11beyond and are way hard way harder to

27:13get? Um, and kind of breaking that down

27:15for you all. Overall, I mean, there were

27:17there are minimum requirements for

27:19different certifications in all sorts of

27:22categories. Um, from yeah, heat island

27:25mitigation as was a part of this

27:27PowerPoint to energy efficiency to um

27:31recycling and and the utilization of

27:34like recycled materials in your project.

27:36And I mean even there were standards on

27:39how to operate the construction site in

27:42a way that doesn't you know cause a

27:44noisy environment to neighbors. Um so

27:47across the entire certification metrics

27:50we'll call it. Um I mean there were so

27:52many different standards in different

27:55categories. Does that kind of answer

27:56your question? Uh yes and so and I think

27:58more to the point of uh mayor prom when

28:02she was talking about the you know this

28:04being costly for for many in many

28:06situations this shows that you can

28:08bridge the gap even under those

28:10circumstances to to get to a

28:11certification that aspirationally we all

28:14think is a you know where we're headed.

28:16So thank you.

28:18>> I'm I'm glad you raised the uh concept

28:21of people watching in on this meeting.

28:23So I am going to take one minute to just

28:26take a step back for people who might

28:28not understand. So we have our

28:30development regulations

28:32um and those apply to zoning case the

28:35zoning that that is on the land um and

28:38some people come in and they want to

28:40change the zoning that applies to them

28:42um so that they have different

28:44development regulations that apply to

28:45them. This is not part of any of that.

28:48This is um sometimes we receive offers

28:52from folks who are trying to change the

28:54zoning that applies to the land that are

28:56go above and beyond

28:58uh the zoning uh requirements under the

29:02existing UDO. And of course, we're

29:04looking at the the new um UDO aka the

29:08LDC

29:09um which would have even newer

29:12development regulations. So this is just

29:15helping to inform us about uh

29:18recommendations that the planning

29:20department uh might make to a applicant

29:23or prospective applicant when they come

29:25in the door um and they're thinking what

29:27do I what do I what should I do? How can

29:30I uh go above and beyond the the UDO in

29:33in requesting um in requesting this?

29:36That doesn't mean that they have to do

29:38this. Many won't. Um, some will. Um, but

29:42this is a way and and what you've you

29:44all have done is is said here's here's

29:47where in that application process for

29:49going above and beyond on these

29:50different certifications we can get in

29:52writing and not just verbally say we

29:56hope to do this. We can get this in

29:58writing. Um, and again they can pick

30:01from a wide array. They could not do any

30:03of this. Um, this is a discretionary

30:06approval uh process. So, I'm hoping that

30:11helps lay the a little bit of the

30:12foundation where we are. Council member

30:14Copek, um, Commissioner, uh, would are

30:17you going to want to ask any questions?

30:19No. Okay. Council member Copek.

30:20>> Yeah. Thanks to all my colleagues for

30:22questions and comments. The chair

30:23helpfully made many of the comments I

30:24was just about to make, so I'll make it

30:25short. Um, I'll just say I appreciate

30:28the work that you've done to tighten

30:29this up. I feel like just like staff and

30:31this body did in um kind of going

30:35through the E process for technical

30:37revisions on the comp plan. I just think

30:39this helps bring greater clarity and

30:41makes it easier for all parties to use.

30:43Uh and would just associate myself with

30:45the rest of my colleagues comments.

30:46Thank you.

30:51>> Yeah. Well, I think I mean this and then

30:53you know some other items on our agenda

30:55today really are fantastic. I just want

30:58to really applaud the staff for doing

31:02this kind of work which is re is the

31:05real policy work of digging in and

31:08seeing how how things are really working

31:10and making recommendations.

31:12So thank you so much. This is really

31:15great work. Um, so since we the county

31:19commissioners don't really sit on

31:22zonings, resonings, it's um I would love

31:26to just hear I I mean I've gotten a

31:28little glimpse of the context, but I'm

31:31just curious um I look, you know,

31:33looking back at the the other report

31:36about the how the policies are being

31:39implemented, you know, and kind of

31:41trying to look at the numbers, um trying

31:44to understand like How is this really

31:46happening in real time? I'm I'm really

31:49thrilled to see that people are trying

31:52to, you know, achieve these policies. I

31:56think this is showing that uh we are

32:00making progress towards implementing the

32:04adopted comprehensive plan goals. Um

32:08knowing that these are not required,

32:10these are aspirational, right? But the

32:13fact is that people are wanting to do it

32:16in our community. So I'm just curious,

32:18are you seeing this with smaller

32:21developers, big developers, both? Like

32:25what how is this h playing out in in

32:28real time just want to understand a

32:31little bit more.

32:34>> I think that um my opinion, my

32:36perception um I think that the bigger

32:38developers or the bigger bigger projects

32:40have a lot more flexibility in what they

32:41can offer. Uh and so it depends. So some

32:44folks are offering more on affordability

32:46or they're doing more traffic um or

32:49buffering or whatever to to to respond

32:51to community. Um we are seeing more of

32:54these types of profers. I would say that

32:57smaller projects are and when I say

32:59smaller, I'd say anything under 100

33:01units. Um especially under 50 units,

33:04they're just not going to have the

33:05margin to play as much. And we have to

33:08be really honest and transparent. And I

33:10personally think we are um it's good to

33:13move the goalpost, but we also have to

33:15be really diligent that we are not

33:18letting um the perfect be the enemy of

33:21the good and and really understanding

33:22how the applicant is arriving at our at

33:25our door, for lack of a better word. And

33:28believing that proformers are real

33:30things and that money are it's a real

33:33thing and a bank is not going to give

33:34you money if it doesn't think it's going

33:35to get a return. And we have to be

33:38honest with ourselves that that is a

33:40reality and it's not made up.

33:44>> Um yeah because I think also that's

33:46really helpful. Um these policies

33:50are important because

33:52for a few reasons. One is there we're

33:55we're addressing issues around climate

33:57change that are real and that we're also

34:01addressing,

34:02you know, people living in a healthier

34:04home. And at the end of the day, if

34:08we're talking about affordable housing,

34:09it's important to have the big picture

34:12that they're living in a home that

34:14they're not going to be paying through

34:15the roof on utilities. Um it's again

34:18with climate change, you know, with

34:21colder winters or hotter summers, you

34:23know, if you're paying exorbitant um you

34:27know, uh utility bills, it's going to

34:30counteract your affordable housing. So I

34:33think I think I I really think these are

34:36important policies, you know, if we look

34:39holistically at, you know, housing. Um,

34:43so I I appreciate the flexibility also

34:48um in people being able to meet them and

34:50I'm what I'm assuming is if the larger

34:53developers are doing it as part of their

34:55marketing as well maybe that this is

34:57what we're offering to people. Um so

35:01when I looked back at the report on how

35:05the policies are being implemented for

35:0849 96 and 108 I thought it was

35:12interesting just to see the numbers in

35:14how many are actually meeting it

35:19not meeting it um and not applicable and

35:22there is a good amount

35:25um when it is possible who are not

35:27meeting this just any idea idea.

35:31Um just I mean this not really

35:35scientific but do we know why

35:40so many for instance 49

35:42it was 13 exceeded

35:4623 were not applicable and then 40 were

35:50not met. So obviously in that area most

35:54are not meeting it. Um just any idea

35:57what is happening or playing out.

36:04>> So you're looking at policy 49.

36:06>> Yes. Just for instance, I looked at all

36:08three, but yeah.

36:11>> Yeah. Um the reason why some are not

36:14applicable

36:15would be if these were um zoning map

36:19changes that only included uh commercial

36:21development. So this only applies to

36:24residential or commercial that have the

36:27have had the possibility to include

36:29residential at the time of site plan. Um

36:32so that's why there's some discrepancies

36:35with a lot of these housing policies

36:37versus um a lot of the reasonings that

36:39come in as industrial or commercial

36:41development. So that sort of explains

36:43the variability on that

36:44>> and how about 40 unmet.

36:50So

36:51>> they just did not provide any green

36:53building. They did not provide any uh

36:55profer to address

36:56>> okay

36:57>> uh green buildings a lot of the times

36:58that is that certification. So we would

37:03>> basically when we started this in 2023 a

37:06lot of the the first cases the comp plan

37:09was new. We weren't seeing any type of

37:11certifications in like the late 2023

37:1424

37:16>> but it's progressed uh since then.

37:18>> Okay. So that initial period was an

37:21interesting time. So

37:23>> okay,

37:23>> not everyone um does the same thing as

37:26they do now.

37:27>> Yeah, I'll also say that you know uh it

37:31is extremely rare to have a case that

37:35meets almost all or all of the

37:37applicable policies, right? And so to

37:40Mayor Prom's point, applicants are

37:42having to choose like where they're

37:43going to put their limited amount of

37:46kind of discretionary money they have

37:47built into their project performs and

37:50whether you know um if is if their

37:52priority is going to be you know

37:54profiting affordable housing then maybe

37:55they can't profer you know some of these

37:57certifications because they're choosing

37:59where they're going to put that money.

38:01So I think that is a lot of the calculus

38:04that goes into what folks figure out

38:06that they can profer. Um, and why we see

38:09that in a lot of these cases, you know,

38:12there's a good amount of folks that

38:13don't touch these policies.

38:15>> Yeah.

38:16>> Oh, I'm sorry.

38:16>> Go ahead.

38:17>> In addition, the a lot of these housing

38:20policies, the 32 uh typically applied to

38:24just to uh zoning map changes. So, a lot

38:27of this data includes annexations as

38:29well. So, if there was only an

38:31annexation,

38:32those initial 32 policies wouldn't be

38:35applicable. So, that's another reason

38:37for that variability. Uh-huh. Yeah. I

38:39thought it was interesting that in this

38:41one there were zero that met but 13 that

38:44exceeded.

38:46>> So it cannot um because there's no UDO

38:50standards for green building anytime you

38:52include it as a proper it's

38:55>> can't be it has to be exceed. Okay.

38:57>> And we're not legally allowed to have

38:58this. That's why it's not there is no

39:00standard because we're not allowed to

39:02ask for a standard

39:04>> or require a standard. We're we're

39:05asking for a standard but we cannot

39:06require it.

39:07>> Right. And then when we are able to

39:10adopt the LDC,

39:12how what how will that look? Because I I

39:16I know there was a portion in the LDC

39:19that was related to um a you know

39:23getting higher density with doing some

39:26of these things. So could you just

39:28remind us that when we do pass the LDC

39:32what will this some of these what will

39:35happen related to these three policies

39:38that we're looking at right now?

39:39>> I'll defer to Bo

39:43>> Bo Dinsky land development.

39:45>> Yeah. and the draft land development

39:47code. uh two things. There was there

39:49were provisions where you could get

39:50additional density and if you chose to

39:53build under those development

39:55regulations similar to like a a density

39:57bonus, there would be additional

40:00requirements um with uh I believe some

40:05of the certifications, but it was it was

40:06also other things getting at green

40:09building um and sustainability in

40:11general, which may be less than uh sort

40:15of the certification standards, but

40:16we're build concrete design improvements

40:19that we can't otherwise require. Uh,

40:22additionally, um, for larger

40:24developments and I don't remember the

40:25exact threshold, uh, there was a

40:27requirement to meet a certain score on a

40:29sustainability matrix and, um,

40:34also getting to the same point and that

40:36was actually required across the board

40:37for developments of a certain size or

40:38commercial developments. So, uh, this is

40:41obviously a component of that. um when

40:43we're looking at sort of sitewide,

40:44right? Like it's more than just the

40:46improvements of the building or it may

40:47be different than just the energy

40:49efficiency, but this this research will

40:51certainly feed into uh potential

40:54additional um rows in the matrix itself.

40:58So

40:58>> yeah, I was going to get into that

41:00because this is just discretionary

41:04>> for this

41:05>> site or this land that's going through a

41:07discretionary review process. But the

41:09LDC would build essentially our own

41:12point system in to the regulations that

41:15would apply to all development, not just

41:16if they're going through a discretionary

41:18process.

41:19>> Right. So, I think it's important for us

41:22and for the community to understand the

41:25importance of us being able to adopt the

41:27LDC because there's so many things that

41:30people care about that we're going to be

41:33so much more effective at

41:36being able to do and see happen when

41:39that when we are able to adopt that.

41:43>> Council member Copek.

41:45>> Yeah. Thank you, Chair. So,

41:48first of all, I'll just say we've also

41:49heard from a few developers during that

41:51discretionary review process

41:54who've said that they just have not done

41:57these sorts of certifications before in

41:59other projects. And we've seen I think

42:01maybe on a couple projects movement

42:03where developers uh work to integrate it

42:05into a project because they were seeking

42:07to align with the comp plan. But I think

42:09part of its cost, you know, part of it

42:12is also just, you know, a lack of

42:15movement on this uh particularly in the

42:17US. Uh and so having this in place is

42:19something we point to is another way we

42:21can sort of nudge development in this

42:23direction. But I agree with the

42:25importance of passing the LDC where we

42:27have the sustainability matrix where it

42:29just applies, you know, to all

42:30development versus just these rare cases

42:32in discretionary review. I want to say I

42:35was excited to hear about the county and

42:37what you've put in place uh in terms of

42:39policies for for your projects. And so

42:41that's something that I definitely want

42:42to look at. And just going back to Mayor

42:45Prom's um you know comment about you

42:48know subsidizing LITC uh and you know

42:50other projects to help sort of move this

42:52along because it is expensive and it can

42:54be difficult to do. Uh and the point

42:56that um Commissioner Jacobs made around

42:59energy affordability. I think that's

43:01something that actually came up in

43:02discussion with director Vinius who's

43:04here in the room today uh when we had

43:06discussions around our affordable

43:08housing strategy that you know this is

43:10really a crucial part of affordability

43:12and these you know issues are linked uh

43:16and the work of the comp plan and our

43:18affordable housing strategy are linked

43:19and so I just love how uh you all were

43:21sort of putting those together and I

43:23want to just highlight those again.

43:25Yeah, I think you um rais a a good point

43:28about um there's a cost to learning

43:30something new. There's a cost associated

43:33with learning how to build something

43:35more sustainably and do something

43:37better. And so there is a part of this

43:39is a culture shift and and the cost will

43:42be higher as you're learning, but once

43:44you build a culture where it's normal to

43:46build more sustainably, you're lowering

43:48that cost. Um and and we're not there

43:50yet, but I think that was a a good

43:52point. Yes. Thank you. Is there an

43:55opportunity for us um

43:58in the city just like we do some things

44:00around you know OEWD around folks having

44:04capacity building to learn some things

44:05about how to run a business. It's the

44:07same thing for our building community

44:08around learning. So again like this is

44:12this is decades in right my husband went

44:14to architecture school and like fighting

44:17to like how do you design a thing? How

44:19do you put uh or how do you orient a

44:21building so it's closer to HVAC system

44:23so you're not running uh wiring longer

44:26than you need to and it is a huge

44:27culture shift and and a lot of it is

44:29people are used to doing a thing a

44:30certain way. We're all like this right

44:32contractors are used to doing a thing a

44:34certain way and if we want it to be done

44:36differently I think you a have to

44:38incentivize it. Um, and you know, I

44:42mean, you get a you if you don't smoke,

44:44you get a different rate on your health

44:46insurance, right? Like, we have to think

44:47about it that way. Um, so is there is

44:50there opportunities for the city to uh

44:53get some folks in to encourage even the

44:56smaller projects um who who don't have,

44:59you know, if you're if you're brand new,

45:00and we've seen this recently, a small

45:03development, the person really doesn't

45:05know what they're doing. It's their

45:06first time in their their learning curve

45:08is huge. a lot of those folks are more

45:10local and so that's the ecosystem we

45:12want to keep creating. Can we think

45:14about doing some workshops, bringing

45:16some folks in, really creating that

45:18ecosystem of learning? Same thing with

45:20our contractor community. Can we work

45:22with um the homebuilders association and

45:26other folks and and really not have this

45:29adversarial thing that we've got going

45:30on right now and be like, okay, how do

45:32we do this together so that ultimately

45:34you get something that you want? you can

45:36market a product in a certain way and we

45:40get more sustainable um housing and and

45:42buildings out there.

45:45>> Yeah, we you know we have a very good

45:47working relationship with the

45:48homebuilders association. We meet with

45:50them regularly and partner um on a bunch

45:53of things. So it's certainly a

45:55possibility and something that I will

45:57discuss with their leadership about um

46:00you know the possibility of doing a

46:02workshop or something. We also have been

46:05trying quarterly to uh have a specific

46:08kind of uh we call it resoning round

46:11table. It's a meeting with folks um in

46:13the development community that

46:14specifically work on um resonings. And

46:17so that's another venue where we could

46:19have maybe a little kind of mini

46:21training session on, you know, um these

46:24these programs kind of what they entail

46:27and connect them to some resources so

46:29they could um avail themselves of them.

46:32So

46:34this morning, um this goes back to uh

46:38with our lobbying firms and I mean this

46:39is to me an opportunity of like we know

46:43who's in Raleigh but affordability is an

46:45issue that everyone is feeling and so if

46:47there is opportunities to work with our

46:51the realtor community, the development

46:53community around legislation

46:56incentivization at the state level. Um,

46:59I know that that's like pipe dream right

47:01now, but we're seeing interesting things

47:03happening on both the housing and

47:04transit side because everyone is feeling

47:07that, including Republicans. And so,

47:09where are the opportunities around, you

47:13know, we we want certain standards and

47:15we're going to have to provide

47:16incentivization around that. So, if we

47:19want larger developers to have this kind

47:21of building standard, is there money?

