[0:20] Good evening everyone. I'd like to call the Durham City Council

[0:23] meeting to order on the fourth day of May, 2026 at 7 p.m..

[0:27] Thank you so much for being here. If I could invite

[0:29] everyone to please join me in a moment of silent meditation.

[0:42] Thank you. Council Member Rist. If you'd like to lead us in the

[0:45] Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. If it

[0:47] is your practice, I invite you to rise with me and recite the

[0:49] Pledge of Allegiance. For. Okay.

[1:00] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

[1:05] And to the republic for which it stands. One nation under

[1:10] God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[1:24] Thank you. Madam clerk, could you please call the roll?

[1:26] Yes, indeed. Mayor Williams has an excused absence, but I

[1:30] believe is delayed and will be here shortly.

[1:33] Mayor Pro Tem Caballero here. Council Member Baker here.

[1:37] Council Member Burris here. Council Member Cook has

[1:40] received an excuse absence for this evening. Council Member

[1:43] Kopac here. Council Member Rist here. Thank you.

[1:48] Thank you. We have several ceremonial items this evening,

[1:51] so I'm going to invite Council Member Kopac to kick us off

[1:54] with the Drinking Water Week proclamation. Can you hear me

[2:01] now? Thank you. Raindrop or not, tonight? I

[2:12] don't know. Can you come to my left here?

[2:19] All right. Good evening. This evening. Good evening everyone.

[2:22] It's my pleasure this evening to read a proclamation on

[2:25] behalf of Drinking Water Week. And I'm glad to have Mr. Ralph

[2:29] Horn up here with me today with our Williams water treatment,

[2:35] one of our Williams water treatment plant operator with

[2:37] the City of Durham. So thank you for your service and thanks

[2:39] for being here this evening. Thank you sir.

[2:40] Yeah. So proclamation. Whereas water is a fundamental and

[2:44] essential need of all living things. And whereas tap water

[2:48] consistently provides public health protection, fire

[2:52] protection and economic support for the quality of life we

[2:54] enjoy. And whereas the city delivers a dependable supply of

[2:58] high quality, award winning drinking water. And whereas as

[3:02] stewards, we must continue to support investment in water

[3:04] infrastructure to meet the needs of future generations.

[3:07] And whereas the city stands as a leader in source water

[3:11] protection and recognizes the potential impacts of climate

[3:14] change on this vital resource. And whereas dedicated

[3:18] individuals and organizations have made significant

[3:20] contributions to developing, operating and maintaining our

[3:24] water systems and educating the public about their value. Now,

[3:28] therefore, I. Leonardo Williams mayor of the City of Durham,

[3:31] North Carolina, do hereby proclaim May 3rd to the fifth,

[3:34] 2026 as Drinking Water Week in the City of Durham and

[3:38] encourage all residents to recognize and celebrate the

[3:40] staff who produce, manage and maintain the city water

[3:43] resources and support a more sustainable community by

[3:46] practicing water wise habits. Signed on this day, May 4th,

[3:51] Leonardo Williams Mayor. Thank you, thank you, thank

[3:57] you, thank you that thank. Good evening. My name is Ralph

[4:07] Horn. I'm an operator at the Williams Water Treatment

[4:10] facility. I thank you guys for taking the time tonight to

[4:13] recognize the vital role safe water drinking plays in all of

[4:16] our lives. Just like our police, fire, emergency

[4:20] responders and operators, water professionals work around the

[4:23] clock to keep public health and the community safe. It is an

[4:27] honor for me to accept this proclamation on behalf of my

[4:30] fellow operators in the water management, supply and drinking

[4:33] division and all it all employees of the City of

[4:36] Durham's Department of Water Management. Our team of more

[4:39] than 380 professionals works 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to

[4:44] ensure that all customers have access to one of the most basic

[4:47] human needs clean and safe drinking water. We've had a

[4:51] very dry spring. Durham's water supply has been on everyone's

[4:55] mind, and it will continue to be so until we have a good

[4:58] storm that fills reservoirs back up and eventually the

[5:01] public will, it fade from the public mind. Still, I would

[5:05] like to inform the mayor, the city council and the public to

[5:08] know that water management will still be working on your water

[5:10] supply around the clock diligently to maintain it. As

[5:15] Durham continues to grow, so does the number of customers

[5:18] who rely on us every day for their drinking water. For this

[5:21] reason, it is important that we plan today to provide for

[5:24] Durham's future tomorrow. I said that right, right. Our

[5:33] department is in the planning phase for building a water

[5:35] intake at Jordan Lake and a new water treatment plant in South

[5:40] Durham. This is part of a multiyear project to meet

[5:42] Durham's needs, known as the Jordan Light Water Supply

[5:45] Program. And you can hear. Adequate

[5:55] supply. We also to educate the next generation about the

[5:58] importance of drinking water each year. I wonder if it's the

[6:02] same spot as a poster contest that highlights the value of

[6:05] more choosing are starting to drop, and we can to 300 entries

[6:10] making judgments. It's quite a challenge. We are not fine with

[6:15] the artwork, but our. And we're very proud of our. Our fans and.

[6:35] To live and work. Thank you. That.

[6:54] To. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you sir.

[7:22] Good evening everyone. It's my honor to read the Taiwanese

[7:25] American Heritage Week proclamation. Is Chris Daly

[7:29] here? Thank you for joining me. Whereas since 1999, elected

[7:44] officials across the United States have observed the week

[7:46] following Mother's Day at Mother's Day as Taiwanese

[7:49] American Heritage Week. And Whereas the City of Durham

[7:51] values its diverse community and recognizes the important

[7:53] cultural, economic and civic contributions of Taiwanese

[7:56] Americans. And Whereas, in the face of ongoing challenges, it

[8:00] is important to recognize and celebrate the heritage and

[8:02] contributions of the Taiwanese American community. And

[8:05] Whereas, the United States and Taiwan share a strong

[8:08] partnership rooted in democracy, freedom, and human

[8:10] rights, supported by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and the

[8:15] Six Assurances of 1982. And Whereas, Taiwanese American

[8:19] Heritage Week provides an opportunity to celebrate these

[8:22] contributions and the diversity that strengthens our community.

[8:24] Now there are four I. Leonardo Williams, mayor of the City of

[8:27] Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim May 10th

[8:29] through 17th, 2026 as Taiwanese American Heritage Week in the

[8:33] City of Durham and encourage all residents to recognize and

[8:35] celebrate the contributions and heritage of Taiwanese

[8:38] Americans. Witness my hand in the Corporate seal of the City

[8:40] of Durham, North Carolina. This fourth day of May, 2026.

[8:52] Mayor Williams. And members of the City

[8:54] Council, thank you for taking the time and effort to approve

[8:57] and sign this proclamation celebrating Taiwanese American

[9:00] Heritage Week. Durham has a rich history of welcoming

[9:04] people from all over the world, and this proclamation

[9:06] beautifully demonstrates that spirit of acceptance. While I

[9:11] am not myself a Taiwanese American, my wife who is with

[9:14] us tonight, is a first generation Taiwanese American.

[9:17] Just last month, she celebrated three years as a US citizen. In

[9:21] nearly six years as a proud Durham resident. I am also the

[9:24] father of two young boys, Taiwanese Americans, who were

[9:27] both born right here at Duke Regional Hospital. The

[9:30] proclamation referenced Taiwan's resilience and

[9:33] perseverance in the face of ever growing geopolitical

[9:36] challenges. And I just want to say, for my family, those

[9:38] challenges are deeply personal. And now, more than ever, I

[9:42] worry about my son's future. Taiwan faces constant,

[9:45] unprovoked posturing from its much larger neighbor to the

[9:48] west. On a recent family trip to visit my wife's family, we

[9:53] stopped at Hualien, on Taiwan's east coast. The peaceful

[9:56] serenity was interrupted every few hours by F-16 fighter jets

[9:59] roaring into the skies. We learned that these jets are

[10:03] constantly scrambling to intercept military aircraft

[10:05] from the People's Liberation Army. Entering Taiwan's air

[10:08] defense identification zone without permission. This hits

[10:12] close to home for me, because if my sons choose to maintain

[10:16] their dual citizenship into adulthood, they will be

[10:18] required to serve in the Taiwanese military and possibly

[10:21] defend Taiwan from an invading force. Because of this reality,

[10:25] this proclamation is not mere platitudes. It is a declaration

[10:29] of solidarity. Tonight you have told my wife, my children and

[10:33] all Taiwanese Americans living in Durham, across North

[10:36] Carolina, and even the United States. We see you. We value

[10:40] your heritage, and we stand with you in your quest for

[10:43] freedom and democracy. Durham has a rich history of

[10:47] supporting the oppressed, whether supporting refugees

[10:50] fleeing the threat of war or standing up against systemic

[10:54] racial injustices that were taking place here at home.

[10:57] Durham is a city for good. And tonight, once again, you have

[11:01] chosen to stand up for the marginalized in our community.

[11:04] Thank you. Good evening. I will be

[11:26] presenting the Firefighters Day Proclamation. So if chiefs.

[11:29] Could please come up and Durham Fire and Rescue.

[11:39] Whereas firefighters serve the City of Durham with courage,

[11:42] dedication and professionalism, responding to emergencies at

[11:45] all hours to protect lives and property and the safety of our

[11:47] community. And whereas firefighters placed themselves

[11:50] in harm's way to safeguard residents and visitors,

[11:53] demonstrating extraordinary commitment to public service

[11:56] and the well-being of others. And Whereas International

[11:59] Firefighters Day is observed annually on May 4th to

[12:02] recognize and honor firefighters around the world

[12:04] for their bravery, sacrifice and unwavering service, their

[12:07] communities. And Whereas this day also provides an

[12:10] opportunity to remember and honor firefighters who have

[12:12] been injured or who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the

[12:15] line of duty. And whereas the Durham Fire Department proudly

[12:18] serves the whole city through emergency response, fire

[12:21] prevention efforts, public safety, education and community

[12:24] outreach initiatives that help keep residents safe. And

[12:27] whereas recognizing International Firefighters Day

[12:29] highlights the essential role of firefighters play in

[12:31] protecting our community and provides an opportunity for

[12:34] residents to express their appreciation for their service

[12:36] and sacrifice. Now, therefore, I. Leonardo Williams, mayor of

[12:40] the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim

[12:43] May 4th, 2026 as International Firefighters Day in the City of

[12:47] Durham and encourage all residents to recognize the

[12:49] dedication, bravery and service of firefighters and to aim to

[12:54] express their gratitude for the work they do to protect our

[12:56] community. Witness my hand the corporate seal of the City of

[12:59] Durham, North Carolina. This fourth day of May, 2026. May

[13:02] 4th be with you. All.

[13:08] Thank you very much. Madam Mayor Pro Tem, members of

[13:21] the City Council. Good evening. My name is Bob. I have the

[13:25] pleasure of serving as the fire chief of this great city. With

[13:27] me tonight are two members. They did come up. I was afraid

[13:30] that they would hide in the back of the Durham Fire

[13:33] Department, who have great significance. I have one of our

[13:35] most senior and one of our most junior members with me tonight.

[13:39] Our department senior members, Captain Travis Melvin, who

[13:41] graduated in August of 1994 from Academy eight. Travis is

[13:45] our longest serving member in operations, saving and saving

[13:48] lives and property in the city for over 32 years. Cap melvin's

[13:52] other duties include serving as the liaison to 911 and as a

[13:56] response plan specialist, where he designs and implements

[13:59] response strategies for the city. Travis also serves as the

[14:02] president of Bull City Firefighters, one of our three

[14:04] employee groups. Capt Melvin is assigned to Engine Company one,

[14:07] quartered right across the street at 139 East Morgan

[14:10] Street, and he's a native Durham Light, our department's

[14:13] junior members, firefighter Davon Blackwell, who graduated

[14:18] on April 17th, 2026, on from Academy 45 year. Blackwell

[14:23] graduated with 26 other new firefighter just 17 days ago.

[14:26] And while they're all equally junior, if you will, I asked

[14:30] Davon specifically to represent our newest members tonight

[14:32] because he was picked by his peers to represent them at

[14:35] their academy class. Graduation. Fifer Blackwell is also

[14:38] assigned in company one. He's originally from San Bernardino,

[14:41] California, and I'd love to say our recruitment is just that

[14:44] good that we grabbed him in California. He came to the area

[14:48] to finish college, and then later he took his son to visit

[14:51] a firehouse. And, well, the rest is history Council. Thank

[14:55] you so much for recognizing the great work of your firefighters

[14:58] tonight. The officers and members of the Durham Fire

[15:00] Department protect the lives, property and environment of the

[15:02] city. 24 over 365 your fire department does that by

[15:06] responding to fires, medical emergencies, auto accidents,

[15:09] hazardous materials incidents, technical rescue, entrapment,

[15:12] and all manner of other events that require life saving and

[15:15] caring skill. We were called to help. Three I'm sorry. 35,805

[15:21] times in 2025, and we always answer that call so that, you

[15:25] know, to answer that many. Number one calls for service.

[15:27] The DFD had to respond 52,000 times. And to provide our high

[15:32] level of service to the community, we trained over

[15:34] 108,000 hours during the year. Your fire department also works

[15:38] very hard to prevent the 911 call from happening in the

[15:41] first place. Through fire code enforcement and strong public

[15:44] safety education efforts, including three summer youth

[15:46] camps. Today is International Firefighters Day, a day set

[15:50] aside to recognize firefighters from all across our world who

[15:52] put their lives on the line to save others. In the United

[15:56] States, there are over a million firefighters. Here in

[15:58] Durham, there's 449 men and women keeping our communities

[16:01] safe. On behalf of all of them, thank you very much for the

[16:04] kind and thoughtful recognition of their strong work. Thank you.

[16:10] Thank you very much. All right. Good evening,

[16:42] everyone. I'd like to call forward Gregory Williams and

[16:45] David Braddock from Bike Durham. It is bike month. I'm

[16:48] going to don my bike helmet since I biked in for bike

[16:50] month, as did Council Member Kopac, who's also going to join

[16:53] me here. So whereas Mayor's National Bike Month, a

[16:59] celebration of biking as transportation, recreation and

[17:03] community connection that benefits public health,

[17:06] environmental sustainability and quality of life. And

[17:10] whereas the City of Durham continues to invest in its

[17:13] bicycle and pedestrian network, including $75 million for new

[17:18] and repaired sidewalks via the successful 2024 connector and

[17:22] bond issue. And Whereas, the City of City and County of

[17:26] Durham continue to plan for strategic expansion of biking

[17:30] and walking networks via the Durham Bike and Walk Plan,

[17:34] charting a course toward a safer, more connected and more

[17:37] equitable transportation system. And whereas May 6th is

[17:42] bike walk and roll to school day, when students, parents and

[17:46] educators across Durham are encouraged to travel to school

[17:49] by foot, by bicycle or other active means throughout the

[17:53] month of May. And whereas May 9th is the Bull City Bike

[17:57] Stampede, a ride organized by Bike Durham. Thank you all.

[18:01] When cyclists of all ages take to Durham streets together to

[18:04] celebrate and advocate for safer infrastructure for all,

[18:09] and whereas May 11th through 17th is Bike to Work Week, when

[18:14] commuters across Durham are encouraged to swap car trips

[18:17] for bike trips, reducing emissions and promoting health

[18:20] and economic benefits of cycling as transportation and

[18:25] bike. Durham will host the annual Ride of Silence on May

[18:29] 20th. A memorial ride through downtown Durham to honor those

[18:33] killed or injured while biking, affirming that every traffic

[18:37] death is preventable. Now, therefore, I Leonardo Williams,

[18:42] mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby

[18:44] proclaim May 2026 as National Bike Month in the City of

[18:49] Durham and encourage all residents to ride, walk and

[18:51] roll this month in the Bull City. Witness my hand and the

[18:54] corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina. This

[18:56] fourth day of May, 2026. Leonardo Williams mayor.

[19:15] Thank you, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem and members of

[19:18] City Council for this proclamation. Recognizing May

[19:22] as National Bike Month in Durham. My name is David

[19:25] Bradwell. I volunteer with Bike Durham as the advocacy

[19:28] co-chair. I for the past five years have been biking my kid

[19:34] to Echo Elementary in Old West Durham, and I've been biking to

[19:37] work for much longer. On behalf of Bike Durham, I'm grateful

[19:41] for the city's partnership and its commitment to making Durham

[19:45] streets safer and more welcoming for everyone who

[19:48] walks, bikes and rolls. This proclamation reflects not just

[19:53] a celebration, but a shared commitment to the work ahead.

[19:57] This month, we invite all Durham residents to join us for

[20:00] the Bike Month events announced in the proclamation and found

[20:05] at Bike Durham. Next. I'd like to hand it off to Gregory

[20:09] Williams, advocacy campaign organizer at Bike Durham.

[20:16] Good evening, Mayor Williams. Council members, we invite you

[20:20] to attend our 10th our Events this month to send a powerful

[20:24] message to our community that Durham's leaders are committed

[20:27] to safe streets for everyone. Bike month is a celebration,

[20:31] but it's also a time to reflect and honor those who we have

[20:35] lost on our streets. Most recently, Jack O'Shea, who was

[20:39] killed by a driver on Coal Mill Road. With tragedies like this

[20:43] underscoring the importance we recognize the work, the City of

[20:46] Durham staff has done on the recent bike walk plan update.

[20:50] We call on council to identify the resources necessary to

[20:54] fully implement its recommendations. Durham is

[20:58] making progress on biking and transportation in general, with

[21:01] new sidewalks and bike lanes, improved crosswalks and bus

[21:05] service, and a community that shows up to ride, to remember,

[21:09] to advocate and to imagine a city where everyone can get

[21:12] around safely. We have more work to do, but we're glad to

[21:16] do it alongside this city. Thank you.

[21:36] Thank you. Thank you colleagues. Now I

[21:51] have announcements by council. Does anyone have any

[21:53] announcements? And, Madam Clerk, we're keeping our

[21:56] announcements to two minutes each. Colleagues. Anyone? Go

[22:06] ahead. Council Member Baker. Good evening everyone. Thank

[22:09] you all for being in the building. I'll be quick. I do

[22:12] just want to say thank you for your patience in signing up. It

[22:17] is not every meeting that we have such a large number of

[22:21] people attending, but it also doesn't never happen. And so I

[22:25] do. I do think that we need to develop some some protocols for

[22:29] larger groups so that people don't have to wait for extended

[22:33] periods of time to, to sign up to speak. So I hope that we can

[22:38] do that. Just want to say thank you to all of our city workers

[22:42] every day for all that you do. And thanks to it,

[22:46] communications, all the city staff who help keep our

[22:50] meetings running smoothly. That's it. Thank you.

