Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to City Hall.

As we are going to go ahead and get started with the business.

And at this time, I will uh call for a moment of silence.

Thank you.

I'll pass it over to Councilmember Rist for the Class of Allegiance.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

If it's your practice, I invite you to rise and st uh recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you so much.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right, Madam Clark, we please call the rule.

Good evening, Mayor Williams.

Here.

Mayor Pertem Caballero.

Here.

Councilmember Baker.

Here.

Councilmember Burris.

Here.

Councilmember Cook?

Here.

Councilmember Kopak.

Here.

And Councilmember Riz.

Here.

Thank you.

All right.

I'll start to my left tonight for council comments, announcements.

Councilmember Kopak.

Just a moment, please.

Yeah.

Just you can be low there.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Just a few brief announcements.

First of all, just a reminder for everyone about the public hearing for the updates to our UDO, the new land development code, the LBC, coming up on February 25th.

So please mark it on your calendar and please do uh be present and join us if you are interested in available.

Um wanted to highlight um upcoming tour at the Pauly Murray Center on the 21st of this month in honor of uh Black History Month that will tell about the history and social justice work of Pauly Murray uh in our city.

Uh and I've always really enjoyed that tour in the past and hope folks will join me uh this month.

Um really enjoyed celebrating uh lunar new year with many of my colleagues uh and I'm sure others will mention that as well uh to celebrate the year of the uh the fire horse uh and our shared resilience as a community.

That was a wonderful community celebration that we were able to take part in.

Uh happy Ramadan starting tomorrow to all of our Muslim residents and finally early voting has started.

And so please uh make a point to uh check out the candidates who are running uh for local and statewide office and make your voices heard.

Thank you.

Wonderful to see everybody here in person and online.

Um thank you for being with us.

All right, uh Councilmember Baker.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you all for being in the building.

Um good to see you all.

Uh wanna uh uh wish everyone a happy lunar new year.

Um wanna focus my comments uh locally, but do want to lift up one one thing uh internationally, which is um which is what the the United States federal government is doing in in Cuba right now.

Um we uh have seen our federal government's ability to wage violence uh across the the world and in the Middle East and across Latin America recently.

I'm very worried about uh what can happen to to uh the people of of Cuba as uh the federal government um does not allow any oil into that country.

So um if if that uh moves you um I would encourage folks to reach out to our uh federal uh representatives.

Uh as Councilmember Kopak uh pointed out, the planning commission public hearing is going to be on February 24th for uh what you all know as the UDO.

Uh, it is going to be changed in name to the LDC.

So um you probably hopefully you've received your letter uh in the mail.

Um everyone who is a landowner should have received uh a letter as well as anyone who's uh a renter or a resident of Durham should have re received a letter.

So the public hearing would open on February 24th at special special meeting here in this room with uh the planning commission.

And then most likely, we don't know what the planning commission will do, but most likely their final deliberation will be sometime in April or in May.

So I I highly encourage people to get involved as early as possible with the LDC process.

After that is going to be a joint meeting between the city council and the county commission after the July recess, and then it will go on to votes by the City Council and the County Commission following that.

So most likely in September, October, the new regulations would go into effect January 1st, 20 2027.

And then finally, I just wanted to lift up the issue of violence in our community.

Of course, uh we we lose too many young people to to guns and also to to car uh accidents.

Um regarding car accidents, there's a lot of work going on around transportation infrastructure.

Um there are also uh in this this project uh working together to end violence, some upcoming sessions that might be of interest to people on also February 24th, uh March 13th, and March 20th, and you can find that information online and attend those um digitally or in person.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone, and thank you so much for joining us.

Um Happy Black History Month once again.

I'm gonna associate myself with comments made by my colleagues.

So happy little new year.

I thoroughly enjoyed our celebration last Thursday.

I think so.

I'm getting a little bit older, so I can't remember those dates.

Um definitely enjoyed the experience and hanging out with my council colleagues.

Also had the opportunity to present uh inclusion month proclamation last month by Albamada NCCU on behalf of Mayor Williams.

So deep appreciation for um the Dr.

Carlton Wilson as well as the other students who were there presenting about Cara Woodson and the Origins of Black History Month.

Um next month, we are fortunate here in Durham that we're not next month, next week, that we are hosting the conference of a minority public administrators at NCCU's hosting the instant that this year.

So I'll be um speaking next Tuesday on the panel and also to associate myself and the colleagues with my um by Mr.

Um sorry, Councilmember Baker.

We have had a pretty turbulent past couple days here in Durham, and it's not um very easy to get up here.

We have um extending my condolences to all the families who've been impacted by gun violence in our community and also thinking about our city employees who are the first responders and just the magnitude of what it's like to walk into some of those situations.

So I ask that you all, if you are a person of faith, it's staying your faith with those people who can never unsee those events.

Um I'm looking forward to moving forward the work we have with the violence reduction.

So I want to also remind you to look online for those upcoming dates and meetings, and that we are equally committed to addressing this issue of gun violence.

No one has a right to play or take a life in our city.

So we just want to address that and not place playing.

We know that some of the tools we have are going to be reactive, but I want to challenge all of us to be proactive and making sure that none of these children have access to a gun and that we're ensuring they actually get to see adulthood, because that's what we're seeing right now.

A lot of the black and brown children are losing their lives before they can even turn 18 or hit some of those milestones, such as graduating college or graduating high school or even going to the prom.

So we want to make sure that all of our youth have a dignified life here.

So thank you all for again for joining us this evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, uh colleagues, staff, residents who are here and those online.

Welcome to tonight's meeting.

Um, yeah, let's go on to the Bull City.

Um first of all, I want to thank the Durham Sports Commission for uh inviting Councilman Burns and I yesterday to the Duke UNC Women's Game.

Exciting game.

Congratulations to Carol Austin and the Blue Devils for the win and their 16th straight win.

Exciting game.

Um I do want to echo my my uh colleagues' comments about the fun time we had last Thursday at the Chinese New Year's celebration sponsored by uh North County Asian Americans together.

It's always a lot of fun.

Councilman Burris was there, Councilman Kopak, the mayor, councilman cook.

So um shout out to the uh Asian American community and also for the year of the fire horse, which is this coming year.

Um we had a great budget retreat last Friday.

Um staff and and staff and council members, thanks to the staff for organizing and a great event, but also presenting some unbelievable data about where we are, both where we are in planning for the budget for next year, 26-27, but also what the data says about our community and where we are.

Um everyone should check out on the city's website, the 2025 Community Goals and Objectives Report Card.

It's a new report from the planning department that lists a bunch of data about where we are about housing, homelessness, population, demographics, and jobs, et cetera.

Um on the budget side, we should be really proud in Durham that we're the only city in North Carolina with a significant living wage ordinance.

If the council approves it in this budget, our so-called Durham minimum livable wage will go up to 25 hours per per 25 dollars per hour as of next year.

So we are well above any other city of North Carolina.

It's a great opportunity for our staff to be rewarded that way.

It's also a challenge in the budget side that we've got to work through as a council.

So we look forward to that conversation with staff and council colleagues.

It's also worth noting we had an amazing, we every year we do a resident survey.

I think this year we had about 700 folks responded online to the resident survey.

Amazing results this year on the survey, and I just want to mention a couple things.

But these satisfaction ratings increased in 74 of 90 categories this year.

Kind of amazing, amazing jump from even last year.

So that's a testament to the new leadership of our city manager and all the staff who are here.

We really appreciate all they do every day to provide high quality, efficient um, and um and caring services to all the residents of Durham.

So thank you so much, staff for that.

And I think that the residents of the 700 residents that responded, that's not a blip, that's not a dead set, like the real significant source of data.

So thank you so much for your work and the strong response we're getting from our residents for your service.

Um that survey, again, the key priorities are things like housing, safety, sidewalks, and streets.

We hear that all the time and we hear that, and we're gonna keep working on that with the with the manager and staff.

Um speaking of housing, we also had a really interesting meeting last week of the joint city county committee.

We heard an encouraging presentation about the joint city county strategy now to address homelessness in Durham, but also related a related presentation about the recently completed housing task force work that's been done in Durham.

Um both of these points are the need for more housing to address homelessness, but also for the need for affordable rental housing at all levels for folks in Durham.

One facto that we're gonna keep coming back to here on the council and in our conversations in the community is that our current gap for housing to meet the needs of residents at or below 80 percent of area median income is 12,000 units.

And so we'll either need to work for partners in the private sector to help build those houses, or we're gonna have to subsidize them ourselves.

If we subsidize those units ourselves, it would cost one billion dollars to do that, those 12,000 units.

So we've got to figure out how we can develop and produce more housing for folks, I think largely in partnership with the private sector.

Um after all that, that's some good news there and some nice and nice factoids.

I do want to echo my c my colleagues' comments.

Um, very sad news in the last week or so.

Um, a very concerning rise of violence, a number of shootings, including several that happened in and around the Cornwallis Road Public Housing Complex.

I know Shanti Brown, the new interim director of the housing authority, is here.

I know the mayor is gonna say more about this.

I think you know the the city, police department, community safety, and others, DHA are all collaborating on this.

Um, but this is uh this is not something we could accept in Durham, that this is way too much violence.

No one deserves to live in that kind of fear.

And so we're gonna keep working, we'll not stop in the city.

We have a new we'd have a new violence prevention uh uh plan we're developing with the city and county.

We're gonna keep working on that.

It can't come soon enough.

But we hear the residents' concerns, we've heard the emails, we've heard the calls, um, and we want to see more.

We want to ensure that everyone in this community can live in a safe um and affordable environment.

So I look forward to your comments, Mr.

Mayor, and thanks for your work to address that.

I know that's something we won't accept here in Durham.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilmember Cook.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you so much for being here, and hello to those watching online.

Um Icho a lot of what my colleagues have said.

I'm not gonna repeat, um, but we had lots of lots of good and lots of hard this week.

Um we did have this resident survey that talked about how satisfied overall residents are with living in Durham.

And also it is hard to sit up here with the amount of violence and crime that we have had just in this past week, but also really any um any violence uh is disruptive, but we know that a lot of it is concentrated in certain neighborhoods, and we also understand the implications of that uh on health care, on um on children's abilities to uh grow and develop and on folks' abilities to be economically sustainable moving forward.

Uh we also know a lot of the root causes of this.

Um, and I'm grateful that my colleagues brought up the homelessness framework that's a joint venture that we're looking at.

This is a huge way to prevent uh violence is to ensure that folks are housed and have that basic need met.

Once people are housed, they have the ability to access other needs.

Um how important housing is to me.

I do this work day in and day out.

Um I see the impacts of folks who are unstably housed and what that looks like for themselves and their families all the time.

I'm really proud uh that we have uh such an aggressive goal in ending homelessness, functionally ending homelessness by 2031.

So that's five years from now.

Uh if you want to go back and watch the presentation on get some more information on exactly sort of the uh benchmarks that we've set and and how that is going to happen.

Um there was a great presentation done to the joint city, county, and school board last Tuesday at 9.30, and that's available online, so feel free to watch that.

Um, but really excited about that and really just really again really proud that we have decided that that is important enough that we are going to set an aggressive goal for ourselves.

We might not make it, but uh why not aim for that?

Because that is the Durham that we want to see.

Um my colleagues have already stated that we had a good budget retreat.

Um it's gonna be uh a hard budget season.

I think everyone sort of acknowledges that we've got cuts coming down from various places.

We've also got increases in our um minimum living wage that we're really proud to have, uh, but it does create a bit of stress in the budget.

Uh it's worth, I mean, it's really long.

I know that nobody wants to watch it, but it is worth watching if you all want to see.

Um there was more groundwork laid at the last one on Friday.

The next one's gonna be more nuts and bolts, and that's coming up on Friday, February 28th.

Again, it's 27th, just kidding, I can't add 14 apparently.

So February 27th.

Um again, it's a long day.

Feel free to do it in parts or do it times two on YouTube.

But that will be recorded and it is open to the public.

And I am looking forward to seeing how we can be creative and thinking about these things.

We have solutions we saw from our resident surveys that folks have the same ideas that we've been hearing over and over again about ending violence, about affordability, which is make sure people's basic needs are met.

And um and there are great ideas on how to do that.

And so I look forward to uh hearing creative solutions and hopefully being able to get to work on some of those goals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Um I just want to say thank you to my colleagues for all of their comments.

Um I will be brief and just say good to have everyone here with us.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you for your comments.

I um also like to uh resound and repeat uh some of the things that have happened over the last week, such as a great budget retreat.

I think this may have been the best one that I've been a part of.

Uh lots of information, but it feels good to be able to uh formally accept um not only quantitative data but qualitative data.

And I just want to shout out the staff who just are amazing and put all of this work together.

Uh it it reminds you of why we're so prideful in Durham because of who we are working with.

It's just absolutely amazing.

Um it is also amazing that you know when you ask residents how they feel about certain things, and we're not slightly above the national average in many areas, but you know, like 20% higher, 30% higher.

And you know, elected officials, we you know, we obviously stand up here and we smile and we'll accept the award, but really it's it's our staff who are the folks that are making this magic happen on a daily basis.

Um, you know, and the little things you don't even think about.

You're walking down the street and it's cobblestone or or brick, you know, and the brick just looks really good, you know.

It's like there are people that are making sure that the finest details are, you know, um doing its part to make sure the city looks good.

So in every form and fashion, uh Mr.

Ma Mr.

Manager, uh kudos to you and the team for all of what's uh we're we're able to brag about.

Um we did have some external events that were pretty cool.

I think I went to like four Luna New Year uh events across the triangle.

And um let's just say that people know how to party.

And it is a task, the biggest task is when you try to leave, and it's uh late in the hour.

And it just, you know, um someone could be about 60, 70 years old, maybe about 70 years old, I think she was, and I was trying to leave, and she said, No, we're just getting started.

And um, I gotta get out of here, I'm tired.

But it was a great time.

And I want to thank the North Carolina um uh Chinese business association.

I want to thank uh Bella and uh Representative Yalu and all of the folks that that put all of these events together, Kaba uh who put these events together uh to celebrate the year of the fire horse.

Um yes, there are a lot of things that we could talk about internationally, there are a lot of things we could talk about, what's going on at the national level, you know, um but but two things that are really important is one voting, early voting is happening right now, and it's there are a lot of big elections that are happening, or two judicial races are happening.

You know, the congressional and Senate races are happening, Supreme Court, and and I, you know, we we I know Durham is heavily a democratic town, but the rest of the state also relies on our turnout.

So I really hope that people get out there and vote and make sure that you are paying attention, you know, to who you voted for.

Uh do your homework, you know.

Um, uh what is, you know, I I was speaking at an event this weekend, and someone said, gosh, you look so tired.

And um I I am, if I'm just being honest.

I I you know we have had a lot of opportunities to do a lot of things in this community, and um your city council, we are a representation of this community.

So if we seem conflicted, that means the community is conflicted.

Um I woke up this morning to I mean, I think maybe 300 comments, and most of the comments were mayor, what are you gonna do?

Mayor, you need to do something.

The mayor isn't doing enough.

And part of this I blame on TV because people watch things like the mayor of Kingstown or they watch these shows, and they think the mayor is just this dictator who has all the mighty power, almighty power to just do whatever.

That's not real life.

In democracy, the loudest voices win.

The room that's that that's filled with the most, the majority wins.

That's just what it is.

And this phone right here, everyone on this diets.

We're all in a text message, and it's not to do city business, but it's for notifications when someone is shot and killed.

Bill Bell started this way back in the day.

He said, I want to make sure I know when someone gets shot and killed in the city, and we've expanded that to the full council.

We also get a message when someone is shot and they're underage.

It's reality.

I talked about silver bullets.

There are no silver bullets.

All right.