47:23And we're not going to be able to afford

47:24that at the local level, but what are

47:25the opportunities to work with other

47:27communities pushing that needle at the

47:29state level?

47:34I just want to follow up on Mayor Bert's

47:38idea about um how do we this is what we

47:42learned in Grand Rapids

47:45about how how do we pull people together

47:48and work together in a positive way

47:50towards a goal at the community level.

47:53Um, I really love that idea of how do we

47:56do, you know, bring people together,

47:58workshopping on building up skills on on

48:02some of these goals and um what comes to

48:06mind is also Durham Tech because um you

48:10know we have that's one of the skill

48:12trades or one of the [clears throat]

48:13areas of focus at Durham Tech. So even

48:17going to in terms of how we're people

48:20are being trained right now, you know,

48:22whether it's construction,

48:25uh, you know, HVAC,

48:28um, things like that. Um, so we could

48:30even think about bringing Derm Techch

48:33into that conversation about how how are

48:36they teaching people um about

48:41building in a sustainable way. So if we

48:44really want to create an ecosystem

48:48that would be great.

48:51>> Thank you all for your wonderful

48:52comments. Are there is there anything

48:54else? No.

48:57Um thank you for this work. I I just

48:59want to add one other thing which is

49:00that um you know this is about uh the

49:04buildings. Um but there's so much more

49:07that goes into sustainable development.

49:10uh the way that the buildings interact

49:12with the streets and are arranged on the

49:14site and are arranged relative to

49:17adjacent buildings and adjacent sites.

49:20Um and so but this is that this is an

49:23important piece with regard to buildings

49:25specifically and uh yeah this is uh

49:28really great work, great project, really

49:31important information. Um

49:34most of my questions were already

49:37discussed and answered. I guess one

49:39final question I have is

49:42um scenario where we've adopted the the

49:45LDC, are we still going to be would we

49:49still be using this kind of thing um at

49:52the discretionary review stage?

50:02So uh yeah, we certainly um with the

50:07additional requirements that would be in

50:08the land development code on by right

50:10development um we imagine we don't know

50:14this for for sure but that that could

50:17also become a menu for particular

50:19commitments. Um not the same thing but

50:21similar to today the way that uh an

50:23applicant may commit to a particular

50:25housing type in the current UDO. I

50:27imagine that uh uh someone requesting a

50:29resoning could profer, hey, we will be

50:32doing X certification out of those lists

50:34or or other site improvements, right?

50:36Like perfect. You know, there's there'll

50:37be a lengthy list. So,

50:38>> perfect.

50:39>> All right. Thank you so much. Uh

50:43the next item, are we ready for number

50:46five? Okay.

50:49Because we can also they need more time.

50:55>> We're good. Okay. All right. We're going

50:56to go back to item number five, which is

50:58the growth manage management trends and

51:01analysis. This

52:13Thank you so much.

52:16Um I'm here to present the growth

52:17management trends and analysis report

52:20and if you read through it, thank you so

52:21much. I know it was a bear of a

52:23document. Um so as part of this

52:27presentation I'll present data on growth

52:29trends regarding legislative actions

52:32focusing on aspects of land use

52:33specifically the place type map and

52:35changes uh the urban growth boundary

52:37future growth areas uh comprehensive

52:40plan policies and affordable housing and

52:44um this is information only so no

52:47actions required from you um so there's

52:49no vote that is required once I finish

52:53>> Andy let me step in real quick and just

52:56uh you all are probably noticing this

52:58slide. So, this is something that has uh

52:59the city council has started for their

53:02work session presentations to give

53:03clarity to the council as to like what

53:05the ask is if there is one. I thought it

53:07would be good to include that here also

53:09because I think sometimes there's

53:10confusion like do you need a vote, do

53:11you not need a vote, what do you need?

53:13So, we're kind of triing it today. I

53:15just wanted like you know later y'all

53:17can give us some feedback if you want us

53:18to keep using this. Um

53:20>> so far so good. I think uh lots of

53:23smiling.

53:27>> Cool.

53:29Awesome. Um so just to give you some

53:31background, um the reason why I'm here

53:33is because of the comp plan in 2023. It

53:35was adopted and it included four big

53:38things as part of this report. One's the

53:40urban growth boundary, one's the

53:42establishment of the future growth

53:43areas, the place type map and the

53:46specific D policies that uh tie into uh

53:49zoning map changes and annexations.

53:54Um so there are three time periods of

53:56this report. Um the first period is

53:59going to be the place type map and the

54:01UGB status. So that time period is from

54:03October 16th, 2023 to June 22nd, 2026.

54:09So over that time period, there's been

54:11107

54:12um privately initiated zoning map

54:15changes and annexations decided by the

54:16board of county commissioners and the

54:18city council. Uh within the city, 92

54:21cases were approved, 12 denied within

54:23the county. Of the three cases heard,

54:26three were approved.

54:28Now, some background information

54:30regarding the comp plan. Um it does

54:32establish the place type map. And in

54:35that map, there are seven general place

54:37types. Um and within those seven, there

54:40are 20 specific ones that we deal on a

54:43daily basis.

54:46Um

54:47this slide here just shows sort of the

54:49breakdown of the approvals and denials

54:52of the cases that staff found consistent

54:54and inconsistent with the place type

54:57map. So of those under 170 107 cases, um

55:03those that were approved within the city

55:04and were consistent were 76. Those

55:07within the city approved but found

55:09inconsistent were 16. Uh 12 were denied.

55:13Um within the city, five were five of

55:17those were consistent and seven were

55:18inconsistent within the county. One was

55:21found consistent by staff and two were

55:23were found inconsistent.

55:27So what does that really mean? Um, so

55:30anytime an inconsistent zoning is

55:32approved, it automatically changes the

55:34place type per state law. And so what we

55:37see here is sort of what those changes

55:40look like. So a lot of the inconsistent

55:43um zonings that were approved um

55:47increased the residential places to

55:49about uh 223 acres that were gained.

55:53Um those 223 acres uh came from those

55:57places um industrial places, employment

55:59places, commercial and pretty heavily

56:02those mixed use places within the comp

56:04plan.

56:07The interesting thing is when you sort

56:09of look at it um from the initial to the

56:12existing overall there isn't that um

56:16much percentage of change. The most

56:18percentage that we've seen is about 1.6%

56:206% change of a specific uh general place

56:23type.

56:25Now when you look into those 20 specific

56:28place types um there's some interesting

56:30uh data points. Uh specifically um there

56:34are three main one ones that were added

56:35to suburban commercial gained over 13

56:38acres. Mixed residential neighborhood

56:40place types uh gained 138 acres and then

56:44close to 100 acres were added to the

56:46apartment and townhouse neighborhood

56:47place type.

56:50Um specifically

56:53um from the neighborhood services place

56:55type about 12 acres were removed. Uh 11

56:58acres were removed from highway

56:59commercial 42 from transit opportunity

57:02areas

57:03and more importantly uh 112 acres were

57:07lost or removed from the mixed

57:08neighborhood place type.

57:12The other component of this first part

57:14of the report is an update on the UGB.

57:17And as a reminder, the urban growth

57:20boundary is just a policy that

57:22delineates where utilities should go.

57:24Um, a few of the highlights are in

57:26orange.

57:28Um, since the adoption, it has not

57:31moved.

57:32Um, we've had three annexations

57:35outside the UGB and all were denied. And

57:38within the UGB, uh, 1,800 acres have

57:42been annexed into the city.

57:46The other component is an update on the

57:48future growth areas. And within the comp

57:51plan, it identifies eight areas that

57:53sort of need infrastructure upgrades.

57:56The types of infrastructure that's

57:58wanted in most of those is either fire

58:00or utility services.

58:02Uh some highlights. Um no FGA has been

58:05removed since adoption. And four of the

58:08six cases um that were in the FGA were

58:11denied.

58:14And here is an update on some movement

58:16within those FGAAS. Um within the

58:20Southeast FGA, we did lose um 87 acres

58:25through an annexation.

58:27At the same time, uh fire station 21 um

58:31is included in the proposed CIP. I

58:33believe it's for design work of that

58:35fire station and that would eventually

58:38be located within that FGA.

58:41The other FTA where we've seen movement

58:43is the Southwest FTA. Um the Celeste

58:47Circle pump station has been completed.

58:49Uh so we can knock that off. Um in

58:53addition, uh the Downing Creek and

58:55Downing Woods pump station upgrades,

58:57those CDs have been approved and Downing

59:00Creek is expected to be completed in

59:022027 and Downing Woods is expected to be

59:05completed in 2028.

59:09So, a few key takeaways from this part

59:11of the report. Um, again, the EGB

59:14remains unaltered.

59:16Uh, investment is still needed in six of

59:18the eight FGAs to support development.

59:20And because of the initial uh changes to

59:24the place type areas, the ability to

59:26meet the 15 minute city uh community

59:28goal may be impacted by the loss of

59:30mixeduse places and neighborhood

59:32services over time. So, in the future,

59:34that just may be something that we have

59:35to continue to look at.

59:38So, I will break uh if you guys have any

59:41questions regarding this this part.

59:44>> I'm going to just start with a couple um

59:46and then I'll turn to colleagues. I'll

59:48go to my right first and I'll go to my

59:50left. Um just a quick reminder is this

59:54so this is our first kind of growth this

59:58is a growth management report and

1:00:01presentation

1:00:02>> correct?

1:00:02>> Okay. Yes. And this is it is this

1:00:04intended to be kind of like

1:00:05comprehensive in growth management or

1:00:07just just very specifically looking at

1:00:10like change in place type.

1:00:12>> I think the idea is to grow. Um this is

1:00:15the first step.

1:00:16>> Okay. Okay.

1:00:17>> Um there's a lot of learning that can be

1:00:19done with this. Um feedback's always

1:00:21wanted.

1:00:22>> Okay.

1:00:22>> But again this is our first dab since

1:00:25the comp plan has been adopted.

1:00:26>> Perfect. Perfect. Okay.

1:00:27>> Yeah. And there's a few more sections.

1:00:29So the presentation isn't done. This is

1:00:31just the end of the first. So, I just

1:00:32want people to

1:00:33>> There's more. And you're just pausing.

1:00:35>> Yeah.

1:00:36>> Okay. Okay. Yeah. Got it. Got it.

1:00:40>> Yeah.

1:00:40>> I I would I would support waiting to the

1:00:42end, colleagues. Everybody supports.

1:00:44Okay.

1:00:45>> Fantastic. Thank you.

1:00:47>> Well,

1:00:49um second period. Um

1:00:53all right. So the second component of

1:00:55this report involves sort of a review of

1:00:57the comp plan policies. As most of you

1:01:00know, incorporated into the staff report

1:01:02is a comp plan policy review document

1:01:04where staff sort of analyzes the comp

1:01:06plan or the development plan and its

1:01:09consistency with those policies. Um so

1:01:12the full the full report is an

1:01:14attachment A. Um but I wanted to show

1:01:16you sort of sort of a highlight of what

1:01:18the analysis actually looks like. Um so

1:01:22each policy the 36 um policies that were

1:01:26analyzed uh each one um examines its

1:01:31applicability, its consistency and how

1:01:34the policies are exceeded, met, not met

1:01:36or applicable.

1:01:38And then and the main body of that is

1:01:41sort of a qualitative analysis of sort

1:01:44of how the policies were met and sort of

1:01:47how staff's interpretation has changed

1:01:49since the first um since the first uh

1:01:52comp plan was adopted in 2023.

1:01:56Here's just a breakdown of what was

1:01:58actually reviewed. And this is the a

1:02:00two-year stint versus like a two and a

1:02:02half year uh versus the previous one. So

1:02:04this is only it takes into account cases

1:02:07from October 16th, 2023 to October 16th,

1:02:102025.

1:02:11Within that period, 82 cases

1:02:14um were reviewed using those policies.

1:02:18Um from the cities uh of those 74 were

1:02:21approved, six were denied. In the

1:02:23county, the two were approved.

1:02:27Now I recognize it's a bear of a

1:02:29document that attachment but I just

1:02:31wanted to point out a few highlights uh

1:02:33from that document regarding policy 32.

1:02:37This is the historic preservation or

1:02:39historic policy um within our document.

1:02:43Um so within that two-year period uh we

1:02:45had three cases that actually included

1:02:47historic structures. Um those

1:02:49development plans include additional

1:02:51protections. Those were in the form of

1:02:53full or temporary protection. um for

1:02:56them. Um the way that they did that was

1:02:59to prohibit demolition as a zoning

1:03:00condition. Policy 33. Um one of the

1:03:04interesting things is no development

1:03:06plan included a solely single family

1:03:09residential development. Of the six or

1:03:12seven that included single family as a

1:03:14an allowed house. Um there is either a

1:03:18maximum requirement or or a minimum

1:03:21there's a minimum requirement of an

1:03:23additional housing type to ensure that

1:03:25nothing was fully single family which I

1:03:28found was pretty interesting.

1:03:31Um

1:03:32so policy 48 um this refers to the

1:03:36accessibility policy.

1:03:38Um so there's only two types of ways

1:03:41that we've seen this being committed

1:03:42before. Generally, if it's an apartment

1:03:45building development, they will include

1:03:49um elevators as part of a zoning

1:03:51condition which goes above and beyond

1:03:54which would meet this policy. And

1:03:55typically for town houses or um those

1:04:00single family ones, they will include uh

1:04:03first floor living or at grade

1:04:04entrances. So, those are some of the

1:04:06ways that this policy has been met over

1:04:08the past two years and currently. Um,

1:04:1149, I won't get much into detail because

1:04:14you guys had that conversation.

1:04:17Um, a few of the transportation

1:04:18highlights. Um, again, 55, 57,63, those

1:04:23are the transportation ones and as you

1:04:25know, they're always met by meeting UDO

1:04:27standards. And one of the reasons why we

1:04:29consolidated that in the E

1:04:35And here are a few of the environmental

1:04:36and public spaces policies. Um, one of

1:04:39the more interesting things is policy

1:04:4185.

1:04:43Um, this is the infamous one where we

1:04:45want tree coverage beyond what the UDO

1:04:47requires. And so in that two-year stint,

1:04:50we have um in development plans, they

1:04:54have committed to an additional 84.85

1:04:57acres of tree coverage beyond what the

1:05:00UDO requires. Um I'm sure that will

1:05:03increase um with the cases past this

1:05:06time period, but that is an interesting

1:05:08fact. Um policy 96 um again a few of the

1:05:14ways that it's only committed to or

1:05:17consistent by that we've seen is

1:05:19limiting impervious surface or double

1:05:22counting additional tree coverage and

1:05:23sort of how you meet that. And policy

1:05:26101 is the native plantings policy. So,

1:05:30of those of the all the cases that

1:05:33exceed it, 50 of those actually include

1:05:35all plantings to be native. And what

1:05:37we've seen is there's a variety of ways

1:05:39to meet this policy. One, you can either

1:05:42commit to all required plantings and

1:05:44what that includes is uh street trees,

1:05:47vehicle use area landscaping, project

1:05:50boundary buffers. this type of

1:05:52commitment that does all plantings um

1:05:57pretty much requires all those areas to

1:05:59be native species but we've seen certain

1:06:02percentages whereas it's like 75 or 50%

1:06:05where they may include street trees or

1:06:08um that type of thing. So there's a

1:06:10variety, but we that was an interesting

1:06:12fact, something that came out of

1:06:16um here the educational policies. Um

1:06:19policy 152, um there's in that two-year

1:06:22stint, $1.2 million have been profered

1:06:25through the legislative process.

1:06:28And policy 155, uh no one's done that

1:06:32yet. That's one of the reasons why it's

1:06:33been removed and that is the the ability

1:06:36of an applicant to actually profer land

1:06:38for a school and one of the reasons why

1:06:41it was removed. I do want to highlight

1:06:43as part of our work. One of the things

1:06:45that we continuously do as stated before

1:06:48is examine these policies and its

1:06:50effectiveness achieving the goals of the

1:06:51comp plan. And so what Bri and Payton

1:06:55did uh previously uh we will continue to

1:06:58do that as um as time permits.

1:07:04All right, third period. You guys ready?

1:07:08All right. Cool. So along with the place

1:07:12type map, the UGB, the FGA, and those D

1:07:15policies, housing and specifically

1:07:18affordable housing is a big theme of the

1:07:20comp plan.

1:07:22In 2022, it was projected that we needed

1:07:2560,000 housing units.

1:07:28In 2025, that's come down to 51,300

1:07:31housing units needed.

1:07:36Here we go.

1:07:38So, here we have a breakdown of uh

1:07:41approved housing units per the site

1:07:43plan. Um, and this is since 2020. And

1:07:48what you see is

1:07:50there's about 37,000 units that were

1:07:53approved with development plans or

1:07:55associated with the development plan.

1:07:58In addition, um there's actually a total

1:08:00of 27,000

1:08:03units approved in site plans. When you

1:08:06break down that 27,000

1:08:08units approved, about 19 are with those

1:08:12um approved development plans and about

1:08:148,000 are by right developments.

1:08:18And currently there are 8,000 units

1:08:20under review. Of those about 6,500 are

1:08:24through um associated with the

1:08:26development plan and the 1500 are

1:08:28developed associated by by right

1:08:30development.

1:08:34what what does that actually look like?