[22:55] Thank you. Any other council members? Good. Council Member

[22:58] Kopac. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem.

[23:01] So a few announcements. First of all, I just want to give

[23:05] appreciation to your ministries of Durham and Durham Center for

[23:08] Senior Life for the recent annual galas and celebrations.

[23:11] Council Member Burris and I got to see the Durham Center for

[23:14] Senior Life House band perform and see the the residents take

[23:20] over the dance floor. So that was a really joyous

[23:22] celebration. Appreciate and thank Haiti Reborn for the

[23:26] recent forum. I was invited to. Congratulations to Cornwallis

[23:31] youth and their nCCU mentors with Grace to Inc. for

[23:34] completion of a podcast series everyone should check out, and

[23:37] the courage and leadership they showed in the face of recent

[23:40] violence, which they should not have to show as people so

[23:44] young. The second annual Solar festival was a big hit at Lyons

[23:49] Farm Elementary with students, solar builds and a puppet show

[23:53] in partnership with the NC Climate Justice Collective and

[23:56] Paper hand puppets, showing us the possibility of a future

[23:59] with clean, abundant energy built with collective power on

[24:04] our agenda. Tonight you won't hear about Keep Durham

[24:06] Beautiful and their annual report, but I want to

[24:07] acknowledge and commend their ongoing work to expand our tree

[24:10] canopy and clear invasive plants. Happy Jewish American

[24:15] Heritage Month! And finally, as a reminder, the City manager

[24:19] will be releasing his budget on May 18th. The best times to

[24:22] give input at this stage are our work sessions on May 18th

[24:26] and May 21st, and at the June 1st budget hearing. Thank you.

[24:31] Thank you. Council Member Burris do you have any

[24:33] comments? Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem again.

[24:35] Happy. May everyone. In addition to Bike Month, it is

[24:38] also was also May day on Friday. And I want to thank all the

[24:42] Durham residents who went over to Raleigh to celebrate or to

[24:45] join in the thousands of people, literally tens of

[24:47] thousands of people at the May day protest in Raleigh last

[24:49] Friday, part of the May Day Strong campaign nationwide, I

[24:52] want to thank you for helping to organize that rally, and I

[24:55] want to thank everyone that came out to express their deep

[24:58] concern with the with the direction our state's going in

[25:01] and how we need to fund our schools and our people in much

[25:04] more substantial ways and avoid tax cuts. So thanks for all

[25:07] that came out. Also last Saturday, May 2nd was the

[25:09] Garmin Marathon. I want to thank the Durham Sports

[25:12] Commission for sponsoring that and helping to organize that in

[25:14] Durham. As you all know, the Garmin Marathon is only in a

[25:17] couple cities a year. It's a great honor for that to have

[25:19] been in Durham again. Literally thousands of runners who

[25:21] participated in that marathon. Big runner myself, as you know.

[25:25] Yeah, but I wasn't able to get out. But it's great to wake up

[25:27] Saturday morning and see literally a wall of runners

[25:29] coming down my street participating in that. Is it

[25:31] great for the runners? They're also great for Durham to

[25:33] attract so many folks to our city to participate in the

[25:35] Garmin Marathon. Finally, I want to say going back to the

[25:38] month of last of April, I want to thank the Haiti Heritage

[25:42] Center for hosting a screening of the new documentary by

[25:46] Durham documentarian Kenny Alzheimer called Moonchild.

[25:49] Moonchild. It screened on April 30th, which I think is also

[25:53] International Jazz Day. If I'm not mistaken. If you if you've

[25:57] not seen it, don't miss a chance to see moonsault

[25:59] Moonchild. It's the untold story of a Durham legend who's

[26:03] a jazz pianist, but also an amazing connector. His name is

[26:06] brother Yusef Saleem. Yusef Saleem it's 100% Durham Jazz

[26:11] Durham story about the power of music, the power of jazz,

[26:14] connections to the nCCU jazz program, which is one of the

[26:16] strongest in the country, and also connections to the Muslim

[26:19] community in Durham that centered around West Chapel

[26:21] Hill Street, where the mosque still is. So if you have a

[26:24] chance, look out for Moonchild, an amazing story of Durham.

[26:27] Again, thanks to Kenny Dulcimer, the filmmaker, for

[26:29] bringing that story to all of us. It's a fascinating story.

[26:32] You got to see it. So thank you. Mayor Pro Tem.

[26:35] Thank you. I have just a few announcements. I want to first

[26:38] acknowledge Scout troop that is here. Scout troop 400. I think

[26:42] there are towards the back of the chamber.

[26:44] So thank you so much for being here and participating. If

[26:47] y'all want to stand. Up.

[26:55] It's always a pleasure to have scouts here with us. Secondly,

[26:59] and I will leave it with the clerk. Somebody left their

[27:02] phone. It's just like a black. So I'll leave it with the with

[27:06] the clerk. So if you're missing your phone, look through your

[27:09] belongings. And finally, I will be reordering the agenda quite

[27:13] a lot tonight. There are certain things that are going

[27:15] to have to get switched around, so please bear with me. When

[27:19] the mayor is here, he has a second. I don't have a second.

[27:21] So I ask for patience this evening. Hopefully he will get

[27:24] here around eight between 830. So those are all. Oh, and then

[27:27] finally I do want to extend a huge shout out to everyone who

[27:30] did was able to go out to Raleigh. It was an incredible

[27:33] afternoon. I was very happy to be able to participate and just

[27:36] delighted that that many folks showed up. I will say it was

[27:39] also distressing and disappointing because the last

[27:42] time I marched in Raleigh for a large red for an event, my kids

[27:45] were in elementary school and my third kid is about to

[27:48] graduate from Riverside in June, and we still don't have

[27:51] adequate funding for a public schools. So we have a lot of

[27:53] work to do in the state of North Carolina, and I encourage

[27:56] every single one of you who's here tonight to keep doing your

[27:58] civic duty and showing up for our public schools. Thank you.

[28:04] Madam manager, priority items. I'll go with madam. So sorry.

[28:09] I'll go with manager madam. All right? Yeah. Thank you, madam

[28:13] mayor. Pro tem, members of council. The city manager's

[28:16] office has one priority item this evening. That is agenda

[28:19] item number 27. That's been added to your agenda. It's a

[28:22] revision to the 2026 City Council meeting schedule. This

[28:26] has been added to move the work session that was originally

[28:29] scheduled for May 7th, to now take place on May 18th. That

[28:32] item is on your agenda. And those are all our priority

[28:35] items from the manager's office.

[28:36] Thank you. Thank you, Madam Attorney.

[28:40] Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, the city Attorney's office has

[28:42] no priority items. Although I think I will speak on behalf of

[28:46] Council Member Baker. Perhaps to point out that there's

[28:48] another supplemental item that's been added to the

[28:51] agenda. Item number 28. Thank you, Madam Attorney.

[28:56] Madam clerk. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem,

[28:59] the city clerk's office has no priority items tonight.

[29:03] Thank you. So the next order of business for us is to read out

[29:09] the agenda. We will be taking up our consent agenda. Consent

[29:12] agenda is everything that we discussed at our work session.

[29:15] And it's all together. It's why it's on consent. Item number

[29:18] one developmental Review Performance Audit March 2026.

[29:23] Item number five opioid Settlement Update and Spending

[29:26] authorization. Item number eight Durham Armory HVAC

[29:30] upgrades, design build contract with Brady Train Service, Inc..

[29:33] Item number nine Keep Durham Beautiful 2025 Annual Report.

[29:37] Item number ten Second Amendment to contract with

[29:39] International Business Machines Corporation for next generation

[29:42] ERP implementation. Item number 11 supplemental Agreement

[29:45] Number two two Governing agreement number 21551 with P

[29:50] USA, Inc. for cultural for Central Durham Bus Rapid

[29:54] Transit design 30% and National Environmental Policy Act, Nepa

[29:58] study item number 12. Extension of street impact fee credits to

[30:01] Creek Wood highway 70, Alexander, LLC, item number 13.

[30:05] Construction contract for signalized pedestrian upgrades

[30:08] at 13 locations with Traffic Control Devices, LLC. Item

[30:12] number 14 Go Durham FY 25 Annual Report. Item number 15

[30:16] FY 26 Water and Sewer Funds Budget Ordinance Amendment,

[30:18] item number 16, amendment number five to Professional

[30:21] Engineering Services. Contract number 14605 with Hazen and

[30:24] Sawyer, PC for the Lake McKee and little River Raw water pump

[30:28] Station improvements. Item number 17. Professional

[30:32] services contract with the Wooten Company for the Duke

[30:34] Golf Course. Aerial rehabilitation, rehabilitation

[30:37] and Lick Basin Sewer assessments Project. Item

[30:40] number 18. Professional services contract award to

[30:44] McKim and Creed, Inc. for the Southeast Pressure Zone pump

[30:46] Station upgrade, item number 26. Approval of the draft FY

[30:50] 2627 Actual Action Plan, ARP and Recommended Funding Plan.

[30:55] That is everything that I have under consent and I have no

[30:58] pulled agenda items. So if I could go ahead and get a

[31:01] motion. So moved.

[31:03] I have a motion a second. All in favor, madam clerk, could

[31:06] you please open the vote? Pull. Madam Mayor Pro Tem, you need

[31:27] to vote yes. Could you please open it? It's

[31:30] open. Mine is not. Oh, there it is. Sorry, sorry. Y'all okay?

[31:34] Could you please close. It?

[31:39] The motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Madam clerk. Under

[31:42] general business agenda, I have items number two, children's

[31:46] wealth building resolution and number three, endangered

[31:49] species day resolution. We have a few speakers on that. And

[31:51] then we have several other items under general business

[31:54] agenda. Madam attorney, I know that we have to take up item

[31:57] number 28 before item number four. But those are all under

[32:04] general business public hearings. And or. Sorry.

[32:09] I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Pro Tem number 28 is not a public

[32:11] hearing item. It's a resolution that's required in order to

[32:15] hold the public hearing at item number four. So what I would

[32:18] suggest is maybe you work through the agenda. Go ahead

[32:20] and tackle the supplemental items and leave all of the

[32:22] public hearings at the end. Okay. So we're going to do item

[32:26] number 28, which is the supplemental item resolution to

[32:30] set a public hearing to impose a temporary moratorium on

[32:32] developmental approvals for data centers, cryptocurrency

[32:35] mining operations, and any use associated with data center

[32:38] processing facilities within the city of Durham. Pursuant to

[32:41] NC. I don't have the statute, but that's what we have to do

[32:47] first. And Council, this is your item. So I'm going to pass

[32:52] it to you if you have any comments.

[32:55] Since this is just the resolution, I'll go ahead and

[32:57] save my comments for the actual ordinance.

[33:00] Perfect. Thank you. Could I please get a motion to adopt a

[33:02] resolution to set a public hearing to impose a temporary

[33:05] moratorium on developmental approvals for data centers,

[33:07] cryptocurrency mining operations, and any use

[33:10] associated with data center processing facilities within

[33:12] the City of Durham. Pursuant to NC General Statute 160 Dash 107

[33:16] and Udo section 3.99.6. So moved..

[33:21] Madam Mayor Pro Tem, second. Madam.

[33:23] I'm sorry to interrupt. We signed up to speed on.

[33:27] I will not be allowing folks to shout at us from to the dais.

[33:32] That is okay. It's going to get handled. This is just the

[33:35] resolution. Your opportunity to speak is coming. We can't let

[33:39] you speak until we accept the resolution to hold a public

[33:42] hearing. If we do not pass item number four, there is no item

[33:45] number 28. That is the order that we have to follow or we

[33:49] can't do the thing that folks have signed up to do. So we are

[33:51] going to accept the resolution. There is a motion and a second,

[33:56] and we are going to hold the vote. And that will allow item

[33:59] number four to pursue. Otherwise, item number four

[34:02] cannot pursue. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is it is the. Could you

[34:09] please open the vote? Thank you. Could you please close the

[34:15] vote? Motion passes unanimously.

[34:19] Thank you, Madam Clerk. Now I'll be going back up under our

[34:24] general business items, we have. Under our general business

[34:32] agenda, we have item number two. Children's wealth building

[34:35] resolution. And item number three, endangered species day

[34:37] resolution for both items. Folks who signed up, I would

[34:41] like you to keep your minutes to two minutes. Excuse me, your

[34:44] comments to two minutes each, because we have a lot of public

[34:47] hearings this evening. I'm going to start with our

[34:51] registrants online first. Madam clerk. Yeah. So I have okay. So

[35:01] I have Miss Amelia O'Rourke own, but I think she is here in

[35:05] person. Is that correct? Is she here in person? Okay. Thank you

[35:10] for standing up. So we're going to come to you in just a

[35:14] second. I also have Kate Irish online. Is Kate okay? Okay.

[35:21] Irish. You are also here in person okay. So those are the

[35:23] two online speakers I have for item number two. Madam clerk, I

[35:29] don't unless you sent it via email. I don't have in-person

[35:32] registrants yet. It's not here yet. It's in

[35:35] process. Okay. Because I know that miss

[35:40] O'Rourke Owen is here in person and Miss Irish is here in

[35:43] person. I'm going to go ahead and let you all come on up and

[35:46] line up to speak. As soon as I have my in-person registrants.

[35:50] I'll keep inviting you. I just don't have the names yet, so

[35:53] please bear with us so folks can go ahead and line up here.

[35:57] Yes, and remember, you have two minutes.

[36:02] I'll I love it. I don't. And as soon as I have the rest

[36:08] of the speakers, I will call you up. Thank you.

[36:13] Samantha Roth. Okay. Good evening.

[36:21] Good evening. Thank you.

[36:22] I'm Kate. Irish, executive director with

[36:24] Durham's Partnership for children. At the partnership,

[36:27] we're focused on ensuring every child in Durham enters school

[36:31] healthy and ready to succeed. We lead strategies for all

[36:34] 23,000 children age, birth to five and their families to

[36:38] promote healthy development, learning and enhance high

[36:41] quality child. Care.

[36:43] Investing in the early years means lifelong outcomes for

[36:47] that child and family and education, health and economic

[36:51] security, early childhood investments are also critical

[36:54] to our community's well-being, as child care and early

[36:57] education. Our work supports and critical infrastructure for

[37:00] our economy. We know the power of a strong foundation for

[37:04] young children, and that includes a financially stable

[37:08] one. This resolution on children's savings accounts

[37:11] recognizes the importance of launching children and families

[37:15] into a brighter futures by planting the seeds of economic

[37:19] security. Many families with young children in Durham are

[37:23] struggling right now to make ends meet, with the cost of

[37:27] living rising and the trouble of being able to afford the

[37:30] cost of housing, food, childcare, this means that

[37:34] families are stretched too thin to be able to start saving and

[37:38] planning for their children's future. A savings account for a

[37:42] child unlocks something beyond economic security. It unlocks

[37:46] hope and trust in the future. It highlights for families the

[37:50] possibilities of what can be and what may be on the horizon

[37:54] for their child as they grow up, college or starting a

[37:57] business. A path to buying a home. The possibilities will be

[38:01] endless. We want young children and families, of course, to

[38:04] have financial security, but also to feel empowered to dream

[38:09] about their future. These children savings accounts with

[38:12] federal contributions will help put young children on a path to

[38:16] a stronger and more supported future. Durham's partnership

[38:19] for children is excited to partner with the city on

[38:22] outreach efforts for this campaign.

[38:24] Thank you. Thank you.

[38:29] Miss O'Rourke, I. Want good evening.

[38:34] My name is Amelia O'Rourke Owens.

[38:35] I'm a lawyer who focuses on consumer protection and

[38:38] community economic development. Before I was DOJ's twice in

[38:41] 2025, I worked for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

[38:45] where I focused on public benefits payments, fair lending

[38:48] technologies, and abusive private student loans. Since

[38:51] Elon Musk raised a chainsaw above his head and federal

[38:54] consumer protections were on the chopping block. I've been

[38:57] advising nonprofits and academic institutions on

[38:59] various policy matters. One of those roles has been as a

[39:03] research fellow for the center for Taxpayer Rights, where

[39:05] we've read every statute notice and implementing regulation for

[39:09] these new Trump accounts, also referred to as section 538

[39:13] accounts. This is a long way to say that I am a nerd and also

[39:17] very in the weeds. I'm thankful for Council Member Rice

[39:20] Resolution and I hope that y'all will support it today. To

[39:23] this end, I want to highlight the robust scholarship on

[39:26] children's savings accounts and the reality of Trump accounts

[39:29] as they're already being deployed first. Since Michael

[39:33] Sheridan started researching child assets as poverty

[39:36] alleviation strategies in 1991, there's incredible research on

[39:40] the positive impacts of children's savings accounts,

[39:43] even in small amounts. Doctor Willie Elliott from the

[39:46] University of Michigan, articulates so beautifully that

[39:49] one of the most impactful pieces of children's savings

[39:52] accounts is one of the hardest to quantify, which is the hope

[39:55] that it gives to the young children who are beneficiaries.

[40:00] Now, turning to Durham's role and Trump accounts, these

[40:03] accounts are here. They were already deployed on form 4547

[40:09] on our tax filing, and the only way that children born since

[40:14] January 1st, 2025 can receive their $1,000 pilot

[40:17] contributions is by opening these accounts. So they also

[40:22] these accounts implement almost none of the best practices for

[40:26] children's savings accounts, such as automatic enrollment or

[40:29] a public trustee. Given this, without the thoughtful outreach

[40:32] and the city's efforts to those who would benefit most from

[40:36] these accounts, we risk entrenching wealth inequality

[40:39] further. Thank you. Thank you.

[40:44] Next up, I think I have Ryan Hurley. And, Tabitha, hold.

[40:50] On. Blackwell.

[41:01] Good evening. Good evening. City Council

[41:05] members. city manager and city staff. My name is Ryan Hurley.

[41:09] I'm a Durham resident, parent and a local business owner here

[41:13] since 2008. I am so supportive of the children's wealth

[41:18] building resolution because it advances a simple but

[41:22] transformative idea. Every child, every child should have

[41:27] a chance to build assets, understand ownership, and see a

[41:31] financial future for themselves. Many of us in this

[41:35] room benefited because our parents or grandparents owned

[41:39] assets through a home, a retirement account, or

[41:42] investments in the stock market. They also passed down

[41:46] to us a habit of saving, investing and owning something

[41:51] whose value compounds over time. Far too many children in

[41:56] the US have not had these advantages at the start of

[42:00] their lives. Roughly half of American families don't own

[42:03] equities in the stock market. That means millions of children

[42:08] grow up outside one of the core systems that helps build long

[42:12] term financial security. The new Invest America federal

[42:17] program gives us a chance to help close that gap by allowing

[42:21] eligible children to have a long term investment account in

[42:25] their own name, beginning with the initial $1,000 federal

[42:30] contribution. Imagine a child in Durham not just hearing

[42:35] about saving and investing, but seeing it in their own name,

[42:41] watching it grow over time, learning how it works, and

[42:44] beginning to believe this is something I can do to imagine

[42:48] that same child reaching adulthood with something of

[42:51] their own money they've seen grow and compound, and the

[42:55] confidence to use it toward education. A trade, starting a

[42:59] business, or even buying a first home. That's my time. But

[43:05] we've got an incredible opportunity in Durham, and I

[43:07] hope everybody supports you. Thank you.