But there are a lot of resources.

We have ShotSpotter, Shot Spotter was voted down.

Bull City United was discontinued.

We uh had the data program with you know, uh the paragraph that was sent back.

But also we've expanded heart.

And finally, we have a long-term strategy to where we're going to be focusing on bringing all the possible resources we can together to bring down crime, violent crime in this community.

But the question we have to ask ourselves, are we going to really do this or not?

Because that's the long-term plan.

There isn't anything right now other than the status quo.

We can't social work our way out of this, we can't restorative justice while we're out of out of this.

So as I said this morning, to the 300 comments.

I'll do my part.

But as you're walking out of the house, look in the mirror, and ask yourself the same question.

And I'll say that to everyone in this room and everyone up here.

We've had about four to five people shot and killed in the last three or four days.

Most of them under the age of 18.

I don't know why we're not up in arms about that.

It's not complicated.

Where are the speakers?

When we have policies that people want to say we want to, we don't want to over prevail, we don't want to over surveil.

We're the activist.

Go talk to the parents.

Go talk to the community members who are living in this crap every single day.

I don't have anything else to say about it.

Go to where it's happening.

I see how serious you are then.

I won't be perfect on this.

And I don't want to be.

But I'm tired of kids dying when they don't have to.

And if you're not coming in me with solutions and contributions, I don't have anything to say to you.

I'm sick of just commentators.

So manager.

On you.

Good evening, Mayor.

Mayor Pratem, members of council, good to be with you this evening.

The city manager's office has one priority item.

That's just to note that agenda item 29 had not been added to your agenda as of the work session.

It has been added this evening.

That is the continuance of the public hearing that uh for creekside mixed use.

So that is now on your agenda as item 29.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Attorney.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Madam Mayor Pratem, members of the council.

The City Attorney's Office has no priority items tonight.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Madam Mayor Botem, and members of council.

The City Clerk's Office has no priority items tonight.

Thank you.

All right, at this time, I'll read the uh consent agenda.

Item number one, Mayor's Committee for Persons with Disabilities.

Thank you.

Item number two, Durham Historic Preservation Commission appointment.

Item number three.

Fiscal year 2025-2026 second quarter financial report.

Item number That was pulled by the supplement.

Actually, could you remind me?

Just keep going.

All right.

That was number three, right?

Yep.

All right.

Item number four, Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation Grant Budget Ordinance.

Item number five, Mayor's Council Council for Women 2025 annual report.

It's also pulled.

Item number six, contract, BR 11, National Bridge Inventory Structural Repairs 2026.

Number seven, Utility Revenue Refunding Bond Series 2026.

Number eight, Equal Business Opportunity Program, Ebop Annual Report, participation, participation goal review and ordinance extension.

Number nine, interlocal agreement with Durham County for joint funding of the low-income homeowners relief program.

Number 10, limited obligation bonds series 2026.

Oh my gosh, you're right.

Scratch all of that, everyone.

I'm so sorry.

I'm just getting my granite kids reset and I am on the work session agenda.

You're on the right one.

This is it.

Yeah.

All right.

We're going to start over and scratch all of that from the record.

Item number one, affordable housing implementation committee appointment.

Item number two, audit services appointment, oversight committee calendar year 2025 annual report.

Number three, First Amendment to 2020 fiscal year 26 grant agreement for an immigrant legal assistance program.

That is pulled.

That is pulled.

Number four, Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau, DBA discovered Durham 2025 Annual Report.

Number five, 2025 Homeless Services Advisory Committee Annual Report.

That's been pulled.

Number seven, Junction Road Paratransit Facility and Faye Street, Transportation Renovation Renovation Professional Design Services.

Number eight, condemnation action to obtain one temporary construction easement at 3835 Guest Road for the Horton Road Pedestrian Improvement Project.

Durham City County Environmental Affairs Board, 2025 Annual Report.

Number 10, Durham Convention Center Authority Board, 2025 Annual Report.

Number 11, Durham Performing Arts Center Oversight Committee 2025 Annual Report.

Number 12, Cultural Durham Cultural Advisory Board 2025 Annual Report.

Number 13, fiscal year 2025 Housing Appeals Board Annual Report.

Pulled.

That is pulled.

Number 14, Human Relations Commission 2025 Annual Report.

Pulled.

That's been pulled.

DOST annual report.

Number 19, 2025, Historic Preservation Commission, COG annual report.

Number 20.

Number 20, 2025, Durham Planning Commission annual report.

21, Second Amendment to Contract Number 20316 Supplemental Agreement Number 2 to Master Agreement Number 18908 with Kimley Horn Associates Incorporated for Design of a Roundabout at Marine Road and America Drive 22, 2025 bicycle and pedestrian advisory commissioner in your report.

Ms.

23, purchase contract for Gold Durham Battery Electric Buscharging Equipment.

24 contract for professional engineering services with HCR Engineering Incorporated for the Carolinas of Alpha for Outfall and Transmission Maine Project Management.

And then for GBA, the public hearing number 2026, public hearing for the development of fiscal year 2026-2027 annual action plan.

February 2nd, 2026 meeting.

Original PR 1833.

So that is our consent agenda with the exception of 35, 13, and 14.

Then we'll get to our public hearings.

So moved.

So move the property second admin clerk.

I'm sorry, second.

Thank you.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Let's start with item number three.

This is looking now.

Um so uh we have two speakers.

Uh Victoria Peterson and then Pablo Freeman.

This this is item number three.

And welcome, you have three minutes.

I'd like to first say good evening to everyone.

Good evening.

I'm Mrs.

Peterson, Victoria Peterson.

I'm one of the political activists here in Durham.

I have spoken to quite a few individuals about the immigration legal assistance program that the city wants to offer to persons in this community who may have various various immigration issues.

And Mr.

Mayor, I would like to know who has this organization been working with Mr.

Mayor and City Council.

Please listen.

It looks like that they have already received over 200 and some thousand dollars.

And I do not know if an itemized budget.

Who have they been helping, and how much monies have they been giving out to individuals who may have immigration problems?

Mayor Williams.

I also would like to know.

Since Durham is a sanctuary city, whoever you are, you're welcome to come to Durham.

But my concern is who are they working with?

Are you working with persons from Nigeria, Ghana, Canada, the Middle East?

It's not clear to the public.

So far, it at least it will be close to $500,000 that monies are going to be used to work with the immigrant community.

I don't have a problem if those if those individuals are legal and they have some issues, some immigration issues, some immigration problems.

And I have to be honest.

Some folks say, oh, Mrs.

Peterson, leave it alone.

But other folks are also saying, well, Mrs.

Peterson, we do have concerns that we want to make sure that the individuals that we are helping are legal persons that are supposed to be here, but they have some issues with their immigration papers.

And we need to make sure that it is diverse, that there are people that they're working with who look like me.

There are people that they're working with who look like the mayor.

That we want to make sure that this is a diverse.

This is Black History Month.

We have numerous people in this in this community who come from the motherland.

Thank you.

And so we need to make sure, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

So I don't know if we can get a report on this.

Next speaker is Pablo.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Welcome, you have three minutes.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor Williams.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, Caballero members of City Council and City Managers and the millions of viewers out in the audience partaking online or in person.

I'm here tonight to specifically talk a little bit about this grant, but also to talk a little bit broader than this.

So it's framed as immigrant refugee studies access.

I would argue it's a little bit broader than that.

To me, it's the right to counsel.

For those of you who may or may not know, if you're an immigrant and you're in proceedings, you don't you don't get the right to counsel, much like you do if you're charged criminally in state court or in federal court.

You have the right to it, but you have to provide it yourself.

And in many cases, that type of representation runs thousands of dollars.

So I do I do support the idea of this city providing funds so those that don't have access to counsel can access council.

Just a fundamental matter of due process.

I think it's a good thing.

My feedback to the council is really around the process that you all are using to get to this point.

I think if you look at the last couple of months of City Council, you all allocate funds to specific nonprofits by fiat as your role as elected officials.

Like right now it's this grant, but in other cycles, you give plenty of funds to Centri Spano, okay?

You don't give other opportunities for other nonprofits, other people to put their hat in the ring and offer their proposal for the same idea.

And so my guidance or counsel to you all is that you all open it up, right?

If you're in the business of providing folks access to council, that's a fair idea.

There may be some private attorneys that may be willing to do it at low bono or maybe no bono, right?

Um if you're interested in providing uh services to different communities, open it up, create an RFP process that's transparent so everyone has a fair bite at the apple of providing service.

I think the taxpayers deserve that, and the community deserves.

I think the goals that you're trying to propose tonight with this civic grant funding, I fully support.

Access to council, mark mean 100%.

Um but I do think the way that you go about it is also critically important.

So best of luck, counsel me, the forces be with you, I'll give you one minute back for your annexation debate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion to authorize the city manager to execute the First Amendment to fiscal year 26 grant agreement for the immigration legal assistance project with Justice Matters incorporated in an amount of 200,000 for revised total contract amount of 450,000.

So moved.

Second.

I moved to probably second it.

Adam Clerk puts up in the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

All right, our next item is item number five.

I have one speaker, Victoria Peterson.

Welcome, you have three minutes.

Over the last several years, I've known that the uh city, at least I've observed that the city uh has had a serious problem about homelessness.

But this past winter, we're still in it, it really has been an eye-opening to me.

Mayor Williams, you and I I I'm not here to embarrass you.

Uh, not here to embarrass uh, I think it's Dr.

Lewis, who is uh chair of the uh county commissioners, uh for the county.

I just have a serious, serious concern.

What is going on here in Durham with so many African American men?

And this is um Black History Month.

Why so many of our men are homeless?

Why so many African American men are on the streets and during the winter months over on Fayville Street, Alston Avenue, I live in the inner city.

If you don't live in the inner city, you won't see this unless you come into the inner city.

All these homeless camps down by the food line on Fayville Street, over there by Fisher Memorial United Holy Church, over there by Witt School, all these homeless camps, mayor, city manager, city council members, you speak about Black History Month.

I would like to see what plans are going to be put in place to address the large portion of African American men.

I'm not even speaking about crime.

I'm not speaking about the crime, not on this issue.

I'm speaking about why is it that so many of the African American men are living in the streets in this community?

I don't understand it.

I really don't anymore.

Literally on the corner with fires, 12 and 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning because they are trying to keep warm.

But you have a huge old police building that's sitting, I believe is West Main Street, sitting there, vacant.

That could be very easily turned into some form of a shelter that homeless men and also in this um community, I'm not trying to put my sister on the on the burner of African American women who have children.

An attorney, Miss Cook, another female sitting on the council.

Ladies, do you know there's only one homeless facility in Durham for women across the street from the public library?

And they only house 20 families.

These are women who have children.

Thank you, Ms.

Peterson.

We've got to do something.

You gotta say more than mourner recognizing Black History Month.

Thank you.

But we gotta do something.

Am I correct, Mayor Williams?

We have a homelessness plan underway right now.

Just had an extensive presentation on it.

So we'll make sure we'll make sure you get that information.

But we do have an extensive homeless uh plan with recommendations.

But I'm gonna cut that mic so we can get going.

Thank you for your three minutes.

And colleagues, I'll entertain a motion to receive the annual report for the homeless homeless services advisory committee.

Some of second.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

I have uh two speakers, Kelly Lane and Brian Ramirez.

Welcome, you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Hi, it'll just be me.

Um same issue for both of us.

Um, and I apologize, I'm not sure if you're I'm sorry, what did you say your name was?

Um this is about uh your ordinance that was passed, and um it's about housing.

Okay, Kelly Lane.

Yes.

Okay, gotcha.

I'm just saying, same issue, it'll just be me speaking.

Okay, got it.

So I apologize, it's the first time I've done this here, so I'm not sure if this is the right area to speak under.

But um, I was very happy to see.

I've got a case pending right now involving a Durham landlord, and I was dealing during the pandemic with a housing situation uh that was rodent infested, and I'm very happy to hear that you passed this ordinance.

I think it was October.

Um, but my concern, I don't know if you can answer this here or not, but my concern is that what is actually going to be done about this?

Because I learned through what I went through that there are state uh statutes and laws that say that this is illegal, but there's there's no enforcement.

So you are you're you're left to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney.

And we had two, it was in the landlord was in Durham, but the property was in Carlborough.

And we had two uh failed town of Carlborough inspections, but there's no enforcement.

So I noticed that here, and maybe this is specifically just about your um affordable housing units.

But it said that there could be um fines uh let right to uh and we inspect those buildings, and we therefore have the right to levy penalties on those buildings if they do not meet the health and safety standards.

But again, my concern is just what are the tenants to do if there's a law, but there's no legal assistance.

There's nothing where where do they go?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, Brian Ramirez.

Okay, got it.

Okay, got it.

If you will, just send those comments uh by email as well.

All right, colleagues I will now entertain a motion to receive the fiscal year 2025 housing appeals board annual report.

Please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And I have item number 14.

Umina Snevley.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

Welcome.

Hi, everyone.

Uh my name's Elena Snavely.

I am a data scientist by trade.

You might remember me from the scintillating uh Durham Racial Equity presentation I did with uh attorney Williams last year.

I'm here to speak in favor of the Human Relations Commission's annual report.

I hope you all know what a very um deep thinking and intentional reset this was of this commission.

Um I speak as a member of the Racial Equity Commission.

As you know, we delivered our report and have been attempting a similar sort of reset and thinking about you know what does it mean to be a commission, what kind of value do we bring?

Are we just meeting once a month and sort of talking for three hours, or is this actually, you know, going somewhere?

Um councilman wrist listed off a number of different um interesting data points that were brought up for your budget uh discussions, and the first thing that came to my mind was I wonder if those numbers were disaggregated by race.

Um like I said, I'm a data scientist, that's sort of the role I've been playing on the commission.

Um the Human Relations Commission did meet with the Racial Equity Commission a number of times in the beginning of last year.

I do want to say that the Racial Equity Commission has not met since July.

We are part of the Human Relations Commission's uh 2026 plan.

Um and I think thinking about the intentionality of like what is a commission for, do y'all need a racial equity commission?

Do you find value in them?

Um is the risk of the words racial equity, you know, sprinkled around what Durham City and County is working on, you know, worth what we're bringing or not bringing.

Um so we have been re-engaged.

Um I believe we're gonna meet once until uh there will be a joint discussion with you and the county commissioners to determine the future of the Racial Equity Commission.

Um, but I do think that if you look to the Human Relations Commission and what can be done with a group of passionate um people here in Durham who want to bring value to the city council, I think um I would appreciate if you sort of thought like what does it mean to be a commission and like how do we bring you value?

Um so with that, I hope you all approve their annual report.

Thank you so much for your comments.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion to receive the Human Relations Commission 2025 annual report.

So moved.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

All right, thank you.

Next we have our first public hearing.

Public hearing for the development of the fiscal year 2026-2027 annual action plan.

Welcome.

Staff report.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Purzum Cabero and members of the City Council.

My name is Braden Korwitz, Planning and Performance Administrator for the Housing and Neighborhood Services Department.

This public hearing is to receive resident comments and input on the affordable housing and community development needs in Durham neighborhoods as it relates to the use of the following U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD annual block grant programs.

We have C uh community development block grant, CDBG, Home Investment Partnerships Program, Home, Emergency Solutions Grant, ESG, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, HOPWA.

This public hearing is a requirement for the development of the annual auction plan.

It was advertised and noticed via the City of Durham's website, the Herald Sun and K.

Pasa newspapers, as well as the Housing and Neighborhood Services Department's webpage and various listservs.

The annual action plan or AAP guides the implementation and use of the City's CDBG, home, ESG, and HOPWA funding for the upcoming fiscal and program year, which runs from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027.

HUD has not yet notified the City of Grant funding amounts for fiscal year 2026-2027.