1:08:36Um so here um this slide shows you sort

1:08:39of what's been constructed uh since

1:08:422023. So in fiscal year 2023

1:08:46uh a little about uh 5,500 units have

1:08:49been built in the city and the county.

1:08:51Uh the blue is the city, the county as

1:08:54the teal, which is my wife's color. Um,

1:08:59in FY24,

1:09:01uh, there's about 3,000 units being

1:09:03built or were built, uh, 4,400 in 2025

1:09:07and then, uh, 5,700. So, about close to

1:09:115,000 units a year, um, since 2023.

1:09:15So, roughly about 5,000 units are

1:09:17actually constructed uh, a year on

1:09:20average.

1:09:24So, what does that mean for affordable

1:09:25housing? um at least through the

1:09:27legislative process.

1:09:30Um so here we have a breakdown of

1:09:35of a a lot of different things.

1:09:39Um just to get your head around uh the

1:09:41top part. So

1:09:44we have a number of current development

1:09:46plans that are active that have been

1:09:48approved and on file. those development

1:09:51plans

1:09:53um allow or require or have proper um a

1:09:58maximum of 27 or 2,700 affordable units

1:10:03as part of this zoning condition.

1:10:07Does that make

1:10:09So there are 27 So within all the

1:10:11development plans in Durham, there are

1:10:132700 affordable units that need that

1:10:16would be required to be built if built

1:10:18out to full capacity.

1:10:22Now what we've seen is we've only had

1:10:25100 or 314 of those units have been

1:10:28constructed.

1:10:30those units that are tied to those

1:10:31development plans, those affordable

1:10:32units that are tied to the development

1:10:34plans, um 788 are under construction,

1:10:40more than half of those already have the

1:10:42deed restrictions in place regarding the

1:10:44AMI um and tenure. Um and then we also

1:10:49have a number of 528 site plan approved

1:10:53units. Um, and what this really shows is

1:10:58a lot of these numbers fall within that

1:10:5980% range that we're looking for for

1:11:03development plans. As most do not know,

1:11:06when you commit to um a max intensity or

1:11:09density with the development plan, you

1:11:11have to at least build 80% of that

1:11:13intensity. So, the range of the

1:11:15affordable units to what could be built

1:11:17would fall in that 80% range. Just a

1:11:20point of clarification. What you're

1:11:22saying is that when even though a

1:11:25certain number of units are approved,

1:11:27when it comes down to building the

1:11:29project, the developer may not actually

1:11:32build that number and then the

1:11:33corresponding number of affordable

1:11:35units.

1:11:36>> Correct. Depends on how they profer it.

1:11:38>> Um most of what we see is a percentage

1:11:41of the total. However, there are a few

1:11:43instances where they commit to a raw or

1:11:46a hard number

1:11:47>> and that in that situation that would

1:11:50not change.

1:11:51>> Okay?

1:11:51>> Because it's just one's a percentage of

1:11:53what is built and then one's just a hard

1:11:55one.

1:11:56>> Okay?

1:11:58>> Um

1:11:59and then the bottom two. So

1:12:05um so there are 605

1:12:08um affordable units

1:12:13that basically the development plans

1:12:15have not um proceeded to site plan. So

1:12:19okay

1:12:21and then we have about 40

1:12:23>> meaning that that development just

1:12:24because the thing gets approved doesn't

1:12:26mean it's going to get built and so

1:12:27within that that 605 includes or there

1:12:31that includes 605 affordable units.

1:12:34>> Yes. So the 5,000

1:12:36units that are getting construction

1:12:38constructed what got approved is way

1:12:41higher essentially.

1:12:43I

1:12:43>> mean the the 5,000 is sort of the the

1:12:45the overall numbers. Okay. Of what's

1:12:47being constructed? These are

1:12:48specifically the units. The these are

1:12:50the

1:12:51>> Yeah. No, I got the overall I'm saying

1:12:52that like I guess maybe you have it.

1:12:54What

1:12:55>> what's the maybe I missed it. Uh what's

1:12:59the percentage of like success versus

1:13:02failure? So like to I'm not saying that

1:13:04but like something gets approved it

1:13:06doesn't get built right like what is

1:13:08that

1:13:10do you understand what I'm post shaking

1:13:12is that

1:13:18>> so to your first question yes um we

1:13:22don't have that metric because the

1:13:23zoning is in perpetuity and so for

1:13:27example there are units that are being

1:13:30built under PDRs that were approved

1:13:32moved a long time ago that or in that

1:13:355,000.

1:13:36>> It's hard to track essentially.

1:13:37>> We're not going to be able to get at

1:13:39that success because some of the 605 may

1:13:41be built

1:13:42>> down the road. Okay. Thank you. I

1:13:45appreciate that. Um could we also get

1:13:48analysis of if if possible from other

1:13:51planning departments across the state

1:13:52around voluntary profers around

1:13:54affordability and what they're seeing?

1:13:55Thank you.

1:13:56>> Sure.

1:14:00All right. And here is just a few sort

1:14:03of metrics regarding the AMI and tenure.

1:14:06Uh what we've seen is that um

1:14:10the most the most common AMI is 80%. Um

1:14:14depending upon the housing type, it

1:14:16could be defined as affordable or income

1:14:17restricted. Um the other is 60% which is

1:14:21pretty standard for the um

1:14:25correct the rental side. Um but we are

1:14:27seeing a a mix of AMIs. Um, and so that

1:14:32is what the orange or the purple uh

1:14:35refers to. And within the mixture of

1:14:37AMIs that are included in a development

1:14:39plan, that's where you actually see

1:14:42lower AMIs because um we tend not to get

1:14:46anything lower than 60 except for one or

1:14:48two times since then, but that's been

1:14:50paired with um like a higher higher AMI.

1:14:55Um and likewise we've seen AMIs higher

1:14:58than 80% but those have been paired with

1:15:00AMIs of 60 and 80 depending upon. So

1:15:03that's that's where the those different

1:15:05AMIs stay is in the in the mixed um

1:15:10>> and then because of our some of that was

1:15:12like 80% AMI is tied to for sale and 60%

1:15:15is tied to rental. So is that why we're

1:15:17also seeing that breakdown?

1:15:20>> It depends on how they they structure

1:15:22their profer basically. Um

1:15:26we are currently seeing that they are

1:15:28just committing to UDO affordable which

1:15:31assumes 80 and 60 and so that would sort

1:15:34of be a mix if there's a mix of housing

1:15:36types in this calculation.

1:15:40Um the other interesting thing is um the

1:15:44most common tenure of these affordable

1:15:45units is 30 years uh which is at least

1:15:48is a good thing. Um, we have seen a few

1:15:53developments that include a lower tenure

1:15:55that have been improved over the years.

1:15:57Uh, but nothing above a 30-year tenure

1:15:58has been approved yet. So, that may be a

1:16:00goal in the future. Um,

1:16:05awesome. I believe this is where Sarah

1:16:08steps in.

1:16:15>> Good morning. I'm Sarah Venius, director

1:16:17of housing and neighborhood services

1:16:18with the city. Um, and the housing and

1:16:22neighborhood services comes in after the

1:16:25units and projects are approved. So, on

1:16:27the monitoring side, so we're going to

1:16:29I'm just going to share very briefly

1:16:30what that process looks like. So, um,

1:16:34once the units are approved and built,

1:16:38um, annually, Housing and Neighborhood

1:16:40Services monitors 20% of the total

1:16:43portfolio of units approved. So um you

1:16:47heard the you saw in the earlier slide

1:16:49the total units. So right now that's

1:16:52four projects that were profered that

1:16:55have been built. Um that includes about

1:16:58300 units. Um, so we're currently

1:17:02monitoring a a very small number of

1:17:05units um that were profered that have

1:17:07been built and that's a very small

1:17:09portion of the 2500 total units that

1:17:13were responsible for monitoring because

1:17:15they have city money in them. So um the

1:17:18first units that we monitored came

1:17:21online in 2025. So this is a a new

1:17:24function for us and you saw that there's

1:17:27many projects that are under

1:17:28construction right now. Uh so we expect

1:17:30that there's going to be more and more

1:17:32um units that we'll be monitoring. Um so

1:17:36to say a little bit about what the

1:17:37process looks like um the process starts

1:17:40with our team sending out a letter to

1:17:42the owner to let them know that we're

1:17:44going to monitor them. Um we then um

1:17:47select a sample a random sample of units

1:17:50to look at and then um we our team looks

1:17:54at all of the documentation related to

1:17:57affordability. So, we're looking at rent

1:18:00roles. We're looking at documentation

1:18:02from the tenants to confirms that the

1:18:05leases were signed and and and correctly

1:18:08all of that documentation. And then we

1:18:10also do a physical inspection. So, one

1:18:12of our inspectors goes on site and looks

1:18:14at the condition of the units. Um once

1:18:17that's completed, we meet with the

1:18:21developer owner um and share with them

1:18:25the results of our monitoring and exit

1:18:27conference. Um if there are correction

1:18:30action, corrective actions identified, a

1:18:32plan is put in place and we give them a

1:18:34time period to address those issues. Um

1:18:37to date, we haven't had any uh

1:18:40corrective action plans needed for the

1:18:43projects that I mentioned. Um so that is

1:18:46good news. Um but we have a process in

1:18:48place if that is necessary. Um and we do

1:18:52that annually. So um this is an annual

1:18:55process. Next year we'll do it again for

1:18:58the four projects and any new projects

1:19:00that come online. And the trigger for

1:19:02that um as was mentioned earlier is when

1:19:0580% of the affordability requirements

1:19:08are met or the CO anniversary and

1:19:11whichever comes first. So, um, that's a

1:19:14little bit about the monitoring process

1:19:16and I'll turn it back over to planning

1:19:18staff.

1:19:19>> Second, uh, Director V, is this your

1:19:21only slide?

1:19:21>> Yes.

1:19:22>> Okay. Um, colleagues, just so that you

1:19:25don't have to sit down and stand up

1:19:27again, does folks have questions or

1:19:29comments? I

1:19:30>> I have a quick question. What happens

1:19:31when somebody is not in compliance?

1:19:34>> So, we would uh document that in a

1:19:37corrective action plan and give them a

1:19:39period of time to address the issues

1:19:41identified. So if there were physical

1:19:44issues with the building, they would be

1:19:46responsible for addressing those and

1:19:48then we would come back again or request

1:19:50documentation until those issues are

1:19:53addressed.

1:19:55We haven't had to do that yet. Um but we

1:19:59have had we have that process in place

1:20:01for the other units that we monitored

1:20:03and we have had to do correction

1:20:05corrective action plans and generally

1:20:07speaking um our partners are very

1:20:09responsive and address the issues. That

1:20:12would also technically be a zoning

1:20:14violation and so we would issue a notice

1:20:16of violation and pursue enforcement

1:20:18there too. And as you know through that

1:20:20mechanism um if they're are

1:20:22non-compliant after a we have to give

1:20:24them a grace period to come into

1:20:25compliance. If they don't do that fast

1:20:27enough, then we could issue citations of

1:20:30$500 a day for every day they stay

1:20:32non-compliant. So, we have two avenues,

1:20:33both um the housing and neighborhood

1:20:35services through their plan and us

1:20:37through our enforcement actions.

1:20:41>> Council member Copek.

1:20:43>> Yep.

1:20:44>> Thank you. Um so, Director Vignas, I'm

1:20:47curious. I know this is a new process

1:20:50for your department

1:20:52and hopefully under the new LDC we'll

1:20:56see a proliferation of more affordable

1:21:00units as the LDC seeks to give new types

1:21:04of incentives to byite development as

1:21:08well um to achieve you know some sort of

1:21:11density bonus by incorporating

1:21:13affordability but I imagine there'll be

1:21:15some sort of monitoring that as well so

1:21:17both um I I guess like what we would see

1:21:20through discretionary review and also

1:21:22what we might see under the new LDC.

1:21:25um

1:21:27you know will that also fall under your

1:21:29department and have you gotten feedback

1:21:32or sort of evaluated

1:21:35how how sort of difficult or ownorous

1:21:37the process might be just because I feel

1:21:39like we've heard in the past that the

1:21:41documentation and that followup both in

1:21:45Durham and across the country sometimes

1:21:46is a reason why developers don't

1:21:49participate and seek to get the benefit

1:21:51of the bonus or maybe it's just not

1:21:53structured well but but we hear feed

1:21:55back that that could be difficult for

1:21:56them. So, is that something you've

1:21:58heard? Are we evaluating? How do you

1:22:00think about that?

1:22:01>> Yeah, I think um that is certainly

1:22:03something that I have heard as well. Um

1:22:06and I think that's something that we

1:22:08will be collaborating with planning on

1:22:11to look at both through the LDC process

1:22:13but also through our housing plan is

1:22:15looking at, you know, what what new

1:22:18tools and strategies can we use? how can

1:22:20we improve the approach we've already

1:22:22been using um to streamline things. Um

1:22:26so I think I think there's a lot of

1:22:28pieces to that. I think part of it is

1:22:31education and support and capacity

1:22:33building for partners when they do have

1:22:36affordability commitments because it is

1:22:38a different line of business for market

1:22:40rate developers if they have not done it

1:22:42before and I think we need to support

1:22:44them and help them be successful. Um,

1:22:47but I think there's also structural

1:22:49issues and that's what part of what

1:22:51we're we're collaborating with planning

1:22:53on and also will be examined through our

1:22:54our housing plan.

1:23:00>> And um and you've you came from Chapel

1:23:03Hill Director Venius and Orange County

1:23:05has done a good job of moving these into

1:23:08um the portfolio of community partners

1:23:10such as the community home trust. um is

1:23:12that something that we're looking into

1:23:14as well through the um affordable

1:23:17housing strategic plan?

1:23:19>> Yes. And I will say that one of the four

1:23:21projects that has come online um we do

1:23:25have a model for that. So some of the

1:23:27units went to um Durham Community Land

1:23:29Trust who is a missiondriven affordable

1:23:32housing provider. Um so that is

1:23:35something that that we will be exploring

1:23:38um

1:23:40through our housing plan and we have

1:23:42done some of already.

1:23:43>> Awesome. Thank you. Questions? Yep.

1:23:46That's it. That's all. Thank you,

1:23:48director Venice.

1:23:55>> Awesome.

1:23:57And just to wrap it up, um so key

1:24:00points, um again, UGB has not been

1:24:03expanded. Infrastructure improvements

1:24:06have been made in two of the eight FDAs.

1:24:08Um the 15-minute community strategy may

1:24:10be impacted if place type trend

1:24:12continues. And then again, uh 2746

1:24:17profit affordable units are on file. So

1:24:21I'm happy to answer any questions you

1:24:22may have.

1:24:25Colleagues, I'm going to start on my

1:24:26right again, then go left, council

1:24:29member.

1:24:30>> Yeah, thank you, chair. Okay, so a play

1:24:32in three acts here. Um, this is the I'll

1:24:35do my best to work through this.

1:24:38So under first of all the just you know

1:24:41general growth management trends

1:24:43analysis you know just focusing a bit on

1:24:45this um you know small percentage but

1:24:50still notable shift from mixed use to

1:24:53mixed residential

1:24:55um you know and the possibility that

1:24:57that could impact ability for 15-minute

1:24:59city. Is there some sort of threshold

1:25:02that we think about in this where it

1:25:04becomes more meaningful where we should

1:25:07start being more concerned? Um how kind

1:25:11of consistent or inconsistent is you

1:25:13know 1.6% with what we've said we need

1:25:15and want over time. Yeah, I don't think

1:25:18there's a threshold right now, but I

1:25:20think maybe in the future um doing a

1:25:24geographical component or a GIS analysis

1:25:26of those place types to see if there are

1:25:29any existing gaps

1:25:31>> um for the uh 15-minute city would be

1:25:33useful. Um but as of just a general

1:25:37threshold of a certain percentage of

1:25:39acreage, I think you would need that

1:25:40geographical component to see how

1:25:42everything works together to make the

1:25:4415-minute city.

1:25:45>> Okay? because all the place types are

1:25:48working as one um to ensure that there's

1:25:51a 15-minute city.

1:25:53>> So,

1:25:53>> and we may see eb and flow over time to

1:25:57in one direction or or another.

1:25:59>> Correct.

1:26:00>> Um yeah. Okay. Thanks. Also interesting

1:26:02to see, you know, community employment,

1:26:04industrial, rural, these areas that were

1:26:06more or less flat, but really these two

1:26:09in areas interacting mixed use and mixed

1:26:11residential was was was notable. Um

1:26:15uh so second, you know, just to make

1:26:18sure I'm clear on language, you talked

1:26:19about losing 87 acres from a future

1:26:24growth area due to annexation.

1:26:25>> Correct.

1:26:26>> And so just when when um when a property

1:26:30is annexed, then it is then it is no

1:26:33longer in future growth.

1:26:36>> Not necessarily. It really depends on

1:26:38sort of the intensity of what's being

1:26:40proposed. So we've had two within the

1:26:42FGA. Uh one was a partial is the Virgil

1:26:46Road assemblage portion where the

1:26:49majority of it was outside the FGA but a

1:26:52portion of it was inside but a good

1:26:54chunk of it was inside the FGA and so

1:26:56that was the decision point to remove

1:26:58it. Um there was a second annexation

1:27:00which was a single family one just to

1:27:02connect two city utilities I think in

1:27:04the Fletcher Chapel FGA and because of

1:27:08its um non-impact basically

1:27:12>> um we decided to leave that. So that's

1:27:17okay.