[43:09] Thank you. Good evening.

[43:19] Good evening. Good evening. Mayor Pro.

[43:22] Tem and members of city council. My name is Tabitha

[43:26] Blackwell and I serve as executive director of Book

[43:29] Harvest. Durham. Our mission is simple. Every child deserves to

[43:34] grow up surrounded by books, by stories, and by adults who

[43:38] believe in their potential through programs like Book

[43:42] Babies. We work with families from the very beginning,

[43:46] putting books in their hands and planting the seeds of their

[43:49] child's future is full of possibility. That belief is

[43:54] exactly why we launched Bright Futures and partnerships with

[43:58] Latino Community Credit Union. We currently manage and support

[44:03] child savings accounts for 248 babies right here in Durham.

[44:08] May. You know, because we know that raising a reader and

[44:12] building a future go hand in hand when a family opens a

[44:17] child savings account, when they see their baby's name

[44:21] attached to something that's growing, as mentioned, it

[44:24] changes how they think about their child's future. Just like

[44:28] handing a parent a bag of books, we know that this does

[44:33] the same thing. It says someone believes in your child's

[44:38] future. Right now, there's real federal money on the table for

[44:42] Durham families. Thousands of dollars available to eligible

[44:46] children that too many families don't know exist. This

[44:51] resolution asks the city to be a trusted messenger and make

[44:55] sure no family misses out. That costs nothing but outreach and

[45:00] will book. Harvest is ready to carry the message that we

[45:05] believe in our children's future. I urge you to vote yes

[45:08] to the resolution tonight. Thank you.

[45:13] Thank you. Those are all the speakers I

[45:14] have this evening. I don't know if council has any comments

[45:18] that they'd like to provide. Council Member Rist this is

[45:20] your item. I'm not sure if you wanted to say anything.

[45:22] Yeah, I'll just say briefly. Yeah. This is so this is, as

[45:24] you heard the speaker say, this is all about addressing wealth

[45:27] inequality in this country. We know from the Federal Reserve

[45:29] that 37% of families lack $400. If they were to have an

[45:34] emergency with their car or a boiler. So, so many families

[45:37] lack any tangible wealth. No one here expect. I'm certainly

[45:40] I don't think anyone in this room expected this would come

[45:42] from the Trump administration. But the reality is there's

[45:45] $1,000 on the table for every child born after January 1st,

[45:48] 2025. For four years. And and so so we can either say, oh, we

[45:55] don't want this, we don't like the name, or we can say, this

[45:57] is a this is an amazing wealth infusion to every kid in our

[45:59] community. It's between 2500 and 3000 kids per year that

[46:03] would qualify for this accounts. It's also for kids

[46:06] born before January 1st, 2025. There's also a $250 deposit

[46:11] made possible. As you may have read in the papers by Michael

[46:13] and Susan Dell. So anywhere from 35 to 36,000 kids in

[46:17] Durham would qualify for a $250 deposit in a 538 account and

[46:22] 220 500 to 3000 kids per year would qualify for the $1,000

[46:26] deposit in a 530 a account. All they have to do is claim the

[46:29] accounts and sign up. So what we're what this resolution

[46:33] committed to doing is making sure everyone in Durham knows

[46:35] about this opportunity. As miss Iris said from the partnership

[46:37] for children, we want all kids in Durham as they grow up with

[46:40] healthy childhood education and parks to walk in and places to

[46:43] play, that they also are building their financial

[46:45] futures. So the resolutions before the council, I will say

[46:48] there was one request from Council Member Cook to change

[46:51] the title in here from Trump accounts, which is the

[46:53] statutory name for these accounts, to 530 a accounts,

[46:56] which is the name the Treasury calls accounts. And that's

[46:58] fine, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name smells

[47:01] just sweets out. I don't really care what the name is. I want

[47:03] to make sure every child in Durham has access claims these

[47:06] accounts to build wealth for the future, sir.

[47:08] Thank you. Other than that change.

[47:10] Colleagues. Go ahead. Council Member Burris

[47:14] and Council Member Baker. Just to clarify, can we, for

[47:19] the end of the resolution, can you provide a little bit more,

[47:21] just a little bit more insight in terms like what exactly the

[47:24] role of the city staff is? In this resolution? I think

[47:27] particularly in the city manager's direct city staff to

[47:30] support efforts on the part of community partners and sure

[47:32] mentioned clear, frequent that all families are able to open

[47:34] an account. So I want to know if you could unpack that a

[47:36] little more for me or whomever. I'm sorry. The question. So the

[47:41] impact on staff, is that the question?

[47:44] Yes. But like the role, like what does that look like.

[47:46] In that? So, so primarily what this does is with the approval

[47:50] of the council, allows staff whether there's a press

[47:53] conference or some other event that's happening, allows staff

[47:56] to participate in that and share information about that.

[47:58] This is not committing staff to any particular sort of

[48:00] activities. The Office of Economic and Workforce

[48:03] Development is 100% behind this resolution wants to be able to

[48:06] support families not only with workforce training and jobs,

[48:09] but also wealth building, and so this allows them to continue

[48:11] working on this, spreading the word about this to our

[48:14] community through the work they do.

[48:16] And then for the record, because I am one of those and I

[48:19] do appreciate your beautiful poet poetry, poetry, whatever

[48:22] you had going on down there, if we can like remove the

[48:26] reference to Trump and do as councilmember suggested, I

[48:28] would be comfortable moving forward in those circumstances

[48:30] with the commitment for that. Yeah, it's quite all right.

[48:33] Thank you. Go ahead. Council Member Baker.

[48:38] I had the exact same question about what exactly we were

[48:41] directing staff to to do. I had asked Council Member Rist a

[48:44] little bit about it before and was comforted that it's more

[48:49] passive if the opportunity arises. Staff can make it

[48:53] known. So our folks, sign up for your $1,000. Don't lose

[48:58] your password. Thanks.

[49:02] I also will say, you know, I actually talked to the state

[49:04] treasurer at the event over the weekend. This is a brand new.

[49:07] Not many communities, in fact, nobody else North Carolina is

[49:10] even thinking about this. So we are way ahead on this, making

[49:13] sure that our kids are accessing these federal

[49:14] dollars, significant federal dollars. So this is one more

[49:17] way, not only for our individual kids who can benefit

[49:19] from this wealth infusion, but also we are a leader in the

[49:22] state and folks will look to us. And I think there's gonna

[49:24] be a lot of cities that will follow us because the dollars.

[49:26] Are there. Any financial advisor would tell you if

[49:28] there's free money in the table, you should take the free

[49:30] money. Thank you. So what I have heard

[49:34] on the language, was there anything that was referenced

[49:36] around a Trump account? It would be changed to Children's

[49:38] Savings Account. Is that changed to 530 a 538?

[49:41] That's in the resolution. And colleagues were good. Okay. So

[49:45] other than that change I think our motion for us this evening

[49:51] is to adopt the children's wealth building resolution.

[49:54] Could I please get a motion? So move.

[49:56] Can I get. A second? Second.

[49:58] Thank you. I have a motion, a second. Madam clerk, could you

[50:01] please open the. Vote?

[50:05] Could you please close the vote?

[50:07] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much.

[50:10] Thank you. Colleagues. The next item I have before us

[50:14] is the Endangered Species Day resolution. I have a few

[50:17] speakers signed up for that. Again, you will be given two

[50:20] minutes. I will start with our online speakers first. I have

[50:24] Miss Pamela Andrews signed up for item number three online.

[50:29] Madam clerk, I don't know if she's here yet.

[50:37] Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, Miss Andrews, good

[50:41] evening. You have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you to the

[50:44] Environmental Affairs Board and member Astrid Cook for this

[50:47] resolution submitted by Council. Nate Baker for helping

[50:50] coordinate this important resolution. Adoption.

[50:52] Recognizing the endangered salamander of the North River

[50:55] is important as it is one of the rare salamanders in the

[50:58] southeastern United States, which is why it is fairly

[51:00] protected. The news River water dog needs protection. Yet this

[51:04] is the this is the area polluted with sediment

[51:07] pollution week after week, establishing a day dedicated to

[51:10] endangered species is important. However, there needs

[51:13] to be a clear protection for all inventoried endangered

[51:16] species. Durham should require that the natural heritage lands

[51:19] be protected as open space and should follow the National

[51:22] Heritage Registry guidelines. When it comes to the 300 foot

[51:25] riparian buffer for aquatic species like the Carolina

[51:28] darter fish, no practical alternative applications should

[51:31] not be allowed in these aquatic buffers. There must be even

[51:34] more efforts to protect endangered plants and animals

[51:37] in Durham, the Natural Heritage Land and the TCC. The Triangle

[51:41] Connectivity Collaborative should both be recognized in

[51:44] the new UT oh to guarantee the protection on Howards Place,

[51:47] parcel had two endangered species of concern the Carolina

[51:51] darter fish is a fish species of special concern, as well as

[51:54] the dissected tooth wort, which is a protected species of

[51:57] special concern, a vulnerable plant. Both are within the

[52:01] natural heritage land, yet it was not recognized. More time a

[52:04] commitment needs to be spent studying these potentially

[52:06] endangered species before development is allowed to clear

[52:09] cut the land. The natural heritage land is important, as

[52:12] well as the TCC, which helps identify the wildlife

[52:14] corridors. It is imperative that an environmental stand

[52:18] needs to be taken in this new Udo. Thank you so much for your

[52:21] time again. Thank you, Commissioner Imy Council Member

[52:24] Baker and the Environmental Affairs Board. Thank you so

[52:27] much for this. Thank you. I have one in

[52:33] in-person speaker Samantha Kropp for item number three.

[52:45] Hi, council members, good evening. Thank you for the

[52:48] opportunity to speak. My name is Samantha Kropp. I work as

[52:51] the News Riverkeeper with a nonprofit named Sound Rivers.

[52:54] And I just wanted to say, echoing some of the comments in

[52:57] the speaker before me, that I do appreciate this resolution

[53:00] for the Endangered Species Act. It's one of the most important

[53:03] environmental laws in our nation's history. As a

[53:05] riverkeeper, my work to protect waterways depends on strong,

[53:10] enforceable protections for the species and habitats that

[53:13] sustain them. And here in the news River basin, we are home

[53:16] to at least ten rare and endangered species. And that

[53:19] includes, of course, the news River Water Dog, as well as

[53:22] federally listed species like the Carolina madtom, the dwarf

[53:25] wedge mussel, the tar River spiny mussel, and the yellow

[53:28] lance. Some of these species are found nowhere else in the

[53:31] world, so if we lose them here, we lose them forever. These

[53:35] species aren't just rare, but they are essential. They help

[53:39] maintain water quality, support habitat, and sustain the

[53:42] ecosystems our communities rely on. But today, these species

[53:45] face growing threats from drought, rapid development, and

[53:49] polluted stormwater runoff. This resolution is a meaningful

[53:52] step, but Durham's current development code still fails to

[53:56] require protections for endangered species. Habitat. In

[54:00] practice, that gap has allowed the city to continue approving

[54:04] projects that directly impact sensitive areas, despite clear

[54:08] evidence of ecological risk in places like the Lick Creek

[54:11] bottomlands, a designated natural heritage area, the city

[54:15] has permitted extensive development projects, such as

[54:18] the 86 acre Howard's Place development, have been approved

[54:22] in known endangered species habitat, and even now,

[54:25] proposals are under review that would impact over 100,000ft of

[54:28] stream habitat in that development area. These

[54:31] decisions point to a troubling disconnect between Durham's

[54:34] stated environmental values and its actual development

[54:37] practices. So if Durham is serious about protecting

[54:40] endangered species, it must move beyond symbolic

[54:43] recognition. The city should require that mapped natural

[54:46] heritage areas are preserved. This is a good first step.

[54:50] Please align policy with practice.

[54:51] Thank you. Thank you.

[55:06] Those are all the speakers I have signed up for. That item.

[55:12] Council Member Baker, this is your item. Did you want to say

[55:15] anything on it? Sure. Was there a third speaker?

[55:22] I don't. Send a know.

[55:25] She signed up for number four. Is what we've been. number

[55:27] four. Okay. Colleagues, this is a

[55:30] resolution. I'm not going to read it all out. I encourage

[55:33] folks to to check it out. The wording is is great. It's a

[55:38] resolution spearheaded actually by the mayor of Boone, Dalton

[55:43] George, who also does lobbying in Washington. The good, the

[55:47] good lobbying, the rare good lobbying. This is to designate

[55:53] May, May 15th, 2026 as Endangered Species Day. Part of

[55:57] the reason behind this we are not the only municipality and

[56:00] local government in North Carolina to do this is that

[56:02] lobbyists actually use the communities that are doing

[56:06] this. We they add us to a number of communities that have

[56:10] passed something like this, and they take that to Washington.

[56:13] So we are we are feeding into a larger advocacy system to

[56:18] support the Endangered Species Act. And it was actually the

[56:21] members of the Environmental Affairs Board who drafted this

[56:27] specific language. You will also find in attachments an

[56:33] official letter of support from the Land Use and Planning

[56:36] Subcommittee of the Environmental Affairs Board,

[56:39] who also commonly weigh in on development review cases,

[56:44] rezoning cases and annexation cases in Durham. So many thanks

[56:49] to them. To Astrid, to David and the folks on EAB who put

[56:54] this together. Thank you. Anyone else have any

[57:00] comments? Okay. And so the motion before us is to adopt

[57:03] the Endangered Species Day resolution. Could I please get

[57:06] a motion. To move?

[57:07] Second motion a second. Madam clerk, please open the vote.

[57:17] Please close the vote. Motion passes unanimously.

[57:23] Thank you. The next items. I wonder. Do I have anyone? I'm

[57:53] going to move the order around a little bit. I want to take up

[57:56] item. We have a lot of speakers for item number four. Number 19

[58:00] is pretty straightforward and we don't have a lot of speaker

[58:02] actually, any speakers signed up for that. So I'm going to do

[58:05] a agenda item number 19. First up.

[58:10] 19. Thank you.

[58:20] I don't see them. Do you.

[58:26] Sir, have you signed up with the clerk to speak?

[58:28] Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[58:48] Sir, when it's your time, I'm going to call you up in just a

[58:50] second. I'm going to let staff do their part first. Thank you.

[58:53] Good evening. Good evening.

[58:55] Mayor Pro Tem, members of council manager Ferguson. Madam

[58:58] attorney, my name is Ryan Smith. I'm director of the City

[59:01] of Durham's community safety department. The purpose of this

[59:04] public hearing is to receive resident comments regarding the

[59:07] draft proposed home ARP amendment to the fiscal year

[59:10] 2021 Annual Action Plan and home ARP Allocation Plan. The

[59:15] initial home ARP allocation plan that the City of Durham

[59:17] submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

[59:19] Development in 2023, committed $4,352,661 toward the

[59:26] development of approximately 25 affordable rental housing units

[59:30] intended to serve qualifying populations. The City of

[59:33] Durham, substantial amendment to the home Allocation Plan

[59:36] revises the previously approved use of home ARP funds by

[59:40] reallocating funding from the development of affordable

[59:42] rental housing to the provision of supportive services designed

[59:45] to assist people experiencing homelessness, and accessing and

[59:48] maintaining housing. Specifically, when I say

[59:51] supportive services, I mean providing financial assistance

[59:55] in the form of rent assistance, paying for arrears and other

[59:57] things that compare clear pathways so that people who are

[1:00:01] experiencing homelessness today can access units as well as

[1:00:05] case management, so that when people enter, units were able

[1:00:07] to provide the support they need to remain in units. This

[1:00:11] public hearing is a requirement to submit a substantial

[1:00:13] amendment to HUD. The proposed substantial amendment to the

[1:00:16] home ARP allocation plan has been available for public

[1:00:18] review since April 7th, 2026, and will close on May 6th.

[1:00:23] Notice of this meeting was properly advertised in the

[1:00:25] Herald Sun and Carson newspapers, as well as via the

[1:00:28] City of Durham's website. The Community Safety Department,

[1:00:32] which serves as the lead agency for the Durham Continuum of

[1:00:34] Care, led a strategic planning process. As you all are aware,

[1:00:36] from July through January of this year that focused on

[1:00:40] developing a unified coalition and a credible path toward

[1:00:43] making homelessness rare and brief in Durham, their

[1:00:46] strategic framework was developed in collaboration with

[1:00:48] homeless service providers, health system partners,

[1:00:51] government agencies and people with current lived experience

[1:00:53] of homelessness in Durham and many others. These stakeholders

[1:00:56] met together to assess our needs, our current system's

[1:00:59] capacity and what it would take to reduce homelessness in

[1:01:03] Durham so that it's truly rare and brief. After completion of

[1:01:06] this process, the Community Safety Department, in

[1:01:09] partnership with Housing and Neighborhood Services,

[1:01:11] determined that reallocating the funds to supportive

[1:01:13] services will have a significantly greater and more

[1:01:16] immediate impact on households who are currently experiencing,

[1:01:20] or at imminent risk of experiencing homelessness.