For planning purposes, the city expects to receive $1,925,000 in C D B G, $175,000 in home, $175,000 in ESG, and $1.1 million in HOPA funds.

For the first time in many years, the Housing and Neighborhood Services Department released a competitive application for C D BG and home funding on January 20, 2026.

This application process aims to enhance our engagement with the community, increase transparency in the process for selecting projects funded with federal grants, and establish expectations for partners and federal grant funding availability.

Through this process, more than 80 individuals intended the required workshops on February 6th and 11th, respectively.

All applications for CDBG and home funding are due on March 3rd at noon.

Projects recommended through this process will inform the CDBG and home project funding allocations outlined in the draft FY 2026-27 AAP.

Once completed, the city is required to publish a copy of the draft annual action plan for resident comments for at least 30 days prior to its submission.

The public comment period will open by early April as the city's draft annual action plan must be submitted to HUD by May 14, 2026.

Comments made during this public hearing as well as written comments submitted in response to the draft documents will be included in the final draft submitted to HUD.

I am available for questions as needed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, technical questions or comments for staff?

All right.

At this time, I will declare the public hearing open.

I do have one speaker, Ms.

Peterson.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

I want to mention to the citizens, this is the time when you come down to the City Council and you talk about how we want our Federal dollars to be spent.

You sort of spoke very quickly and very fast, sir.

I I really would like to get to total of dollars that we're speaking about from HUD.

But here is an opportunity to the City Council members.

You really want to do something about homeless?

Here's a here's a good opportunity.

Because these funds can be used to work with the homeless people and the homeless organizations in our community.

Can you tell us uh, sir, again, the total amount of the of the HUD dollars that's going to be available?

So, Mayor Williams, I remember you saying, I can't quote exactly about uh about the police station.

Uh that when you folks, when it came up a few weeks ago for one of the uh historical sites uh wanting that building.

And I think you made a comment about that, Mayor Williams.

We really have to do something in this community about the homeless situation.

Can you tell us, sir, the total dollar amount?

We are expecting approximately 4.175 million.

That's how much we're planning for in these.

4.175 million of HUD dollars.

4.1.

75 million dollars of federal funds just for one program.

That's awesome.

That's awesome.

And thank you.

And Mr.

Mayor, we really need to find another city council members.

We really need to find some organizations who are serious enough who can put in a grant.

Am I correct, sir?

They need to write up a grant to use for these dollars for the homeless folks who are living on the streets.

There are two groups.

Men, particularly African American men.

I know we cannot discriminate.

So men, uh, African American men, white men, because if you aren't Fairville Street, you also see white males.

And a lot of them, I think, some of them are in the communities because of drugs.

One of the homeless problem, and I'll talk real quick.

We've we still have a serious drug problem and the alcohol problem in this community.

Why a lot of our people are on the streets.

And also to the two women that are on the city council.

We have women who are homeless with their children.

So I I want to ask the two women to also get involved.

I'm not trying to embarrass you, young ladies.

Uh attorney cook, uh uh councilwoman burst, you ladies, please help us to bring some women together to deal with the women who have children.

Thank you, Mr.

Homeless.

Thank you.

Uh Madam Clerk, I have those.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh those are all of the speakers that I have signed up for this item.

So therefore, I'll declare item closed and back before council.

There's no action.

It's just no action correct.

We'll just receive the question.

Thank you.

Um I appreciate the I know it's been a long time since we've done an RFP, uh, so I think that that's uh great.

Um can you just share the kind of and you don't need to say it now, but if you could just send counsel an email about the timeline when do RFPs close, when will uh letters be awarded, and when we can expect the work to begin with those dollars.

I can definitely share the timeline with you.

Yeah, thank you.

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Good evening.

Uh, just a quick question.

We had talked previously about when we were talking about opening this up for a competitive process about support in the community to ensure that folks potentially would be ready to receive federal funding since that is kind of a high barrier.

Can you just talk a little bit about the work that staff has done to ensure that community can be competitive for this process?

Yeah, definitely.

Thanks.

So for this process, we made we hosted two application workshops, one virtual, one in person, and we made them mandatory for any organizations looking to apply, just so they are fully aware of the expectations of the application process and kind of what we're looking for in these um potential subrecipients.

Um we work through kind of the program regulations for our home and C D B G.

We work through application narratives, um, application questions, what we're kind of looking for out of the applicants, and that includes all the supporting documentation that is needed for them to uh demonstrate kind of the sufficient capacity.

Um, and we are open and willing to provide feedback to applicants as well.

So if they aren't unsuccessful this time around, they get to know the process, and there's an expectation of the same types of funding will be available next year at the same time, just so we can build up that capacity over time.

Thank you.

Those are all my questions.

All right, thank you for your report.

All right, next up, we have consolidated annexation, Lee Village Center.

Welcome.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Mary Williams, Mayor Puritimic Caballero, and honorable council members.

My name is Andy Lester with the planning and development department.

It's good to be with you all tonight.

Before beginning, staff like to state for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised to notice in accordance with state and local law.

And affidavits of all notices are on file in the planning department.

Initial zoning map change has been received from Dan Jewel for 10 parcels of land, totaling 81.75 acres, and located east of George King Road and west of Crescent Drive.

This indexation petition is for contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits.

The current zoning is residential suburban 20.

The applicant proposes to change this designation to compact suburban design core, compact suburban design support one, and compact suburban design support two, all within a textual development plan to allow for a mixture of residential and non-residential uses.

The properties are currently designated transit opportunity area and the place type map.

The proposed CSDCD, CSDS 1D, and CSDS2D zonings are consistent with the designated place type.

At the December 15, 2025 City Council meeting, the case was continued to a date certain for February 16, 2026.

Thank you, staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you for the staff report.

Any questions?

All right.

For this time, I'll declare the public hearing open.

How much time do you all think you need?

Good evening, Mayor Williams.

Mayor Poten Cavallieo, members of Council.

I'm Patrick Bike with Morningstar Law Group.

We just need a few minutes.

Mayor, we're here to provide a few more text commitments in response to community concerns that have been raised since uh the public hearing was initially opened.

And uh happy to answer any questions, but I think uh for the sake of efficiency, it might be best for us to provide the additional text commitments uh that relate to, for example, vertical integration, uh dedication of parkland, um, a few other items.

Uh, we would be happy to do that uh at the time uh that you have heard from others uh so that the staff can uh memori memorialize them uh for the vote on this annexation, this agenda item.

But Mr.

Jewel and I are happy to answer any questions, and we're very proud again to have our our ownership team, the father and daughter uh duo of Jed Harris and Laura Martin here.

So they flew all the way from California to be with us tonight.

So we're happy to answer any questions.

We appreciate your time, and we would like to uh add a few more text commitments uh to this uh textual development plan at the appropriate time.

Unless you all want me to do that right now.

That's up to obviously that's up to the council.

Go for it now.

Okay.

First of all, I'd like to address vertical integration.

Uh we will be proffering a text commitment that quote any site plan including both residential and non-residential uses submitted after the completion of Falcon Bridge extension to NC 54 shall include vertical integration with ground floor non-residential uses integrated into a mixed-use building.

This commitment shall apply until a minimum of 25,000 square feet of ground floor non-residential space has been achieved.

Any vertically integrated mixed-use building with ground floor non-residential uses constructed before the completion of Falcon Bridge extension to NC 54 shall count towards this 25,000 square foot requirement.

That is the text commitment for vertical integration.

Secondly, we would like to proffer um in regards to a public parkland quote.

Upon completion of the Falcon Bridge extension to NC 54, completed construction of the Eastern Greenway Trail within REID 141610.

That's the large 64-acre tract.

Uh that's the uh main parcel of Lee Village Center, and the provisional transit service by either Go Durham or Go Triangle to Lee Village Center.

The developer shall offer to dedicate at least two acres of land within REID 141610 to the City of Durham for a city of Durham Park.

Such acreage may complain may contain land within a riparian buffer, and such acreage shall have vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access to Falcon Bridge extension and access to the Eastern Greenway Trail.

The last last text commitment would like to proffer has to do with transit service.

And this is what uh our team uh would like to put forward.

We would proffer quote the development team agrees to meet and confer with representatives of Go Durham and Go Triangle on a semi-annual basis to evaluate the provision of transit service to Lee Village Center.

The Lee Village Center Development Team will provide email correspondence reflecting such meetings to the planning department on a semi-annual basis.

Upon agreement regarding the location of a bus station within Lee Village Center, the development team agrees to use reasonable efforts to aggregate density within a 15-minute walk of the bus station.

Lastly, we also want to proffer the uh standard $500 per incremental student to Durham Public Schools, and that will be paid at the approval of the site plans.

With that, be happy to answer any questions and address any other concerns that the council may have.

Thank you.

I'm going to start my online speakers.

I have Ryan Stewart.

Mr.

Mayor, I only have one person for item 27 who's currently online, and that's uh Ryan Stewart, Rob Davis, Linda Harden, or Shannon.

Gaylar.

Hi Ryan Stewart, I should not be presenting back to the next slide.

Hi, yes, this is Shannon.

Can you guys hear me?

Hold on one second, Shannon.

I'm gonna mute you.

Ryan Stewart is in person.

You still want to do that.

Oh, sorry.

Start with online.

So who's that online?

This is Shannon.

Shannon Gaylord.

Shannon Gaylord, okay.

Let's go.

Let's talk with her.

Uh Shannon, how are you?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, I can.

Loud and clear.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Shannon Gaylord, and I live in the townhome community directly adjacent to the proposed Lee Village Development under Agenda Item 2027.

We are not opposed to growth.

We understand Durham is evolving and housing is needed.

What we are asking for is responsible integration with existing neighborhoods.

As currently designed, the proposal replaces the entire wooded area behind our homes with a primary roadway and multi-use path.

There is no meaningful vegetative buffer shown between that roadway and our backyards.

Zero.

Today that wooded area functions as more than scenery.

It absorbs storm water, it reduces heat, it dampens noise, it provides privacy, it is active wildlife habitat.

We regularly see songbirds, woodpeckers, and even deer families.

For many residents, it is our daily connection to nature and a meaningful contributor to mental well-being and quality of life.

Replacing mature canopy with pavement and traffic fundamentally alters the livability of our homes.

We are also concerned about cumulative traffic impacts.

NC 54 and Farrington Road are already heavily congested corridors with documented peak hour backups.

Introducing a new roadway connection without clearly defined and enforceable mitigation measures and without fully accounting for long-term build-out impacts raises serious concerns about safety and cut-through traffic affecting adjacent neighborhoods.

Durham has adopted sustainability and urban canopy goals.

Eliminating an established wooded buffer without requiring substantial preservation or enhanced buffering appears inconsistent with those commitments.

Many of us purchased our homes with the wooded area behind us serving as environmental separation.

We are now facing the prospect of traffic, headlights, and roadway noise directly behind our backyards with no substantial buffer proposed.

We respectfully ask council to defer approval of agenda item number 27 until the following are addressed.

Number one, a substantial enhanced vegetative buffer between the proposed roadway and existing homes.

Number two, preservation of mature canopy where feasible.

Number three, clear enforceable traffic mitigation commitments, and number four, meaningful green space that maintains environmental continuity.

Growth should not come at the complete expense of existing neighborhoods' livability.

We ask you to pause this approval and require revisions that better align with Durham's comprehensive plan principles.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gaylord.

Thanks for your comments.

Do you have anyone else online for number 27?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move to in-person.

Ryan Stewart.

At the Ryan Stewart will be Chris Selby.

Is Chris in the room?

Hi there.

I would like to see my time to Ryan.

We we do not um for time.

Good evening.

My name is Ryan Stewart, and my address is on record.

Hello, Honorable Mayor Williams and the members of Durham City Council.

As a resident of Chapel Run, a community situated directly south of this project, I feel compelled to address the potential impact on our neighborhood and the surrounding areas of Eastwood Park, George King Road, and Falcon Bridge, as well as Blenheim Woods and anyone that currently uses uses NC Highway 54 to access Highway 40.

During the first public hearing, three access points for this development were discussed.

Issues arose, first, with the lack of clarity over easement rights on George King Road.

Second, with Crescent Drive residents unwilling to sell for the proposed Falcon Bridge extension, that eliminates yet another access point.

Residents from Chapel Run, Eastwood Park, Blenheim Woods, and the Oaks express concerns about using neighborhood streets for the proposed access via Crossland Drive.

Additionally, many mentioned the traffic holding area for all of us to access 54 and leave these communities accommodates only two vehicles at a time, as well as the fact that our streets lack sidewalks and are very narrow at certain points.

As of now, I wanted to add that we have 430 verified petition signatures opposed to this development.

Just last month, the City Council voted to deny the rezoning request for Britmore, a notably smaller development.

This decision was shaped by environmental and traffic concerns, mirroring the issues raised by Chapel Run residents in our initial hearing.

This included developments, proximity to State Roads, Army Corps of Engineering Land, and its location in the area, heavily dependent on vehicle traffic, which contradicts previous statements from the Council aimed at curbing urban sprawl.

Councilmember Burris specifically emphasized traffic concerns at the intersection of Highway 54 and 40, the very area where Lee Village is said to be located.

On January 13th, I wanted to note that the Planning Commission voted 8 to 3 to oppose the rezoning of the enclave at Little Creek.

This project is located right next to Lee Village.

Residents provide a remarkably detailed impact statements regarding the environmental concerns associated with these projects.

The Little Creek trails adjacent to these parcels serve as a preservation area, and I can personally vouch for the beauty and ecological diversity they contribute to the area.

Given the significant scope of this project, encompassing over 2100 apartments, 86,000 square feet of retail space, 675,000 square feet of office space, 40 townhomes, along with additional proffers for potential hotel and daycares.

We strongly recommend that you reject this request.

According to ITE Trips formula, the apartments alone would generate 975 trips during peak hours.

This development not only contradicts the UDO's TIA policy, but also features five donut holes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Welcome.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

I'm Chris Selby.

I live at 138 Celeste Circle in uh Eastwood Park in the city of Durham.

Could you uh pull that mic up to you?

Uh much better.

Chris Selby, live in uh Durham.

Thank you.

Uh here.

And uh at the last uh meeting on this issue, I uh explained in detail how Lee Village does not have a plan to link the two North-South collectors here and here to uh NC-54.

Uh and this would cause uh very heavy traffic to traverse our neighborhood, uh our local streets and passing between these collectors in Lee Village and NC 54 down here.

Uh and in addition, would create a pinch point at the uh Hunting Bridge Road intersection down on NC 54.

Uh it seems there may be some progress with the Falcon Bridge Road extension, uh, but we need both of these to link to NC-54 to avoid the pinch point and to provide direct access to NC 54 with Crossman Road.

This is uh without this, this is just bad planning to have local streets in between an artery arterial and a collector street.

I think I think the uh applicant knows that, and I think the council knows that as well.

That's just bad planning.

And I think there is a right way to develop uh Lee Village in a wrong way, and I respectfully ask that you do the right thing and demand the needed commitments for linking both of the two collectors directly to NC 54.

And I respectfully ask that you do the right thing and demand the needed commitments for linking both of the two collectors directly to NC54.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Those are all of the speakers that I have for this item.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, um, Halle Shin in uh oh yeah, yeah, I'm sorry, and I acknowledge that our acknowledged text message, my apologies.

No worries.

Uh okay, I'll see what happened here.

All right.

Um and Laura McCall.

I promise Malora I did not try to do that on purpose.

Hello, welcome.

You have three minutes.

Oh, sorry.

I had some um things for the projector, but oh, so it should be on the sent everyone a PDF last night or this morning and everything I'm referencing.

Do you have it physically with you?

What?

Do you have it physically with you?