1:27:18>> Okay.

1:27:19Um,

1:27:21let's see here

1:27:23in terms of so I see that the Celeste

1:27:26Circle Pump Station completed the

1:27:27upgrade. When it comes to Downing Creek,

1:27:30Downing Wood, and the Southwest FGA,

1:27:33you know, there was some language about

1:27:35where they are in the process. Has

1:27:36construction started on either of those?

1:27:39Um,

1:27:40>> I'm not sure if it's construction has

1:27:42started, but the CDs have been approved.

1:27:44>> Okay.

1:27:45>> So, it'll start soon hopefully.

1:27:47>> Okay. And who is doing that development?

1:27:50Who's paying for that development for

1:27:52that infrastructure?

1:27:53>> City.

1:27:54>> So those are city projects that are

1:27:55underway.

1:27:56>> I think the city has hired Carolina

1:27:58Civil Works to do the upgrade to one of

1:28:00them.

1:28:01>> Okay.

1:28:02>> Um

1:28:03>> so I know that there was like a request

1:28:05for that.

1:28:08>> Okay.

1:28:10Um

1:28:12and um which parts of the the kind of

1:28:17Southwest FGA does that cover? Will

1:28:19those three projects basically cover

1:28:21>> all of that or part of it?

1:28:24>> No, it'll well it depends on it's a

1:28:28tough question because there's two

1:28:29components of that actually FGA. one is

1:28:32a series of pump station improvements

1:28:34throughout that area for existing

1:28:36neighborhoods and the large substantial

1:28:38of that FGA is actually for um

1:28:41undeveloped land that would be developed

1:28:44in the future. Um so the the exact map

1:28:48of that we do not have but it may be

1:28:50based on the um there is a map that I

1:28:53found regarding sort of where those pump

1:28:55stations the the area of the pump

1:28:56stations would serve.

1:28:57>> Yeah, that'd be helpful to see.

1:28:59>> Okay.

1:28:59>> As a followup. Yeah. Thank you. I'll

1:29:01talk about that.

1:29:03>> Um, all right. So, next the comp plan

1:29:06consistency.

1:29:07>> Sure.

1:29:09>> So, this is a beautiful document

1:29:11>> made for great nighttime reading. So,

1:29:12thank you for this sort of, you know,

1:29:15compilation of of information

1:29:17>> insomnia.

1:29:18>> Uh, yeah. Um, I am curious. Is there an

1:29:21Excel document that sort of underpins

1:29:23the Word PDF table that would allow us

1:29:26to sort by applicability,

1:29:29by exceeds, meets, does not meet across

1:29:32the different policies or like what does

1:29:35the underlying data set look like?

1:29:37>> Um, it's a very big spreadsheet. Um,

1:29:42Erin seen it.

1:29:43>> Um, I love I love a big spreadsheet. So,

1:29:46if that's something you're also able to

1:29:47share, that would be that'd be great. So

1:29:50>> yeah, just just be aware that it's going

1:29:52to change every time

1:29:53>> Yeah.

1:29:54>> a case is approved. It's all going to

1:29:56change.

1:29:57>> Yeah. And the format of this current one

1:30:00will be changing to reflect the E

1:30:04changes.

1:30:05>> Okay.

1:30:06>> So the current one that I've built only

1:30:08reflects the 36 policies that have been

1:30:11normal um since the ER was approved. And

1:30:15so there's a number of policies removed

1:30:17but a few added. So I'll need to build

1:30:20that.

1:30:20>> Sure. And just understanding it's a

1:30:22snapshot that can change. But

1:30:23>> it's always it's dynamic

1:30:25>> generally a proponent of

1:30:28receiving the underlying data to make it

1:30:30easier for analysis not just from

1:30:32planning but kind of in in all areas is

1:30:34something I ask

1:30:34>> and that's what we've incorporated into

1:30:36our closeout procedure. So after city

1:30:39council, we will actually do a post

1:30:42approval analysis of a development plan

1:30:44because as you guys all know at council

1:30:48a number of profers are made and that

1:30:50sort of changes the initial count that

1:30:51you see on the staff report versus the

1:30:53final version.

1:30:55>> And so what you see here is a reflection

1:30:57of the final product of a development

1:30:58plan after you guys

1:31:01approve or deny.

1:31:02>> Okay, great. Um, all right. So, there's

1:31:05a lot that's encouraging looking at how

1:31:07we've done so far with comp plan

1:31:09consistency, you know, discouraging

1:31:11housing segregation by income and

1:31:12housing type 100%, sidewalks,

1:31:14transportation, investment, access to

1:31:16transportation 100%. So, this is in and

1:31:19many others that were very high. Um, a

1:31:21couple questions on those one around

1:31:23policy 119, established service area

1:31:26within the UGB

1:31:28um, at 100%. Um, you know, how do we I

1:31:32mean, I know

1:31:35Do we have an explicit definition that's

1:31:37in the complaint of how we define

1:31:40um meeting established service? because

1:31:42that's something we sometimes hear

1:31:43including like on Monday we'll hear that

1:31:46you know a belief that a proposal does

1:31:48not align with policy 119 but you know

1:31:52the staff recommendation is saying or

1:31:54staff analysis is saying that it is in

1:31:56line with

1:31:57>> I guess there's um a distinction between

1:32:00sort of what the policy is intended and

1:32:01what staff can actually look at

1:32:04>> um right now the FIA is what we use to

1:32:08determine that policy in in terms of its

1:32:11consistency. Um I think there may be

1:32:15things that we could do in the future um

1:32:17to make it more aligned with policy but

1:32:19that is the mechanism that we have right

1:32:21now just to

1:32:25>> try to use that policy as best we can.

1:32:27>> Uhhuh. And FIA is

1:32:28>> the fiscal impact analysis. the

1:32:31attachment H, correct? Um the attachment

1:32:33H and sort of the the huge section in

1:32:36the memo that details sort of the cost

1:32:38and expenditures or the expenditures and

1:32:41um revenues that are expected at the

1:32:43annexation. So that's where that sort of

1:32:45lives.

1:32:46>> Yeah. And for county commission

1:32:46colleagues, one thing that comes up is a

1:32:48question around EMS service and how that

1:32:50factors in we think about total uh

1:32:52impact. Of course, we also don't see

1:32:53county revenues in our documents, but we

1:32:57are now seeing EMS costs outside of the

1:33:00FIA, but it's something that we can

1:33:01compare and think about and be in

1:33:03conversation about since I know that's a

1:33:05keen area of concern and interest. Um

1:33:09um you know, we're 100% sewer costs

1:33:11borne by developers. Does that factor

1:33:14into the FAA as well when we're getting

1:33:18like infrastructure built by

1:33:22by developers

1:33:23>> sort of the one of the policies deals

1:33:26directly with um sort of the

1:33:29infrastructure requirements that's it's

1:33:32one of the later ones

1:33:36I think it's one

1:33:40uh 128 that's sort of where that deals

1:33:43with that.

1:33:43>> Yeah.

1:33:44>> Um again when you annex into the city um

1:33:48applicants have got to sign a utility

1:33:50extension agreement which sets the

1:33:51framework or expectations of how those

1:33:54utilities will be built by the applicant

1:33:56and then maintained eventually by the

1:33:58city.

1:33:59>> Okay.

1:34:00>> So um that's sort of where it's taken

1:34:01care of.

1:34:02>> Okay. All right. Yeah. because I think

1:34:03often whether it's you know like

1:34:06utilities you know sidewalks like you

1:34:08know there are instances where there are

1:34:10cases that come before us where we're

1:34:12able to get those sorts of public

1:34:14benefits

1:34:15>> sure

1:34:15>> that otherwise would not happen or would

1:34:17be a cost to to the city. Uh and so just

1:34:21always curious how that fits into how we

1:34:22think about a fiscal you know the fiscal

1:34:25impact of it. So you

1:34:28>> um all right so there's you know there's

1:34:30a number of them that are low which

1:34:31we've already talked on some of those in

1:34:33previous discussion you know there is

1:34:34the topic of public open space um that's

1:34:37something that I've reached out to the

1:34:38CEO to the attorney's office about to

1:34:41look into so I appreciate attorney Miles

1:34:43and team sort of looking into when we

1:34:45hear from HOAs that it's just too big of

1:34:49a liability we can't do it um you know

1:34:51like how how solid is the ground you

1:34:54know on which those claims are based.

1:34:56And so I look forward to hearing in the

1:34:58future, you know, kind of the assessment

1:35:00of like how we should interpret those

1:35:01those claims because I think it was only

1:35:03at 18%

1:35:05um um alignment with a comp plan around

1:35:08publicly available open space and

1:35:10developments that were approved. Um

1:35:12okay, so third act, last question and

1:35:14I'll hand it off. Thank you my

1:35:15colleagues for your patience as I work

1:35:17through all of this. Um

1:35:18>> so we have the 2746

1:35:21um affordable units profered. you know,

1:35:24some that are moving forward, some are

1:35:26sort of in the future. I'm curious from

1:35:28you. I don't know if Director Vignas is

1:35:29still here, but if we have a record of

1:35:33in the same time period, how many

1:35:36publicly subsidized affordable housing

1:35:38units did the city and county build or

1:35:40start the process of building over that

1:35:42same time period? And I realize you may

1:35:44not have that answer. Um, yeah, I don't

1:35:46have that completed. I can reach out to

1:35:48housing neighborhood services after I'd

1:35:50be interested to

1:35:52>> you know to see you know how many units

1:35:54are we getting from this discretionary

1:35:56review process you know how many over

1:35:58the same time period has you know our

1:36:00public bodies you know been successful

1:36:02at you know sort of initiating on our

1:36:04own um so um I will pause there and

1:36:09thank you for this presentation and you

1:36:10and your team for all this work uh

1:36:12really appreciate it so thank you

1:36:14>> well Matt I can tell you right now what

1:36:16it's been on the county side minus the

1:36:19projects that we've done jointly with

1:36:21the city through the ARPA funding where

1:36:23we've partnered with the city but the

1:36:25ones that we've built has been 300

1:36:28um with our two projects not will be

1:36:31complete 2027

1:36:33but during that time period 300 units

1:36:36>> which is also the county stepping in new

1:36:38territory uh and building affordable

1:36:40housing which is really amazing but so

1:36:43300 is

1:36:44>> 300 it's going to take us 10 years.

1:36:4810 years to build 300 units.

1:36:52>> Um, Director Young, you're good. All

1:36:54right. Uh, Mr. Burton, did you have

1:36:57anything?

1:36:57>> No. Okay, let's go to my left.

1:37:00Go ahead.

1:37:02Um, thank you for this. This is actually

1:37:05really, really good information. And I

1:37:06heard um um

1:37:10council member uh Copac ask about like

1:37:16reporting, you know, he was asking how

1:37:18can he get a spreadsheet about this so

1:37:20forth. Um I was just curious. So how

1:37:23often

1:37:25will we get this kind of summary?

1:37:29Um

1:37:29>> so a great question. Um,

1:37:31>> right. And so I'm kind of going

1:37:33somewhere with that. It probably get

1:37:35answered with the second part of that.

1:37:37>> Okay.

1:37:37>> So, you know, we get a lot of mainly the

1:37:41city council gets a lot of questions

1:37:42about this sort of thing, right? These

1:37:45numbers. Um, is it feasible to have like

1:37:50a dashboard

1:37:52that shows this? I don't know how

1:37:54difficult it would be to update. I don't

1:37:55know how automatic

1:37:58numbers are as as units come online or

1:38:02or whatnot, but would it be feasible to

1:38:04have some sort of dashboard that the

1:38:06community could look at

1:38:09um that shows these kind of numbers

1:38:11because this is this answers a lot of

1:38:13questions that people have about

1:38:16building and about that sort of thing.

1:38:18I'm curious.

1:38:20I don't know how, again, I don't know

1:38:22how difficult it would be to maintain,

1:38:24but I was just curious about that.

1:38:27>> Yeah, that's a great question. We

1:38:28actually have a link on our website um

1:38:30that is kind of a light dashboard that

1:38:32we built years ago. Um it needs to be

1:38:36kind of updated, expanded, revamped.

1:38:38That's on our kind of wishto-do list

1:38:40when we have a little free time. So, um

1:38:42some of this, like for instance, the

1:38:45number of units built is online. So

1:38:48there there is some information, but we

1:38:49do want to take a bigger holistic

1:38:51revamp. I do think that there's some

1:38:53other information that was in this

1:38:54presentation that isn't on that

1:38:55dashboard. I think would be good. And we

1:38:57hear a lot from, you know, residents, I

1:38:59think, that are um

1:39:02quoting numbers about like the total

1:39:04amount of units, you know, that that um

1:39:06we have approved and how we do or don't

1:39:09need to, you know, be uh approving

1:39:11anymore. I think there's some double

1:39:13counting there going on. So I I would

1:39:16like for us to have that information as

1:39:18kind of the credible source of that data

1:39:21online. So that's something we're going

1:39:22to be working on.

1:39:23>> So that was just a question.

1:39:26>> Sure.

1:39:26>> If it was if that's feasible. And the

1:39:29reason I say feasible is because I've

1:39:31been on the other end of having to

1:39:32update a manual dashboard before and I

1:39:36know the pain of that. So I'm not

1:39:38suggesting that. I'm just curious if we

1:39:41could if this information could be be

1:39:43available in public cuz I would never

1:39:45ask the staff to do something I wouldn't

1:39:47want to do and I I wouldn't want to do

1:39:49that.

1:39:50>> Yeah, I I will tell you that our life

1:39:52will become a lot easier when the new

1:39:54clarity system um we will be able to

1:39:56build dashboards directly from that. So

1:39:59right now some information is ported

1:40:03from LDO through a system called data

1:40:05hub that the city has and there is still

1:40:08some manual entry but the dashboard

1:40:10online reads from that system. So it's

1:40:12kind of a hybrid right now. So we'll

1:40:14look and see what we can do with a

1:40:16reasonable amount of effort.

1:40:18>> Yeah.

1:40:18>> Thank you.

1:40:18>> And we have provided clarity with the um

1:40:22>> sort of the framework of the t the

1:40:24affordable tracker the stages of

1:40:26production tracker. So the the platform

1:40:29is aware of sort of the data that we

1:40:30currently use

1:40:32>> and ideally they'd be building that into

1:40:34it.

1:40:34>> I I I could wait for that.

1:40:36>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:40:38>> Thank you.

1:40:40>> Uh Mayor Prom,

1:40:43>> thank you. This is I'm in the tables and

1:40:45all the very dense information. Um

1:40:47>> Sure.

1:40:48uh with the like we updated the park one

1:40:53um to be a little bit more realistic

1:40:56based on our development patterns and so

1:40:58curious about because I think originally

1:41:00it was like the 15-minute city goal

1:41:03being like oh you can walk to a park

1:41:04within 15 minutes and then parks and

1:41:06wreck was like yeah that's not an

1:41:07achievable goal based on our own plans

1:41:09and so we kind of tiered it. um with

1:41:12that policy breakdown comparison. I

1:41:15guess it it I'm not seeing it. Is it

1:41:17>> it's not included in this one.

1:41:19>> Okay.

1:41:19>> So

1:41:21for the policies post E,

1:41:24>> they'll have a a breakdown of

1:41:26>> it didn't get incorporated until the

1:41:28Even though we talked about it sooner,

1:41:29it didn't get incorporated. Okay. Thank

1:41:30you. Because I know we talked about it

1:41:32kind of before the rest of the other

1:41:33policy changes. Okay. That that was one

1:41:35question. So I appreciate that. Sure.

1:41:37And then um I think what would be

1:41:39helpful so some of these where it says

1:41:41policy not met etc. It would be it would

1:41:44be helpful to have an understanding of

1:41:46the scale of the project um because I

1:41:50think a smaller project not meeting a

1:41:52goal to me is is different than a large

1:41:55project not meeting the goal. So I think

1:41:57that would be helpful to have that sense

1:41:59of it. Um, we talked about that earlier

1:42:01with just the green building standards

1:42:03that some folks aren't meeting them

1:42:05because their project is small and they

1:42:07can't really afford it. And that's going

1:42:08to be applicable to a lot of these

1:42:10policies. And so, again, I I want us to

1:42:13be real honest about if if we're going

1:42:15to really create a a local ecosystem of

1:42:18local builders. There's trade-offs

1:42:19there, right? Which is those folks

1:42:21aren't going to come in the door with

1:42:22the same kind of money. Um, so that's

1:42:25one. Um,

1:42:26>> I think that could be done. I could it

1:42:28could be categorized because we already

1:42:30denote sort of the scale of a

1:42:33development plan in the metrics. So

1:42:36establishing sort of a category of big

1:42:39or small.

1:42:39>> Yeah. Like 50 units or 70 whatever that

1:42:42threshold is. And and I I think folks

1:42:44have y'all have a better understanding

1:42:45of where really that breakdown is um of

1:42:48of I may be talking to to to more folks

1:42:51out there of like where is that

1:42:52breakdown for even for us to have an

1:42:54understanding on council of like this is

1:42:5630 units like we may want all these

1:42:58policies met but or this is 50 units.

1:43:01It's just not achievable and you just

1:43:03have to make the decision on like do we

1:43:04want the housing or not. Um so that's

1:43:06one

1:43:07>> I'm going to tack on on one little

1:43:09thought there because I I agree with

1:43:10that. Um, and maybe it's not a project

1:43:13by project breakdown or a reszoning by

1:43:16reasoning breakdown, but like a acreage

1:43:18breakdown. I don't know if that's

1:43:20feasible through your spreadsheet, but

1:43:22>> No, we track acorage with each

1:43:23development plan.