[1:01:23] Reallocating these funds will enable the City of Durham to

[1:01:25] serve hundreds of households experiencing or at risk of

[1:01:28] homelessness starting next year, provide immediate and

[1:01:31] critical assistance, including housing stabilization, case

[1:01:33] management and crisis intervention. Strengthen the

[1:01:36] community's capacity to address homelessness and rapidly return

[1:01:39] individuals and families to stable housing, including

[1:01:42] through the provision of rental assistance. Increased system

[1:01:45] wide flexibility to respond effectively to evolving needs,

[1:01:48] and, importantly, advance our year one goals to reduce the

[1:01:51] number of people who are experiencing unsheltered

[1:01:54] homelessness by 30%. Youth who are experiencing homelessness

[1:01:58] by 50%, and veterans who are experiencing homelessness by

[1:02:01] 30%. By next summer. The strategic reallocation aligns

[1:02:05] with the identified service gaps and priorities within the

[1:02:07] local homeless response system, and ensures that home ARP funds

[1:02:10] are deployed in a manner that maximizes impact and

[1:02:13] timeliness. The City Council is being asked to approve the

[1:02:16] draft proposed home HRP amendment for submission to

[1:02:18] HUD, and to authorize the City Manager to execute all

[1:02:21] administrative requirements and contractual documents for the

[1:02:24] implementation of the amended FY 2021 Annual Action Plan and

[1:02:29] Home ARP Allocation Plan to reallocate funding to support

[1:02:32] our services. Comments made during this public hearing and

[1:02:35] written comments received from residents will be included with

[1:02:38] the submission of the home ARP Allocation Plan. Substantial

[1:02:41] amendment to the US Department of Housing and Urban

[1:02:43] Development. Thank you. Thank you. You've heard the

[1:02:49] staff report. I'll now declare this public hearing open first

[1:02:52] to council colleagues. Have any questions or comments? Okay. If

[1:02:58] you have signed up to speak, could you over here, sir, on

[1:03:03] this side. Thank you. And then just state your name and you

[1:03:08] will have two minutes. We have two people speaking. We

[1:03:12] have Karen Miles. Okay. And if you have not

[1:03:16] registered to speak during. Okay. Thank you. Just make sure

[1:03:18] you fill out a card if you haven't.

[1:03:20] Okay? Okay. Okay. Good evening, city Council.

[1:03:24] Good evening. Durham. I am the Reverend Chris Rivers. I'm here

[1:03:28] advocating against the approval of this reallocation of funds.

[1:03:33] As I understand the context is, is that when the RFP was

[1:03:37] issued, there were really no solutions at that time. I'm not

[1:03:41] here just to advocate that we don't approve. But also I'm

[1:03:44] here proposing a solution. We can, in fact, satisfy this need

[1:03:48] to provide 25 affordable houses to the City of Durham at the

[1:03:52] cost allocated to those in the proposal. Moving away from

[1:03:57] allocated. Reallocating these funds puts us out of alignment

[1:04:02] with housing, urban development. They've already

[1:04:05] set their priorities, and their priorities are to put actual

[1:04:08] buildings on the ground. Our proposal does that.

[1:04:11] Reallocating these funds also does not offer the city a

[1:04:16] return on the investment. With the program that we're going to

[1:04:19] put forth and that we're putting forth, it allows for

[1:04:22] the city council to actually get a return on this in

[1:04:24] investments, leaving the city in a surplus of about $1.2

[1:04:28] million based on what our current situation is right now,

[1:04:33] we are in the state of homelessness and hopelessness.

[1:04:36] People can't see a way to afford housing here in Durham.

[1:04:40] We have solved that problem. We can fulfill this order. We have

[1:04:45] the proposed order and we have the proposal here for us. So

[1:04:48] today we're just simply here to ask the council to vote no and

[1:04:54] reassigning those funds and and asking that the council do all

[1:05:00] the administrative processes to actually administer us doing

[1:05:03] the 25 affordable housing units in this community.

[1:05:08] Thank you. Good evening. My name is Karen Mangum and I am a

[1:05:13] licensed real estate broker. And I've worked in the Durham

[1:05:16] community for about the last three decades. I have a very

[1:05:20] strong desire to see affordable housing as well as a strong

[1:05:27] stand to help reduce homelessness, because we deeply

[1:05:30] believe the solution to homelessness is is obviously

[1:05:34] housing. And then building all those resources and support

[1:05:38] around that to be sure that they are able to sustain. And

[1:05:42] the longevity is there for these families. It is been a

[1:05:46] very critical situation for a very long time. So we really

[1:05:51] are committed to bringing those solutions. As Chris mentioned,

[1:05:54] to help solve this very serious epidemic. And it is a national

[1:05:59] problem. Of course, we know it's not just local to Durham.

[1:06:01] When we talk about solutions for homelessness as well as

[1:06:04] affordability. Durham is a city of innovation. We all know that

[1:06:09] in Durham we need to use that ingenuity. We have to come up

[1:06:13] with very individual, unique solutions for Durham residents.

[1:06:16] Durham is a very unique city, although it's great to look at

[1:06:19] things that other places have done, it's very important to

[1:06:22] look at what's going on here locally and what the needs are

[1:06:25] of Durham residents. So as we gather some information to

[1:06:30] support some of the things that we want you to understand, 17

[1:06:33] to 44% more, these homes that TBG can offer are 17 to 44%

[1:06:39] more affordable than other median sales prices. And with

[1:06:44] the with the the city partnering with us, we would

[1:06:47] create 100 jobs. There would be land improvement estimate at

[1:06:50] 1.2 million to local vendors and suppliers. So there will be

[1:06:54] tremendous benefit, not just to the homeowners but also to the

[1:06:57] local economy here in Durham. So we really we appreciate the

[1:07:03] opportunity to address the council and all those today

[1:07:06] present. Just to point out again, this,

[1:07:09] this, this program has a significant economic impact.

[1:07:12] Over 100 jobs. created land improvement.

[1:07:15] Your time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good evening.

[1:07:17] Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other folks

[1:07:24] registered? Sir, can you just pass that to the city clerk,

[1:07:26] please? Thank you.

[1:07:29] Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who has not already

[1:07:32] registered who would like to speak on this public hearing

[1:07:34] item? You can go ahead and come up and then sign up after you

[1:07:39] speak. Anyone else? Okay, since there's no one else who wishes

[1:07:42] to speak on this item, let the record. Let the record reflect

[1:07:46] that no one else has signed up and the public hearing is

[1:07:49] closed. And back before the council Council members, does

[1:07:52] anyone have any questions, comments? On this item? No.

[1:08:01] Okay, so at this point I just need a motion. First motion is

[1:08:06] to adopt an ordinance annex. Excuse me. Wrong one. To we to

[1:08:11] approve the draft proposed home ARP amendment for submission to

[1:08:15] the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD.

[1:08:18] So moved. Second.

[1:08:21] Madam Clerk, could you please open the vote? Could you please

[1:08:34] close the vote? I don't know. Not.

[1:08:47] There it is. Motion passes unanimously.

[1:08:50] Thank you. The next motion is to authorize

[1:08:54] the city manager to execute all administrative requirements and

[1:08:57] contractual documents for the implementation of the amended

[1:08:59] FY 2021 Annual Action Plan and home ARP Allocation Plan to

[1:09:04] reallocate funding to supportive services to

[1:09:06] qualified populations to include populations defined in

[1:09:10] 24 CFR 91.5. So moved.

[1:09:14] Can I get a second? Second? Thank you, madam Clerk, could

[1:09:17] you please open the. Vote?

[1:09:23] Could you please close. The vote?

[1:09:28] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

[1:09:36] Mr. mayor, good to see you. Would you like me to pass the

[1:09:39] gavel back? Not yet. Okay. I'll see you

[1:09:43] guys to. I was following on YouTube, but

[1:09:48] I need to. Catch up. Okay? Okay.

[1:09:49] Thank you. The next item that we'll do is our item number

[1:09:53] four, which is the we. we the agenda item number 28 allowed

[1:09:59] us to be able to hold to take up item number four. Several

[1:10:03] folks signed up for item 28 to speak. I'm going to move you to

[1:10:08] item four to speak. So you're going to get your time. We have

[1:10:13] lots of speakers. I am going to limit everyone to one minute.

[1:10:18] This. And I do want to Council member.

[1:10:24] One minute. What's up? I am going to limit everyone to

[1:10:29] one minute. We have, I think 40 speakers. So that's 40 minutes.

[1:10:33] If I've counted correctly. I think we have 40 speakers

[1:10:35] between online and in person. We have several public

[1:10:38] hearings. This public hearing items this evening. I said that

[1:10:41] at the beginning of the meeting, I do want to allow

[1:10:45] Madam Attorney or Council Member Baker before we start

[1:10:48] calling up speakers to speak on this item a little bit, if

[1:10:51] that's possible. And I don't know which one of you is going

[1:10:54] to start Council Member Baker, I'm going to pass it to you.

[1:11:03] I, I'm going to speak on this following public comment.

[1:11:10] Okay. And so folks, just. so folks are understanding that

[1:11:13] the, the. Ordinance before us is for a temporary moratorium.

[1:11:20] Some of the parameters have changed.

[1:11:23] Sure. Yeah. I'll explain. What I explain.

[1:11:25] Yeah I can I can explain that. Okay. Thank you.

[1:11:27] A lot of folks came here tonight to speak on a 24 month

[1:11:31] moratorium. That was the draft that had been presented, had

[1:11:35] been reviewed by legal and the planning department, and was

[1:11:40] moving forward for the vote. As of Friday. There are provisions

[1:11:47] in the Unified Development Ordinance that these our own

[1:11:51] regulations that have never been used because we've never

[1:11:55] done a development moratorium that limits the length of the

[1:12:01] maximum length of a development moratorium in our city to be 60

[1:12:07] days without a planning Commission review. So what is

[1:12:12] before us tonight is a 60 day moratorium, which is the first

[1:12:18] step. And there can be there can be more to come from that.

[1:12:22] And that's all I'll say now. I'll have more to say later.

[1:12:29] Thank you. Are you comfortable if I

[1:12:31] continue to share part of that? So folks understand that, that

[1:12:34] their minute tonight is not their only opportunity to

[1:12:36] comment on this because of what's going to happen

[1:12:37] subsequently. Okay. So first there will be a planning. We do

[1:12:42] not take questions or comments from the crowd. To us, it would

[1:12:46] create chaos. Thank you. This will be your first opportunity

[1:12:52] to speak. We are in process of working with the county. We

[1:12:55] have a unified planning department. So city and county,

[1:12:57] it is important that we move in alignment with our county

[1:13:00] colleagues because it can cause issues for us. Since we have a

[1:13:05] merged planning department. Additionally, this will have to

[1:13:09] come before Planning Commission. Planning Commission

[1:13:11] also allows you to speak on an item. This will also have to

[1:13:16] come back to council down the road, so you will have another

[1:13:20] opportunity to speak. So if you choose and you will have an

[1:13:23] opportunity to speak in front of your county commissioners.

[1:13:26] So with as many people as a registered, we appreciate your

[1:13:30] all of us are very concerned about this item. This is

[1:13:32] getting national attention. Please know that your one

[1:13:35] minute tonight is not going to be your only opportunity to

[1:13:38] speak. If you choose, there will be at least three other

[1:13:41] public hearings that you will be able to register and speak

[1:13:44] at. I'm just sharing that because I heard some folks in

[1:13:47] the crowd being upset, and I wanted folks to really

[1:13:49] understand the process that is before us this evening. So we

[1:13:52] are going to stick to the one minute. Please don't jeer at

[1:13:56] us. I'm going to call folks. I'm going to start with online

[1:14:00] speakers, and I will let the folks who signed up for 28. I'm

[1:14:04] just going to shift you to four automatically. You do not need

[1:14:07] to reregister or any thing. Thank you so much for your

[1:14:11] patience, Madam Clerk. I'm going to start with online

[1:14:14] speakers. As soon as I can find my piece.

[1:14:19] Of paper. The first person I have under

[1:14:25] online speakers is Cassandra row or row.

[1:14:29] Oh, Cassandra row. Hi. Can you hear me?

[1:14:31] Thank you. One more quick. I need to open the public

[1:14:34] hearing. Thank you, Madam Attorney. Let me declare this

[1:14:36] public hearing. Open. First speaker, that we have is

[1:14:40] Cassandra. Romero. Thank you. Good evening. You have one

[1:14:43] minute. Hi. Thank you. Yes, I am a

[1:14:46] Durham resident. I work at a domestic violence organization.

[1:14:50] I organized with mothers for Cease, and I'm also an artist

[1:14:54] and a mother. And as a mom to a young child, I'm constantly

[1:14:59] thinking about who I'm raising him to be. And one of the

[1:15:02] things that I hope to impart to him is that he has the

[1:15:05] autonomy, the power, and the responsibility to think before

[1:15:08] he takes action, especially when those actions risk harm to

[1:15:12] himself and other people and his community and the

[1:15:15] environment. And this is a lesson he'll have to learn over

[1:15:19] and over again, because it's popular, it's tempting to do

[1:15:22] it's popular or convenient, and there are billionaires and

[1:15:25] politicians crafting propaganda that would lead them to believe

[1:15:29] that certain things are inevitable, and that his only

[1:15:32] choice is to get on board or be left behind. And I'm not the

[1:15:36] only one who is responsible for teaching my son these lessons.

[1:15:40] And our children these lessons. And and I think that we have a

[1:15:45] unique opportunity here. And there is plenty of propaganda

[1:15:49] that would have us believe that.

[1:15:50] AI thank you. Next up, I have Zack Orton or

[1:15:56] Orton online. Madam clerk, see you there. Good evening.

[1:16:05] Can you hear me? Yes we can. Good evening. You

[1:16:08] have one minute. Okay, thanks. I had a amazing

[1:16:11] speech planned, but I'm gonna have to wing it a little bit.

[1:16:13] Basically, I just wanted to speak in support of, like, the

[1:16:16] strongest possible data center moratorium. Ideally, at least

[1:16:20] 24 months. These data centers have a ton of drawbacks for the

[1:16:24] communities that they're built in. They use an enormous amount

[1:16:27] of energy. They're bad for the environment. They raise like

[1:16:32] utility costs at a time when folks are struggling to afford

[1:16:35] rent and groceries. And this is all so that AI companies can

[1:16:42] replace our jobs with AI, so that investors and billionaires

[1:16:45] can become even wealthier. And I also just want to say that if

[1:16:49] this is like an issue that you care about, you should try to

[1:16:53] get organized in your community and like talk to your friends

[1:16:56] and family, reach out to organizations like triangle

[1:17:00] DSA. That's a group I'm with labor unions. Day 150. Tenant

[1:17:07] unions like tribal tenant union. Yeah. Thanks.

[1:17:11] Thank you so much. So now those are the only speakers I have

[1:17:15] online. I'm going to call folks up in groups of five. So when

[1:17:19] you hear your name, please line up over here. And then you'll

[1:17:23] have one minute. I have Miss Mimi Kessler. Sean Caple,

[1:17:28] Leslie. Sandra, Latasha or Letitia Gibson. And then Damien

[1:17:35] GU. Those were the first five speakers I have.

[1:17:45] Andrew said that she's. I've never cheated on my.

[1:17:49] She signed up in person. And Andrew's. Oh.

[1:17:54] I just have her for. Number three.

[1:17:56] Okay. Good evening. Thank you for being with us. You have one

[1:18:05] minute. Good evening. My name is Mimi

[1:18:08] Kessler. I am for a moratorium, but 60 days is window dressing.

[1:18:14] In reality, Durham does not need this to be a home of a

[1:18:19] data center. With all of its impacts on environment and

[1:18:23] excessive water usage. We don't need the economic stimulus as

[1:18:27] it is. We are struggling to fill the vacant jobs in Durham

[1:18:31] and housing for people moving here. The moratorium should be

[1:18:36] for a much longer period of time. In fact, forever.

[1:18:41] Thank you. And we're going to the faster the it will go.

[1:18:52] Better if folks just let us call folks up. Good evening. I

[1:18:56] don't think I think you're Lesley Sandra or did I? Did I

[1:18:59] flip? The order I have is Sean. Oh, sorry. Sorry about that.

[1:19:03] Yes, we are. All right. Howdy, howdy. Good evening.

[1:19:06] Council. Good evening.

[1:19:08] My name. Is Sean Cable, and I'm here

[1:19:09] tonight as a member of Democratic Socialists of

[1:19:11] America. I fully support council member Nate Baker's two

[1:19:14] month moratorium, but it is only a first step in protecting

[1:19:17] the city permanently. I would strongly urge the rest of

[1:19:20] council to push for restrictions in the upcoming

[1:19:22] Uto on what types of data centers are allowed for the

[1:19:26] data centers that are socially necessary. We need to look at

[1:19:29] how to regulate them effectively. We should be

[1:19:31] looking at items like water usage limitations. We should

[1:19:35] have limitations on zoning approval based on their

[1:19:37] proximity to schools, places of worship, recreational centers

[1:19:40] and residential areas. They shouldn't be allowed to use

[1:19:43] diesel generators as backup. I know that there are

[1:19:46] commissioners at the county level that are currently

[1:19:47] working on a 12 month moratorium, and I would suggest

[1:19:50] that the council continue to collaborate with them on the

[1:19:53] new Udo to not just prevent this type of harmful zoning,

[1:19:59] but to prevent other forms of harmful zoning in the future.

[1:20:01] Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Leslie.

[1:20:08] Sandra. Hello. I am Leslie Saint Dre.

[1:20:13] I'm here with community, land and power as part of the stop

[1:20:18] data centers in Durham. Coalition. We're invested in

[1:20:22] protecting all residents from the harms of Big tech AI data

[1:20:26] centers, dirty energy and dirty real estate, all of whom are

[1:20:30] putting our lives, ecosystems and futures at risk. For profit

[1:20:35] Durham residents and every living being deserved the

[1:20:38] longest, strongest moratorium, which will give us time for the

[1:20:43] best, loophole free, permanent protections against these

[1:20:48] behemoths. Unless y'all are ready to implement a complete

[1:20:52] and total ban, there's simply no way this planning department

[1:20:55] is equipped to understand the water usage, energy use,

[1:20:58] climate, and ecosystem impacts, displacement impacts, and how

[1:21:02] to make legislation. With all that in mind, to protect Durham

[1:21:06] residents in under 24 months, given that they have little to

[1:21:09] no experience with moratoriums or legislation to protect

[1:21:12] people and our ecosystems. Thank you. Good evening.

[1:21:21] Good evening. Okay.

[1:21:24] Yes. So I am for the moratorium as environmental justice

[1:21:29] advocate with a background in energy research. I want to be

[1:21:33] clear. What we are witnessing is not coincidental. There's a

[1:21:36] certain alignment between utility companies such as Duke

[1:21:39] Energy and the rapid proliferation of data centers.

[1:21:43] Duke energy is justifying significant rate increases

[1:21:47] based on projected energy demand. That is, at best

[1:21:49] speculative and at worst inflated to accommodate large

[1:21:52] scale industrial users. At the same time, there's a troubling

[1:21:56] lack of transparency surrounding these data center

[1:21:59] developments. We we often do not know who the end users are

[1:22:04] or what technologies are being deployed. If these facilities

[1:22:07] incorporate generated AI, the energy demand increases

[1:22:11] exponentially, placing additional strain on the grid

[1:22:15] and ultimately driving up costs for every residents. So for us

[1:22:19] who study this issue closely, the need for moratorium is

[1:22:22] clear. As public servants, do you have a responsibility to

[1:22:25] act in the best interests of the community?