I have um little things printed out, but not the same.

So you want to utilize that projector right there, you can do that as well.

They said it didn't work.

Oh, sorry.

Uh that's okay.

Okay.

Um let's see.

Okay.

As you all may recall, my concerns are regarding the block diagram and collector streets of Lee Village.

This area has been designated a transportation opportunity area.

Is the irony lost on you all that these developers are trying to develop this 90-acre transportation opportunity area, yet they lack the parcels necessary to connect vital collector streets within the development to surrounding thoroughfares.

The failure of this group to secure parcels for necessary infrastructure access for this private project is their problem and should not be thrust upon their neighbors.

These are developers who have a glossy 14-page prospectus for potential investors.

Thomas and Hutton is the applicant of record on both the zoning map change and the petition for annexation.

They have a build-out schedule and a utility extension agreement with the city.

So these developers now are attempting to use city council to get the taxpayers of Durham to subsidize the creation of infrastructure they need to develop this land to the benefit of their bottom line.

Dan Jewell asked Director Young in an email how they could avoid doing a TIA.

She responded the straight rezoning is the way to avoid that requirement.

This is very clearly not a straight rezoning.

It is titled Textual Development Plan.

Straight rezonings contain no textual or graphic commitments, and as such are exempt from a TIA.

This textual development plan is replete with commitments, open spaces, affordable housing, and no drive-through businesses.

It curiously omits the density information readily available on the build-out schedule and utility extension agreement.

Why has city planning allowed this project to move forward without the applicant following the procedures and guidelines set forth in the UDO?

It certainly seems that city planning is working in the best interest of the friends of Durham, not the people of Durham.

I request that this project be remanded to planning so the developer can take responsibility for following the guidelines of the UDO and submit an application that adheres to these guidelines.

If council moves forwards in voting on this project tonight, despite its noncompliance with the UDO, and in light of the inevitable consequences of this decision on adjacent properties, I request that city council condition any approvals on the following.

And the city will require the applicant to replace the existing block diagram with one that routes the streets through its own property.

And finally, I ask that the city request confirmation on the record from the applicant that it will not seek to condemn or request the city to condemn my and my neighbor's properties.

If what planning has said to me and emails and here at the first hearing on December 15th is true, making these assurances part of the official record should be no problem.

Thank you.

Next, we have Malora McCall.

Come on up, please.

I had submitted some paperwork.

Do you want me to hand these out to them?

Okay.

I didn't make a 2DM deadline, sorry.

Thank you.

I'm Melora McCall.

My address is on file.

At a recent work session on repair and buffers, there was an important conversation about how development plans sometimes advance in the background without transparency, but yet applicants may describe certain elements as too conceptual to commit to as part of zoning map change decisions.

An October 25 offering memorandum includes a site plan for Lee Village Center, and that plan aligns with the annexation build schedule, the UEA, and the block diagram.

Those materials were sufficient to complete a fiscal impact analysis and structure city contacts contracts.

Given that, it's difficult to characterize this development plan as too uncertain to evaluate.

Materials show a roadway over a pond and a town square over a stream.

Since no graphic plan has been submitted, the question is straightforward.

Does the applicant anticipate submitting an NPAA to accommodate the town square or Falcon Bridge Roadway Extension?

Can they commit to no disturbance of required buffers beyond necessary collector street crossings?

Legislative decisions are where foreseeable impacts are evaluated and public protections are secured.

Traffic, transportation, and infrastructure are part of that public interest analysis.

Capacity estraints in this constraints in this area, including the Falcon Bridge extension and widening of NC 54 are not abstract issues.

Questions remain regarding the city's potential funding responsibility, the timing of approvements, and whether property acquisition could be required, particularly for the Falcon Bridge extension.

If those discussions are occurring, they should be part of this public record and this decision.

And the supporting narrative is that you can get better traffic information later when it really matters.

But council review is where impacts are weighed and mitigation is secured.

Approving this project project without binding commitments shifts risk to the public.

Both the current and proposed LDC frameworks allow committed improvements to be modified if downstream analysis shows they are unnecessary.

There's no structural barrier to obtaining clarity now.

Residents deserve to understand what improvements will be funded by the developer, what infrastructure costs may fall to taxpayers, and how capacity constraints in this corridor will be addressed.

You've denied other cases based on transportation concerns.

Refer this back to planning so that the traffic impacts and mitigation framework is fully developed and proper evaluation of the public interests is considered before actions are taken.

Durham does not just need more housing, it needs housing that's responsibly integrated into infrastructure, environmental protections, and long-term community stability.

Solving one problem while worsening others without a clear path to resolution is not smart growth.

Thank you.

Well, do you want to respond to any of the comments?

Thank you, Mayor Williams.

Uh, from our initial submittal, uh Lee Village Center has always had a 30-foot point zero six opacity uh buffer between Lee Village Center and the Chapel Run neighborhood.

So uh there certainly is a um substantial buffer in place.

I want to make sure that the council knew that since there's obviously been allegations to the contrary.

Uh I'm only we're only aware of one donut hole.

Um that that um is not resolved uh at this time.

Uh so there was a statement, I think about five donut holes that that isn't correct.

And I think all these arguments were presented to the planning commission.

And they voted 10 to 10 to recommend approval to this council uh for Lee Village Center.

So I want to make sure that was uh recited as well.

Um our team we we actually have no idea what this offering memorandum that speakers have spoken about.

We did not authorize it.

We have no idea what it is.

Um we know there are other concerns that council members have, and so uh we welcome the opportunity to uh see if there are additional proffers that we can make.

And our team respectfully asked uh for your uh support of this annexation and leave village center since it's in compliance uh with our current comprehensive plan and the 2005 comprehensive plan, which has called for this area to be transit-oriented development uh for 20 years.

Um anything else?

I think I think we'd love to hear your questions and concerns and uh address any additional proffers that that might be appropriate at this time.

All right, thank you.

At this time, I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

Colleagues.

Yes, Mr.

Baker.

Thank you, thank you to uh everyone who who is in the room and who spoke.

I've got uh a few questions for um staff and for um the applicant.

Um first of all, just you mentioned this 30-foot buffer and um apologies if I just didn't see it.

Is that a commitment?

Yes, sir.

It's a commitment existing.

Okay.

Uh commitment number three.

I'm sorry, four.

Amendment number four on page two of the staff.

Okay, thank you.

Um to staff, transportation staff.

Um my first question is about the the TIA.

Can can you run through the TIA situation, why there's no TIA now, when we'll see future TIAs.

Sure.

Erlene Thomas, planning and development.

So there is no TIA with this application since there are no commitments for specific uses and how and the intensity of those uses.

The way we evaluate how traffic is generated is with with those commitments, and we need those to uniformly um apply that across developments when we are determining if a TIA will be required or not.

So it we would need to know what what the uses are, even if it's residential, there could be different types of residential that all generate trips at different rates.

Um commercial, same thing with commercial um development, they all generate traffic at different rates.

And if we don't know what those uses and intensities are, we can't, I can't tell you what amount of traffic will be generated and what mitigation will be needed.

If we have a don't have a complete picture, then we might have um might not have enough mitigation to for the entire development.

So TIAs will be required at the time of site plan when we do have that specific information.

Thank you.

And so site plan and and like preliminary subdivisions, so is there a chance, I mean, are there scenarios where there are multiple TIAs that come to the city?

Yes.

So in this particular case, the develop the applicant has committed to doing a TIA with every site plan that's submitted, which is above and beyond normal ordinance requirements because they could submit individual site plans that don't necessarily trigger the TIA threshold.

But in doing this, we capture the cumulative impact of the overall development as it builds out, as well as other developments in the area that may come in and be accounted for.

Okay.

Um thank you for that.

Um this is uh uh uh textual development plan, however, they uh have included a diagram, a layout.

Um what happens if they hit bedrock or something happens and they can no longer follow that layout or they're working with a designer and the designer comes up with a better idea that is still consistent with the commitments uh and uh the design districts.

Um would that have to come back to Planning Commission and to Council for changes?

So the layout that is attached in the diagram is conceptual, so it'll be a guide for implementing the road.

Meaning, and I say conceptual to mean that without detailed design and environmental analysis, you know, within that development, the road could vary, you know to mitigate environmental impacts or avoid other things on the site, but generally speaking, those roads they are committing to providing those collector streets as well as building um the Farrington Road extension and the Southwest Durham Drive through the site.

Okay, thank you.

Um there were concerns about um roads that are being shown on site that um, if extended would potentially cut through someone's home, someone's property.

Can you can you elaborate on what that process is or if people should be concerned about something like that happening?

Sure.

I think that's is twofold.

So the roads that they are showing that are off-site, they are showing that it's illustrative and it is and they are the alignments that are shown on the long-range transportation plan.

So whether this project builds it or future project or future development or a state funded project, that would be the alignment that would be followed, and you know, whoever is building it would have to go through the right-of-way acquisition process to um obtain that right away to make the connections.

And if this at the time of site plan, the development as it bills out, if those connections need to be made to mitigate the traffic impacts, and they cannot um build those, then they've hit you know the limit of what they can build out until such time that those connections can be made.

So um so mu what you're saying is what you're saying is that the road would basically end.

The project could get built out, the road would end, and it would just be sitting there until some future date.

Yes.

So they would be able to build what they control within their project boundaries.

And if they are able to obtain right away and make additional connections, then they can certainly build.

But if not, the road would stop at their property line for future connections.

Unless another alignment were found.

With within the corridor that's shown.

That's unlikely what you're saying.

Right.

Okay.

I mean, the long-range plan could be amended, um, additional routes, you know, identified in the future, but for now that's the alignment um that's on the adoptive plan.

Okay.

Okay.

I might have more questions about that later.

Um let's see here.

So I wanted to.

Okay.

Uh that's it for for for now.

Thank you.

Um I wanted to ask.

I wanted to ask uh Director Walcott.

Are you here?

So they've made this commitment for parkland.

Um it it allows flexibility at a future date, you know, if if it's determined that there's no desire for park land, then so be it.

Um there's a commitment for for a park, but there but we don't know 100 percent that there would be a park on this site, is what I'm currently understanding.

Is that is that your understanding as well?

I think the commitment was for land they provided.

Okay.

Can you tell me more or less very roughly, because I know that this is would have to be very rough, what it would cost to construct a park on empty land that you might have?

Sure.

Roughly would be an understatement, so I don't want to get cornered on on any kind of price commitment.

Um similar size parks and not knowing all the lands or specifically where this park would be on the site.

Uh I can give you some estimation.

So think about a playground and to our standards if we use the if we build design and building a accessible playground with accessible surface, like the port and place surface, uh, and we wanted to add shade sales to that, and we wanted to do a nice decorative fence around the playground, you're looking at approximately 300,000 plus dollars for just a playground.

So anything on top of that with extra amenities could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all that I have for you.

Um appreciate that.

Yeah.

And uh and obviously, you know, for any for any master plan community having a public park, a city park um that is that is owned and operated and maintained and serviced by the public is a is a huge, it's an enormous amenity and something that of course improves sales and is well documented to you know, typically increase property values as well.

So that's something that I want to keep in mind.

But I'm gonna I might have a few more questions.

This is a big case.

I think it's worth our deliberation.

So I I'm gonna turn turn it over for additional questions from other council members.

Thank you.

Colleagues.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um so the first question is for planning stuff, building on the questions of my colleague, Hansumember Baker.

Uh, in regards to concerns, it's kind of building on what Ms.

Thomas was just saying about the ability of the city to uh basically take folks' property uh in order to build this out either through this development or future development.

And I'm just would would like to hear from staff what uh whoever would feel it's most appropriate, right?

Uh you know, what what are the the what's the the city's ability to to step in and be able to actually do that to have this project go forward?

Um so all of the mitigation that's required um to make this development happen would have to be constructed by the developer.

So they would have to go through the right-of-way acquisition process to be able to make those connections.

Can the city pursue an extraterritori territorial jurisdiction process or annex properties, uh condemn properties?

What can the city do uh to to step in and uh further this this project?

So no, there would the city could not you want me to go ahead and good evening, Sarah Young.

We're using the phone of friend method tonight.

Um the so extraterritorial jurisdiction may be helpful to define what these things are for those that may not be familiar.

That is when a city has land use zoning authority over an area that is not in their city limits.

When the uh city and county agreed many, many moons ago um to have a joint ordinance and a joint department, the city gave up its ETJ.

City no longer has extraterritorial jurisdiction, so that is not a possibility in this case.

Uh because that area is already in the joint city county, right?

It's county, and so it already falls under the same comprehensive plan and other zoning ordinance provisions.

Um that's ETJ.

Annexation in the state of North Carolina, the only way that a uh city could forcibly annex is through a public referendum.

So taking it out to a vote to the community is highly unlikely.

I don't know that any jurisdiction has done that.

So basically in North Carolina, functionally forcible annexations are prohibited and really only voluntary annexations.

So the city would not pursue trying to annex someone's property.

Um I think the other question, if I'm remembering correctly, it was about condemnation proceedings.

Um as Ms.

Thomas said, you know, it's up to the applicant to obtain the right of way necessary.

Uh typically the city may um do condemnation of right of way when we are trying to do our own roadway projects if needed.

Uh typically we do not get involved in condemning property for developers.

Um that is a power that the city has and um could potentially be used.

Um that is not typically done.

All right, thank you.

So a couple of questions for the applicant.

So the first is in regards to the park proffer.

I just want to understand the commitment language in regards to the park.

Uh in particular, you said that at a time when Falcon Bridge is completed.

Uh and upon completion of transit service.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

That's in compliance with the City of Durham's uh park location policy manual.

Because otherwise, if the transit service had not been yet completed, uh building a park there would not be a compliance with the city's policy.

So I guess does that become a question for staff?

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and members of council, Austin Bowman, senior planner with Durham Parks and Rec.

Uh the policy compliance that uh the applicant mentioned.

We do um as part of our policy um give preference to sites that have pre-existing transit access, but sites that don't have transit access planned or existing are certainly not precluded from being accepted by the department.

I mean, with that in mind, I'd like to remove the the and from the clause.

Um that's fine if that's the will of the council will be happy to wordsmith that appropriately appropriately and remove the provision of transit service by Go Durham or Go Triangle for the uh park dedication.

Okay.

We can do that.

Um the next question is around uh affordable housing.

I appreciate the commitments that the owners uh have have made to date uh around the 9 percent uh of apartments that would be uh affordable, I think it's 30 percent at 60 percent AMI, 30 percent at 80 percent, 30 percent at 100 percent.

Um typically for us within the UDO, the definition of for rent is 60 percent.

Uh and so I wanted to ask if the the applicant and the owner would be uh prepared to offer the uh 6 percent at 60 percent uh AMI and 3 percent at 80 percent AMI instead of the 333 Yeah, we can do that, Councilman Copac.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um I may come back with more.

Those are the questions I have at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other colleagues?

Council Member Wrist?

Yeah, a couple of questions.

Um yeah, so the f actually for the applicant, the first one, um remind me of the build out of this of this.

I know this is a large project.

Remind me of the build out of how long this is gonna be.

Oh my goodness.

Um a minimum of 10 years, it's probably more likely to be in the 15 to 20 year range.

Uh as a example, in in the city of Durham, I started working on Davis Park in 2004, I believe, at Hobson Road and Davis Drive.

Um that was a larger project, it was about 150 acre, but also transit-oriented development, uh very pedestrian friendly.

We're still working on the commercial uh components of of Davis Park.

So these uh mixed use projects take at least uh of at least 10 years would be my guess.

And and again, I want to emphasize that uh Jed and Laurel are owners, they're not developers.

So they have to find essentially joint venture partners for each phase and feel comfortable that that uh joint venture partner can implement the vision that that is being established for Lee Village Center.