1:43:24>> Just a thought there.

1:43:25>> Okay.

1:43:26>> Thank you. Um Um,

1:43:29that was one question. And then the

1:43:31other piece that I think would be

1:43:32interested interesting and you said it

1:43:34to geography. So

1:43:36>> some of this like we've maybe losing

1:43:37mixed residential. I I would love to see

1:43:40where we're losing it because

1:43:44a lot of our annexations and things are

1:43:45on a certain side of town and Brier

1:43:47Creek is going to be a commercial suck

1:43:49for that entire area. So folks coming to

1:43:52me and saying it's really hard to put

1:43:54smallcale commercial because there's so

1:43:56much other commercial.

1:43:58I understand that argument. Do I like

1:44:00it? No. But I understand it versus like

1:44:03nh actually on this side of town you

1:44:05should have put a commercial and that

1:44:06was a miss on our part. Um, so that's

1:44:08the other piece I kind of want to have

1:44:10an understanding around.

1:44:14>> Commissioner,

1:44:17>> this is fantastic. Um, I'm wondering how

1:44:21often will we get these reports? I mean,

1:44:23maybe I guess we already asked this, but

1:44:26just is this part of the five-year

1:44:29review process that we're supposed to

1:44:31have just that is baked in? Is this what

1:44:35we're getting from that? So, we were

1:44:37doing this as part of kind of in to

1:44:40coincide with the two-year E cycle.

1:44:42>> Okay.

1:44:43>> Um, so I I think that's what we had

1:44:45thought we would do is do this every two

1:44:48years.

1:44:49>> Okay.

1:44:51Really helpful. Um, first of all, I just

1:44:53want to say big picture

1:44:56>> that this data shows that what we're

1:45:01trying to do is being done. And I just

1:45:03want to say kudos to the city council

1:45:06because when you look at what is

1:45:09happening in terms of land use

1:45:12and urban growth boundary uh meeting

1:45:16policies

1:45:17creating affordable housing we are

1:45:21basically in generally meeting the

1:45:23goals. So this is what this data shows.

1:45:28Um, and I what one of my requests is I

1:45:32would like this document to be

1:45:35summarized into a one pager that is a

1:45:38report to the community. This can't just

1:45:41be sitting here in this meeting with all

1:45:43of us. This needs to be and to your

1:45:46point, Chair Lee, um, this has to be

1:45:49able to be shared out in a comprehensive

1:45:53in a very easy to understand way with

1:45:56our community.

1:45:59how what is happening is executing the

1:46:02goals of the comprehensive land use plan

1:46:05even without having pass the LDC and

1:46:09once we pass that LDC we will be even

1:46:12more successful. So, um could we get

1:46:15something again just a one pager hits on

1:46:19this the highlights

1:46:22um that could be our you know whether

1:46:25the planning department puts it out with

1:46:27the city and county PIO

1:46:31and also you mentioned

1:46:34um that you staff does a kind of debrief

1:46:38after every single um you know resoning

1:46:41case or you you know, decision that's

1:46:44made. Um, you know, I'm just thinking

1:46:47like Go Triangle does this thing where

1:46:50they put out a report after every, you

1:46:53know, meeting kind of what what happened

1:46:55in the meeting. Um,

1:46:58I'm just wondering what what people

1:47:00don't understand is what you just talked

1:47:04about in that comment you said looking

1:47:06at how did the case change from when it

1:47:09originally came in to the planning

1:47:12department then went through the

1:47:13planning commission then went to the

1:47:16city council.

1:47:18What are the changes that happened

1:47:20through that process and what did we end

1:47:22up with? because again what the

1:47:24community sees as oh the planning

1:47:26commission voted against that and the

1:47:29city council approved it and that's a

1:47:33simplistic

1:47:35uh you know kind of understanding of the

1:47:38process that doesn't reflect the

1:47:41complexity of what the process is meant

1:47:44to be which is you know that the

1:47:47planning commission does their very

1:47:50expert detailed analysis

1:47:53you know they may vote against it

1:47:54because they are putting out all the

1:47:56things that need to change and then when

1:47:59it gets to the you know governing body

1:48:02changes are made. So, is there a way if

1:48:06you could do some type of um you know

1:48:09reporting out where you also are able to

1:48:14show

1:48:16how the what was finally agreed on were

1:48:20approved and how that project changed. I

1:48:23don't know if I'm making any sense.

1:48:25>> Yeah, you make perfect sense but I think

1:48:26Aaron

1:48:28>> thanks Eron came with the planning

1:48:30department. Um so we have started

1:48:32collecting that data that information

1:48:35and has really spent the last year

1:48:37setting up um all the data

1:48:42compilation all the infrastructure that

1:48:44we need to be able to do this in a much

1:48:46more uh much more quickly um in the

1:48:52future. Uh, and I thank Andy. And the

1:48:54reason I'm up here is that um, today is

1:48:57Andy's last day, so he won't be doing

1:49:00any of that.

1:49:00>> Oh, no.

1:49:01>> Um. [laughter]

1:49:03>> Oh, no.

1:49:05>> Right.

1:49:08[laughter]

1:49:10>> You want to Yeah.

1:49:14>> What?

1:49:14>> I'm supposed to walk away silently.

1:49:17Um, no. I'm working closer to home. Um,

1:49:20I'm helping I'll be helping Burlington

1:49:22with their long range efforts. So, it's

1:49:24a 20 minute drive versus an hour and 10.

1:49:27>> Darn.

1:49:29>> Um,

1:49:30>> you're leaning into that 15inut city.

1:49:32[laughter]

1:49:33>> Sir, do you know anybody in a bad word?

1:49:38>> So, so we the rest of us who remain uh

1:49:42we'll do our best to get these to you in

1:49:44as timely a manner as as we can. Um, but

1:49:48yeah, I really applaud Andy for putting

1:49:50together the I mean, you want to see

1:49:53some spreadsheets, we've got some

1:49:54spreadsheets for you. Um, but yeah,

1:49:57that's all been put together now. So,

1:49:58it's something that, uh, the rest of us

1:50:00are going to be able to continue. Um,

1:50:03but yeah, if you'll bear with us in a

1:50:06little bit, uh, as we're short staffed,

1:50:08uh, putting that together to move

1:50:09forward.

1:50:10>> We hear that. I think in the very least

1:50:12though we could still do the kind of

1:50:15summation of this report that we're

1:50:17getting.

1:50:17>> Yeah.

1:50:18>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sarah, by the

1:50:20way, you'll be working on that,

1:50:22>> right? Um I just want to also just to

1:50:24highlight a few things that I think is

1:50:26important for the report. Number one is

1:50:29there's been no net change in the uh

1:50:32loss of rural land. I think that is

1:50:34really really important holding the fact

1:50:37that we've held the urban growth

1:50:39boundary that we have not lost any rural

1:50:42land. You know we had a recent update of

1:50:46our farmland plan and report that shows

1:50:49that we have lost a lot of farmland and

1:50:54in Durham County over the past you know

1:50:5630 years and or 20 years since the where

1:51:00it was last done. So this is very very

1:51:03important that we hold the line on

1:51:06protecting our rural land and the urban

1:51:08grass boundary and we're doing that and

1:51:09I think that's really important. Um also

1:51:14increasing the residential and

1:51:16specifically mixed types of residential

1:51:19cuz you you said we're we're I just I

1:51:22don't know if you realize you said that

1:51:24the issue with us losing mixed

1:51:26residential it's mixed use, right?

1:51:29because we've actually improved on the

1:51:31mixed residential which is good housing

1:51:34different housing types different price

1:51:36points but um so I think that that's

1:51:40also really really important um and that

1:51:43we haven't

1:51:45um we've held also the line on the

1:51:47future growth areas and even doing that

1:51:51there was an increase in I believe it

1:51:53was 1,00 over 1,800 increas increase

1:51:59development within the urban growth

1:52:01boundary. So one one of my questions is

1:52:04and maybe that we already have this is

1:52:07how much land is developable or

1:52:11redevelopable based on I know if we had

1:52:15the LDC it would be more but if we don't

1:52:19go into the future growth areas we hold

1:52:21the urban growth boundary

1:52:24what how much land is available for

1:52:28meeting our goals I'm just do we have

1:52:30that kind of information.

1:52:34>> Here's Bill with the assist.

1:52:39>> I'll say as a part of the LDC project,

1:52:42we have attempted at trying to find that

1:52:46number um like area acreage. incredibly

1:52:50difficult and um I don't want to say

1:52:53there's no value in that because there

1:52:54certainly is right like how much you

1:52:56know undeveloped land is there but who

1:52:58wants to sell what existing development

1:53:01is redevelopable right like you know we

1:53:04don't know the necessarily the occupancy

1:53:06of a particular shopping center so

1:53:08there's so many factors but we are

1:53:09trying to come up with that and um if

1:53:13we're able to uh determine some some

1:53:16concrete numbers it'll be a part of the

1:53:17LDC considerations Okay, cuz I say that

1:53:20and again coming back from Grand Rapids,

1:53:23you know, we ideally we really would

1:53:25rather see redevelopment of old shopping

1:53:29centers and, you know, parking lots, um,

1:53:32more density development in our our our

1:53:36transit areas, more transit oriented

1:53:39development, you know, we want to see

1:53:41that rather than moving outward period.

1:53:44um we want to see development where we

1:53:47have existing infrastructure where

1:53:49delivery of services is going to be less

1:53:52expensive you know all of that so that

1:53:54that that's why I asked that um um and

1:53:58then

1:54:00I would do we knowing that we basically

1:54:04have in this time period already 314

1:54:08affordable units built another 788

1:54:12under construction that's over that's

1:54:15like,00 units. What is the average cost

1:54:18of building

1:54:20uh a housing unit? Do we know that right

1:54:25now? Anybody?

1:54:27>> What would be a fair number? What would

1:54:29be a conservative number? Cuz I did this

1:54:31last night, but not a calculator.

1:54:34Um I I'm

1:54:37>> so so I think I mean even if we could

1:54:40get that information which would be

1:54:41privately held and and is not

1:54:43necessarily being shared with us I think

1:54:45there would be such a huge delta between

1:54:49certain types of units and other types

1:54:51of units that I don't know that an

1:54:53average would really be

1:54:56yeah useful because you'd have such a

1:54:58you'd have such a standard deviation

1:55:01>> um between and such a such a broad range

1:55:06of costs and that they are so dependent

1:55:08on materials on land on the just yeah I

1:55:14don't know that a there's an average

1:55:16cost would be of

1:55:17>> a one-bedroom apartment versus a

1:55:20three-bedroom single family those are

1:55:21going to be very different even per

1:55:23square foot cost.

1:55:25>> Yeah.

1:55:25>> So and and I think that it may be

1:55:27misleading to average all that together.

1:55:29So I took a very low number 250,000

1:55:33right and multiplied it by 1,100 and I

1:55:37you know that's very low right today

1:55:40that's two over $275 million okay and I

1:55:45just I just put that out there to say

1:55:47that what we're getting which we can't

1:55:51afford to do um you know and it's going

1:55:55to be more than that the value of of how

1:55:59much money is we are basically saving uh

1:56:04the public sector from having to try to

1:56:06meet this need. And I I just again this

1:56:09is a really really key point. The county

1:56:12we're it's going to take us 10 years to

1:56:15build 300 units and it that has been

1:56:18done with heavy public subsidies. I I

1:56:22cannot tell you how much public money

1:56:25has had to I mean I can go back and

1:56:27look. We've had to build two parking

1:56:30decks to subsidize. We've had to provide

1:56:33uh you know basically grants. Uh there

1:56:36are many many different forms of public

1:56:38subsidy that we are putting into the 300

1:56:42units. If we break it down per unit, I

1:56:44think I saw at one point

1:56:47um it it's it's a lot of money and it's

1:56:50we don't have the ability to to build

1:56:54all these we don't have the ability to

1:56:56build,00 affordable units and so I just

1:56:59I just we have to be able to explain

1:57:02this to um the community and to what

1:57:06public benefit this is is happening by

1:57:10the profers that are being made. So I

1:57:13just I just wanted to highlight that. Um

1:57:16last thing is though I do want to raise

1:57:19I am concerned about

1:57:22the current criteria around evaluating

1:57:26the future growth areas because if we

1:57:29are just looking at

1:57:32um city water and sewer I we're I think

1:57:35that we are leaving out other important

1:57:38considerations about that and I just

1:57:40want to raise that as a future topic for

1:57:43discussion because We know for instance

1:57:46EMS and fire and

1:57:50>> fire is included in that.

1:57:52>> So EMS

1:57:53>> it's EMS which is not city function

1:57:55which is why we haven't historically

1:57:56included it. Yeah, we've got to get EMS

1:57:59included in this evaluation of future

1:58:02growth areas as we are with now with

1:58:05resonings because we are we are at a

1:58:08real crisis level with uh county EMS and

1:58:11response time and it's so expensive.

1:58:14Last night, Carolina Arbors gave us

1:58:16$55,000 which is amazing. You put that

1:58:20together with that first profer we've

1:58:22gotten the 350,000

1:58:25you that together buys us an ambulance

1:58:28and that's huge right but that's one

1:58:30ambulance that doesn't include the staff

1:58:33the personnel which is an ongoing cost

1:58:36um so I don't want to poo poo that

1:58:39that's f that is important and huge and

1:58:42we need more of that but I just want to

1:58:45know I really want to be able to follow

1:58:48up on the issue about EMS and how that

1:58:51could be also included in the evaluation

1:58:54of um the future growth areas.

1:58:57>> Can I

1:58:59very quickly

1:59:02>> you

1:59:02>> I'm done.

1:59:04>> Thank you. I think that that I think

1:59:06that that's actually something that

1:59:07needs to come up at Joint City County

1:59:09versus JCCPC. Uh quite frankly, because

1:59:12that's where we're having some of these

1:59:13harder conversations. I will say we

1:59:15merged fire. You know, when I was first

1:59:17on council, there was and it might be

1:59:19time to really think about this keeps

1:59:21coming up as resources get harder. Where

1:59:23where does it make sense to merge

1:59:25certain departments? Um, we we put EMS

1:59:27in our fire houses already. Like what

1:59:30how are we doing that? And is it how are

1:59:32we going to deliver a thing more

1:59:34quickly? I know that there's been a a

1:59:36long backlog of ordering ambulances and

1:59:39that whole process that goes back to the

1:59:40pandemic. And I'll say all of our

1:59:42firefighters or almost all of them are

1:59:43EMS certified. But we have some things

1:59:45that we need to think about and that's

1:59:46really um the conversation needs to be

1:59:49happening at joint city county. Um and

1:59:51>> who's the chair of that?

1:59:52>> Joint city county. It's chair it's chair

1:59:55Dr. Lee and then the mayor. So I'm

1:59:57flagging that because I know there's

1:59:58staff in here that kind of sit in both

2:00:00spaces um to to help us remember to have

2:00:03that conversation there. And then just

2:00:04very quickly, this kind of highlevel

2:00:07summary um is there a way to maybe add

2:00:10it to our packets at resoning.

2:00:17Can you say more? What high level what

2:00:19specific mean?

2:00:21>> Yeah, just like

2:00:25>> I think that or we've talked about a

2:00:28dashboard or whatnot. I think that there

2:00:29needs to be I I've been very clear that

2:00:32the comp plan is our northstar and there

2:00:35are some things that we need to discuss.

2:00:37The last one, where is it? The third,

2:00:38the 15 minute, the the community type.

2:00:40There's we've got to manage that. But

2:00:42basically, what I'm seeing is that we

2:00:43are honoring the thing we said we were

2:00:45going to honor and we are doing it to

2:00:47the best of our ability and that needs

2:00:49to be report out to community or

2:00:51whatever. But where where folks are

2:00:53seeing where are they showing up the

2:00:54most? They're showing up at our

2:00:55resonings every other Monday. And so I

2:00:58would like a consistent reminder of this

2:01:01is the plan the community approved. This

2:01:03is the thing that both the county

2:01:04commission and city council approved and

2:01:06we are following it. Um, do there needs

2:01:10to be some adjustments? Yes. And we're

2:01:12also doing the thing that we said which

2:01:13is planning staff is doing incredible

2:01:16analysis and work to make sure that we

2:01:19are adhering to a plan. And folks can

2:01:22sit there with their misinformation, but

2:01:24they need to be reminded that it is

2:01:25misinformation. And I think that we need

2:01:28to be a little bit more forthright

2:01:29because that's not what's being shared

2:01:33and we are creating a vacuum of

2:01:35misinformation at our uh Monday night

2:01:39meetings and it's our job as an

2:01:41institution to you can choose to believe

2:01:43it or not but don't say you didn't have

2:01:47the information.

2:01:52>> Yes. Thank you chair. Um, so definitely

2:01:55support Joint City County taking up the

2:01:59merger discussion, which I think over

2:02:01time it'd be good to look at other

2:02:03departments as well. I know it's

2:02:04something that Commissioner Jacobs has

2:02:06talked about and just looking for those

2:02:08efficiencies to find ways that we can

2:02:10operate with greater effectiveness and

2:02:12also reduce cost over time in the short

2:02:16term. Uh, I want first of all want to

2:02:18thank the staff for including EMS in the

2:02:22memo. Um, I'm wondering if it's possible

2:02:25and not too much of an effort to have in

2:02:29the the FIA,

2:02:31you know, after doing what is applicable

2:02:33to the city having a different line

2:02:35there that includes uh EMS as a cost

2:02:39just because I think that's where we go

2:02:41and look to eyeball the summary of of

2:02:43what the impact will be and this seems

2:02:45to be the main missing piece.