[1:22:30] Thank you. Mr. GU, before you start

[1:22:34] speaking, can I please have Stephanie Gans, Brian MacInnis,

[1:22:38] Mustafa El Almeida. Jordan Grapple and John Hargett line

[1:22:47] up. Good evening. Good evening. Hi, my name is

[1:23:00] Damian GU. I haven't been here a while, so congratulations to

[1:23:06] Councilor Matt and Councilors Fernando. I'm disappointed that

[1:23:12] speaking times are southern. Cut down to one minute each.

[1:23:16] And that's exactly why I don't prepare my speeches beforehand.

[1:23:23] I know most of you on council, but I'm not sure if I have a

[1:23:28] share that I am supposed to be a software engineer. So data

[1:23:33] centers or dangerous AI is dangerous. Well, actually, data

[1:23:39] centers are just bad. But it's something that we definitely

[1:23:43] need a moratorium on until we figure out how we're going to

[1:23:47] deal with it. 60 days is not the two years I was looking

[1:23:52] forward, but I will take that. Thank you for consideration.

[1:23:57] Thank you. Thank you and good.

[1:24:02] Thank you. And folks could just state your name before you

[1:24:05] start. Thank you. Good evening. Okay. Hi. My name is Stephanie

[1:24:08] Gans. I'm a Durham City resident and I work for an

[1:24:10] environmental justice nonprofit called Clean Water for North

[1:24:12] Carolina. A moratorium provides an opportunity to pause and

[1:24:15] make sure that data centers do not worsen the environmental

[1:24:18] injustices, like toxic dumping and wastewater issues that we

[1:24:22] already experience here in Durham. According to NC

[1:24:25] statute, a moratorium duration must be reasonable and may not

[1:24:28] exceed the time necessary to resolve the conditions that

[1:24:30] warrant imposing the moratorium. It is very

[1:24:32] reasonable to put in place a moratorium that uses the

[1:24:34] maximum time that has been upheld by the Supreme Court of

[1:24:37] 32 months for our county and for our city. We need to take

[1:24:41] the time to study this very carefully. We are in a drought

[1:24:44] right now. North Carolina state climatologist just said climate

[1:24:47] change is really removing the safety net from our water

[1:24:49] supplies over the last 100 years. North Carolina's

[1:24:51] population is more than quadrupled. And when you add

[1:24:53] things like data centers that are not people, but machines

[1:24:56] that are consuming water, that certainly adds to the stress

[1:24:59] that the water systems face. Data centers are also not

[1:25:02] paying their fair share in taxes right now. And there's

[1:25:04] bipartisan legislation to change that. The data centers

[1:25:06] are causing huge increases in our electric bills. Don't

[1:25:10] contribute to that. Thank you.

[1:25:18] Hi. My name is Brian McGinnis, and I just wanted to say in

[1:25:21] Marine boot camp, my drill instructor told me the pen is

[1:25:23] mightier than the sword. So you guys are a real defenders

[1:25:26] against these threats that we have, which has been explained

[1:25:28] as far as the tangible pollution that could come from

[1:25:31] data centers. Also, there's the enigmatic factor that, you

[1:25:34] know, AI is really stealing the journey part. The the work

[1:25:38] aspect of us trying to create our thoughts through writing

[1:25:42] essays. You know, a lot of people just, you know, AI it

[1:25:45] and there's a lot of, you know, dealing with computers, with

[1:25:49] call centers and things that are degrading our humanity. And

[1:25:52] I think this is a trajectory that's really bad for us and as

[1:25:55] a humanity. So I really implore you guys to stick up for us

[1:25:59] against these data centers, which not only hurt our our

[1:26:02] environment, but also I will, I think, degrade our humanity.

[1:26:05] Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

[1:26:11] Good evening. My name is Mustafa Almeida. I am a Durham

[1:26:15] resident and I am a worker, just like everybody else in

[1:26:19] this room. And I am here today to say, not only do I support

[1:26:24] the moratorium, but I believe that this moratorium should be

[1:26:28] extended as long as humanly possible because these data

[1:26:32] centers will affect every aspect of our lives. I've heard

[1:26:36] things about drinking water tonight. It will negatively

[1:26:39] impact that. I've heard things about homelessness. It will

[1:26:41] negatively impact that. We are seeing the impacts on education

[1:26:45] and the way it's impacting children. There are just a

[1:26:50] plethora of things that I could bring up, and you will hear

[1:26:53] probably every one of those things tonight from the other

[1:26:56] speakers. But I just want to drive home the importance of

[1:27:00] the fact that there is no one issue that this moratorium will

[1:27:06] fix. It will assist in all of them. Thank you guys.

[1:27:11] Thank you. Hey there. So yeah, I definitely am in

[1:27:20] favor of a moratorium. I don't think two months is enough. I

[1:27:23] don't think two years is enough. I think you guys have

[1:27:26] said some really great things tonight. But to be blunt, if

[1:27:28] you mend any of them, then you will fight to expand this

[1:27:30] moratorium. If you believe in fighting growing wealth

[1:27:33] inequality, then you will fight against these AI power centers,

[1:27:36] which will only give money to the already wealthy while

[1:27:39] taking away many of our jobs and increasing prices on many

[1:27:42] other things such as our water and our electricity. If you

[1:27:45] care about keeping our children healthy, both physically and

[1:27:48] economically, you will prevent these AI centers from polluting

[1:27:51] our air and water. You will prevent them from stealing our

[1:27:54] jobs and, you know, damaging the minds of our children. And

[1:27:59] if you care about keeping Durham beautiful, then you have

[1:28:02] to oppose these plans because they're going to destroy our

[1:28:04] air. They're going to give us disgusting, smoggy skylines,

[1:28:07] disgusting drinking water, and they're going to leave our

[1:28:10] economies destroyed, leave our people dirty and poor. You have

[1:28:14] to fight it. Please. Thank you. Thank you. And then.

[1:28:20] Before John Hargett, is that you? Thank you. Good evening.

[1:28:23] Before you start speaking in, your time is not going to

[1:28:25] start. I'm going to call the next five folks. And please

[1:28:27] remember to state your name so I can make sure I'm tracking

[1:28:29] where we are on the list. Rachel Perry, Andrea Casals,

[1:28:33] Tia Hunt, Shaheed Mustafa, F2, Jagan, Jesse I don't know those

[1:28:39] folks. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. My name is John

[1:28:43] Hargett. I live in North Durham. I'm here to advocate in

[1:28:46] support of the moratorium on building new data centers in

[1:28:49] Durham. The most obvious concern with these data centers

[1:28:52] is the exorbitant water usage, with industry estimates showing

[1:28:55] a single large data center can use up to a billion gallons of

[1:28:58] water per year, or 2.7 million gallons of water a day during

[1:29:01] peak summer heat. And we all know Durham summers are getting

[1:29:04] hotter and hotter, with the consequences of the climate

[1:29:07] crisis that we did not ask for. The second concern I have is on

[1:29:11] the economics of these data centers. According to studies

[1:29:14] at Harvard Law School and a Bloomberg analysis, after

[1:29:16] aggregating wholesale electricity prices around the

[1:29:19] country, electricity now costs as much as 267% more for a

[1:29:24] single month than it did five years ago. In close location to

[1:29:27] these data centers. Lastly, on a more personal point, I am a

[1:29:31] local musician. Just today, we learned that 44% of music

[1:29:34] uploaded to Spotify as AI ai generated now was 75,000 AI

[1:29:39] generated songs uploaded a day. The AI industry is sucking the

[1:29:43] lifeblood out of the arts. Thank you for your time.

[1:29:50] Thank thank you. And then there was one name that I missed Tia

[1:29:54] Hunt. So if you're Tia Hunt, go ahead and come on up to. Oh, I

[1:29:57] didn't miss you. Okay. Good evening.

[1:30:00] Good evening, Council members. My name is Rachel Perry. Data

[1:30:06] centers do not provide a service to the people of Durham.

[1:30:11] They will be a means to extract wealth from the people of

[1:30:15] Durham and the nation as a whole. And then

[1:30:19] disproportionately put the cost on whoever was unlucky enough

[1:30:23] to actually build these data centers. I support a moratorium

[1:30:27] not only for the two months, but extended indefinitely.

[1:30:33] Right now, the AI companies that are going to be using

[1:30:36] these don't even have a plan to make these profitable. Sam

[1:30:41] Altman said himself that he was going to wait till AI

[1:30:46] actualized to ask it how to make it profitable. So right

[1:30:49] now we'd be expected to take on cost with no plan of any

[1:30:53] return. This is not in our best interest and we need to put a

[1:30:59] hold on this until there's some plan to make this useful. If

[1:31:04] that was. Possible. Thank you. Good

[1:31:16] evening. Good evening. My name is Andrea

[1:31:18] Casals. I've been a Durham nurse since 2019, and in the

[1:31:21] past year I got my doctorate, which means I know a lot about

[1:31:23] research or a good bit. I'm very concerned because I don't

[1:31:27] know if you all know, but Nurse's Week is starting on

[1:31:30] Wednesday and I really don't care for a pizza party. I don't

[1:31:33] care for the freebies out of restaurants. I don't even care

[1:31:35] for a thank you. What I care for is a ban on data centers

[1:31:39] here in Durham, and honestly, everywhere across the country I

[1:31:42] have seen the impacts that it does on people's finances. I've

[1:31:46] seen the impact it does on their environments and in turn,

[1:31:49] their health. We are called the City of Medicine and if we're

[1:31:52] called the City of medicine, we have to act. And being

[1:31:54] preventative instead of reactionary. Once harm is done.

[1:31:57] Yes, saying no to data centers is actually the bare minimum.

[1:32:02] And if you're going to be protecting its constituents,

[1:32:04] especially being health care workers, the largest sector in

[1:32:07] Durham workers, and we have to make sure that we protect our

[1:32:09] communities and this way and so many other ways. So I really

[1:32:12] urge you to consider the impact it's going to have on the

[1:32:15] health sector, the environment sector, and also our pockets,

[1:32:18] which are our livelihoods trust nurses, not AI, not developers,

[1:32:22] and no data centers. Thank you.

[1:32:29] Good evening. Good evening.

[1:32:31] Hi, my name is Tia Han and I'm a citizen of the Lumbee Tribe

[1:32:34] of North Carolina and an organizer with seven directions

[1:32:36] of service and indigenous led environmental justice

[1:32:39] organization here in North Carolina. I'm here to express

[1:32:42] my support and this current resolution, as well as a full

[1:32:44] 32 month resolution. Their moratorium for both the City of

[1:32:48] Durham and for Durham County. There's very, very little

[1:32:51] certainty that these developments would bring any

[1:32:54] good to the working class people of Durham, but we know

[1:32:56] for a fact it will line the pockets of big tech. These data

[1:33:00] centers will pollute our land and water and aid in increasing

[1:33:02] state surveillance on our residents. During already

[1:33:04] concerning times. A moratorium will allow residents and

[1:33:07] decision makers in Durham to learn more about these centers

[1:33:10] and how they can affect us and the language of the land. Money

[1:33:13] and ice. Water is alive, and it's all of our duties to

[1:33:15] protect it as much as we can. Thank you.

[1:33:22] Thank you. Good evening.

[1:33:23] Good evening. My name is Shah Mustafa and I

[1:33:26] 1,000% support a data center moratorium, which will

[1:33:29] hopefully become indefinite. Data centers are being sold to

[1:33:32] us as signs of progress. Keys to the futures of our

[1:33:35] communities. The reality, though, is that data centers

[1:33:37] secure the exact opposite and signal further destruction to

[1:33:40] our communities. I ask you, council members, what do we as

[1:33:44] a community stand to benefit from data centers? The idea

[1:33:47] that their existence would bolster jobs is a myth. They

[1:33:49] increase property values that people allege will come about,

[1:33:53] have helped nobody but the wealthy, and more tech related

[1:33:57] to business is not worth the lives of your constituents.

[1:34:00] Please vote with your community. There are other,

[1:34:02] more urgent matters to be considered that take precedent

[1:34:04] to any data center. We have not adequately addressed the

[1:34:07] affordable housing crisis here. Gun violence, food insecurity

[1:34:10] and other issues that play a role in how Durham might lead

[1:34:13] their lives. Our futures and livelihoods depend on it. And

[1:34:16] you. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:34:22] Good evening. Hello. My name.

[1:34:23] Is. Feherty Jackson.

[1:34:25] I am calling. On the city, the county and the

[1:34:27] joint city. County planning. Commission to vote yes on a 24

[1:34:32] month moratorium. I won't belabor the point on what other

[1:34:34] people said, but I do find it extremely disrespectful that we

[1:34:37] all came here and we only get one minute to talk. And we talk

[1:34:40] a lot about accountable and responsive government. And this

[1:34:43] is not what was demonstrated tonight. And so, like everyone

[1:34:46] has already said, data centers will increase our cost of

[1:34:49] living. Duke energy is proposing another rate increase

[1:34:52] due to anticipated demand from data centers, which need

[1:34:56] improvements to our infrastructure, to our power

[1:34:58] grid, and we will end up paying for that. Duke energy made $5

[1:35:02] billion last year, but we will have to pay for the data

[1:35:05] centers that will further increase their profits. Thank

[1:35:08] you very much. And yes, I'll vote yes on moratorium.

[1:35:11] Thank you. Good evening. And before you

[1:35:17] start your comments, I'm going to call the next five speakers

[1:35:19] up. Thank you so much. Wiley Kornbluth, Angela Bell,

[1:35:24] Victoria Peterson, Samantha Krupp, and Annie Doran. Go

[1:35:30] ahead. Thank you. Good evening.

[1:35:31] All right. Good evening y'all. I'm Jesse.

[1:35:33] I'm. Giving you the cliff notes.

[1:35:34] Don't worry. I emailed.

[1:35:35] You the full thing. Whether you.

[1:35:37] Adopt our 32 month original moratorium, start and stop with

[1:35:40] shorter ones, or pretend. Wattage limits.

[1:35:42] Could dissuade these companies, they will use any time we give.

[1:35:44] them to pivot to smaller scale centers, transfer ownership of

[1:35:47] existing buildings rather than seek rezoning, and straight up

[1:35:50] lie about the impacts of powering and cooling the

[1:35:52] servers to get these projects through. Without public input,

[1:35:55] it will always be in their best interest to say whatever it

[1:35:57] gets to get you to buy in, and it will always be us who pays

[1:36:00] the price. We don't have more time or more water to be guinea

[1:36:03] pigs for their cash grab. It's infuriating to see how many

[1:36:06] people with power are actively gambling with our future, to

[1:36:08] chase the dreams of private companies that want a full time

[1:36:11] surveillance state. If any of us is going to make it through

[1:36:13] the next decade, we must end the narrative that this is

[1:36:15] inevitable and stop the churn of tech to tech supremacy. Look

[1:36:19] to places like Tennessee, Georgia and Utah. People are

[1:36:21] already paying the price for data centers through

[1:36:23] displacement, illness decimated environments, not to mention

[1:36:26] literally through power bills. We must consider bans, robust

[1:36:29] land and water conservancy, heavy penalties, regulations

[1:36:32] and restrictions for existing infrastructure in our state, as

[1:36:35] well as reparations for people already impacted.

[1:36:36] Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

[1:36:45] Good evening. My name is. Angela Beale.

[1:36:47] I'm on. It's it's okay. I have Wiley

[1:36:51] next, but they can go after you up okay. Here.

[1:36:54] It's okay. To go. Go ahead.

[1:36:56] Okay. Good evening.

[1:36:56] My name is Angela Bell. I am born and raised in Durham. I'm

[1:37:03] appalled at this. That is even a discussion tonight. I am

[1:37:09] definitely in support of the moratorium. I'm also a

[1:37:15] registered nurse in North Carolina. As the other lady,

[1:37:19] the amount of health issues that data centers bring into

[1:37:24] communities people are unable to go outside of their houses

[1:37:29] without coughing. Children aren't able to go outside and

[1:37:34] play. I don't think this should even be a discussion. It takes

[1:37:40] 5 million gallons of water a day to keep the service cool,

[1:37:45] because they produce so much heat. This isn't something that

[1:37:51] Durham needs. I think it's time for each one of you all to

[1:37:55] search your hearts and ask, are you in support of yourself?

[1:37:59] Your pockets, corporate America or Durham residents?

[1:38:14] Wiley corn blue. Is that person here this evening? No. Okay.

[1:38:20] Thank you for that. Peterson. I'm Mrs. Peterson. I think if

[1:38:30] the city council can stay here until 2:00 in the morning, they

[1:38:33] could have given us more than one minute. And they have done

[1:38:36] that in the past. They've been here 2:00 in the morning. I

[1:38:40] have several concerns. First thing, Council Member Baker,

[1:38:43] when you speak, can you please tell us where you folks are

[1:38:47] looking at putting this facility? Also, can you make

[1:38:51] sure when you have a meeting that the company will have a

[1:38:56] representative? Is this something, Mr. Mayor, that you

[1:38:59] folks are just trying to do on your own to put a data center

[1:39:02] here, or do you already have a location that that you already

[1:39:06] have something in mind where you would like to put the data

[1:39:09] center, please, Mr. Baker? Councilman Baker, I want you to

[1:39:13] speak on that. When you share some information with us,

[1:39:16] because it is not in the information that you folks have

[1:39:19] given us. Also, I'm concerned we have seniors in this

[1:39:23] community. I'm a senior. My understanding these data

[1:39:27] centers put out a whole lot of noise, put out a whole lot of

[1:39:32] noise. I will. Be back.

[1:39:33] To some of the other meetings. Thank you. City Council.

[1:39:45] Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Can I go

[1:39:48] ahead? Okay.

[1:39:49] Just just for the record, you you are going to find very

[1:39:53] little daylight between what's been said and on this council.

[1:39:56] I can confidently say that we are not putting data centers

[1:40:00] anywhere. This is just part of the process. We do have to

[1:40:02] bring this to the council. It's a resolution. It was presented

[1:40:06] and we're taking it up, but we don't have a plan to do that.

[1:40:09] So before we have the other 100 people speak, I don't want

[1:40:12] folks to come up here yelling at council members, thinking

[1:40:15] that we are putting a data center somewhere. Trust me when

[1:40:18] you hear our comments. So that makes sense. But we're allowing

[1:40:21] public comment first before you hear ours. All right. I hope no

[1:40:25] one told you all that. That's what we're considering because

[1:40:27] it's not all right. I miss Peterson. No, we're not we're

[1:40:31] not going to do that. Thank you.

[1:40:33] Go ahead. Let's go.

[1:40:33] Ahead. Hi. My name is Samantha Cropp.