So I I apologize for the roundabout answer.

I would say a minimum of 10 years, probably longer.

And that's assuming I mean if we I'm sorry, I digress.

But I mean if we have another major recession like we had in 2008, that just freezes development for years.

Appreciate that.

Um also appreciate the additional proffer on the um on the affordability levels for the rental units.

Um I wonder um I'm looking at the three percent townhouse units to be income restricted at 80 percent AMI for 20 year tenure.

I wonder the typical unit is the typical period is 30 years.

I wonder if you'd consider those town homes affordable at a the affordable units for a 30-year period.

Yeah.

Um we're not what we're trying to do with the town homes is is start to create on-ramps for generational wealth, and if you deed restrict it for 20 years, that family that lives there really doesn't create a lot of generational wealth.

That's why we thought 20 years was better for the for sale housing and 30 years was appropriate for the rental.

Um that's our thinking on it.

It's a delicate balance.

Um, but we're I mean the point being that if you're a trust model when you tie it up for 30 years, really.

You mean that there sort of has limited ability to sort of appreciate.

So it's yeah.

If it's if it's deed restricted in that way, there's a very nominal increase.

And the problem you have is that the person has all the maintenance obligations of the townhouse, but they don't get the appreciation at the end of it.

So it uh for those types of um homes, it's uh it is very difficult to indeed restrict them for 30 years because you're asking people to do all this maintenance work, but they really aren't going to recapture that appreciation that you and I enjoy in our homes and other people.

You know, I appreciate the thinking on that.

I think the um I mean I think there is a perspective of affordability from the perspective of the or the wealth appreciation for the for the owner, right?

Then there's also affordability for a future buyers, right?

So I think so.

Yeah, for me, the the the ability to keep it affordable for anyone to buy within the 30-year period would be previous.

So I hope you would consider that.

Yeah, I mean, if if that's a material consideration, Councilmember Rist will make that change, but I will go on the record saying I I do not think it's appropriate.

Thank you.

Um also on the uh issue of the um on the park, and I appreciate the staff's comments on sort of like the the um details around this the the park proffer and appreciate the proffer.

If the if the city of the Department of Um Parks and Rec decided not to accept that as a park, what would happen then?

It would be developed as uh in in keeping with the compact suburban design um zoning, which is a form-based district and would not have um uh other than the use limitations that are listed as text commitments, the um permitted uses in the uh compact suburban design would apply.

Do you have any thoughts, Dean?

Um Dan Jewel uh sketchy applicant.

Uh keep in mind that we uh we also have pretty robust open space requirements.

So um whether there's a two-acre public park or not, there'll be a good amount of open space in this community.

Thanks.

And there's a question from the for staff from DPR.

Um appreciate the comments on what it would cost roughly sort of just ballpark to to build out a park there.

I'm also curious, in addition to the cost of building out, like what's the what would it, what would it cost the department annually to maintain a park there in terms of you know costs, hard costs as well as staff.

What does that look like?

Also for uh I know that that's sort of on the edge of the of our county, right?

So just kind of curious any sense of what that would cost to maintain that on an annual basis?

Sure.

I mean, similar to the construction costs, it'd be purely speculative.

I mean, we do have an existing facility close by, so I wouldn't say that it's completely out of our service range and at two acres.

I don't foresee that requiring a significant amount of additional staff just to maintain that park, but I think the theme to keep in mind is this is not potentially the only part coming online over that 10-year timeline.

So I don't think it's I guess fair to say, you know, this park will cause us to increase you know maintenance staff or maintenance financial obligations by this much when it's really the entire system that's gonna dictate that.

So it so I mean is it's gonna be certainly a marginal increase in sort of staff thing requirement as well as costs.

Yes, yes, there would be some increase.

I it's just hard to say what that is without knowing the uh other changes in the operating environment that would happen between now and then.

Okay, thank you.

And a final question for planning staff.

Just on the issue of um on the roads.

So I know that again the proffer for the park was like upon completion of of uh of Falconbridge.

So and I think this may have been the comments my colleagues had earlier, but just again to clarify this issue of connecting this to 54, whose responsibility is the completing Falcon Bridge Drive and Crossland Drive to connect to 54.

So if that is one of the improvements that's identified through the TIA, it would be the developer's responsibility to do.

Thank you.

That's it for now, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Any other colleagues?

Yes, go ahead.

I'm just reiterating that um I'm unfortunately not gonna look too much at the quality of the project because I still believe that the TIA needed to be done prior to its getting to council.

Uh no colleagues are tired of hearing me say that, but that is the read of the statute.

It is a mandatory shall, not a discretionary on how we feel about when a TIA would be best done.

Um with that concern, I'm not gonna be participating, so I'm just gonna be a no-vote.

Thank you so much to the applicant and everyone who spoke on behalf of this item.

Um there are too many unknowns for me at this moment to support this.

I'm really concerned about the infrastructure to continue to grow in Durham, and I feel I still have concerns about that traffic corridor.

Also concerns about at what point the TI become that I just want to be clear that I, while I appreciate the proffers and you're concerned about generational wealth, I will be unable to move forward.

This project stains.

I wanted to follow up on another question that was raised by uh a resident uh that I I think is directed toward the applicant.

But uh do you anticipate requesting an MPAA on this project?

I know we've seen cases where um you know, pretty soon after uh rezoning requests that that kind of moving forward in the process and that request being made.

What do you anticipate in terms of the needs around um an MPA with this project um given the current concept?

Councilmember Kopec, could you elaborate on your the terminology?

Um Dana and I are a little confused.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

So just uh and perhaps staff could assist with this as well.

Um but just wondering about um you know if you think that based on the routing of the roads or areas that you'll develop, if you'll anticipate needing to make adjustments to some of the buffers, the riparian buffers um for this project to be able to proceed you know through the MPA process.

We don't anticipate that happening at this point in time.

We we it our team meetings actually started with the buffers and then looked at how we use those as amenities and develop around them.

We have never contemplated uh reducing one of the jurisdictional buffers.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Um I definitely take to heart the Planning Commission's vote on this case.

I think the traffic concerns are real, um, which can impact people's quality of life, which is something that I think uh I think we all just speak for myself take seriously.

Um it's hard thinking about the trade-offs of that sometimes with meeting housing needs, um, promoting that connectivity, working toward that 15-minute city.

And I do also at the same time appreciate you know the affordability elements, the potential for future connectivity with transit, being in the transit opportunity area, um, you know, I think the commitments around you know uh verticality, mixed use, making the site walkable, child care, green building, um 100-year stormwater, um, being above tree requirements, the enhanced buffers, um, the commitments around the southwest corner uh and the natural heritage site.

Uh and so I think that there's also uh a lot that's good uh in this project.

I know that there's questions around the TIA.

Um the best that I can do is is is is do my best to understand and follow the the guidance of our legal team and and planning staff.

And I do think that there is a material benefit with the TIA at every stage of site plan, where it will come to us to review uh and accept before it can move forward, which is not something that we have seen with with other projects.

And so my hope is that would would help to mitigate um uh some of the traffic concerns, though of course it will not fully mitigate it, and it will be something that impacts on people's quality of life.

So um, you know, definitely weighing uh the concerns I've heard against the benefits um and I appreciate the discussion tonight, the concerns that were raised uh and the the proffers by the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Beaker?

Councilmember Breaker.

Um obviously parks, huge amenity to have on site.

Uh Councilmember Risk raised the issue of uh the maintenance costs for for the city um applicant team, uh are you able to commit to constructing the park uh if the park gets constructed?

Councilmember Baker would need to understand um every um dwelling unit within Lee Village Center will pay a parks and recact fee.

And so um I would have to ask the staff, is that how does that is it possible for the impact fees that are paid by these dwelling units to be used for the park inside Lee Village Center?

Otherwise it feels like we're paying an impact fee and we're paying for capital expenses.

So I I honestly don't know how that works, but I know every unit has to pay uh an open space impact fee and a parks and rec impact fee.

So I would think that if those funds were collected, it would be uh substantial uh given the uh uh nature of this development.

So um yeah, it's just uh I don't know if we can determine a specific number at this time without knowing what uh how the impact fees would be allocated that lead that will be generated at Lee Village Center, if you see my point.

See what I'm saying?

Like every unit pays an impact fee in order to get a certificate of occupancy, and then the question is what what happens with those impact fees?

Having said that, I am reliably informed about my that uh the ownership team will uh commit to 250,000 for a park at this location.

And we'll draft a proffer to that extent with the staff if we're fortunate enough to receive your approval.

All right, so could you repeat that the number just so we hear the 250,000?

Um, thanks so much.

Uh two more questions.

Um is there's this obviously building out the site would require a lot of infrastructure on site.

One, are we confident that there is enough sewer and water capacity to serve this area?

Two would with regard to Falcon Bridge in particular, is that being built out the app by the applicant, or would that require public subsidy?

So I'll tackle the water sewer question.

Um this is not in an area impacted by sewer capacity limitations.

And I will defer to the Falcon Bridge extension project would be funded and constructed by the applicant.

First Director Young, I have a follow-up for you.

I think the specific question was does this area have water and sewer um capacity, and you just said it's not impacted.

So that is one of a definitive answer on like what the situation with the infrastructure is if you have that information available for us.

Yes.

This uh there is, according to our water management department, there is uh adequate capacity in this area.

The they have identified the improvements um that are I believe needed in the UEA.

And so I can pull those up.

Sorry, give me one minute.

Actually, that's right.

There, well, hold on one second.

Let me find the UEA.

Sorry about that.

So the UEA does include it.

Um page 14.

Um it starts to talk about the conditions.

15, the project-specific provisions.

Um it talks about the size of the water lines that are required.

That is also included in your staff report.

Um, and essentially the developer is required to make any improvements that are needed to maintain flow of the system, et cetera.

So there isn't there is capacity available.

They would have to do some improvements, but that is typical of pretty much all development.

And I understand this um project is scheduled to last over, well, it's supposed to be like maybe a couple like a decade or so before it is fully built out.

So do we know?

And I just wanted I know that it is included in our staff report, but I think it's really helpful for the public to hear as well, which is why I'm asking you the question.

So do you have any intervals or the time frame in which these improvements be made, or just thinking about like I don't want us to have a situation where we approve this massive development and then we get the emails because it's like at capacity and we have like a moratorium in that invertis.

I just want to be clear with that.

Yep, good question.

So these improvements would be required of the developer as they build their project out.

All right, any other questions?

Yeah.

All right.

You said 30 feet, right?

Yes, sir.

Along the southern edge of on the uh it's indicated if you can see the uh street block diagram for Lee Village Center.

It's a 30-foot buffer along the southern edge.

Yes, sir.

You but you you committed good.

Yeah, it was committed on day one, Mayor.

All right, good.

Uh I can appreciate the conversation on that you were having with Councilmember Riss.

That that is Councilmember, that's something I always struggle with because I I do want people to be able to build generational wealth, but we also want to prevent you know what we've dealt with over the last few years, where corporate entities are coming in buying up properties and flipping them immediately, um basically throwing our market out of whack.

Um so for everyone that is listening to that, the reason why we try to extend that is to prevent that.

And I think the state may uh I'm not sure if they did it or not, but I think there was some type of law passed where um they're restricting corporate entities from buying up properties in mass.

Um if not, I know it's been talked about.

I would welcome that.

Um but at the same time, you know, you you're beholden to a property.

You you move in and it's like you enjoyed the first few years because you have your own property, but you're deeded from being able to enjoy the luxuries of of you know home ownership and and being able to sell it and buy another property and accumulate, uh which so many people enjoy, especially in this area.

Um I I know this area well.

I used to live across the street.

Um and I know the traffic patterns over there.

I know also that you know there is potential for this to maybe be a smaller or I don't know, comparable size to Meadowmont, but maybe done better.

Uh not as boring as Metalmont.

Um because this will be on the Durham side, it's going to be better.

Um but it is uh uh a nice commercial area over there.

It is right next to an interstate.

Uh I think that there are a lot of qualities that that make sense over here.

Um anytime we are disturbing land and and it's going from the nature that it that currently exists to uh construction, that process is always going to be uncomfortable.

And but you know, then you then you have um and just for the record, Mayor, um I mean, Madam Clerk, please run the clock.

Um you start at two minutes.

I'm just about done.

Um but also, you know, uh it just like those who enjoy you know living over there uh right now, which is a really nice area, you know, there will be neighbors to get to enjoy the same thing.

Um also we just had a homelessness uh strategy that had significant recommendations, and one of the recommendations was housing supply and diversity.

Uh we had a public safety, we have a public safety um strategy we're working on, but already, you know, the entity the cities that have incorporated this plan, uh housing security is one of the things that that is a public safety solution.

Uh we have a housing assessment done that talks about the housing diversity that we need.

We have a housing plan that we're trying to build up because we know the demand that's in this area.

And um there are some to say we've we you know we've already surpassed a per certain point.

We don't need any more housing.

But you know, uh it's harder to I mean we just heard tonight it's just gonna take 10 years at minimum to build the space out.

Um we we also have seen that we've dormant 324,000 people now.

We were just 282,000 people about seven years ago.

So sometimes we grow a lot faster than we can build.

And that you know, trends set that market, the trajectory, and it makes it really difficult.

And we say we want affordable affordability, well, it's it's really hard when you're not contributing all of the factors to make things affordable.

Uh and you know, we say we want affordable housing.

Well, affordable housing is doesn't mean the supply or the material is cheaper.

It just simply means it's being supplemented on the back end.

You know, so someone is gonna pay for it.

But also, you know, uh supply meeting that demand also helps out with the cost of it.

That's just fact.

That's just logic, economic logic.

So uh with all of the things that I've heard tonight amongst my colleagues and what we have here.

Um I think you know, the planning commission got it right.

So with that being said, I am going to bring us to a vote.

Mr.

Mayor, I have some.

Let's start the recording back up.

Yeah, but uh, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um go ahead.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I think it's I think it's worth the time just because this is again 80 acres.

I think we we want to make sure we we get it right.

So I joined the Durham Planning Commission in 2018.

I joined City Council two years ago.

Uh and uh a large part of what had drives me is is fighting back against uh unsustainable auto-centric development and sprawl that that we've seen on the outskirts of our city since 2017.

We've seen half the area of Manhattan annexed into the city.

It has impact our accessibility to parks.

We've dropped from 72nd out of the 100 most populous cities in the country and parks and parks accessibility to 97.

Uh this year.

Um more and more people are stuck in their cars getting around, traffic has gotten worse, trees getting cut down.

Um over and over, I think that we have just simply set our comprehensive plan aside and not followed it and not paid attention to it.

Uh I would love to sit up here and um say that I was part of a council majority that was willing to say no to large annexations uh and uh annexations moving our city outward and sprawling and tearing down forest and farmland.

The reality is that I'm not part of a council majority that wants to do that.

However, I do think that this council is different from the last council and that it the floor is higher.

The standards and expectations are higher.

And I do think that we are closer to a philosophy of if we tear something down, we need to replace it with something that makes Durham a little bit better, that provides more public goods uh to to the people of our city.

This um this case as it currently sits is um it's it's the best case that I've seen since 2018.

It's the best rezoning and annexation case that I've seen since since 2017.

The floor um is elevated, and it's not exactly what I want because what I would want is to be able to uh say no um to these uh large annexation cases.

But knowing that that's that uh is not and and was not uh possible going into this, I have been able to work uh with uh colleagues to to improve the case.

Um there's commitments, this is a rezoning to a design district, which already has additional standards.

There's uh commitments to green building, there are commitments to affordability in the apartments, affordability of townhomes, um, not just right-of-way dedication, which uh we've so often received, but actual construction of greenways, high quality design materials, um, townhomes alley loaded, and I could go on and on.