2:02:47And then second of all, um, you know, do

2:02:51we have access to how do we think about

2:02:53the revenue side from the county,

2:02:56uh, for these sorts of projects, too, so

2:02:59we're getting a fuller picture of the

2:03:01expense and revenue side of projects

2:03:03coming before us.

2:03:06I'm not asking for a real-time

2:03:08dashboard.

2:03:08>> Yeah. So that the FIA document itself,

2:03:12Andy Curtain, if I'm wrong, that is

2:03:13actually produced by budget management

2:03:15services, right?

2:03:16>> Correct. Planning to shepherds their

2:03:18process.

2:03:19>> So we would have to talk to them,

2:03:21>> JJ.

2:03:21>> Um, and just kind of see what they think

2:03:25about that. Um, we we can certainly have

2:03:29a conversation with our county

2:03:30colleagues about

2:03:32uh kind of a a county

2:03:36FIA,

2:03:37if you will. Um I think that may be

2:03:42there may be some additional

2:03:44complications there. Like for instance

2:03:46um

2:03:48in cases where uh there's an annexation

2:03:52but there's not a zoning change. There's

2:03:54really not going to be a change for

2:03:57county costs because those sites are

2:03:59already in the county. They already have

2:04:00to provide social services and this and

2:04:02that regardless, right? And so like for

2:04:04for example, EMS is one where if the

2:04:07zoning is not changing, then there is no

2:04:11um EMS says there's no addition there's

2:04:14no additional impact. They're already

2:04:15serving that land the way it's zoned. Um

2:04:19so I think that those are like nuances

2:04:20we would have to work through, but we

2:04:23can certainly have that conversation

2:04:24with county budget staff and and see

2:04:27what they think.

2:04:27>> Is this something you would initiate or

2:04:29should I initiate?

2:04:30>> We can initiate that.

2:04:31>> Okay. And can we include I know you do

2:04:33schools but kind of having it more

2:04:35formal because the schools are that's

2:04:38our costs that's a county expense.

2:04:42Um and then my last question is um

2:04:48so the FGA

2:04:50included in the comp plan the future

2:04:52growth areas

2:04:56are do those reflect our understanding

2:04:58of what's possible for buildout under

2:05:00the current UDO or does it include also

2:05:04what is possible under the LDC

2:05:08and if it doesn't include clude what's

2:05:11possible in the LDC. Is there a time

2:05:14when we should have another look at the

2:05:16future growth areas and what we're

2:05:17investing there if we think the LDC

2:05:20which envisions you know the next

2:05:22increment of density all throughout the

2:05:24city where we have existing

2:05:26infrastructure you know would be a more

2:05:29you know sort of uh you know efficient

2:05:31you know way to invest in housing versus

2:05:33this growth out. How should we think

2:05:34about that?

2:05:38>> Scott is coming to address that.

2:05:40Morning.

2:05:41I'm Scott Whiteman with the planning

2:05:43department. So the the place time map in

2:05:45the future growth areas assumes what it

2:05:48would be built out as if you know all

2:05:50the infrastructure were in place. But

2:05:52our um strategy with the LDC before it

2:05:55was paused was for the areas designated

2:05:57for residential outside the city which

2:05:59would include most of the future growth

2:06:01areas uh would be have a lower density

2:06:04kind of transitional zoning the RB

2:06:06zoning so that it couldn't be built out

2:06:09at what the comprehensive plan um

2:06:13envisions until it's annexed and we can

2:06:16ensure that we have enough services to

2:06:18to to provide

2:06:31process.

2:06:37>> Yeah, go ahead. um concerning the 2746

2:06:41profer affordable housing units when

2:06:44they come in front of us and they have a

2:06:46reasonzoning and then they say they're

2:06:47going to do that many affordable units

2:06:50and then it's reszoned um I've seen a

2:06:53number of these parcels maybe not I know

2:06:56one specifically it was just put back up

2:06:58for sale with another because I guess

2:07:01the assumed value of that land is now

2:07:04increased since it's been reszoneed if

2:07:07somebody else buys that land, are they

2:07:10obligated to meet that previously

2:07:14profered affordable housing or can they

2:07:16just have a different plan and not do

2:07:19it?

2:07:20>> So, the affordable units that are

2:07:21profered through a development plan is

2:07:24essentially um a specific zoning

2:07:26condition for that parcel. And because

2:07:29it's a specific zoning conditions to a

2:07:32parcel, if you want to change a zoning

2:07:34condition, you'd have to go back through

2:07:36the resoning process to amend it. So it

2:07:39runs with the land until it's changed by

2:07:41council or whoever approved the

2:07:44development plan.

2:07:46>> And I'll just add in many cases

2:07:48restrictive covenants are placed on

2:07:49those properties as well um in

2:07:51conjunction with housing services and

2:07:54CAO.

2:07:55review those restrictive covenants when

2:07:57um prior to CO and those are placed on

2:08:00the property.

2:08:02>> So even if it's a completely blank piece

2:08:04of property,

2:08:07>> so the restrictive covenants are placed

2:08:08prior to certain of occupancy. So that's

2:08:12that's after the buildout has gone

2:08:14through those are placed on the property

2:08:15in order for them to receive it as part

2:08:17of the zoning condition that's

2:08:18identified in the site plan.

2:08:19>> Yeah. But anyone that purchases a piece

2:08:21of property, even before it's developed,

2:08:23they have to adhere to those zoning

2:08:25conditions. All of them, whether it's

2:08:27affordable housing, whether it's

2:08:28additional buffers, whatever.

2:08:30>> Um, so they just they they're buying

2:08:32that piece of property with all those

2:08:35restrictions.

2:08:36>> Okay.

2:08:37>> You changed the base zoning, so there's

2:08:38new base zoning, so it's whatever is

2:08:41there.

2:08:42>> Yeah.

2:08:42>> It's not a loophole.

2:08:43>> No.

2:08:44>> No.

2:08:48>> All right. Um, so we've talked a little

2:08:50bit about kind of like an a live um

2:08:54update to a dashboard. Um, we've talked

2:08:57about the every five years, every two

2:09:00years. I I would be really interested in

2:09:02just kind of a a end of year report on

2:09:08what happened and development and

2:09:11planning kind of implementation. I know

2:09:13that that's uh a common uh annual

2:09:16reports are are pretty common in

2:09:17planning departments. Um I've I've seen

2:09:20se the LA planning report and the

2:09:23Alexandria planning report. Um and I I

2:09:26like those models and they have pictures

2:09:29of some of the developments that have

2:09:30been constructed. Um I think that would

2:09:33be really interesting. They have maps

2:09:36associated with them. They're pretty

2:09:37accessible both to elected and appointed

2:09:40bodies and to the public. Um,

2:09:42>> so you're looking for something more

2:09:44than say the planning commission annual

2:09:45report that we per

2:09:48currently

2:09:49>> I think we we have all these different

2:09:51reports and moving pieces. Uh, is there

2:09:53a way for us to simplify and kind of

2:09:56bring it all together? Um, so like this

2:09:58would be part of a broader report.

2:10:03>> Yeah, we've talked internally about

2:10:05doing kind of an annual report on

2:10:07development, if you will, I think.

2:10:09[clears throat] Yeah. Um, so that's

2:10:12still a goal. I will tell you just in

2:10:14full transparency, uh, particularly, you

2:10:17know, since the reorg, I still have 18

2:10:20vacancies across the department and, um,

2:10:23we're trying to like keep 18 18

2:10:26vacancies across the department. So, uh,

2:10:28we're trying to keep the lights on and

2:10:30everything moving. I I don't want to

2:10:31like it is something you and I have

2:10:33talked about. It is one of the things I

2:10:35do want to accomplish. I can't commit to

2:10:37know exactly when I can get that done

2:10:39yet just to be honest. and may maybe uh

2:10:42we start it every two years or whatever

2:10:44there's capacity for but I do think it's

2:10:46yeah and I do think it's really

2:10:47important and also currently we are

2:10:50getting different reports of different

2:10:52things in different places and can we

2:10:54consolidate that uh and kind of have the

2:10:58planning department endofear report um

2:11:01and again maybe it's currently we have

2:11:04to face the realities of uh 18

2:11:06vacancies. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and you know,

2:11:10humans are visual creatures. I think

2:11:12being able to see an actual visual,

2:11:15especially as we talk about um, truth

2:11:18and um, dispelling myths, um, you know,

2:11:21a visual that's not an AI uh, image um,

2:11:24showing really what is there and and if

2:11:27there are aerials or things like that so

2:11:29that we can kind of see those big and

2:11:31I'm not talking about like this house

2:11:32got constructed. I'm talking about um

2:11:34this entire subdivision uh these 40

2:11:37acres got built out or this large

2:11:40mixeduse building got up built um having

2:11:42having uh visuals I think is is really

2:11:45important and also having the the maps

2:11:48>> because there's a there's a lot of

2:11:50numbers and tables here and um you know

2:11:53I think knowing where these things are

2:11:56taking place is really important for for

2:11:58us. Um, few questions. How many acres

2:12:02have been annexed over this time?

2:12:05>> Uh, 1,200

2:12:07>> 1,200. Okay.

2:12:08>> Yeah.

2:12:10>> Um,

2:12:10>> 12,000

2:12:12somewhere stack deep in here.

2:12:17>> No,

2:12:19correct.

2:12:21Hold on.

2:12:231,800 acres.

2:12:25>> 1,800. Okay. Okay.

2:12:27>> Um, yeah. So, I just think thinking

2:12:30holistically about I know some of this

2:12:33is in the E, too. I'm trying to remember

2:12:35everything that's in the E, but

2:12:37combining the E with this I think would

2:12:39be uh really really useful and having

2:12:41that that full summary. um the maps um

2:12:46kind of having a sense of our targets

2:12:49for proximity to parks uh and as we

2:12:52build out in new developments um kind of

2:12:55like acres of forested or farmland

2:12:58that's been converted to something else.

2:13:00>> Sure.

2:13:00>> Um and then also like VMT and VMT per

2:13:04capita. So, as we as we have these these

2:13:07goals for uh transitioning to a more

2:13:10transit oriented and walkable community,

2:13:13um how is VMT per capita changing and

2:13:16how is it in in the new kinds of

2:13:18developments that we're seeing? How is

2:13:19VMT changing? Um to an earlier slide,

2:13:23you uh showed us the uh profer for

2:13:27school sites or the school sites profer

2:13:29zero.

2:13:30>> Yeah. Um that's not kind of not

2:13:33surprising because those schools really

2:13:36want large very very large sites. Um

2:13:40>> yeah. Uh so and I've worked in I've

2:13:43worked in communities where um

2:13:46where parcels of land were would be like

2:13:48square miles out west of the

2:13:50Mississippi. Um, and that was those were

2:13:53places where you would get school sites

2:13:56profiter just gifted um gifted to you

2:13:58and you could even like demand which

2:14:00site you wanted. Um, but maybe something

2:14:04more likely would be something like a a

2:14:07fire station land or or EMS. Um, right.

2:14:11Um, and of course we've talked about

2:14:13parks and and trails and those kinds of

2:14:14things.

2:14:17Um, you showed us the number full

2:14:19numbers of units annually. Um it'd be

2:14:21interesting to see um a breakdown by

2:14:24typology.

2:14:27Um,

2:14:30and then I think the the remaining

2:14:32questions I have are coming back to some

2:14:35points that um, Council Member Copac was

2:14:37making

2:14:39about I know this is a big something we

2:14:42just keep talking about is the fiscal

2:14:46impacts and kind of like fiscal impact

2:14:47analysis, costbenefit analysis, fiscal

2:14:50impact model. We use all these terms.

2:14:52Um, I think it'd be I think we need to

2:14:55address that directly and head on. I

2:14:58think that's a project by itself and

2:15:00something that we shouldn't just kind of

2:15:01like pick out around the edges, but

2:15:04needs to be addressed very directly. Um,

2:15:07and kind of understanding the long-term

2:15:09life cycle cost of of um, we look at

2:15:13those at annexation, the annexation. Um

2:15:17so thinking holistically with our county

2:15:20partners about um revenue and

2:15:24expenditures over a 20 or 30 you know

2:15:27life cycle cost of infrastructure I

2:15:30think would be really really important

2:15:31for us to to do. Um and we do have

2:15:35uh some policies and some actions in the

2:15:37comprehensive plan with regard to those

2:15:39things. And we even have um a policy

2:15:42that we're going to analyze greenhouse

2:15:44gas emissions as well. Um and so I would

2:15:49be interested in in us taking a look at

2:15:51that.

2:15:56>> Yeah, go for it. Just on that specific

2:15:58point, um I mean is that something

2:16:01given, you know, we're 18 people down,

2:16:03is that something like through school of

2:16:04government, you know, a student project,

2:16:08you know, is that something that could

2:16:09be done with outside support, sort of a

2:16:13discrete project to look at it more

2:16:16quickly, even if it isn't as detailed as

2:16:17we might like in the long run. I don't

2:16:19know, just a just an idea. How do we

2:16:21utilize those university relationships

2:16:23locally?

2:16:24Yeah, that's definitely something that

2:16:26we can look at and you know we have

2:16:28availed ourselves um you know Bri who

2:16:30gave the presentation earlier she's one

2:16:32of our interns so we do have some um

2:16:35some capacity it's a matter of like

2:16:38prioritizing but then looking for

2:16:39opportunities with other uh we sometimes

2:16:42get uh invites from some of our local

2:16:44universities to hey uh we're looking for

2:16:47project ideas is there something that

2:16:48you need done um so yeah we can we can

2:16:51explore that a little bit more

2:16:52>> and also dangerous this work too as

2:16:55well. But

2:16:57>> yeah. Yeah,

2:16:58>> of course.

2:16:59>> Not sure if that's also the job

2:17:02specifically of our planning staff. I

2:17:04think it's more honestly that's the

2:17:06joint I would say the city and county

2:17:08managers. I mean we this has come up

2:17:11because for instance

2:17:15we needed you know we needed uh

2:17:18increased uh infrastructure to that the

2:17:21city controls. the Snow Hill pump

2:17:23station to serve Treyburn. Um because we

2:17:27had companies that needed to expand and

2:17:30Treyburn and the city did not have the

2:17:33capacity to increase the pump state uh

2:17:36to increase the capacity at the Snow

2:17:40Hill pump station. So, the county spent

2:17:42$30 million to upgrade the Snow Hill

2:17:45pump station, and the city is the one

2:17:48who now benefits from the increased um

2:17:51fees that companies that are outside of

2:17:54the city pay for those services. That's

2:17:57an example that I don't think that's the

2:17:59planning department's responsibility. I

2:18:01think that's more between the city and

2:18:03the county working together. There are

2:18:05so many places where we collaborate and

2:18:08work together. For instance, related to

2:18:11RTP, we provide the sewer capacity

2:18:14through our Triangle wastewater

2:18:16treatment plant, but we they all the

2:18:19companies and now we're going to have

2:18:21residential development with the RTP 3.0

2:18:24and commercial, they rely on city water.

2:18:28So, we're we're joined at the hip on

2:18:30this. And I think it is to me I I want

2:18:34to with Sarah saying that she has 18

2:18:36vacancies.

2:18:37I'm just worried about

2:18:39>> Absolutely. And and there's long range

2:18:41planning that's happening outside of the

2:18:44planning department and the long range

2:18:45planning division of the planning

2:18:47department, right? Like the IT team is

2:18:48looking at the paper uh paper alleys,

2:18:52paper streets. Um DDI did their own

2:18:56small area plan, you know. So uh these

2:18:59types of things are distributed around.

2:19:01So we we you know we need to have the

2:19:03conversation about if the planning

2:19:06department is over capacity at a certain

2:19:08at a certain point who else can within

2:19:11the city or within the county or getting

2:19:13a consultant can can take it on. You

2:19:15know I think we need to have that

2:19:16conversation. But but yeah, I think I do

2:19:19think that um

2:19:22we need to target the fiscal impact

2:19:24analyses kind of head on and and really

2:19:26do a thorough overhaul of of our

2:19:30costbenefit analysis. And that is again

2:19:32that that's in multiple actions and

2:19:35policies. U develop a methodology for

2:19:38city and county staff to estimate the

2:19:39long-term maintenance costs of public

2:19:41infrastructure. That's that's in the

2:19:42comp plan. There's se several others

2:19:44similar. So, not just coming from me,

2:19:46coming from our coming from our plan.

2:19:49And uh this meeting was supposed to end

2:19:5120 minutes ago, [laughter] but this was

2:19:53a really important topic. I think it was

2:19:55important that we talk about it. Um,

2:19:59and

2:20:01ne next steps. What What do you think in

2:20:04terms of thinking about we've we've got

2:20:07some folks talking about a dashboard

2:20:09where we've talked about kind of like

2:20:12multi-year or annual updates. We talked

2:20:15about potentially keeping this as is or

2:20:18consolid or or folding it into a broader

2:20:21um delivery of

2:20:25review of planning and development.