[1:40:38] Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I support a data

[1:40:40] center moratorium, and I echo the message of many here that

[1:40:43] we need more time to do it, right. When it comes to data

[1:40:45] centers, there are many dangerous unknowns. For

[1:40:47] instance, we don't actually know how much water these

[1:40:50] facilities truly use. We don't know where this water will come

[1:40:52] from, which is especially troubling given the ongoing

[1:40:55] drought conditions and increasing demand for water

[1:40:57] across the triangle. We also don't know the quality of the

[1:41:00] water that is used and discharged back to our rivers.

[1:41:03] Data center discharge may contain biocides, heavy metals,

[1:41:05] potentially PFAS, which are forever chemicals, and this is

[1:41:08] not a trivial risk to communities who rely on our

[1:41:11] rivers for drinking water. With so many unknowns, Durham does

[1:41:14] need the time to do it right. We need the time to establish

[1:41:16] clear, enforceable safeguards. It needs a permitting process

[1:41:20] for high volume water users and meaningful enforcement

[1:41:22] mechanisms. And finally, Durham needs to put long term

[1:41:25] protections in place to ensure water resources are not

[1:41:28] degraded. This work cannot be rushed. A 24 month moratorium

[1:41:31] is the bare minimum needed to get the answers to build the

[1:41:34] safeguards and protect Durham's waterways. As a soon to be

[1:41:37] mother, I'm concerned about our future and I hope that you do

[1:41:39] what's right for our community. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[1:41:47] I'm going to call the next five folks up. Thank you. And then

[1:41:49] let you speak. I have Gabriella Lott, Jade Brooks, Pablo

[1:41:55] Friedman. Ashley Daniels and Isa Kessel Robinson. 2828 but

[1:42:08] that's what. We. I'm sorry.

[1:42:10] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:42:13] And for the folks who signed up as under 28, I'm just calling

[1:42:16] you up. As for item number four, automatically. Good

[1:42:22] evening. Thank you, thank you, and thank

[1:42:23] you for the opportunity to speak.

[1:42:25] My name. Is Annie Doran. I'm sure that

[1:42:27] many people have. spoken on. All.

[1:42:29] These topics more. Eloquently than I can.

[1:42:31] But I. Do.

[1:42:32] Want to point out that one of my passions is clean drinking

[1:42:35] water and wetlands and waterways, and one of my great

[1:42:40] concerns is the presence of chemicals and PFAS in our

[1:42:43] drinking water. North Carolina infamously does not have great

[1:42:48] drinking water in many areas. There are some areas where the

[1:42:50] water is not particularly safe to drink. I would really hate

[1:42:53] to see that happen in Durham County. Furthermore, something

[1:42:57] I don't think I've seen pointed out tonight is the

[1:43:00] infrastructure that it takes for these AI data centers to

[1:43:03] exist. What we saw up in Person County was a natural gas plant

[1:43:09] created. And then, lo and behold, we hear that a data

[1:43:11] center was being announced shortly afterward. So I think

[1:43:14] we have to take into account some of these other possible

[1:43:18] polluting factors, such as natural gas plants, that it

[1:43:21] would take for these AI data centers to exist. Thank you so

[1:43:24] much. Thank you. Good evening. Good

[1:43:30] evening. My name.

[1:43:31] Is Gabriela Lott. I'm a.

[1:43:32] Durham resident. And I'm here to join the calls

[1:43:34] for. multiyear moratorium. on data centers. I want to talk a

[1:43:38] bit about what's at stake if we don't pass a moratorium. So

[1:43:41] what's at stake for y'all as a council is simple. It's going

[1:43:44] to shoot yourself in the foot. Data centers will undermine the

[1:43:47] work you do on things like affordable housing, because it

[1:43:50] will increase competition for land to build homes. And even

[1:43:53] if you can get people into homes, there's a data center

[1:43:56] raising their electric bills. Now they have to choose between

[1:43:59] paying rent and paying for things like AC. It'll cancel

[1:44:02] out the work you're doing on economic development, because

[1:44:04] these centers offer next to no permanent jobs, and they're

[1:44:07] contributing to widespread layoffs. Finally, it'll

[1:44:11] squander the city's financial and environmental resources,

[1:44:14] because data centers will rob us of tax revenue and our water

[1:44:17] supply. What's at stake for me is personal. I'm from York

[1:44:21] County, South Carolina, and every time I go home, I see how

[1:44:24] a 400 acre data center is impacting my mom's

[1:44:27] neighborhood. People talked about the noise, waking people

[1:44:30] up out their sleep, and we know about the health costs that

[1:44:33] come over time. So I'm asking today, pass a long and strong

[1:44:36] moratorium and learn from places that didn't.

[1:44:39] Thank you. Jade Brooks is next. And Pablo

[1:44:47] Friedman, then Ashley Daniels, and then Isaac or Isaac Hessel

[1:44:51] Robinson. That's the order I have. Thank you. Good evening.

[1:44:55] Good evening. I'm Jade. I want.

[1:44:57] To. Thank you all for hearing us

[1:44:58] all out. And I. know that you. All support.

[1:45:01] What we're talking about and that ultimately you all, I

[1:45:04] believe, want more than the two months we're going to get

[1:45:07] tonight. So what? I'm asking you all to keep fighting with

[1:45:10] us behind the scenes, get into the meetings that only you are

[1:45:13] able to sit in. Fight for the county to make us much longer

[1:45:16] than we want. We know we need multiple years because we with

[1:45:19] the staff to. We want you all to have the time you need to do

[1:45:22] all that's going to be necessary to fight back in our

[1:45:26] community against these. And I know that you all are probably

[1:45:28] feeling that we're part of a growing resistance, not only to

[1:45:33] data centers, of course, but also to Big tech's role over

[1:45:36] our lives, to big oil and gases roll over our lives, and this

[1:45:40] is part of what we do to fight back against authoritarianism,

[1:45:43] which I know you all care about.

[1:45:51] Thank you. Good evening. Right.

[1:45:58] Good evening everyone. We got one minute. Maybe we

[1:46:01] should have all been developers tonight to get 10 or 15

[1:46:04] minutes. But we'll do with one minute. It is what it is. All

[1:46:07] right, so I first want to begin by talking about the process to

[1:46:12] get to this podium tonight. So some of us were waiting for 10

[1:46:15] or 15 minutes to sign up. I think when we talk about the

[1:46:19] processes that we're using, if we have to wait 10 or 15

[1:46:21] minutes to sign up to speak for public comment, I think that

[1:46:24] might be a time to move to the more analog system of the

[1:46:26] yellow card, so we don't have to wait for 15 minutes. Thank

[1:46:29] you, Councilmember Baker, for your supportive comments during

[1:46:31] public comments, but we need to revisit that process. I also

[1:46:34] want to talk tonight about how we got to this point. So my

[1:46:37] understanding is that county staff sent over some

[1:46:40] information to you, and that's now why it's watered down. I do

[1:46:43] think it is interesting when the rules get enforced when it

[1:46:46] comes to these types of issues. So for example, Lee village,

[1:46:49] that redevelopment proposal, you don't have to do a TPO. You

[1:46:53] know, you have to do a TPO and you still pass it up and now

[1:46:55] you're getting sued for it. Right? When we talk about the

[1:46:58] Udo redevelopment, right, you're threatening get sued and

[1:47:01] then you pause it. No. When you choose to enforce the law and

[1:47:04] when you choose to leverage the law, thank.

[1:47:07] You. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Ashley

[1:47:19] Daniels. I work.

[1:47:20] At Toxic Free NC. Durham houses, five.

[1:47:23] Contaminated public parks. And is still learning the

[1:47:25] extent of. Contamination in Burton Creek.

[1:47:27] We do. Not need to create another.

[1:47:29] Mess that a future generations will be obligated to.

[1:47:31] Clean up later. Data centers rely on the use of

[1:47:35] PFAS substances and other toxicants to power their

[1:47:38] servers and keep their machines cool. We do not need to add

[1:47:42] another source of PFAS contamination to our

[1:47:44] communities, as Duke Energy appeals to the North Carolina

[1:47:48] Utilities Commission to extract an additional 18% in cost from

[1:47:51] the people of North Carolina, the people in the state do not

[1:47:54] need to give profit for another industry. We support a 32 month

[1:47:58] moratorium. Yeah. Thank you for your time.

[1:48:06] Thank you. And I'm going to call the next

[1:48:09] five. I think I have five more. Sarah, Janek, Nicole, drape.

[1:48:15] Luke. Edgar. Alex. Rico. Eva, Paige, Banach.

[1:48:22] Thank you. Good evening. My name is Isaac Castle

[1:48:24] Robinson. I voted in the recent Durham primary election,

[1:48:27] partially based on my opposition to AI. I recently

[1:48:30] graduated from a tech oriented college with a degree in

[1:48:34] computer science, and I work. I was brought to the triangle to

[1:48:37] work at a major tech employer. I do not know any tech oriented

[1:48:41] people who do not virulently dislike AI, has minimal to no

[1:48:46] positive benefits on society, and numerous negative ones,

[1:48:49] including replacing critical thinking, mastered skills, and

[1:48:55] skill. And yeah, those three with dependence on AI enables

[1:49:02] mass surveillance by governments and corporations,

[1:49:05] opens new fronts for sexual assault and harassment, and

[1:49:08] contributes to the widening wage gap by eliminating jobs at

[1:49:11] all skill levels. I believe that we should not in any way

[1:49:15] subsidize or enable this incredibly dangerous

[1:49:17] technology, because these are problems that can never be

[1:49:19] engineered around. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:49:26] Good evening. Good evening. My name is Sarah Yannick.

[1:49:30] I grew up. Here and I'm also an

[1:49:32] environmental educator. I support this moratorium.

[1:49:35] I learned. early in. My career that we live not far

[1:49:39] from the place that many people credit. As the birthplace of

[1:49:41] the environmental justice movement, Warren County, where

[1:49:45] concerned citizens protested a landfill that would bring

[1:49:48] thousands of truckloads of carcinogenic waste into a

[1:49:51] community that was 60% black. That protest and others after

[1:49:56] it taught me that environmental protection and social justice

[1:49:59] are not separate fights. Our care for the land and water are

[1:50:03] a core part of how we care for each other. As humans. Durham's

[1:50:07] well-being depends on the well-being of the water and

[1:50:09] land in and around Durham. We need to be stewarding our

[1:50:13] waterways so that we will have the water we need in coming

[1:50:16] decades. That water is not guaranteed. It depends on our

[1:50:20] protection, on the protection that this council must exercise

[1:50:23] tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:50:30] Good evening. Good evening. My name is Nicole. I'm a volunteer

[1:50:35] with Mestre Barrio volunteer run community center on Driver

[1:50:37] Street and a resident of East Durham. I'm here to urge the

[1:50:40] City Council to pass and extend the proposed moratorium and put

[1:50:43] the people of Durham above tech billionaires. There are a few

[1:50:46] issues that must be considered for future regulations. Data

[1:50:49] centers of our electricity and our water supply. In Wisconsin

[1:50:52] alone, two hyperscale facilities are expected to use

[1:50:55] more energy than every household in the state

[1:50:57] combined. More electricity means more carbon emissions,

[1:51:00] more climate catastrophe. We cannot ignore who gets hurt

[1:51:03] first. Developers target low income communities and black

[1:51:06] neighborhoods, both for data centers and the fossil fuel

[1:51:09] plants needed to power them. Long term exposure to these

[1:51:11] fumes cause asthma, cancer, heart disease. That's not

[1:51:14] innovation. That's environmental racism. Bloomberg

[1:51:16] recently reported that half of all data centers for 2026 are

[1:51:19] going to be delayed or canceled. There's clearly

[1:51:21] community pushback across the country, and Durham will be no

[1:51:23] different. We should have the political power in our hands.

[1:51:26] The communities directly impacted, not the communities

[1:51:28] of tech, not the hands of tech billionaires or corporate

[1:51:31] politicians who will sacrifice workers, poison our communities

[1:51:34] or destroy our future just to line their pockets, pass and

[1:51:36] extend the moratorium. Thank you.

[1:51:46] Good evening. Good evening, Council and

[1:51:48] everyone else. My name is Edgar Arrieta. I'm a proud member

[1:51:51] with the triangle branch for the party for socialism,

[1:51:53] Liberation, and I grew up for 17 years of my life in Warren

[1:51:57] County. So I grew up hearing these stories of the protests

[1:52:01] and, you know, this small town in North Carolina being the

[1:52:04] birthplace for environmental justice in our country. And,

[1:52:07] you know, seeing in just these past few years, we have seen we

[1:52:12] know we have data, we have real people who have suffered and

[1:52:16] have been exploited from these data centers, from these

[1:52:18] corporations, from these AI booms that are just eventually

[1:52:22] going to fall because they're not turning a profit. It's all

[1:52:25] speculative. And I've seen very recently, in fact, the

[1:52:32] consequences of what not planning for our future can

[1:52:35] lead to. I'm Sure that y'all.

[1:52:39] Will do the right thing. Pastors moratorium continue to

[1:52:43] work with the community with for the 32 month maximum that

[1:52:46] we have. I'll wait and see it. Thank you.

[1:52:50] Thank you. Good evening.

[1:52:55] Hi. Good evening. My name.

[1:52:56] Is Alex Trejo. I'm an organizer.

[1:52:58] With Rostro Barrio in East Durham. And I'm asking the city

[1:53:00] of Durham to vote in favor of a two year minimum data center

[1:53:03] moratorium. When we make decisions that will drastically

[1:53:07] change the layout of our neighborhoods and our entire

[1:53:08] city, the people who live here deserve enough time to have a

[1:53:11] real say in what those changes look like. Data centers consume

[1:53:14] massive amounts of energy and carry serious, ever minor

[1:53:17] environmental impacts, and that consumption has been shown to

[1:53:21] raise electricity costs for residents across the country.

[1:53:23] With the cost of living already climbing every year. Durham

[1:53:26] families simply cannot afford another increase to our utility

[1:53:29] bills. We've already watched Durham transform the interest

[1:53:31] of a few and influx of private capital developers and luxury

[1:53:34] apartments has reshaped this city. While many of the people

[1:53:37] who built it and still work here every day are being pushed

[1:53:39] out by the rising cost of living. This large part of the

[1:53:42] result of hyper development that prioritizes outside

[1:53:45] investors over the residents who call Durham home. Bringing

[1:53:48] in data centers without a clear, community informed plan

[1:53:51] would not only deepen that pattern, luck locking us into

[1:53:54] long term commitments with corporations that we cannot

[1:53:56] easily undo. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

[1:54:04] Hi. My name is.

[1:54:05] Eva and I live in Durham County. I filled out my form

[1:54:08] incorrectly, but I hope my remarks make my position clear.

[1:54:11] I am in favor of the longest possible moratorium on new data

[1:54:14] centers to allow time for the development of regulations that

[1:54:17] protect our people, our land, and our water. AI focused

[1:54:20] hyperscale data centers can use as much power as hundreds of

[1:54:23] thousands to millions of households. These data centers

[1:54:26] emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases and expose nearby

[1:54:29] communities to toxins that can cause asthma and exacerbate

[1:54:32] heart disease. Of course, in line with the long history of

[1:54:35] environmental racism in this country, this

[1:54:38] disproportionately affects communities of color. In all

[1:54:40] the places we've seen this happen so far. Some of the

[1:54:43] largest data centers being built now cover hundreds of

[1:54:46] acres with steel and concrete, endangering our ecosystems and

[1:54:49] environment. And they use water with little to no transparency

[1:54:52] about the amount taken from local water sources, typically

[1:54:54] drawing from a single source to satisfy AI inquiries across the

[1:54:58] world. We are currently in a drought. I hope that you will

[1:55:01] support the moratorium for the longest amount possible, and

[1:55:04] use that time to implement regulations to place strong

[1:55:07] limitations and transparency requirements. Thank you.

[1:55:10] Thank you. Those are all the speakers I

[1:55:16] have signed up. So I'm going to declare this public hearing

[1:55:20] closed and back before the council and back before US

[1:55:23] colleagues for comments or questions that we may have.

[1:55:26] Mayor Williams, do you want me to finish this out before we

[1:55:28] take a break? Okay. Thank you. We're going to finish this

[1:55:31] discussion item, colleagues, and then take a ten minute

[1:55:33] break. But I'd rather finish and vote and then take a break

[1:55:37] versus cut us off in five minutes. Anyone have Council

[1:55:43] Member Baker? Go ahead. Thank you all for being here.

[1:55:47] Thank you to all of the speakers who spoke so

[1:55:51] eloquently to the dangers of hyperscale data centers. We are

[1:55:55] here tonight because of you, because you wrote to us, you

[1:56:01] called us for meetings. You gave us text messages and phone

[1:56:05] calls. You made this. You put this on our agenda. You made

[1:56:11] this as important as it as it could possibly be. And there

[1:56:16] were a few of you who are the tip of the spear, who put pen

[1:56:19] to paper and reached out and worked to make this happen. And

[1:56:23] that is why we were sitting here tonight. And I want to

[1:56:26] name a few of those groups who who have done this work,

[1:56:31] community, land and power, I think has done incredible work,

[1:56:35] clean water and C North Carolina Environmental Justice

[1:56:39] Network, Merrick Moore Community Development

[1:56:42] Corporation, and so, so many others. I can't name them all,

[1:56:46] but shout out to to all of you, to the DSA, to PSL, everyone

[1:56:50] who's raised your voice to this issue and how important it is.

[1:56:55] Again, many of you expected to see a 24 month moratorium when

[1:56:58] you came here this evening and for reasons that I, I think you

[1:57:03] now see, we are at this point temporarily stuck with 60 day

[1:57:10] moratorium with with more options moving forward tonight,

[1:57:16] in keeping with the Ido, we are going to be voting on the 60

[1:57:20] day moratorium that buys us time to bring forward more

[1:57:25] robust language for a more robust moratorium. I will say

[1:57:30] this. I think that it is vital that we have no less than a 24

[1:57:35] month moratorium on hyperscale data centers in the city of

[1:57:39] Durham. Why the enabling legislation? In chapter 162 of

[1:57:44] the state statutes is is pretty clear about moratorium, and we

[1:57:49] need to have a reason. Why would it be six months? Why

[1:57:52] would it be 12 months? Why would it be 24 months or more?