These are commitments that that uh we haven't seen.

Um top of just the the standards that are that are in the um development regulation.

So um it always hurts.

It always hurts to see uh more outward expansion when I know that we have uh abundant land in our city that we can develop um already.

Uh I would love for us to get to a point where we say that we're gonna pause and not grow outward anymore, but knowing that wasn't going to be the case here, uh I do think that the applicant has brought this case to to uh an elevated standard that that we haven't seen.

Um as long as I've been observing rezoning annexation cases since 2018.

So uh I will I will be voting uh in favor of this case this year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um staff needs to clarify the properties.

Yes, uh staff would like to clarify a couple of things.

I would like Andy to kind of go through the proffers and make sure that we got them correct, especially because they were several new ones that were not previously vetted with staff.

But in addition to that, um apologies, Councilmember Burris.

Uh my eyes could not find the thing I was looking for, and so I just wanted to follow up on the sewer.

Uh the only improvement is to upsize the sewer lines from eight inches to twelve inches.

This is in the Celeste Circle lift station basin.

And so that's an area where the city did improvements a while back and is in good shape.

So I just wanted to follow up on that.

Um Andy, if you would.

Sure.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify the proffers that I've made tonight.

Um there is one for vertical integration that we have that's pre-vetted.

We also have the park donation of at least two acres with the provision the second clause being removed regarding the transit service.

And staff would like to just clarify whether or not this is in addition to or in lieu of text amendment 13, which already dedicates um 1.5 acres of land at the southwest corner.

In lieu of.

In lieu of.

In lieu of.

Okay.

Would you please restate your third proffer?

Staff has not um been able to do that.

Sure.

This is um or I have to really shout out our our ownership team, especially Jed Harris.

He has been relentless on communicating with our transit providers.

And um at this point in time, we would like to proffer the development team agrees to meet and confer with representatives of GoDurum and Go Triangle on a semi-annual basis to evaluate provision of transit service to Lee Village Center.

The Lee Village Center development team will provide email correspondence reflecting such meetings to the planning department on a semi-annual basis.

Upon agreement regarding the location of a bus station within Lee Village Center, the development team agrees to use reasonable efforts to aggregate density within a 15-minute walk of the bus station.

I realize that is not our typical proffer, but this is not our typical project.

So we're happy to proffer it if that's not acceptable to the planning department, we'll be doing it anyway.

Okay.

No.

Um I think we can do that.

Regarding the DPS contribution, um I think the commitment you stated was per student.

$500 per incremental student.

Yeah.

In order to do that commitment, it needs to be a lump sum.

At the site plan stage, we do not generate student numbers.

Can you make an exception?

Um, we just don't have any way to assess that at this point in time.

We're happy to do it on a site plan basis, just like the TIAs would be done.

All right, we will work with you on that.

Appreciate it.

But that is not a typical uh way that we like to capture these and that'll be sorry.

And that'll be at the time of site plan, when will the that the calculation will happen?

When are you proffering that the payment is made?

Prior to site plan approval.

Okay.

Thank you.

And could you clarify the revised um apartments um AMI percentage?

Uh yes, sir.

That is uh six percent at sixty percent AMI and three percent at 80 percent AMI.

Okay.

And you're removing the 100 percent AMI.

Yes, sir, as part of that.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

And the last one is the 250,000 park donation, which uh planning and DPS will work you in the language regarding.

Correct.

All right.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kopak.

Yeah, two clarifications.

Uh the first was just making sure I understand when it's the two-acre commitment for a park is in lieu of the 1.3 acres to the southwest.

Is that still protected as open space wetland protected for the natural heritage?

It's just not the park, right?

Okay.

Correct.

All right, thank you.

And then I guess I had a question about the the townhomes as well.

Councilmember Rist had raised.

Was that a proffer as well to go to 30, or was that not a proffer?

We would prefer not to proffer it unless uh the council insists on it, then we'll uh yeah, it's the tension that the mayor referred to between uh creating generational wealth and creating affordability ownership options.

So our faith is at the will of the council.

Yeah, it's at the will of the council.

Our position is that 30 years is a long time for a homeowner to go paying all the maintenance and having very little appreciation.

We'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

I just want to share with colleagues I while I appreciate I like I understand that tension, and it's actually a question that consistently comes up in housing circles.

Is the the idea of what we talk about social housing?

But in this country, we often use home ownership as a as a means to build wealth, and so it's hard for me in these individual cases to really limit those homeowners.

Um I recognize that that's a tension that there's like a crosswinds there, and that that is a a really honest and broad conversation that's happening in housing circles.

Um you're really limiting folks who don't have access to wealth to how do they build theirs.

Uh and so uh I appreciate why colleagues are pushing on it, and I just want to share I'm comfortable with with the proffer as it's stated and not and not moving or and not moving it up to 30 years.

I mean like the initial proffer.

Correct.

Thank you.

I'm not moving out there, but I do love it out there.

It's a really nice area.

All right.

And uh just go forth with a project that I think is really good.

You know, nothing's going to be perfect.

Um, but I do think the pros outweighted the the the cons on this.

And um, just based on what's out there, and it makes sense to me.

So with that being said, I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance and annexing Lee Village Center into the City of Durham and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with Sylvan Lee LLC.

So move second.

And the motion passes five to two with council members Burrs and Cook voting no.

All right, thank you.

Also, I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance by taking property out of residential suburban 20, Falls Jordan Watershed Overlay District B major transportation corridor, I forty county jurisdiction and establishing the same establishing the same as compact suburban design core with the development plan, compact suburban design support one with the development plan, compact suburban design support two with a development plan, Falls Jordan Watershed Overlay District B, Major Transportation Corridor I forty city jurisdiction.

So moved second.

It's been moved and probably seconded it.

And the motion passes five to two with council members burrs and cook voting no.

And lastly, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 160 Dero Five.

Move to another consistency.

Second.

It's been moved and probably seconded.

Madam Clark, please open a vote.

And the motion passes six to one with council member burrs voting no.

All right, thank you.

And thank you all for uh bringing a good project.

All right, uh colleagues, we're gonna take a take a break.

It's nine eighteen.

Uh let's come back at nine twelve uh nine twenty-eight.

We're recessing too much.

All right, let's uh get to our next item.

Next item is zoning map change creekside mixed use continue from February second, twenty twenty-six.

The current zoning is residential suburban 20 and residential suburban multifamily with a development plan.

The applicant proposes to change this designation to plan development residential.

8.346.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the properties to allow up to 630 townhouses.

Apartments and two family dwellings with up to 9,500 square feet of non-residential uses.

Excluding drive-thru facilities and convenience stores with gasoline sales.

The properties are currently designated mixed-use neighborhood and place type map.

The proposed Plan Development Residential 8.346 zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type.

At the February 2nd, 2026 City Council meeting.

The case was continued to a date certain for February 16, 2026.

And thank you, staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you so much for your staff report.

Colleagues, are there any technical questions to staff?

All right.

At this time, I'll declare the public hearing open and refer to the applicant.

Welcome.

How much time do you think you need?

10.

10.

10.

All right.

Let's put 12 in the clock, please.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh, Mayor, Madam Pro Tim, and members of the city council.

My name is Laura Holliman, and I'm with McAdams representing the land planning of this project.

Address for the record is 2905 Merlin Parkway here in Durham.

Joining me tonight are Kate Murdoch, also with McAdams, Steve George of the CSC group, developer and property owner, and Rhinel Stevenson, traffic engineer with DRMP.

So thank you, staff, for the uh wonderful lead-in and wonderful work on this case thus far.

I know we've we've worked hard to bring uh the product that is before you tonight.

Uh again, some project background.

Um it is just under 53 acres and located along Angier Avenue here and uh South Miami US 70 here.

The proposed density is 8.346, which again allows for 630 townhouses, apartments, and two family dwellings, and up to 9500 square feet of non-residential use.

Again, um, as staff uh mentioned just a few minutes ago, this is right in line with the place type map, which designated this this property's next use neighborhood.

We also eliminated the use of uh the uses of gasoline or excuse me, convenience store with gasoline sales and draft three uses after neighborhood feedback and wanting to attract uh local type businesses.

The project also stipulates a minimum of 220 apartment units and a minimum of 200 townhouse units.

15 of those townhouse units shall be surface parked with no garage.

A minimum of 20 percent of townhome units shall be 1700 square feet or less.

And additionally, since planning commission, we have an we want to add an additional commitment tonight, stating that a minimum of 15 percent of those townhomes will be rearloaded, uh, accessed by an alley, therefore further diversifying unit types.

Uh this is the proposed rezoning development plan, and we've highlighted the developable area there in brown and the um protected open space area there in uh green.

We also um wanted to mention that we've increased our open space uh commitment prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

The developer shall convey to the city of Durham an open space area of at least two acres.

That's an increase uh tonight.

Previously, um, when planning commission reviewed it, it was 60,000 square feet.

And with frontage of um Angie Avenue of no less than 100 linear feet.

If the city does not accept the dedication, uh the area will be still uh be meant for public use and will be instead publicly accessible open space.

So either deeded to the city or public access easement will be recorded prior to the first CEO.

So either way, it's a um guaranteed uh public open space for folks.

Uh, should the city of Durham accept the dedication of park area?

This is a new commitment tonight.

A one-time donation of $50,000 shall be made to the Durham Parks Foundation prior to the first CEO to contribute to the development costs associated with that park.

This plan before you tonight, as you can see, does show open space throughout the development.

This is the commercial uh space here dedicated up to 9500 square feet.

And then the um idea is that the public park open space will be here along Angier Avenue as previously stated.

So we're trying to make those we've heard feedback from the city as well as uh members of the public that they really want that park uh to be close to the um exterior so folks can easily find it.

Um again, this is meant to be for the surrounding area as well as residents, so it don't make it don't make it too hard to be found.

Uh only one stream crossing is proposed, which is on the um right of way of Cortez Drive, so not much of a choice there, but it's extremely rare for a project of this size to not have any additional string crossings eternal to the site, so I wanted to point that out.

Uh also this dashed line here is the building height line.

Everything in this area to the west of it will be limited to 45 feet in height.

That is meant to uh create an appropriate transition uh to the to the neighbors in this area, and then folks um that is surrounded by open space and commercial as well as US 70, they have their they have the um higher height there.

So logic would tell you that the the apartments will be in this area and the townhomes, deplexes will be in this area.

There are many sustainable commitments with this case, additionally, subject to determination by Go Durham and Go Triangle.

The developer shall construct a bus pull out with shelter along Anger Avenue, and additionally a construction of a 10-foot shared use path along the east side of Anger.

All apartments will meet the Energy Star multifamily new construction program requirements and all street trees, vehicular use area trees, trees within permanent buffers, all must be native plantings.

So again, we we feel like we've got a pretty strong sustainable uh commitment list there.

Uh affordable housing commitment, a minimum of 8% of the apartment unit count shall be affordable as defined by the UDO, which is 60% of AMI.

Town homes and uh duplexes, 3% at 80% AMI for 30 years of the project.

I know there's been debate on that uh tonight.

The project is unique and then it focuses on both rentals and occupied underoccupied for affordable housing.

Uh all told the proposed zoning is right in line with what the city is envisioning here, and we are extremely pleased to receive a positive recommendation and planning commission.

Um a couple of y'all are on were on the city council when um the case for the portion of this uh got denied.

Um and really sometimes it takes a second look at things to really get it right.

I remember uh councilmember Baker, you said, hey, just I like a several things that you do here, but if you just come back and do things better, I think I think you all could have a chance for success.

And we're here thinking that we've provided uh puzzle pieces crucial to this.

You know, there's this has a current um approved rezoning with a with a graphic development plan for up to 350 apartments, but it really misses the mark, but because it gives no commitments to have cross access between this area and this area.

So these folks have no have no um cohesive development at all and the and you risk the developments not talking to each other, not connecting for vehicular access, pedestrian access, open spaces.

Um good on good on the odor and developer um to buy this land and really feel like hey, I've got to do something right here, I've got to make this cohesive for everybody.

So with that, um Steve George is also with me here tonight to answer any questions and thank you all for your time.

All right.

Start with my online speakers.

I have um do you have a fencing lee?

Yes.

And I'm sorry.

Steve George is not online, sir, but uh Chingwi is she's the next one, or they're the next one up.

All right, so we have um and just record were you continuing the presentation, or you're that's probably better if I could continue the presentation before I get to questions.

Yes.

Oh, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

My my apologies I thought Laura had um completed it.

No problem.

Um good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council members.

Uh my name is Steve George.

I'm with the CSC group.

We are the owners of the property in question here.

Um, and I just want to I'll probably hit a couple of the highlights that uh Laura covered here also, but just want to cover some of these items that again to put some highlights on them.

Um first off, I want to point out it showed 50 the this acreage is 75.5 acres in total.

It showed on their 52 somewhere on that on that list.

Um the I want to emphasize this plan is fully consistent with the designated place type map.

It is fully compliant with all UDAO requirements.

We meet or exceed everything on the UDO.

It meets 22 of the 24 applicable comprehensive plan policies.

And I think I could argue that the other two we actually meet also, but but we meet 22 of the 24 uh on there.

Um mentioned, we've uh proffered affordability, 3% of the townhomes at 80% AMI, 8% of the apartments at 60% AMI.

And I want to point out again, we've we've designed this so the townhome section will have three separate types of units.

We have um surface park, which will have no garages.

We will have uh typical townhome with two-car garage one and two-car garages, and then we have a rear load uh alleyway design also.

So there'll be three separate types.

The surface park will allow us also to hit actually all of these products will hit various spots in the affordability uh spectrum.

Um, and that's what we're really shooting for.

The the uh surface park, especially will be able to hit, we hope to get in the possibly the 200,000s of the high 200,000s or low 300,000s with those.

So working class um uh affordability.

Um we have uh proffered a uh school donation of $36,000, which is higher than what actually the generation would would uh would come out to.

Um the the park, I want to touch on this.

We did as Laura mentioned, we've increased the size of that to two acres, also with the 500 or $50,000 donation towards development of the of that park.

Um and we have talked with the park district, and just listening to the last case here.

Um if we if as we go forward, if we knew more about what was going to go in the park, well, if if they want the park, first off, for sure, and what's going to go in the park, we may be able to do more in terms of the development costs and help out in terms of the development uh of that park once we know the scope of what's going out there.

Um also the bus lane and shelter.

We have Dr.

Go Durham uh regarding that in our um setup to put that in if they want it.

Um the green initiatives, the energy star requirements on all apartments, electric charging station at the at the amenities for the apartments, and uh the one stream crossing, which we kept this whole area 75 acres, the one stream crossing, which was a very great design by McAdams.

I want to touch on uh Laura mentioned we've combined these two projects into one, and what it's done is a lot of the concern from the neighbors, especially was the traffic on Angier and Pleasant Drive.

Um by doing this, you'll see our two when we've redone the TIAs now with the combination.

This gives another outlet for people from Angier 270 directly to 70.

So it doesn't solve all the problems, the traffic problems, but it does make the situation better in this area because it gives another outlet for that traffic.

Uh it's a it's a plus win-win for the area in terms of the overall traffic uh flow.

Uh, we also have um committed to there will be another study done at Pleasant and Angier when we start this, and if NC DOT determines that a light is is necessary there, we are uh committed to put the the traffic light in that location.

Um I mentioned the affordability factor that we've built into this.

We think that this the townhomes especially will meet that working class um uh price range that is needed in this area for sure.

And at that point, I am available for more questions also.

Thank you.

All right, I have three speakers online.

Um Fen Ching Li, followed by John Lewis, and then Katie Ross.

Fen Ching, can you hear me?

Uh yes, I can.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is Fan Shing Li.