2:20:27>> Yeah, I think what we could do is

2:20:29certainly um one of the things I heard

2:20:31that it would be relatively easy to do

2:20:33is to take a lot of this and turn it

2:20:35into like a one-pager real infographic

2:20:38friendly type thing um that could be

2:20:41shared more broadly. Um that's one

2:20:43thing. Uh

2:20:46I would like to say that we will

2:20:48definitely do this every two years. If

2:20:50we can do it annually, we we will. Um

2:20:55maybe something that coincides, you

2:20:56know, first of the year we roll out a

2:20:58work program um that we do like early I

2:21:02call it the early detection and warning

2:21:03system with you all in February. So

2:21:05maybe at that beginning of the year mark

2:21:07um which is also when we're putting

2:21:09together like board and commission

2:21:10annual reports. Um that's a a big

2:21:12reporting time for us. So, um maybe we

2:21:15can do it um then and maybe between now

2:21:19and the first of the year we just work

2:21:21on repackaging this data set into you

2:21:25know something like that. Um and then

2:21:27see if we can kind of keep it up

2:21:29annually. We'll take a look at the

2:21:32dashboard stuff that's online and see

2:21:35what might need to be updated, what we

2:21:37might could easily add right now before

2:21:39clarity happens. Um, but if not, we will

2:21:42definitely be building out a bigger,

2:21:44better dashboard with clarity.

2:21:45>> Yeah, I think that makes sense. I don't

2:21:47I don't want us to go chasing our tails.

2:21:50Um,

2:21:52yeah. No, and I think you you hedged

2:21:56your comments about the amount of work

2:21:57um that like a live uh dashboard, but

2:22:00people do need well, I mean, we all need

2:22:02to see what's happening. You know, we

2:22:04need the realities on the ground to be

2:22:07relayed to us and to the public. And um

2:22:10would you take a look at some other

2:22:12examples of kind of like those annual

2:22:14reports? The ones that I can think of

2:22:16off top of my head that I like are like

2:22:18the Los Angeles uh planning department

2:22:20and then the Alexandria Virginia um

2:22:23Raleigh does one every year. Yeah. So

2:22:25those are two that I like. I haven't um

2:22:27looked at the Raleigh one recently, but

2:22:29um really good ideas in those.

2:22:32We're going to miss you.

2:22:34>> Gonna miss y'all. I will say it really

2:22:36has been an honor to serve you and the

2:22:38residents of Durham. Um I've learned a

2:22:41lot over the four and a half years here

2:22:43and thank you for your patience

2:22:45for my lack of public presentation

2:22:47skills at council. Um but I do

2:22:50appreciate you guys um just being nice

2:22:53about it. Um so so yeah

2:22:56>> and congratulations on your your new job

2:22:58too.

2:22:59>> I appreciate that.

2:23:00>> Yeah. And thank you.

2:23:02>> Go back. You want to Oh.

2:23:08Thank you.

2:23:08>> All right.

2:23:11U we have um really just one more item

2:23:15here which is the the multimodal

2:23:18development standards update item seven

2:23:22with Lisa Miller. Oh

2:23:26>> good morning everyone. Lisa Miller with

2:23:27the planning department. Um, I am going

2:23:30to just introduce Jennifer Baldwin is

2:23:33here from Three Oaks Engineering, our

2:23:35consultant that we're working with on

2:23:36this project. Um, we will try and do a

2:23:39quick version of the presentation given

2:23:41the time. Um, and then we'll both be

2:23:44available to answer questions.

2:23:48Great. Thanks, Lisa. And excited to

2:23:51share our progress since the last time

2:23:53we met earlier this year. Um, and we've

2:23:58got, you know, I'm going to do a shorter

2:24:00presentation so that we can have the

2:24:01most time for the discussion because

2:24:03we're really hoping to get some feedback

2:24:04from y'all, um, as we continue this

2:24:06process. And some of the updates or the

2:24:09highlights that we wanted to make sure

2:24:11it was clear some of the the changes. We

2:24:13came earlier in the spring thinking we

2:24:15were going to do a multimodal

2:24:16transportation impact analysis and

2:24:19figure out how to get that TI process

2:24:21updated to be more focused on multimodal

2:24:24improvements. and we have since shifted

2:24:26to what we're calling the multimodal um

2:24:29development standards. And so that's the

2:24:31MMDS acronym. Um, and mainly we shifted

2:24:35because we heard you earlier in the year

2:24:37and through all of our staff and

2:24:38stakeholder conversations that we really

2:24:40wanted this process to be flexible and

2:24:43it's not a one-sizefits-all and there's

2:24:45so much nuance and so to roll this out

2:24:48the TIA process is very vehicular driven

2:24:51and requires a lot of extenses data that

2:24:54we just don't have access to. And so bad

2:24:57data in, bad data out. And we were as we

2:25:00kind of really um talked about it, we

2:25:02were just concerned that that would

2:25:04create a lot more staff impact and

2:25:07struggles for you all. And so also in

2:25:10the part of the conversations and the

2:25:11collaboration just had some really good

2:25:13ideas of a more simple process that

2:25:16could meet the goals of what we were

2:25:17trying to accomplish which was to get

2:25:19more um bike ped infrastructure safer

2:25:22system um alignment with development.

2:25:25And so just a shout out to all of the

2:25:27different partners. This has truly been

2:25:28a collaborative process and it's been

2:25:30iterative. You know we've had a lot of

2:25:32conversations. We've met with NC do the

2:25:34TPO has been joining the conversations.

2:25:37Um, and I'll talk a little bit later

2:25:38about we also had a stakeholder meeting

2:25:40with local development practitioners

2:25:42that provided really great insight into

2:25:44the process and how it could look in the

2:25:46future. And so this draft concept that

2:25:49we are sharing that you had in your

2:25:51packets and I'm going to walk you

2:25:52through a an example test site um really

2:25:55kind of thinks about more about building

2:25:58a point safe based approach. And so

2:26:01it's, you know, if you come in with a

2:26:03development, it would assign based on a

2:26:05series of questions that would ask, um,

2:26:07and what those answers, where it's

2:26:09located, is it on a transit route, um,

2:26:11what is the existing conditions like,

2:26:13and it then it would assign a certain

2:26:15score that you would need to meet based

2:26:16on your site plan. And so that site plan

2:26:18analysis helps to identify what those

2:26:21bike ped um, transit and safe system,

2:26:24and street enhancements look like.

2:26:28And so, how does it work? And really we

2:26:31one the first part is we establish the

2:26:33requirements. So the applicant submits

2:26:34the development you know the site plan

2:26:37and staff would review and confirm that

2:26:39applicability um and what the minimum

2:26:42score would be which I'll talk a little

2:26:43bit later about these steps. Um and then

2:26:46the the site would be evaluated based on

2:26:48context about some of our pre-screening

2:26:50questions. a score would be assigned and

2:26:53then the the great thing about this in

2:26:55our minds is that it gives the developer

2:26:57full flexibility to they can figure out

2:27:00how they can make their site plan meet

2:27:02that minimum score. So we're not honing

2:27:04in that you must have XYZ. There's lots

2:27:07of different options of how they can

2:27:08navigate based on the points that they

2:27:10need for their site approval.

2:27:13and the methodology that we're working

2:27:15on. You really kind of walked through

2:27:17this is just another flow of what it

2:27:18looks like in terms of there's

2:27:20pre-screening and the site context

2:27:22because I think that's the harder part

2:27:23about the livability improvements that

2:27:25we're looking for in transportation is

2:27:28so contextsensitive. Is the site

2:27:30downtown? Is it in Durham County? Is it

2:27:32on a statemaintained road or is it on a

2:27:34city road? There's a lot of nuance that

2:27:36goes into um you know what that ultimate

2:27:39score will look like. And then the place

2:27:40types also play a big role. So the menu

2:27:43of elements, the applicant selects the

2:27:45elements that they want to or can add to

2:27:48their site plan to meet the minimum

2:27:50requirement and then the staff

2:27:51coordination that happens to get the

2:27:53site plan approved moves forward.

2:27:57All right, so I'll just fly through

2:27:58these. Um, and really the intent of our

2:28:01conversation today is we wanted to focus

2:28:03a little bit more on just the process

2:28:05and the methodology and just some, you

2:28:07know, overall reactions. We're still

2:28:09working through what the right elements

2:28:11are. Staff has spent a lot of time

2:28:13thinking through making sure we're

2:28:15getting all of the elements um that are

2:28:17separate from what the UDO already

2:28:19requires. So, this is not something that

2:28:21is going to change current requirements

2:28:24and can't be stacked. So, just because

2:28:26you know currently requires um a

2:28:29sidewalk or transit improvement doesn't

2:28:31mean that can count towards the points

2:28:32that they needed. So the goal is that

2:28:34there's lots of additional elements that

2:28:36they can get beyond what's already being

2:28:38required. So we're working through what

2:28:40those elements look like and then what

2:28:42the actual score um would be associated

2:28:44with. And the scores we're trying to

2:28:46match them with the level of effort

2:28:48because we do recognize that some

2:28:50elements are going to be more costly and

2:28:52so they're going to be worth more than

2:28:54adding a bike rack. Um and the ultimate

2:28:56goal is to make sure that we're not

2:28:58doing the the least expensive elements

2:29:01just to meet a minimum score. So we

2:29:03don't want this to be an arbitrary

2:29:04scoring process.

2:29:06Um so in the pedestrian and I should

2:29:08have mentioned earlier but the

2:29:09methodology is set up that there's four

2:29:11different categories. So it's pedestrian

2:29:13enhancements and improvements really

2:29:15highlighting safety improvements of how

2:29:17we can make the pedestrian environment

2:29:19safer and um more comfortable. And then

2:29:22we have a category for bicycle

2:29:24improvements. How can we think about

2:29:26bicycle traffic? um you know making it

2:29:28safer and and um looking at the

2:29:31[clears throat] trail system as well and

2:29:32then the microobility and the connection

2:29:34to transit from a bike perspective.

2:29:37We have a transit category that we've

2:29:39worked really closely um with our

2:29:41transit partners to think about the

2:29:42accessibility of the bus stops, the

2:29:44access to the bus stops um and then also

2:29:47how we're um handling the crossings and

2:29:51visibility of pedestrians getting on and

2:29:54off the bus and crossing the street and

2:29:55going to the site and um other

2:29:57destinations.

2:29:59And then the final category is street

2:30:01design improvements. So this is just all

2:30:03of the other elements of the street

2:30:05itself. So the frontage of the site um

2:30:08in terms of how we can calm traffic and

2:30:10really go after the vision zero

2:30:12priorities of trying to reduce traffic

2:30:14fatalities and um serious injuries. So

2:30:17this is looking at reduce crossing

2:30:19distances, certain traffic calming

2:30:21elements. Um it gets us detailed into

2:30:24the tight curb radi to make that

2:30:25pedestrian crossing shorter. So a lot of

2:30:28other of the core street enhancement.

2:30:32Okay, so now we're getting into the math

2:30:33portion of the presentation and math is

2:30:35not my strong sort suit. So hopefully I

2:30:38will walk through through this because

2:30:39this doesn't this isn't a huge difficult

2:30:41um equation and that's really one of the

2:30:43reasons we went with this concept

2:30:45because we think it can be very simple

2:30:47to understand and hopefully to um you

2:30:50know maintain and move forward. And so

2:30:53the site is entered the way that we've

2:30:54got the point set up is that it does

2:30:56consider the the sites that are less

2:30:58than 2 acres or greater than 2 acres.

2:31:01And so that I think the conversation

2:31:03earlier is just to show that a smaller

2:31:04site, you know, lower cost. We don't

2:31:07want to unfairly have them doing the

2:31:09same as a huge site. However, in some

2:31:11cases where the smaller acreage still

2:31:14has a really high place type, the you

2:31:17can see the scoring will change. So a

2:31:19small less than 2 acre site, but in

2:31:22downtown is going to have a higher score

2:31:24than a less than 2acre site in a place

2:31:26type of established residential. So,

2:31:28we've tried to build in some of that

2:31:30flexibility and to really tie it back to

2:31:32your place types. And then for the

2:31:35greater than 2 acres, we're also looking

2:31:37specifically at the estimated daily

2:31:39vehicle trips. So, if the site is really

2:31:42bringing in a lot higher ADTS would also

2:31:45have a corresponding higher multimodal

2:31:47DS score.

2:31:51And then once you set what each site

2:31:53plan is going to have a minimum score,

2:31:55there's this the process is we were also

2:31:58trying to think about how we can within

2:31:59that minimum score requirement get us

2:32:03exactly what we need for that specific

2:32:04site. And the thought process here is

2:32:06that we would have the site and the

2:32:08developer and the applicant answer a

2:32:10series of questions. Is the site within

2:32:13a quarter mile of an existing bus route?

2:32:15Is the site identified in the walk bike

2:32:18plan priority? Um, so has it been

2:32:20elevated from other planning efforts as

2:32:22a high priority bike ped corridor? Is it

2:32:25on the high injury network? Those three

2:32:27questions and corresponding answers were

2:32:29considering the tier one element and are

2:32:32going to be worth more points. So the

2:32:34the site plan would have to have a

2:32:36little bit of a higher threshold in the

2:32:38different categories. Tier two is is the

2:32:41site within a/4 mile of a school? Is it

2:32:44adjacent to a greenway trail? And then

2:32:46is it a quarter mile from a park or

2:32:48community center? And so you can see

2:32:50that those are worth two points from the

2:32:52different required categories. And the

2:32:54yellow box just highlights the goal of

2:32:56these questions helps us see if a site

2:32:59plan comes in and based on the place

2:33:01type, it's going to require 40 points of

2:33:04the 40 points, we're going to require

2:33:06specific categories. So again, trying to

2:33:09think through that you're not just going

2:33:11to go put in a 100 bike racks to satisfy

2:33:13the 40 point requirement. We really want

2:33:16it's on a high ridership transit

2:33:18corridor. We're going to really focus in

2:33:20and require a portion of the points to

2:33:22be in the transit investment. It still

2:33:25allows the developer to have some

2:33:26flexibility on the elements, but it

2:33:28gives a little bit more guidance on the

2:33:30specific mode of travel um and elements

2:33:32that we're looking for.

2:33:35And so what we've been doing so that was

2:33:37the process the concept that we have

2:33:39been you know iterating and as I

2:33:41mentioned before we met with

2:33:42stakeholders and then our teams have

2:33:44also been scoring previous site plans

2:33:47because and we've changed a lot what we

2:33:50learned through the scoring of the site

2:33:51plans is this really giving you guys

2:33:54what you want to see out of the process

2:33:55and so it's been updated. We're going to

2:33:57continue to score and test some new

2:33:59sites and evaluate

2:34:04and then all right so I'll run through

2:34:05this really quickly but this was just

2:34:06our thought in terms of helping you see

2:34:09what a hypothetical test site would look

2:34:11like. So let's just say we have a site

2:34:13plan come in that's new mixeduse

2:34:15neighborhood greater than 2 acres. It's

2:34:18got about 3 to 5,000 ADTS estimated

2:34:20daily vehicle trips. Um it's on an

2:34:23existing bus route. There's sidewalk gap

2:34:25along the site plan frontage and it also

2:34:28has a planned bicycle facility nearby

2:34:30from the um adopted bike pet plan. And

2:34:33so the box on the right just shows you

2:34:34based on the place type and the scoring

2:34:37that site plan would have a minimum

2:34:39score of 35. And then how they answered

2:34:42the two tiers of questions. It is on a

2:34:44bus route. It's in the bike ped plan.

2:34:47It's not on the high injury network. Um

2:34:49and then for tier two, it's not within a

2:34:52quarter mile of a school and it's not

2:34:53adjacent to a trail or um within a

2:34:56quarter mile of a park or community

2:34:58center. So based on those answers, then

2:35:01you look at minimum score requirement of

2:35:0435. You do an assessment of the site

2:35:06plan that was submitted. So the base

2:35:08score and that base score, the site plan

2:35:11is only um achieving five points. So

2:35:14that means they're only adding elements

2:35:17that are worth five points in the

2:35:19process. So then they have a gap um of

2:35:2230 points that they need to fill in. So

2:35:24that 30 points, those tier questions

2:35:28because it's on a high transit route and

2:35:30because there is a big gap in the

2:35:31sidewalk network and bicycle, we're

2:35:33going to require 16 of those 30 points

2:35:36to be chosen within those specific mode

2:35:39categories. the the developer still the

2:35:42site, you know, they the applicant still

2:35:44has that flexibility of how they spend

2:35:47those required points, but they have to

2:35:49pick certain elements by mode based on

2:35:52how they answered the questions.

2:35:54And then they're ultimately going to

2:35:56have the 14 points that they can pick

2:35:58across all elements.

2:36:01So that's just an example. This slide

2:36:02shows you that there's a hundreds of

2:36:05scenarios of how the applicant could

2:36:07satisfy the point requirement. And so it

2:36:10truly is trying to push it back on the

2:36:12applicant to then take in the guidance

2:36:15that's been given the the um the score

2:36:19that they need to meet, the minimum gap

2:36:20score, and then come back. And there's

2:36:22going to be a lot of collaboration that

2:36:24the the applicant is already doing with

2:36:26the city or the county in terms of

2:36:28getting their site plan approved to

2:36:30really navigate how they're going to

2:36:31fill that requirement.

2:36:35And then my final slide, and I'm happy

2:36:37to answer any questions, is what are our

2:36:39next steps? This is not a done process.

2:36:41We still have some more work to do.