[1:57:55] We need to be able to explain why the longest moratorium in

[1:58:00] the state of North Carolina right now is 12 months. That's

[1:58:02] what we've typically been seeing. However, the evidence

[1:58:06] is piling up. We see the hyperscale data centers are

[1:58:12] having detrimental impacts in communities across the state,

[1:58:15] but also across the United States, across the South, many

[1:58:19] people who came here this evening have spoken to those

[1:58:22] very eloquently. They're impacting water. They're

[1:58:25] impacting electricity, they're impacting fiscal outcomes. They

[1:58:29] have negative impacts on social justice issues. They are

[1:58:32] locating themselves in places where the poorest live. They

[1:58:36] are raising temperatures sometimes extremely close to

[1:58:40] where they are, and they have so many other potential impacts

[1:58:44] that we might not even know about. We do not want these

[1:58:49] impacts in Durham. I am concerned that other

[1:58:53] communities have not given themselves enough time to

[1:58:56] thoroughly understand this complex issue. Yes, they can

[1:59:00] extend their moratorium, and I do think that we're probably

[1:59:02] going to see that. But the safe route is just to adopt

[1:59:07] something longer that meets the moment and the need. This is a

[1:59:11] fast evolving issue that requires time. The best

[1:59:15] practices on this issue are constantly changing and being

[1:59:19] updated. Durham is the first of North Carolina's major cities

[1:59:24] to not the only one. The first one to be looking at a

[1:59:29] moratorium and developing more robust regulations. Durham is

[1:59:33] in the middle of a stalled Udo process, and that adds

[1:59:37] additional complications for us in particular. And then

[1:59:41] finally, I have spoken with experts across the state. I've

[1:59:46] spoken with our counterparts in other communities in North

[1:59:48] Carolina who have passed a moratorium. And because of all

[1:59:53] those conversations that that I have had, because of all of

[1:59:56] these reasons, I do believe that we are justified in a

[2:00:01] minimum 24 month moratorium. So I'm disappointed, like many

[2:00:07] folks, that that we are not approving a clean 24 months

[2:00:11] this evening. But I see this as a first step. This is Durham's

[2:00:16] first development moratorium. Durham is the first, not the

[2:00:21] only but the first of of North Carolina's major communities to

[2:00:25] do this. And when the moratorium goes into effect, I

[2:00:30] am counting on a highly engaging and collaborative

[2:00:34] process with the community, especially those experts who

[2:00:38] have played a key role in putting this moratorium

[2:00:40] forward. The technical experts to do the research, to study

[2:00:45] the issues, to study the best practices, and ultimately to

[2:00:49] put in place the best high quality regulations that we

[2:00:53] possibly can. And my hope is that Durham sets the standard,

[2:00:59] at least for North Carolina, for hyperscale data center

[2:01:02] regulations and what they should look like.

[2:01:04] Thank you, Council member Council Member Burris did you

[2:01:07] have. Anything?

[2:01:10] Good evening and thank you all so much for your advocacy and

[2:01:13] your organizing work. As we I share the same sentence with

[2:01:15] many of you in regards to not want a data center in our

[2:01:18] community. Also to your point, Miss Peterson, I had the same

[2:01:21] question initially like where's proposed data center? So I do

[2:01:24] agree that we can message a little bit better. I recognize

[2:01:26] that our staff has moved very swiftly to try to address these

[2:01:29] issues. It came before us in the work session a couple of

[2:01:31] weeks ago. So I think that moving forward, it will be

[2:01:35] while support this, we just need to make sure we figure out

[2:01:37] all of the legalities that we still can move forward. And if

[2:01:40] we may provide it a little more time, possibly could have got

[2:01:44] that clear. So while 60 days is a start, I feel it just feels

[2:01:49] like 60s to me. And so I look forward in the immediate future

[2:01:53] as to learning more and making sure we work closely with our

[2:01:55] staff to learn more about what our options are, as well as

[2:01:58] using our voices to compel our colleagues to maybe explore a

[2:02:02] longer moratorium as well. So thank you all again for your

[2:02:06] advocacy, and I look forward to hearing from you on additional

[2:02:08] occasions. But I just want to also compliment our staff for

[2:02:11] being a minimum of flexible, as you all have had to pull this

[2:02:14] together on very short notice. Thank you. Council Member

[2:02:19] Burris Council Member Kopac and then Council Member Rist. Oh

[2:02:22] no. Okay. Thank you.

[2:02:23] Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. So first of all, happy

[2:02:27] Nurses Week starting on Wednesday. I appreciate that my

[2:02:30] wife is also a nurse. I want to say that I am firmly in support

[2:02:34] of the hyperscale data center moratorium, which I believe is

[2:02:38] an important statement of our values as a community. The

[2:02:41] environmental impacts, the impact on our water supply, the

[2:02:44] impact on utility rates and the lack of jobs and real community

[2:02:47] benefits are clear. I appreciate the most important

[2:02:51] source of renewable energy here this evening, which is all of

[2:02:54] you who showed up to advocate, and I want to thank you all as

[2:02:58] individuals as well as organizations such as song,

[2:03:02] community, Land and Power, North Carolina Environmental

[2:03:04] Justice Network, and many others that came together in

[2:03:07] coalition to advocate this evening. This has moved very

[2:03:10] quickly, and that's because of the urgency and interest most

[2:03:16] much quicker than most agenda items that come before this

[2:03:18] council. And so I certainly understand the reasons for

[2:03:22] shifting to the 60 day pause at this time while we work with

[2:03:26] the county and stay in compliance with our Udo to make

[2:03:29] sure that we put in place effective regulations, which I

[2:03:33] intend on supporting the 24 month moratorium. When it comes

[2:03:37] back before us, I'll just note that as the mayor pro tem said,

[2:03:42] there are other opportunities for advocacy. And economically

[2:03:44] speaking, the county is where we would likely see a

[2:03:47] hyperscale data center attempt to locate. So I encourage you

[2:03:51] to bring the energy to the county during the public

[2:03:53] hearing, just as you have here. And I look forward to a joint

[2:03:56] unified approach to addressing this issue for our great city.

[2:04:00] Thank you. Thank you.

[2:04:04] Councilmember present. Yeah, I just want I know it's a long

[2:04:06] meeting. I just want to echo the comments of my colleagues,

[2:04:08] want to appreciate all the folks here who've spoken and

[2:04:10] the organizers. I will support this enthusiastically. So thank

[2:04:13] you for being here. Thank you. Mayor Williams.

[2:04:17] Yeah, thank you. Just briefly, I like I said earlier, I think

[2:04:22] everyone on on this council is is in support of this. I am

[2:04:27] probably on one of the very few occasions, I don't know, I

[2:04:32] might be a bit more aggressive on this than you. Council

[2:04:34] Member Baker. I think that, you know, Durham just needs to

[2:04:39] indefinitely have a moratorium on megawatt data centers. I

[2:04:43] will say that there is some language that's being worked on

[2:04:46] at the county level, as well as the state level, and I want to

[2:04:50] talk a little bit just because I saw some familiar faces in

[2:04:53] here tonight. And and I just want to appreciate their

[2:04:56] concern. On a recent incident, something that a mayor does is

[2:05:02] we listen to our community, and then we go and speak on behalf

[2:05:05] of our community. And one thing you're going to find me doing

[2:05:08] is you're going to find me trying to find the best options

[2:05:13] forward. I understand that people use data centers. I

[2:05:17] understand when you pick up your phone. This phone is tied

[2:05:20] to a data center somewhere. I understand I'm not going to not

[2:05:23] be in reality, but I also want to be very vocal, which in

[2:05:28] regards to land that we have here in Durham, we don't have

[2:05:31] the space for it, nor do we want that in here. We have a

[2:05:34] housing crunch as it is already, and if these data

[2:05:37] centers and the people who own them are wealthy enough to have

[2:05:40] them, then they're wealthy enough to build infrastructure

[2:05:42] in areas where it's needed. But Durham is not the place for it.

[2:05:46] I've been very clear about that, but you're going to hear

[2:05:48] me talk to them. You're going to hear me try and figure out

[2:05:50] what solutions they can bring. And right now, there is no

[2:05:53] federal guidance nor state guidance. And so we're kind of

[2:05:58] left out here on our own right now. And and I have spoken to

[2:06:02] Duke Energy and others. And, you know, I'm going to try and

[2:06:05] seek solutions with them. That's what we do. We we speak

[2:06:08] to people. We try to find solutions that we speak on

[2:06:10] behalf of the interests of our community. If you haven't paid

[2:06:13] attention, pay attention to Northern Virginia, northern

[2:06:16] Virginia wanted data centers. They invited a man and they

[2:06:20] enjoyed the revenue that they brought in. And now they are

[2:06:24] humming machines behind their homes. It is very uncomfortable

[2:06:28] living condition. And it's a high populous area. So I know

[2:06:33] the data centers are going to go up somewhere. I know that

[2:06:36] they're going to go, they're going to they're going to

[2:06:38] build. I know that, but I think that until we get some clear

[2:06:41] guidance around where it's most appropriate and therefore we

[2:06:45] have to make sure that we are getting ahead of it. While

[2:06:47] there is no guidance, we can put our own guidance. There.

[2:06:50] I've been very clear this poor use of land is low number of

[2:06:54] jobs, and there are other creative ways that we can

[2:06:55] generate sales tax revenue. I invite you to support our small

[2:06:59] businesses. I invite you, Durham, a still majority

[2:07:02] locally owned. So therefore a higher return on the dollar

[2:07:06] stays local when you shop local we can generate sales taxes

[2:07:10] that way rather than being bringing a large establishments

[2:07:13] like this into the area. Again, the federal and state levels

[2:07:19] just don't have the guidance for us. But I will say I want

[2:07:21] to shout out State Representative Renata Austin.

[2:07:25] She actually has a bill that she's sponsoring that puts some

[2:07:29] some type of language and some some guidance and structure

[2:07:34] around the use of data centers across the entire state. So I

[2:07:38] would appreciate having a little more time to work with

[2:07:41] our county colleagues and our state colleagues. I actually

[2:07:45] would like to send this back and, and work on the indefinite

[2:07:49] one and have more of a tiered approach that that addresses us

[2:07:53] here locally. If not, we'll do this for 60 days. But I will

[2:07:58] say that I, I also may entertain the idea of a, of a

[2:08:02] task force where we can work with our county and state

[2:08:04] colleagues. So, colleagues, I may reach out to you all about

[2:08:08] that as well. Just be on the lookout that that way we can

[2:08:11] potentially have some vertical alignment and we pass it all at

[2:08:14] the same time. If you all would be interested in that. Okay,

[2:08:19] that'll be all my comments. Mayor Pro Tem.

[2:08:21] Miss Benjamin will comment. This is for staff. I don't know

[2:08:24] if the city manager others can address this. We've been

[2:08:26] getting some comments from residents that that there's I

[2:08:28] know this has been a fast moving topic and that there are

[2:08:31] different, potentially different versions of the

[2:08:32] resolution online on the agenda, whatever. So we'll make

[2:08:35] clear that the agenda that we're or the resolution we're

[2:08:37] voting on is the one that's in our packet tonight, regardless

[2:08:39] of what else may be on different sort of online

[2:08:42] agendas. It did change.

[2:08:44] Yeah. Respectfully, I'm going to defer to the city attorney

[2:08:46] because the attorney's office manager had them for us. Thank

[2:08:49] you. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Thank

[2:08:51] you. Councilmember. What you're voting on now is actually an

[2:08:54] ordinance, not the resolution. You've already passed and

[2:08:56] adopted. The resolution, which was to set this public hearing.

[2:09:01] The ordinance that's before you right now has been modified. It

[2:09:06] originally was in the agenda process for 24 months. And

[2:09:12] again, as we discovered, there's actually a limitation

[2:09:15] in the audio that if we were going to adopt a 24 month

[2:09:18] resolution, it had to first 24 month moratorium. I'm sorry, it

[2:09:23] had to first have gone through the Planning Commission, and we

[2:09:28] didn't have time to do that before this evening. The other

[2:09:31] issue is that we had gotten word we do have a joint studio

[2:09:36] and a joint planning and development department that we

[2:09:38] share with Durham County, and we had gotten word that the

[2:09:42] county is also looking at this issue. And it's really, really

[2:09:45] important that the two jurisdictions be aligned

[2:09:47] because of that joint structure. It would be really

[2:09:55] problematic for the planning and Development department to

[2:09:57] administer something. If the city were to adopt one standard

[2:10:01] and the county adopt a completely different standard.

[2:10:04] So I think it's really important to see if the county

[2:10:07] wants to act in this space. I don't know that we've

[2:10:10] definitively heard as yet, but also, if they do want to act in

[2:10:15] that space, it's pretty important that the two

[2:10:17] jurisdictions try to align their their approach.

[2:10:20] I appreciate that additional information. And again, I'm

[2:10:23] sorry that ordinance right. Not not resolution, but just want

[2:10:25] to make sure that the ordinance we're voting on is the one

[2:10:27] that's in our packet. Correct. Regardless of what else. Yeah.

[2:10:29] That's what everyone. Yeah. Correct.

[2:10:31] Yes. And I do also want to clarify, there have been lots

[2:10:34] of statements about wanting a 24 month. There have been some

[2:10:38] statements made this evening about 32 months. It's also

[2:10:41] important to recognize that the Durham Unified Development

[2:10:43] Ordinance limits moratorium for development purposes to one

[2:10:47] year. That's our own locally adopted legislation.

[2:10:56] Thank you. Colleagues, is there anyone else, any comment or

[2:10:59] questions? Yeah, just real quick. I just

[2:11:01] want to reiterate we we don't even have to land for this. So

[2:11:08] but the importance of the importance of make mass

[2:11:12] megawatt data centers, we don't want any particular land that

[2:11:19] does or structures that do exist to be converted. That's

[2:11:23] really important as well. But I will say I spoke with some

[2:11:28] colleagues at the county and they are moving on this as

[2:11:30] well. I will say I also would like us to be as consistent as

[2:11:34] possible on this, working with the county and our state

[2:11:38] colleagues. So we're if we're passing the ordinance tonight,

[2:11:41] do know that modifications will come so that we can be on the

[2:11:45] same page with them. Thank you. I just want to

[2:11:53] appreciate everyone who spoke. I want to also lift up Council

[2:11:56] Member Baker. I appreciate you listing some of the the groups,

[2:11:59] some of the folks that had reached out to us or

[2:12:02] Southerners on new ground, community, land and power,

[2:12:04] clean water and see more CDC sound rivers, mother's first

[2:12:07] ceasefire, the Durham Art Guild, Carolina Jews for

[2:12:09] justice, Durham, Orange County Juice for Jewish Voices for

[2:12:14] peace, triangle, NC moms, Clean Moms, Clean Air Force, NC, and

[2:12:20] the environmental NC Environmental Justice Network.

[2:12:23] So I know that there's been a lot of folks working on this in

[2:12:27] this space, including some other groups that were named

[2:12:29] this evening when they spoke. I just want to share with folks

[2:12:33] here. We don't always agree on development, on the status, but

[2:12:37] a data center is not housing a data center at the scale that

[2:12:41] we're talking about. This is not to support local hospitals

[2:12:44] health care. We know that in some cases, we have to have

[2:12:46] those that we are. Quite frankly, we already have some

[2:12:50] of those there in the park. Do hospital has some of these

[2:12:52] things. They've been here. That's not what we're talking

[2:12:55] about this evening. And I know that's what many of you said,

[2:12:58] and that's what your comments referenced. I just really want

[2:13:00] to lift up that housing and data centers and AI and big

[2:13:03] tech and defense companies, it's not the same. And we

[2:13:07] really do need to have nuanced conversations on what some of

[2:13:10] these things are and what the threats are to our communities,

[2:13:12] because they are real threats and they are legitimate

[2:13:15] threats. And so there was never a question. I know I've had

[2:13:19] some meetings with some community groups. I've had some

[2:13:22] email exchanges. It was never a doubt in my mind that there

[2:13:26] wasn't going to be unanimous support for something like this

[2:13:29] on this council. It's the same way that there's never a doubt

[2:13:31] in my mind on any single council I've ever served on.

[2:13:33] This is my third mayor, this is my ninth budget. You don't

[2:13:37] fight about LGBTQ rights in Durham when you're an elected

[2:13:40] official. You don't fight. If whether you're pro-life or

[2:13:42] pro-choice, you're pro-choice. In this community, you do not

[2:13:45] fight around immigration and standing up for our neighbors.

[2:13:50] That's who you have to be to serve in any capacity. In

[2:13:53] Durham County. That's the expectation of almost every

[2:13:56] single resident I've ever encountered. And that means

[2:13:59] it's a blessing that we live in that type of community. But

[2:14:04] this isn't a fight. This is an acknowledgement and affirmation

[2:14:08] of what community's already asked for. We have a lot of

[2:14:11] work to do before us around what the county is going to do,

[2:14:14] what we can do, what the opportunities are, and the LDC,

[2:14:17] the upcoming Udo around a moratorium. There's right, we

[2:14:20] have a lot of questions, but I believe in our legal staff.

[2:14:24] Several years ago, I think when HB 153 sunset, madam attorney,

[2:14:29] we had to work around non-discrimination ordinance

[2:14:32] language for housing and jobs for our queer community, and we

[2:14:36] had to work with the county because we wanted unified

[2:14:39] language that the county and the city adopted at the same

[2:14:42] time. And we passed that language. And it was unanimous

[2:14:46] on both both boards, and it was a different county

[2:14:48] commissioners and different city council members that are

[2:14:50] before you. So I just am sharing that as an example of

[2:14:53] the community you live in, the elected officials that you have

[2:14:56] and the neighbors that you have, and in this moment when

[2:15:00] we are fighting on so many fronts, this is hopefully not

[2:15:03] one that we're going to have to fight with. Residents and

[2:15:06] electeds. We're not always going to see eye to eye on some

[2:15:08] other things. We're going to fight here in a couple of cases

[2:15:10] and that's fine. But this is not one of those moments. This

[2:15:13] is where this is where I can feel deep pride. I know that we

[2:15:17] are unified and know that the billionaires, and thankfully we

[2:15:21] don't really have any live here, aren't going to keep stealing

[2:15:26] our future from us. So I look forward to working with

[2:15:29] colleagues. Thank you, Councilmember Baker, for

[2:15:30] introducing this and for community groups for bringing

[2:15:33] it forward. And I will look forward to working with our

[2:15:35] county commissioners and making sure that we get this right.

[2:15:40] Mayor Pro Tem. Yes, just I do have a favor to ask of, since

[2:15:44] there was such an organizing tonight, I'm going to ask you

[2:15:46] all for a favor. Please pay attention to what's happening

[2:15:49] at the state level as well. I think many of you know I'm from

[2:15:52] Halifax County, and I had to step in and help out from a

[2:15:57] distance, but there was literally language at the state

[2:16:01] potentially authorizing a single county to infringe on

[2:16:05] three other counties. I think someone said they were from

[2:16:07] Warren County and someone from the another tribe or whatever,

[2:16:11] but literally Franklin County was going to be able to take

[2:16:16] land with or without consent from Warren Vance and Halifax

[2:16:21] to allow them to utilize their water, utilize their land and

[2:16:25] their grid for this. So please, Durham, is your low hanging

[2:16:30] fruit. As a matter of fact, in many cases, and like this one

[2:16:32] where the fruit has already fallen off the tree, we're

[2:16:35] going to have to have we have to climb higher up the tree

[2:16:38] because there are some things going across going on across

[2:16:40] the state. But you're organizing powers can really be

[2:16:43] useful. It's this is easy in Durham, but there are some

[2:16:47] folks across the state that really need our support. And

[2:16:50] and personally, I'm asking for my family. We could use some of

[2:16:54] this organizing power and some other parts. Thank you.