I am here tonight to strongly support the creekside mixed use rezoning.

Durham is growing, and that growth is exciting, but it also brings a real challenge.

Many of the very people who serve our community can no longer afford to live here.

Our teachers, firefighters, young professionals, and public workers are being priced out of the city that they dedicated their life to.

This project helped address this in a real meaningful way.

With home price in the upper 200,000s to lower 300,000, this development creates opportunities for working families, not lottery buyers, but the people who make Durham work every day.

All these would improve the traffic according to the recent TIA report.

Just as importantly, the development is consistent with Durham's long-term vision for thoughtful mixed use growth.

This is not just about zoning, it is about the future of Durham in my opinion.

And it is about whether the people who serve our community can continue to live in it.

It is about building a city that remains inclusive, vibrant, and strong.

Therefore, I respectfully urge you to approve the crease rezoning and support a project that helped ensure Durham remain a place where working families can belong.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much.

Next, I have John Lewis.

Can you hear me?

Sean, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Can you hear me?

Yes, welcome.

You have two three minutes.

All right, thank you so much.

Good evening, council and mayor.

I represent uh the neighbor of an adjacent parcel, uh 25 acres uh next to the proposed parcel.

Uh we've set through uh the planning commission meeting uh several months back.

Uh we set through the uh city council meeting a couple of weeks back.

Um we've listened diligently uh to the concerns uh of the neighbors uh at the planning commission.

Uh the very thoughtful um and very conscientious in uh their comments.

Um we feel like there are many, many challenges that come with growth uh in respect to um you know the city of uh Durham and the challenges that that that exist.

Uh we feel the development team and the ownership team um have worked diligently to meet uh the needs um for the city of Durham.

Um with that we strongly support uh the creekside development and uh encourage you to uh vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And my last virtual speaker is Katie Ross.

Ms.

Ross, can you hear me?

Johnny Ross.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, welcome.

You have three minutes.

This is Katie Ross from Behema.

And I'm just gonna uh give you some numbers that most of you are already familiar with.

Well, not just for this project, but even more so.

I'll be talking more as we get into the UDO revision.

Um, but I wanted to remind this council that the comprehensive plan for Durham uh was based on a projection of a needed for new housing unit from 2020 to 2055, uh up to 66,000 new housing units.

Um and I would also remind you that the planning department has endorsed that number, and just by running through random hearings as late as this last September, uh Scott Whiteman of the planning department will use those numbers uh in talking about the new UDO uh with the JCC PC and other uh bodies as well as they explain that.

Now that being the case, it's important we need 66,000 over 35 years or 60 uh thousand new units over 30 years.

You alone to the end of uh 2025 have approved public hearings uh 20 over 28,000 units.

Um that is way ahead of what would be necessary to make those numbers.

But when you include the administratively approved housing uh we have uh by the planning department, we've uh we're up to 85,000 new units that have been constructed or under construction or are already approved, way beyond the projected need for uh 30 years.

Uh second, the uh Lean Associate that does research for real estate investors in our area has uh steadily held for the last two years that we have a rental vacancy rate of 12 percent give or take uh uh one percent.

So it's like between 11% and 13%.

Uh that is far more than is considered a uh healthy, even by the housing gap analysis.

Uh and then the last thing I just want to throw you away because I'll be talking about this a lot more uh to you guys, uh, all the bodies and uh on my blog, and that's uh I'm writing you an open letter called Don't Be a Ga SAP.

Don't be a sap for the housing gap.

And I just wanted to put in your uh consideration that Bowen National Research that uh performed the housing gap analysis that is mentioned so often these days at your hearings by by the applicants.

Um it's actually a lobbying tool.

Uh it it was uh it's intended to help influence policy for uh thank you.

So that that's a bias, and I just want uh I'll tell you more as time goes by.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Ross.

All right.

I have in person on that number 29.

All righty, yeah, Andy Lowe.

That's just out of order.

And Paul Joffrin.

Sorry, welcome.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, City Council, uh, Mayor Pro Tem and uh Mayor Williams.

Uh my name is Andy Lowe.

I'm here to speak also in favor, just rare to say, uh, in favor of Creekside Mixed Use.

Um, as uh folks have already said this follows perhaps we have comprehensive plan, the place type map.

Uh it actually aligns with uh commenter just mentioned the LDC or the new UDO.

Uh the new UDO of this area is RX3, which is a residential mixed use district.

So this actually already follows our draft uh new zoning code and looking forward to being engaged with that process as well.

Um overall, this is already in the city.

This is technically an infill project.

This is along our major transit corridor and has a variety of housing types.

As someone who aspires to buy a house, I would also like a variety of housing types to shop for.

So do appreciate uh that.

Um so yeah, all in all, I think there was already some comments that I would associate myself with and support of this project and think we need to do a lot more of this within our city limits.

I think that comment was made as far as the village talent center, which I previously supported as well as a public commentator, but do understand it is an annexation.

This project is not, and there are lots of other ones like it and parcels like it that as we go through the LDC process, we should be zoning appropriately to be the info that we want to see.

So uh yeah, happy to support this, and uh also with the mayor.

I'm looking for a variety of housing types to shop for.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Paul, welcome.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

I need just a moment to get my slides.

Uh thank you.

There we go.

Can these slides be projected?

Uh they should pop up.

There we go.

There we go.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

Good evening.

Uh David Bromberg has a song.

Um this is what it feels like at the top of the slide.

A little less living and a whole lot less pride.

Uh I realize I'm running against the grain here.

I'm asking you to vote no on this project.

I appreciate uh Ms.

Ross's comments about capacity.

I'd like for you to take a look at this and hold this in your mind.

This is the Greater Durham almost any day at rush hour traffic times.

Notice the green 85, 15501, Interstate 40.

Notice the red uh Daily.

That's highway 70, South Miami.

It is the uh I-85 quarter.

And if I were to zoom out on Angier Drive, you would see that backed up from Glover Road towards uh Court.

A quarter of a mile and then from South Miami towards uh Bungalow.

This is a closer view.

Uh again, as you consider your vote, I would just like for you to keep this in mind.

What does traffic mean?

This is in front of our home.

Uh this is January 13th of this year.

I didn't slide in something from four years ago.

Uh this is January 13th uh in front of our home.

Traffic backed up because of accidents on these uh auxiliary roadways.

This is um an accident map.

2020 to 2024.

Accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries.

Uh 18 on the segment of Highway 70, South Miami to Miami Sharon.

Eight on Angier Avenue, circled blue is the intersection of Pleasant Drive and uh Highway 70.

Excuse me.

There we go.

Um the circled yellow, again on this accident map, is the proposed development area.

This does not include the dozens of fender benders, accidents where there were uh nominal to moderate injury.

It does not include data from 2025, including May of last year when I was run into by an uninsured motorist uh while traveling south on Angie or they were traveling north.

They tried to cut onto Glover uh at the traffic signal that had been placed there.

And it was only through breaking sharply and staring sharply that I avoided uh T-boning them.

Nonetheless, it was uh no serious injury, but it was traumatic for the 15-year-old daughter of the other driver.

Uh and it totaled my very old vehicle.

I'm not sure what happened to them.

Uh the proffers, uh two acres of a park, I appreciate that.

Less than a mile away is the 20-acre uh Hallmark, Bethesda City Park with 12 different amenities.

The affordable housing, Ms.

Ross spoke to the um uh capacity gap, and I would just encourage you to take those comments in mind as you consider your vote.

So much more to say.

Thank you.

All right, those are all the speakers I have.

Um applicant, do you have anything you want to respond to?

Uh I would just say uh to the the traffic uh issue.

Again, this was the main uh topic that came up with the with the residents when we had our neighborhood meetings.

And again, when we've combined these two projects to get that pass through that cross section to go the connection from Angier to 70.

The TIA report, if you look through our TI report with all the improvements we're going to do along with that, uh, it does improve it.

It doesn't solve all the problems.

It will not solve everything that's out there, but it does actually improve the overall traffic flow because of that connection.

And along with the turn, the turn lanes we're gonna have at all of our our driveways out on 70, up on pleasant, and the light on on pleasant will improve the entire area.

So just want to throw that out there again.

Thank you.

So therefore, at this time, does all the speakers I have, I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

Councilmember Rist.

Thank you Ms.

Mayor.

Um Mr.

George, if you yeah, I actually got a couple of questions for you.

First of all, I just want to say uh I really appreciate you coming back with uh is as I think um the attorney referenced you come back after the the I think it was maybe a more than a year ago.

So I appreciate you coming back with them with an improved project, addressing some of these connectivity things as you just talked about.

Um obviously this meets the place type map, the mixed-use neighborhood place type map.

Um the the five to six percent affordable, I think is roughly as my guess.

I mean, I th you haven't said exactly, but I think it's three percent of the foresale, eight percent of the rent if I get that right, and say, but and you haven't committed an actual number, but I'm I'm guessing it's roughly five or six percent affordable in the end.

If if you average it out probably, probably will be, yes.

Yes.

So I appreciate that.

I also appreciate as you said that the price point of the for sale units is something we haven't seen in a while.

So low if it's low 200s, that's like that's a really that's an attractive offer because that we don't we're not seeing that in our median housing price is now in the 400s, right?

Our median housing price is now in the 400s, right?

So let me if I could just jump in, because that's it, that's what we're shooting in talking to the builders with the the surface park, we hope to get to that high high 200 sound because you're right.

That number has changed over the last five years tremendously.

Um so it's something we can't commit to, but that's what we're shooting for, definitely.

Yeah.

Also, I mean you're on transit, so this is very much as uh Mr.

as the Mr.

Lowe, the the um citizen commented, this is on transit, which we you know this is a great infill project.

Um I appreciate you saying that that highway 70, as you said, like the analysis shows that it's kind of at capacity.

You've said you didn't address all problems.

I think it is worth noting that and and Councilman Cabier and I, Mayor Pertem Cavier and I are on the TPO.

Currently the TPO is studying Highway 70.

There's a study going on right now.

Our goal at the TPO is to boulevard Highway 70, right?

To address some of these so it's so I know residents sometimes say we've got concerns about infrastructure, what are you doing?

In this case, they're very much as an active plan to address the traffic on 70.

We don't want a freeway there.

We have an aggressive plan to do a boulevard there, which I think it's not gonna happen tomorrow, but I think long-term will address some of those traffic issues on 70.

Um I appreciate the the park proffer that's strong with the two acres and the donation as well to the DPR Foundation.

And I appreciate this the proffer to the schools, a very strong offer there.

I just had a couple of questions.

Um is so I know from the from the um planning commission report, they mentioned that you didn't uh reference a minimum number of duplexes or a minimum number of square footage for the commercial.

So I wonder if you would be willing to commit to some minimum to make sure so we have some assurance there is a mixture of of apartments, townhomes, and duplexes.

So would you be willing to commit to a minimum number of duplexes?

So that we have some assurance that that housing form will be part of the development.

Um we feel very strongly that with the the three types of town homes that we're showing that we've really shown a good mix of product.

The the duplexes is something we would prefer not to not to build out there.

Um again I think you prefer not.

Not yes.

But but the plan does call for duplexes, right?

We're showing we're showing townhomes, townhomes on everything.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

So the so the says town houses townhomes, apartments, and two family.

Isn't that the isn't that the three types?

Am I missing something?

Maybe maybe I'm confused in terms of the Do we have the duplexes on the slides.

I think.

So your your question was are they an allowed use?

You're correct, they are.

Right.

I guess again, from the planning commission, I think there was the the question, would the uh applicant be willing to proffer a minimum number so that we so that we can be assured that that housing because I think we do want a mix of housing types across the city so that we would have some assurance that would be some of those duplexes in the in the mix.

Yes, we could.

Um, give me one second.

Okay.

If we could put in the if we could commit to 10 percent of them to be duplexes.

Minimum 10 percent.

Minimum 10 percent.

Yes.

Appreciate that.

Yes.

And then also on the the um the non-res the square footage for non-residential, would you be willing to commit to some minimum just to ensure again that this that this is a mix of uses with com with non-residential and residential?

Please, I I'm sorry, ask the question again.

Yeah.

So again, this goes back to the planning commission, the the request to have um some minimum number of square feet of non-residential use.

Just because it because the plan calls for non-residential uses, but there's no commitment to a minimum amount of square footage.

But we we do have we do have a um uh 9500 square foot of commercial on the site.

That that's that you that's committed, you mean.

Yes, yes, yeah, a minimum minimum of 9500 square foot of commercial.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Is that yeah?

I don't think it's a minimum.

Yeah.

I think it's it's it's stated as a maximum, but he just stated that he's willing to revise that to the willing to rise to the minimum of the okay.

I appreciate that.

Then the last question, I appreciate your your um um willingness to to consider that.

The last thing is I know and we um I'm a member of the bicycle and pedestrian advisor committee, and they always submit comments as you as you know for um proposals.

So um they've asked about the the having raised crosswalks within the development.

It's a way to calm traffic and also provide greater safety to pedestrians.

I know in the in your response you said we'll evaluate that at the site plan, but I wonder if you would consider doing raised crosswalks for all those for all the internal roads within the development.

So all internal roads?

Yeah, we're we're the we're the where the crosswalks cross the internal roads, yeah.

Internal roads, yeah.

Is there any transportation concerns with the race crosswalks with emergency access and things like that?

So I think that's something we want to consider and evaluate at site plan based on the layout um of the road network and so you're saying staff is not comfortable uh sort of require that.

And can you say more about that?

It's that type of feature does add an amount of delay for emergency response, um, particularly if the roadway is designated as a um primary route.

Um it's it really depends.

We that's just something we'd like to evaluate at some point.

That's fine.

I'll accept the stack recommendation there.

Pursuit, Mr.

George.

Thank you.

I think this is a great project.

Um I'm happy to support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Cook.

Um thank you.

And thanks to Councilmember Rist, because I felt like he was reading off my sheet with some of those questions.

So a lot of my things have been addressed.

I am wondering about the um the townhouse uh commitment for uh affordability.

I my understanding is that that is those are for sale units, and that part is capped at 3% of affordable.

Is that true?

On the town home on the for sale unit, 3%, yes.

Um are you are we willing to add the duplexes that you've just committed into that affordability?

That would be the foresale.

Yeah, all four sale of the city.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure because it I think it's specifically staton houses.

Um are y'all willing to add any to that 3%?

And I'd and I'm curious to know if you would add any, I would love it to be at affordable, but I would also be open to it being at a higher AMI, like at 100% or 120% AMI, even uh just to have some income restriction on it.

What if we did the so what if we did the 3% at the 3% at 80 and another 2% at 100 to make a total of 5%?

That would that sounds great to me.

Thank you.

Yes, that would be amazing.

All right.

Um we got the minimum retail, which was interesting.

Um you had mentioned earlier when you were speaking that y'all might be interested in adding even more commitment to a park uh depending on development.

Are are you is there a way that we could word like a match type situation up to a certain amount that y'all would be willing to additionally proffer?

I'm just wondering how we could capture uh potential additional investment that y'all would be willing to make if the park was built.

I mean, we've had a number of discussions about this park, and that's what the the unknown thing is if we knew what was going in the park and what was going to go there, we could be a little more open about this, I guess.

It's just um you know, if you're gonna put in 20 uh pickleball courts, that's gonna be a different cost than that's something else.

So that's that's the only real holdback.

But yes, we're doing some sort of matching, yes, up to a up to a point, I guess.

Staff would you help us?

Yeah, of course it would be a maximum.

Could you could you help us like think through an option there?

Yeah, uh in parks and rec.

So um the applicant has been very communicative with us and expressed their openness to work with us to build something.

I think part of the thing that we're struggling with a little bit is there are a lot of other parks in this area, right?

And so we want to have something here that's well intentioned that's filling gaps in amenities or responding to a specific circumstance.