2:36:43We're working to refine the scoring

2:36:45elements and the points. We're going to

2:36:47continue to do additional site testing

2:36:49to make sure that we can refine the

2:36:51amount of points and and we're really

2:36:53meeting the goals that we set out at the

2:36:55beginning of the process. We need to

2:36:57have a little bit more collaboration

2:36:58with NC DOT to make sure that as we

2:37:01start digging into a draft ordinance

2:37:03andor our design guide that we're going

2:37:05to put out with this scoring process, we

2:37:08understand how statemaintained roadways

2:37:09and properties that are coming in on DOT

2:37:12roadways are going to operate within

2:37:14this system. Um, and then ultimately we

2:37:16need to draft that ordinance language as

2:37:18well as a guide. One of the key

2:37:20takeaways from the stakeholder

2:37:22practitioner is just giving them a

2:37:24similar presentation and the tool. They

2:37:27had a ton of questions. There's only so

2:37:29much, you know, that you could

2:37:30communicate. So once we answered some of

2:37:32their questions live, I think they were

2:37:33a lot more comfortable, but we

2:37:35definitely will be putting out a guide

2:37:36book that walks through exactly kind of

2:37:38what I just did, gives examples of other

2:37:40site plans, so it's really clear. We'll

2:37:43be developing some template um

2:37:45worksheets of in terms of when a

2:37:48developer or an applicant is interested

2:37:50in submitting a site plan. Here is some

2:37:52those tier questions, some forms to try

2:37:54and make it as easy on staff as possible

2:37:57to intake and develop this new process.

2:38:00And then ultimately once we are all

2:38:02comfortable and we kind of move through

2:38:03the process, we will be sharing this

2:38:05with BPAC and also going through the

2:38:08public hearing process for adoption with

2:38:10all the different boards.

2:38:13So happy to answer any questions or go

2:38:15into a little bit more detail on any of

2:38:17those slides if you need it.

2:38:22>> Colleagues,

2:38:27um, [clears throat] oh th this is

2:38:30excellent. I really like the scoring um

2:38:34of the different pieces and people can

2:38:36you can select which ones. I'm curious

2:38:38about the how things are scored. Yeah,

2:38:41>> I'm curious about about that. Here's

2:38:45why. I come from a development

2:38:46background. This looks a lot like agile

2:38:49and um

2:38:51you know, sprint planning or whatever

2:38:53you want to call it. Um

2:38:58it would it it's really difficult to

2:39:01score something how difficult it is to

2:39:03do, right? And I'm I'm asking is it

2:39:06scored on the difficulty of whatever the

2:39:10project is? And if so, I would if you

2:39:14all are still thinking about the scoring

2:39:15elements, how it all works, I would

2:39:17suggest the Fibonacci scale. That's what

2:39:19they're using agile. And because a four

2:39:23and a five is really difficult to tell

2:39:25between a four and a five, but a three

2:39:26and a five,

2:39:27>> yeah,

2:39:28>> is different. And then five and a eight,

2:39:30right? Of course, going that way. then

2:39:33eight and 13 and so forth. So, um, but I

2:39:37absolutely love the or how you all are

2:39:40organized in doing that because it's

2:39:42very transparent and what's being done,

2:39:45what could be expected on both sides in

2:39:48that. Um, I love the plans. I love the

2:39:51ideas. I love how how you all are

2:39:53planning for like the crosswalks and

2:39:56that sort of thing. That is excellent.

2:39:58It's very visual and it's very easy to

2:40:01understand.

2:40:02And I really like that. But I'm really

2:40:04curious about what your thoughts on how

2:40:07you're coming up with the scoring of the

2:40:09different

2:40:11>> parts and um how you're managing that.

2:40:14>> Yeah, I'll I'll um start is so how we've

2:40:17developed the scoring and and just to be

2:40:18clear, you're talking about how we're

2:40:20going to assign what a crosswalk is

2:40:23worth versus a bike lane versus curb

2:40:25extensions. And that's been a scale of

2:40:28level of investment or the difficulty of

2:40:31implementation. And so trying to kind of

2:40:33match that and then ultimately also

2:40:36making sure that we're not having a

2:40:38minimum score of 152, you know, so

2:40:41trying to have that balance. Um, I will

2:40:44say that still we've been more focused

2:40:46on making sure we've got the right

2:40:48elements and that we're thinking about

2:40:50the requirement of scores within each

2:40:53category because if we want to require

2:40:5630% of the minimum score to be in

2:40:58transit, we have to make sure that the

2:41:01scores in transit can actually equal 30%

2:41:04of an average minimum score. So, there's

2:41:06a lot of complexity, but I really liked

2:41:08your guidance too on thinking about the

2:41:09three versus five, which we've used that

2:41:11a little bit. I think that once we are

2:41:13set on the elements and the overall

2:41:16process, then we can spend a bit more

2:41:18time on our site evaluations,

2:41:21adjusting the scoring as needed.

2:41:25>> Thank you. Thank you,

2:41:27>> Council Member Copac.

2:41:29>> Yeah, thank you. Thanks for this

2:41:30presentation and the work. I also do

2:41:32really appreciate the the flexibility uh

2:41:34and the coverage across pedestrian,

2:41:36bicycle, transit need, street design and

2:41:38the attempt to kind of make it relevant

2:41:41to specific projects and not giving

2:41:43credit for just meeting UDO. So, thank

2:41:45you for all that. Um, you know, as you

2:41:48get into the uh the the scoring, uh I

2:41:52just, you know, I'm glad that you're

2:41:53involving practitioners and getting that

2:41:55feedback. I'd be curious to know now or

2:41:57in the future like if you've run past

2:42:00projects through and seen how they've

2:42:02scored Yep. to help you adjust the

2:42:04scale.

2:42:05>> Yeah. I should have mentioned too Lisa

2:42:06sent out they actually scored they chose

2:42:08whatever site they wanted to and they

2:42:10used that and did some of them not all

2:42:12the practitioners that we invited did

2:42:13that but several of them took the time

2:42:16to submit their own scoring and that was

2:42:18really helpful to see somebody who

2:42:19hasn't been invested in the several

2:42:21conversations how they interpreted the

2:42:23the guidance. Um and we'll use those SI

2:42:26evaluations too.

2:42:27>> Okay. Yeah. And just the last thing I'll

2:42:29say having been involved in a number of

2:42:31certification programs just to be uh

2:42:34careful about not getting too weighed

2:42:36down with complexity uh and finding that

2:42:38balance between trying to cover all the

2:42:40bases but not making it too difficult to

2:42:42go through for staff and for uh

2:42:44practitioners. And I imagine that's

2:42:46something you're thinking about in your

2:42:47evaluation process. So yeah, thank you

2:42:49very much.

2:42:49>> Yeah, thanks.

2:42:55did and um

2:42:58>> I just excuse me. Um I just think this

2:43:02is fantastic. Um it's really exciting to

2:43:07think about this being implemented. So,

2:43:09thank you so much uh for coming up with

2:43:12basically some type of system

2:43:15um and um that can be implemented and

2:43:19that's could be user friendly not only

2:43:22for the applicant but also for staff and

2:43:26um so I just want to say kudos

2:43:30uh wondering when I know you've laid out

2:43:33the next steps do we have a goal on

2:43:36timeline of when we are hoping this can

2:43:39be adopted.

2:43:42>> So, our hope is to incorporate this into

2:43:46the LDC and have them move forward

2:43:49together. Um, there would be a

2:43:53assessment needed in order to determine

2:43:56how this could function if it were to be

2:43:58a standalone text amendment to the UDO

2:44:01under the downzoning legislation. Um, so

2:44:05that's our intention is trying to get

2:44:07this uh sorted and pulled into that in

2:44:10the hopes that that can move forward

2:44:11together. Otherwise, it'll it'll be some

2:44:13additional work to figure out.

2:44:15>> Okay.

2:44:18Well, obviously as as soon as possible

2:44:22would be good. Um, I just want to also

2:44:24mention I appreciate that you're going

2:44:26to create a like an implementation

2:44:28guide, but similar to a lot of the

2:44:31things that we've been talking about

2:44:32today, like how do we actually help

2:44:35people

2:44:37um through something like this is, you

2:44:39know, maybe doing some training sessions

2:44:42and ver, you know, whatever.

2:44:45So, thank you.

2:44:48I'd like to have a better understanding

2:44:50of who this is applicable to because

2:44:52like with TAS it's just around there's

2:44:54certain like it gets triggered by a

2:44:57thing and so wanting a better

2:44:59understanding of that.

2:45:01>> Yeah, we're still working through that

2:45:02in more detail. We're trying to focus on

2:45:04the process but the intent is that some

2:45:07things it would not be applicable to

2:45:09when we come back to the size. We we

2:45:12landed we went through a lot of

2:45:13different scenarios but we really

2:45:14thought about the size of the site

2:45:16itself and how it works through the

2:45:18process and then have been working to

2:45:20evaluate whether this is um coming in

2:45:23through reszoning um versus a site plan.

2:45:25So our focus so far has been in the site

2:45:27plan process and phase because that's

2:45:30where you can really influence and see

2:45:31how the the natural environment the

2:45:34physical entities will be improved. Um,

2:45:36but we're also kind of having more

2:45:38conversations about how this would

2:45:39impact for reasonzoning and could be

2:45:41profered into the process.

2:45:43>> Okay. Thank you. I just would like a

2:45:44little bit more information on that when

2:45:46we can. Um, it goes back to what we've

2:45:49been saying through the whole day is it

2:45:52the

2:45:53>> the smaller projects don't have the the

2:45:55space. So, our rules have to really be

2:45:59mindful of that. Not that we don't want

2:46:00to achieve these other things, but

2:46:03some of that is going to have to come

2:46:05through just our CIP process versus

2:46:07through the development process.

2:46:08>> Yeah.

2:46:11>> One quick addition, I think that we

2:46:13actually just in the last couple of

2:46:14conversations identified that we want to

2:46:16establish a threshold that under which

2:46:19it's exempt um because of that very

2:46:22issue that's come up in our

2:46:23conversations amongst staff. So,

2:46:27>> other than that, thank you. This is

2:46:29great.

2:46:29>> Thanks for the presentation. Um, can I

2:46:31just ask? So, why not just require what

2:46:35we need instead of having the whole

2:46:39point system?

2:46:40>> It's a great question. Um, and I think

2:46:42the the easier answer is it's it's not

2:46:45not that black and white. Um, each site

2:46:47is so different, the nuances of it. And

2:46:50I should say too in the scoring of this,

2:46:52there's could be some sites that are c

2:46:54certainly applicical in the process that

2:46:56when we evaluate, they already have the

2:46:58best transit infrastructure, already has

2:47:00really good bike and already has

2:47:01sidewalks. So then we're going to have

2:47:03to adjust that minimum score because the

2:47:05base existing condition isn't going to

2:47:08um need additional enhancements. And it

2:47:11also goes into transportation and bike

2:47:13ped specifically multimodal is is very

2:47:16contextsensitive and it is very

2:47:18dependent on um comfort [clears throat]

2:47:21and that's harder data to be able to

2:47:23evaluate. So you truly have to evaluate

2:47:26the existing site to be able to see

2:47:28what's most appropriate and what

2:47:29elements would need to be applied and

2:47:31and then adjust that minimum score. And

2:47:34the UDO um is already requiring a lot of

2:47:37the base multimodal elements. So this

2:47:40process is really trying to what's the

2:47:41next step that gets a little bit of the

2:47:44missing gap elements that we're we're

2:47:46not seeing in Durham and Durham County.

2:47:48And that's those comfort level um type

2:47:51of elements.

2:47:54And correct me if I'm wrong, I think

2:47:55memory serves that part of this is

2:47:57because um you know we can't require

2:48:01that people make off-site improvements

2:48:03for instance, but one way that they

2:48:05could get some of the points they need

2:48:07maybe to do those off-site improvements.

2:48:10And so if we just build in the basic

2:48:12requirements, which we pretty much

2:48:13already have, we are forgoing the

2:48:16opportunities that some people might

2:48:17choose to do that because maybe there's

2:48:20not a whole lot else that they could do,

2:48:21right? So, that's also been part of the

2:48:24thinking, I think.

2:48:24>> Yeah.

2:48:25>> Okay, that was very helpful. I

2:48:27appreciate that. I count me as an

2:48:28open-minded skeptic. Um, I need to see

2:48:33more a little bit more here. Um,

2:48:36>> in my mind, we have our standards, we

2:48:38apply them, we look at the context, um,

2:48:41and apply them appropriately.

2:48:44>> Um, so

2:48:46the off-site stuff makes sense to me.

2:48:48Um,

2:48:51this seems complicated.

2:48:53Uh, like another layer of of, you know,

2:48:56and then we've got the point system for

2:48:57the green building and, um,

2:49:02>> an an open-minded skeptic at this point.

2:49:05Uh, I feel like I need to need to see a

2:49:06little bit more because like if we want

2:49:08a tight curb radius, for example, I saw

2:49:10that on the slide, we'll just we should

2:49:13just have a tight curb radius.

2:49:17There's a lot of and this is the nuance

2:49:18in the black and white for

2:49:20transportation standards and a lot of

2:49:22you know it's easy to say if there's

2:49:23standards but a lot of it is engineering

2:49:24judgment and so there's not a specific

2:49:27you must have X because the X won't work

2:49:30in all occasions and so that's why the

2:49:32thought process for this was to be able

2:49:34to have a little bit more of that

2:49:36context sensitive approach built in um

2:49:40and especially when it goes to bike ped

2:49:42standards uh you know we've been

2:49:44debating as planners and engineers years

2:49:46for decades on the right what's the

2:49:48right facility and it's continuing to

2:49:51progress and so that was raised from our

2:49:54practitioner perspective is something

2:49:55it's going to be a bit more longterm but

2:49:57you know the city and the county and the

2:49:59state really needs to have more design

2:50:01standards available for bike ped um ele

2:50:05you know infrastructure because there

2:50:06just isn't any and so we we're going to

2:50:09need to provide some of that detail and

2:50:10the guidance and and point to national

2:50:13best practices is

2:50:16>> yeah I was just going to offer for

2:50:18anyone that might be interested I think

2:50:20one thing that we'd be happy to do right

2:50:22staff they're like what are we doing

2:50:24[laughter]

2:50:25is for anyone that maybe wants to sit

2:50:27down at a separate meeting and we can

2:50:29kind of do what what we've done as staff

2:50:31and walk through an example and like you

2:50:33know how it plays out on an actual plan

2:50:36we'd be happy to set up you know some

2:50:39meetings for anyone who's interested and

2:50:40wants to sit down with staff to do that

2:50:42>> that would Yeah, I think that'd be that

2:50:44would be interesting. I I guess what I

2:50:46want to make sure we don't do is um make

2:50:50it possible to not

2:50:53uh follow our standards um and allow

2:50:57them to do something else. Um, and if we

2:51:02and also I want to make sure that like

2:51:03if on our side our transportation

2:51:06planners or or or our planning

2:51:08department is reviewing a case and it's

2:51:10like well we need this here but the

2:51:13point system allows the other side to

2:51:16determine oh no actually I don't want to

2:51:18do that I want to do this instead. I

2:51:20just want to make sure that and I I get

2:51:23the the I get the flexibility and I get

2:51:25the context sensitivity

2:51:27um and the opportunity to maybe get some

2:51:29stuff off site. I think that's all uh

2:51:31fantastic. Um I think th that those are

2:51:35the things that are on my mind, you

2:51:36know. Um and if we want type curb tight

2:51:39curb radi, we just get tight curve radi

2:51:42and that kind of thing. So,

2:51:44>> um, but I keep an open mind and look

2:51:47forward to, um, more information down

2:51:50the line. C,

2:51:51>> could could we have that total to to

2:51:55Council Member Baker's point around

2:51:57there's lots of different things at play

2:51:59here with different standards. And so, I

2:52:01think what would be helpful at some

2:52:02point is to have actual a test case.

2:52:04It's like, okay, we're requiring or

2:52:06potentially doing all these things. How

2:52:08do they interplay together with an

2:52:09actual case? even if it's like one we

2:52:12already have seen. Um because

2:52:16I think if the rules are fair and folks

2:52:18the development community perceives them

2:52:20as fair as far as like okay I can

2:52:23respond to that. What I can't respond to

2:52:26is ambiguity. Um the two things that I

2:52:29hear consistently are the rules aren't

2:52:31straightforward and the time takes too

2:52:33long. We don't mind doing the rules if

2:52:36we know what they are. And so I think

2:52:38that that's the that kind of

2:52:40predictability is what we hear most

2:52:43often. Um and that also goes to the

2:52:45predictability of what's it going to

2:52:46take to get through a process. So I

2:52:48think that that's the um tension point.

2:52:51Um and when we're doing it in all these

2:52:53different ways which are all very

2:52:55compelling and necessary, but what is

2:52:57that kind of interaction together?

2:53:00Yeah, I think Council Member Cabar,

2:53:02Mayor Prom and I find ourselves on

2:53:05opposite sides of a lot of development

2:53:06stuff, but I think where we find

2:53:07ourselves on the same page is definitely

2:53:10making what we want the easiest thing to

2:53:12do. Making that process really easy, the

2:53:15outcome. Yeah. So, any other Well,

2:53:19there's no one else left over there.

2:53:22Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you for

2:53:25the presentation. And item eight is uh

2:53:28just our planning uh program projects

2:53:30that is available to people if they want

2:53:32to take a look. And uh I am going to

2:53:36adjourn us at 12:24. Thanks everybody.