So because we don't really know what that park needs to look like right now, it's hard to then you know telegraph that to the applicant and have them commit to it.

Um if there is additional need, then we ask for a match up to a certain amount.

I am not sure of you know like the legal mechanism of that.

Um I I think that the route they're taking now is to donate to the parks foundation.

I think they could obviously increase that if they would like to, but because we don't know what it is, it's hard to tell them again what that match is going to be, what the magnitude might be.

I don't know if that's fully answering question.

I yes.

I mean I I understand what you're saying.

So the 50,000 is not a contribution necessarily to this park specifically.

It is a contribution to the to a parked fund, which we would then utilize if we were to build a park if that if Durham if the city decides to build a park on that land.

That's a great question.

So if the applicant were to donate to the Parks Foundation, that could actually be reserved for construction of that specific park.

It could be restricted to building that.

If they were donating it to the city in general, my understanding is that would just be at our discretion.

There's no way to really earmark it just for that portion.

Which is why they've, I think, done the parks foundation route, because then it can be specifically set aside for them.

Earmarked for that.

And so I and maybe there's some could someone else maybe answer that question about whether or not there could be a potential increase in match if there was a Yes, it's my turn to phone a friend tonight.

Thank you.

Good evening.

So as long as the proffer is voluntary on their part, we could um and the attorney's office doesn't have any reservations.

We could work on this as a little bit groundbreaking.

Like I don't think we've done a proffer like this, but as long as it was voluntary on their part and there was some agreed upon way that Parks and Rec would determine at the proper time what the actual need was that they were satisfied with.

Yeah, I'm thinking about something like if the city decides to build a park and if the cost of the park exceeds the amount that's already been proffered, then the applicant could match up to an additional 50,000 or whatever it is, something like that.

Is that something that y'all would be interested in working out language on?

Do you have a number of things?

We need to summarize that, but but something like that, yes.

Did you uh did you have a number, Max in mind that you would be interested in in doing a match if if needed or if requested?

I mean we would could could we just throw out there maybe there's an easier way to do this.

Um and I don't want to go back to the last case, but the last case they donated 250,000, okay, and they had 2500 units or whatever like that.

Much bigger than ours.

What if what if we just opted and said we will donate 100,000?

Okay.

That makes things easier.

Okay.

And again, to the point, that's for this park, not for the general fund.

Right.

To the foundation ear march for this park.

Okay.

Thank you.

Everyone calls that.

Okay.

And then my last question is um do you all have interest in green building standards for the other buildings outside of the energy star for the apartment.

I'm sorry, asking you.

Have y'all considered inner uh any green building standards for any of the other buildings on the site outside of the apartment.

We didn't, we didn't codify those, but we've talked to it really depends on the build.

There's a number of builders we're talking to in our group that that may come in, uh sort of usual ones you've heard of.

Um they have different they do different things.

We we definitely are encouraging that.

Most of the builders want to do that type thing.

So it's a little higher hard to codify on the for sales side.

Okay.

But yes, we're definitely interested in doing that.

Yeah.

Okay.

But nothing further to commit tonight.

I don't know how we would do that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I just want to echo um the statements that I do appreciate y'all coming back with I've what appears to me to be a really well thought out uh project that really like meets the needs of this area.

So uh thank you and thank you for the hard work on the traffic stuff.

I know that that's of course we uh we don't we we would love for folks to come and with the development solve all of the infrastructure issues.

And I know that that is not always how that works.

Um, but I do appreciate the intentionality behind that.

So thank you very much for that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I think my colleagues have touched on most of the questions that I had, so I appreciate that.

Um I recognize the the traffic impacts, and it was definitely um struck me the map that was shared by by the resident um uh about incidents that have happened.

I'm um uh I'm glad to see that that there will be an improvement, though we can't fully mitigate and make those promises, but hopefully that should help channel folks uh away from 70 and mitigate some of that and also glad to hear about the the work of the the TPO around uh working toward a boulevard.

So I'm excited about that.

Um also just want to uh you know recognize uh you know some of the the commitments that that you've made above and beyond, but once again, I think my colleagues have really touched on those, so I I don't need to repeat those.

Um you did mention that you felt like you could make an argument that you meet the remaining two policies, um policy 81, policy 85.

Um those were uh those were uh issues brought up by some of our planning commissioners uh for reasons why they had concerns about the project, even as they acknowledge some of the benefits uh that this project is offering.

Um just go ahead and make the commitments to meet those policies so that you uh uh actually hit 100 percent of the comp plan policies.

Uh that would be you know, the committing to having remaining open space uh located uh in the environmentally sensitive areas of the site and going above the minimum of of tree coverage.

Yeah, we definitely can commit to the remaining open space to be within the reparian buffers that are that are currently there.

Absolutely, yes.

Yeah, we can do that.

All right.

It's it's just uh uh going above the UDO minimum for tree coverage, tree save.

Um, what would you consider substantial what would you consider above the the minimum that would that would make a difference?

And I want to say I want to acknowledge that in any site like this, you're you're balancing different needs, right?

You're trying to make sure you have sufficient housing uh on the site while also having the protection of the riparian buffers, while also protecting the trees.

Um, I'm not looking for a massive increase in this.

I just would like to see it go above the minimum.

Uh and so even just a couple percentage points above uh I think shows an F you know an effort as you've shown in other areas to try and keep this balance of kind of ecological protection and the space for for people to live.

So we will commit to add another acre of tree coverage to the site.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

And once again, I think all of these these projects are a matter of balance, but I do really like this as an in field project.

Um I appreciate the parks commitments that you've come forward with, especially with the enhanced proffers this evening.

And you know, it's just important to reflect upon just one more time in addition to the affordability, like the income restricted affordable housing commitments, also the effort to provide diverse housing types, you know, in some cases of varying sizes to try and help hit a price point that helps more working people to be able to live and work and remain in our city, and I think that's so critical.

Um that was also very uh attractive part of this proposal, and I look forward to supporting it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh two questions here.

Um staff.

Um when I open up the zoning map change reporto.

So this case was before this case was um two years ago, it was the Cortez uh rezoning case, right?

Um I proudly voted against that case.

Um and it and it failed 3-3.

There was a missing council member.

When I look at the staff report, um there's a link next to legacy cases.

Uh when I click on the link, it takes me to a development plan um that is the eastern portion that that was added here.

And in that we see text commitments, there's a text commitment for 10 percent uh of apartment units will be affordable.

So my question is would this change uh on that on the eastern site is is there currently a commitment for 10 percent affordable units?

With this rezoning, that D plan that's on that's on the books would go away.

And so theoretically that 10 percent would reduce to whatever this new development plan is.

So this would actually reduce the required affordable units on that eastern site from 10 percent to what is it, eight or nine percent?

I believe it's eight, yeah.

Yeah, but we have eight eight percent now on the apartment site.

It's eight eight percent, you said?

Yes, yes.

But currently it's 10 percent as it's approved according to the legacy case.

And I apologize for this late question, but I I this is a section of the staff report that I haven't seen before.

And I clicked on the link and I'm looking at the development plan.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding and that we're not losing potential affordable units.

Sorry to put you on the spot there.

Uh the second question I have while you guys take a look at that is um we talked a little bit about um just the pedestrian-oriented nature of uh the the non-residential buildings.

Um and I I don't know.

I might have missed it.

Did you commit to that or are you interested in committing to that?

Committing to again what's the pedestrian-oriented design for the non-residential units?

Yes, yes.

Non-residential commer uh buildings.

Right.

So with that commitment, you're stating that the buildings front on a public right-of-way and that with minimum 12-foot sidewalks, is that what you're referencing?

Okay.

Yeah, we're we're comfortable with that.

I know there was there was talk about um committing to design standards in the UDO.

That would that would already default.

So we couldn't list that as a commitment because it has to be you know above and beyond.

So you you know it would it would um the buildings would already um when those were under review um be held to the building design standards under the any current UDO.

But can we can we commit to all this?

Yes.

We're willing to do that.

So we would commit to uh uh proffer that commercial uses shall be designed for pedestrians and accessible to neighborhood residents by fronting the buildings onto public right-of-ways with a minimum twelve-foot-wide sidewalks and street trees, and using sidewalks and greenways to connect to the residential buildings.

Is that all right?

Is that too loosey goosey?

Do you mind repeating that?

We were giving you a copy of the yeah.

Um you want me to read it off?

Yeah.

Commercial uses shall be designed for pedestrians and accessible to neighborhood residents by fronting buildings onto public right-of-way with minimum 12-foot wide sidewalks and street trees and using sidewalks and greenways to connect to residential buildings.

That's fine.

Okay.

All right.

Um, yes, thanks for giving us a couple minutes to to compare and contrast.

So the old development plan was capped at 350 units.

So you have to do the percentage on that versus this percentage, which is on I think the total is 630 uh units.

So you would, by my quick math, likely get more under this new scenario in actual units.

Okay.

All right.

That's all.

I won't be before you long.

I want to thank you all for your patience.

I know this part has kind of fell up the deposition a little bit with all the different requests.

Well, and thank you for being able to.

We love this.

I bet you do.

I don't, but no.

Um I thank you for your commitment to affordable housing.

I do wish that we could have more, like maybe if that park was an additional unit affordable house, we're not going to press our luck tonight because I know you have been very generous thus far.

I will um say that I am not really thrilled about the traffic situation in this area.

And I know that there are plans in TPO, but I think thinking about our neighbors now who are going to experience some of that congestion.

So it's not for, you know, um, I know that you say it's going to improve it, but it I just want to matter at this point.

So I just want to thank you all for um your generosity.

And I look forward to the day we actually have a plan for affordable housing.

Umistically across Durham that we're just not doing three units over here and three units over there because you build it does not mean that everyone who is here can accept is not necessary for everyone who is here.

So I just want to put that out for folks on the record who have this theory that if you build housing that it will um provide more folks for homes.

We see that population decline is real here in Durham, and so we are pushing some folks out or welcome other folks in.

I want Durham to be a place for all people, particularly those who live and work in a city who look like me to be able to stay here, and we had a lot of lines come um homes come online and we are seeing our population decline.

So just want to put that out publicly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I I want to follow up on the affordability question.

I'm I'm looking at this and I see that there's 220 at a minimum apartment units, and those are the ones that are affordability at 8%.

I don't know what the math was that we just did, but I'm not sure that it follows the same thing.

Well, that's the I guess the minimum number of apartments.

Is that it could increase beyond that?

Right.

But I think pre council member cook if if if you do it by that math, I think you do 630 minus 200 because we have a minimum commitment of 200 townhouse units.

And so the math would be based on 8% of 430.

Math is not my strong city, I just want to be really clear.

Uh I'm a lawyer.

That's uh sort of like the running joke.

Um I just I heard us talk about a 600 number, and I don't think that there's a 600 number here that I'm seeing.

Because the 8 percent is only for the apartment units.

So I just want to make sure I'm not sure.

The maximum what we're seeking, the maximum is 630 units.

Yes, total.

Total.

But that's not that's not the calculation for this this percentage of affordability that we were just doing.

Correct?

Yeah.

Sorry, let me clarify.

I'm glad you brought that up.

Okay.

So it is a minimum eight percent of the apartment count and a minimum of three percent of the townhouse or duplex count.

So those two combined.

And again, I haven't actually done math math.

Um, it's a guesstimate that it would likely be the same or more because there is a greater number of total units uh included in this.

And if I could just clarify we all we already have agreed to actually five percent of the sale now, too.

Yeah, that's right.

Just want to point that out.

That's right, income restricted, not affordable.

That was income restricted, not affordable, right?

The additional two percent was at 100 percent AMI.

So it's it's yeah, just making sure.

Okay.

All right.

I'm gonna sit down with some maths, but this would be great.

Mr.

Mayor just one last comment.

I I know one of the residents um was talking about that we're way beyond projected need of housing already in Durham.

And I just want to say, I mean, I I appreciate this because I think what we're dealing with here in Durham is a growing city.

And I think from the information we got last Friday at our budget retreat, we're growing by 5,000 people net a year.

So we need more housing.

Um we also know um that from the from the housing task force report that uh uh Mayor Pratem Cabiera led, we have a gap of 12,000 units of affordable housing we need in Durham.

So this is part of filling that gap.

Um I think the other thing to note is that people sometimes talk about vacancy rates here, there, whatever there's talk about that.

Um we also learned in our conversations about the Durham minimum livable wage, which is based on fair market rents, that the most recent year of data for the fair market rents shows fair market rents is actually going down uh on total between that that most recent year and the previous year.

So rents are going down because we're building more housing, and so this is a big part of that.

I just want to address that because we do need affordable housing desperately in the city.

So thank you.

Just as a follow-up as an actual renter, just because rents are going down, we are also being faced with exorbitant fees as well, like your trash fee.

So while you might have a 1200 base rent, you might end up with a 1,500.

So I would ask we're empathetic of the journeys of other people.

I know there are data points, but there's also anecdotal information and lived experiences, though.

So I would encourage folks.

And you are on the board for one of the large afforders of affordable housing, which is Durham Housing Authority.

So maybe worth you know, engaging folks and learning more about their actual experience is what the rental industry is since you are privileged to have home ownership on your side.

Thank you.

Bruce, I don't think you need to educate me here in the council.

Yeah, I can make my comments, and that's my comments.

You don't need to you don't need to educate me about that.

Yeah, yep.

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Um the comments and questions.

Uh just I I just want to put in the context quickly.

The average home cost in the city of Durham is about 425,000.

Um I think that you know these are gonna probably fill up quickly.

Uh it's uh it's a very attractive, attractive site.

Uh I mean, like I said, any any development is going to cause a little change and it's gonna feel uncomfortable initially, but uh I think this is uh a great project, and I do appreciate you guys going back, making it better and then coming coming here uh with a really good case uh in a in a part of the city that's that's growing, developing, and hopefully we get some jobs that are you know um coming up in that area hopefully soon, and then you know that'll be even better where it will make you know um being able to live work and play a reality.

And I understand that, you know, the center of city or the city center is not the only place where we're going to have density.

Um there are going to be other parts of the city that are going to grow out like 15501 university area and the Rockwood area.

You know, they are commercial pockets that have residential around them.

And folks live there.

Not everybody's going to want to come downtown.

So I I look forward to continuing to develop in those communities like like what we're doing in Eastorm.

East storm has been underinvested for a long time.

So I'm going to call for this.

Yeah, let's clarify those.

Okay.

First, there's a minimum of 15% of townhouse students shall be rearloaded and excess via an alleyway.

There's an update to Text Amendment 12 to at least uh at least two acres of land to dedicate to parks and rec.

Subclause, a one-time donation of 100,000 shall be made to the Durham Parks Foundation.

A minimum of 10% of duplex units.

Okay.

Thank you.

And there is a proffer to provide the remaining open space to be located in environmentally sensitive areas.

And then there's one additional acre of tree coverage to be provided.

And then there is a pedestrian uh connectivity clause or a commitment.

Right.

Yeah.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And so therefore, colleagues, I'll entertain a motion to authorize the city manager to enter to a enter into a utility extension agreement with the NGO Investment LLC.

So it's been moved and probably seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Boom.

All right.

I'll also entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance by taking property out of residential suburban 20 residential suburban multifamily with the development plan, Falls Jordan watershed overlay district B and establishing the same as Plan Development Residential 8.346 Falls Jordan watershed overlay district B.

So moved.

Second.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And lastly, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute 6 section 60 section 160 D-605.

So moved.

Second.

Open the vote.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Let the record reflect council member Baker voted in 100% of development cases tonight.

And I was with them.

All right.

That is our that is our agenda tonight.

Everyone, please get some rest and uh look forward to seeing you all throughout the week.