[2:16:59] Thank you. And with that, the motion in front of us is to

[2:17:01] adopt a resolution to set a public hearing, to impose a

[2:17:04] temporary moratorium on development approvals for data

[2:17:06] centers, cryptocurrency mining operations, and any use. Madam

[2:17:09] Mayor Pro tem. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. We're on item four.

[2:17:13] Oh. Good Lord, thank you. That's

[2:17:15] what we did earlier. Excuse me. To adopt. So the motion before

[2:17:22] us is to adopt an ordinance imposing a temporary 60 day

[2:17:25] moratorium on development approvals for data centers,

[2:17:27] cryptocurrency mining operations, and any use

[2:17:29] associated with data center processing facilities within

[2:17:31] the city of Durham. Pursuant to 160-107. Could I please get a

[2:17:37] motion. so moved? Second, I have a motion and a second.

[2:17:40] Madam clerk, could you please open the vote? Could you please

[2:17:46] close the vote? Motion passes.

[2:17:49] Unanimously. Thank you. Colleagues, we are

[2:18:02] on break for the next ten minutes.

[2:18:07] Okay. I came to the.

[2:20:28] City to develop. Leadership and.

[2:20:30] Supervisory skills. I stayed because.

[2:20:33] Of the city's culture. And dedication to serving

[2:20:36] residents. The city of Durham, where careers make community to

[2:20:41] connect with a career that serves the whole city. Visit

[2:20:44] Durham, NC gov careers. Everyone in Durham should be

[2:21:00] able to find a home they can afford. That's why Forever Home

[2:21:03] Durham is creating affordable, livable and inclusive

[2:21:07] communities for low to middle income residents from renting

[2:21:12] to owning. Find out how the city is helping more people

[2:21:15] find homes right here in Durham. Learn more at Forever Home

[2:21:23] Durham. Com. Owning a home. provides a.

[2:21:29] Sense of. Financial stability. Family,

[2:21:31] community and. Pride. With housing.

[2:21:34] Prices are now higher. Than ever, making it hard for.

[2:21:36] Many Durham residents to afford their first home. That's why

[2:21:40] the City of Durham is offering the down Payment Assistance

[2:21:43] Program to support eligible individuals with up to $80,000

[2:21:48] in 0% interest forgivable loans to purchase a house within the

[2:21:52] city limits. Visit the site or call to find out if you qualify

[2:21:56] for the program. See a pothole? There's an app

[2:22:03] for that missed pickup. There's an app for that need to set up

[2:22:07] water service. There's an app for that too. Introducing the

[2:22:10] one Call app. Report your service request online on your

[2:22:14] schedule. Just download for free from the App Store or

[2:22:18] Google Play Store. Then sign up and start using it to report

[2:22:23] problems. Check the status of your service request or just

[2:22:26] find out more information. Try the Durham One Call app today.

[2:22:33] Here's some tips to ensure that your garbage and recycling gets

[2:22:37] picked up. One. Your cart should be put out for

[2:22:41] collection before 6 a.m. on your collection. Day two. Your

[2:22:45] cart should be at least three feet from all other objects,

[2:22:48] such as mailboxes, telephone poles, fire hydrants, trees,

[2:22:53] and other carts. Three. Your cart should be no more than

[2:22:58] three feet from the curb, for. No vehicles should be blocking

[2:23:03] your cards. The mechanical arms on our trucks need direct

[2:23:07] access to your carts and cannot reach around vehicles. To find

[2:23:11] more information about garbage and recycling pickups, go to

[2:23:15] this web address. I think we're going to. I think

[2:30:09] we're going to get started. You're going to keep running.

[2:30:35] The game right? I think so. Ladies and gentlemen.

[2:30:39] Colleagues, I need colleagues back on the dais. Let's go. And

[2:30:56] I'm going to go ahead and get us started because we are

[2:30:59] already at quorum. I do want to announce that the canes game is

[2:31:01] tied up for those who are paying attention. Third period

[2:31:06] were tied up two, two. Count. Council Member Burris is

[2:31:14] picking on me. I also never watched a hockey game until my

[2:31:17] kid started playing hockey. So. I think the next item. Sorry,

[2:31:30] y'all give me a second. I'm going to keep us going and

[2:31:33] we'll wait. Okay, the next item I have is a public hearing and

[2:31:38] economic development incentive agreement with AMEC Properties,

[2:31:42] Inc.. We have a public hearing, so I'm going to go ahead and

[2:31:47] do. Oh, we have staff here. I'm going to hear the staff report

[2:31:50] and then declare the public hearing open.

[2:31:56] Good evening. Madam Pro.

[2:31:59] Tem and members of council. My name is Chris Dickey with the

[2:32:01] Office of Economic and Workforce Development. Before

[2:32:04] you as an item to consider approval of a proposed

[2:32:07] agreement between the City of Durham and Massey Properties

[2:32:10] Incorporated. When a family opened, Rosellas Professional

[2:32:13] Complex in the late 1980s, one of the first tenants was a

[2:32:16] daycare center, reflecting their deep commitment to care

[2:32:19] and community. Over the years, the complex expanded to include

[2:32:22] a diverse mix of businesses, including a salon, barber shop,

[2:32:25] insurance agency, and a communication store offering

[2:32:28] phones, Wi-Fi products, and early access to technology.

[2:32:32] Well before such resources, well before such resources were

[2:32:36] widely available in the neighborhood. Now, under second

[2:32:39] generation leadership, the Agency Properties Incorporated

[2:32:41] plans to renovate a 5800 square foot building to enhance curb

[2:32:45] appeal and accessibility and upgrade building security. This

[2:32:49] renovation and redevelopment project will promote the

[2:32:51] continued revitalization and economic development and

[2:32:54] economic vitality of the targeted community development

[2:32:57] area along the Fayetteville Street corridor. Upon the

[2:33:00] completion of a project expected to stimulate new

[2:33:02] business development and stabilize existing businesses

[2:33:05] within the building, the. The proposed project will attract

[2:33:08] $849,000 in private investment, with 150,000 city funding

[2:33:13] producing approximately a 5.6 ratio to one of private to

[2:33:18] public funding. Staff endorses this project, which would be an

[2:33:22] asset in promoting the vitality of traditionally underutilized

[2:33:25] businesses, including minority and women owned businesses

[2:33:28] along the Fayetteville Street Commercial Court. The project.

[2:33:30] The project directly addresses a major goal of the cities of

[2:33:35] Durham's strategic plan and advancing shared economic

[2:33:37] prosperity, and it furthers the objective of the Office of

[2:33:40] Economic Development, shared Economic Development Seed

[2:33:43] Initiative, which supports an ecosystem of strategies,

[2:33:47] business stabilization, business succession planning,

[2:33:50] and supports the growth and expansion of Durham's legacy

[2:33:53] business. The Office of Economic Development is both a

[2:33:56] collaborator and funding partner, and building key

[2:33:58] partnerships that increase technical assistance capacity

[2:34:01] in Durham small business ecosystem and help to preserve

[2:34:04] wealth among minority owned legacy business as well as

[2:34:07] historically underserved residents working at local

[2:34:10] businesses. Thank you. You've heard the

[2:34:17] report from staff. The public hearing is now open. First,

[2:34:21] council colleagues, do we have any questions or comments?

[2:34:26] Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and invite, I guess, the

[2:34:30] applicant. Madam clerk, would that be approved? No. Okay.

[2:34:35] Just any speakers. It's.

[2:34:40] Madam mayor pro tem, it's not a rezoning. Public hearing. So

[2:34:43] the staff report was presenting the project, I believe. Unless.

[2:34:46] Oh, well, the property owners here.

[2:34:52] Good evening. Good evening.

[2:34:54] How much time do you think you need?

[2:34:56] Just two. Minutes left.

[2:34:57] Perfect. Thank you.

[2:34:59] Hi. My name.

[2:35:00] Is Merrick Roma Steele. I'm here to speak about the

[2:35:04] location. For over four. Decades.

[2:35:06] My mother, Marcella professional. My mother started

[2:35:09] Marcel's professional complex. The business located at 2919

[2:35:13] Fayetteville Street. It has been more than just a location.

[2:35:16] It's been a steady presence in the Durham community since

[2:35:19] 1984. Through the changing times, economic shifts and

[2:35:24] neighborhood transitions transitioning, we have remained

[2:35:28] committed to serving our community and customers and

[2:35:30] supporting the local family, families and contributing to

[2:35:34] the vitality of this historical corridor. This grant is just

[2:35:38] not an investment in a building. It is an investment

[2:35:41] in the legacy, stability and future. A growth of our

[2:35:45] community. Our business has demonstrated resilience,

[2:35:48] dedication for over 40 years. We've created jobs, provided

[2:35:53] consistency and services and other business growth, build

[2:35:57] relationships with spans of generations. Many of your

[2:36:00] customers are not just clients, they're neighbors who trust us.

[2:36:04] For decades. With this funding, we were strengthen our ability

[2:36:09] to continue the services in the community by improving our

[2:36:12] space, expanding our offering, and ensuring that we will

[2:36:15] remain reliable and welcoming place for years to come. The

[2:36:20] support will allow us to adopt a modern, challenging, modern,

[2:36:24] challenging challenges while preserving the history and the

[2:36:28] character that makes our business unique. We are not

[2:36:35] starting from scratch. We are building on a foundation, a

[2:36:39] foundation rooted in commitment, preservation,

[2:36:43] community impact. This grant will help us ensure that what

[2:36:48] what was began in 1984 continues and thrive well into

[2:36:53] the future and benefit not just only our businesses, but the

[2:36:56] entire Durham community. Thank you for considering our

[2:36:59] application. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

[2:37:04] I have one online speaker. Oh, and you're here. Go ahead.

[2:37:11] Could you just please state your name for the.

[2:37:12] Record? Good afternoon.

[2:37:16] Council mayor. City manager.

[2:37:18] My name is Tanya Taylor Dingell. My consulting team is

[2:37:22] MQ Nicole Global. And we've been working with the Office of

[2:37:24] Economic and Workforce Development on various small

[2:37:28] business community projects. And so I'm here to support

[2:37:32] Mariko Steele and her projects. In 2020, the Office of Economic

[2:37:37] and Workforce Development worked with started working

[2:37:41] with legacy businesses in Durham. In 2024. They continued

[2:37:46] on with small business, helping the small business ecosystem by

[2:37:51] working with businesses that are along the Fayetteville

[2:37:53] Street corridor. Mariko still fits into almost every

[2:37:59] demographic of all those programs and iterations. She

[2:38:02] represents legacy businesses. She represents Fayetteville

[2:38:05] Street, she represents small business. She represents legacy

[2:38:08] commercial property ownership. And I'm sure I could find a few

[2:38:12] more pockets of that she would represent as well. She is a

[2:38:15] shining example of what the technical support that this

[2:38:19] city is offering to businesses and property owners, and what

[2:38:22] it can do for the city. Her property, as you've read in her

[2:38:26] application, has been in business supporting

[2:38:29] Fayetteville Street community for over five decades. When you

[2:38:32] visit Mariko or sorry, Marcellus Professional Suites,

[2:38:37] which is a property that her mother, Marcella Steele,

[2:38:40] started, you're also going to be meeting multiple other

[2:38:43] business owners who have been given a chance, and that's

[2:38:47] really what they are given. They're just given a chance.

[2:38:50] How did they how are they receiving a chance? Her rents

[2:38:53] are not exactly market rate. Now that would make any

[2:38:57] economist or consultant cringe. But what it does is that it has

[2:39:01] created loyal tenancies. It's created almost a business

[2:39:05] incubator. Even if she's not officially one, a business hub

[2:39:09] and even a microeconomic center along the Fayetteville Street

[2:39:12] corridor. When my team interviewed her to assist her

[2:39:16] with her application, all she could think about was the

[2:39:19] possibilities. And those are the reasons why you should

[2:39:22] assist her in trying to modernize her space.

[2:39:24] Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

[2:39:27] I don't have any other speakers signed up. Is there anyone here

[2:39:30] who would like to speak on item number 20? Okay. Seeing no one

[2:39:36] signed up, this public hearing is now closed. And before the

[2:39:38] council. Council members, do we have any comments or questions

[2:39:41] for staff or the applicant? Go ahead. Council Member Rist.

[2:39:49] Thanks. Mayor Pro Tem. Yeah, I think this is now appreciate

[2:39:52] Mr. Dickey's presentation. I think the second incentive

[2:39:55] grant has come before the council since I've been on the

[2:39:57] council, I have been on record both here in the council, but

[2:40:02] also in previous my professional life, being very

[2:40:04] cautious about the use of public dollars to incentivize

[2:40:07] private businesses. So I think there's for me, there's a high

[2:40:09] bar. I love the story of the business owners here. I love

[2:40:12] the story of legacy businesses. I love the Fable Street

[2:40:15] corridor. We're clearly, as a city investing in the

[2:40:17] Fayetteville Street corridor. So I just want to for staff, I

[2:40:20] just want to get a better sense of we could invest in a lot of

[2:40:23] businesses on the Fayetteville Street corridor, I imagine.

[2:40:24] Right. So can you give me a sense, Mr. Dickey, of like,

[2:40:27] what's our budget like? Like why why this business? Why not

[2:40:31] others? What's our what's the larger plan here? What's the

[2:40:33] strategic sort of, sort of orientation of the city

[2:40:37] towards? Certainly the Fayetteville Street quarter and

[2:40:39] these kind of incentive grants. Well.

[2:40:42] I think as it says, since 2020, council has graciously given

[2:40:48] the office of Economic Workforce the dollars to

[2:40:50] support legacy business through technical assistance. And

[2:40:54] throughout the years, we have a neighborhood revitalization

[2:40:56] grant as well. Fayetteville Street is a major commercial

[2:41:01] corridor that City Council supports. This business sits

[2:41:04] along Fayetteville Street corridor. Matter of fact, it's

[2:41:08] in the very trying area. Difficult to for business

[2:41:12] development along that particular area. And a lot of

[2:41:15] businesses that are currently operating in what what we can

[2:41:18] consider to her a business incubator are paying under

[2:41:21] market share at that particular point. She wants to spruce up

[2:41:25] the place along with some of the other city activities that

[2:41:28] are going to go on to spruce up the activities so that she

[2:41:31] still could be a stabilizing force in that particular

[2:41:33] community. This particular project meets the tenets of the

[2:41:36] neighborhood revitalization, meaning what it's doing is

[2:41:38] aesthetically approving the parents along that particular

[2:41:41] corridor. And not only that, we're still supporting a legacy

[2:41:44] businesses. What in reference to what the strategic plan is

[2:41:47] asking us to do? You know, again, I appreciate

[2:41:51] all that. I think that is true. I guess what I'm trying to get

[2:41:53] a sense of is so what is what's the annual budget at WD for

[2:41:58] supporting these kind of grants for in this case this is for.

[2:42:01] So in this particular case here we could get anywhere between

[2:42:05] 300,300, 300, $350,000 out of neighborhood revitalization

[2:42:09] program to support a project such as this..

[2:42:14] Annually, $350,000 annually. Yeah.

[2:42:16] 23 and again 350. So I I've been careful I'm

[2:42:21] cautious about whether it's a large incentive grant for big

[2:42:23] corporate employees or jobs or corporate employees or small

[2:42:27] ones. I do want to and I appreciate Mister Gundy here as

[2:42:30] well. I know that our policy also says that we that there's

[2:42:34] an evaluation criteria that includes a kind of but for

[2:42:37] financial analysis. So can you give me a sense of like but for

[2:42:40] this grant, what would not have happened that I want to make

[2:42:43] again, clear, because we have limited public dollars. Right.

[2:42:46] So what's the why the win here. What's what's the because

[2:42:50] there's you know, there's also an old adage that, you know,

[2:42:53] you've heard the old Lay's potato chips. It's hard to eat

[2:42:56] just one. Right. And there's also the reverse adages like

[2:42:59] for incentives, there's the old it's hard to give away just

[2:43:02] one. Right. So once we give away 1 to 1 business, like how

[2:43:05] do we again, what's the strategic sort of orientation.

[2:43:08] How do we what is the but for analysis we've done here that

[2:43:11] indicates for this business but for our incentive this

[2:43:14] investment wouldn't happen. Yeah I appreciate the question.

[2:43:17] And good evening, Joshua Gunn Office of Economic and

[2:43:19] Workforce Development. This is another example of a property

[2:43:25] owner who has assembled their own resources right to the

[2:43:28] maximum amount of the resources that they can assemble. And

[2:43:32] then that but for is it's going to take just a little bit more

[2:43:36] to get to the finish line in terms of this project. Right.

[2:43:39] It's complex. It's an older property. There's been a lot of

[2:43:43] technical assistance with our department and NMCB working

[2:43:46] with them to get them to this point and that, but for is the

[2:43:50] the incentive amount before you today to get the property up to

[2:43:53] the modernization that they're looking to get to.

[2:43:55] And is that I mean does that but for was that like sort of

[2:43:58] spreadsheet or is that sort of more of like a feel like what

[2:44:00] is that what does that analysis look like?

[2:44:03] The analysis. So one of the things that in Chris, please

[2:44:07] feel free to jump in here, but I'll do my best here. One of

[2:44:09] the things that we have taken Miss Steele through is the

[2:44:14] process of the planning process. The design process.

[2:44:18] What is what is the actual project going to look like?

[2:44:21] What are you going to need for this thing to solve for what is

[2:44:25] a significant challenge in the corridor? Right. So I don't

[2:44:28] know if you know exactly where this is, but this is at the

[2:44:31] intersection of the American Tobacco Trail and the

[2:44:34] Fayetteville Street corridor. This is a part of that

[2:44:37] particularly challenged part of that corridor. And so prior to

[2:44:40] bringing this incentive before the council, we helped do a

[2:44:45] deep analysis of what was possible with the property,

[2:44:48] what it would look like, and then what it would cost. Miss

[2:44:51] Steele assembled the capital stack that she could. And the

[2:44:54] gap that we found is what we put before council today for

[2:44:57] public support. In partnership with her significant private

[2:45:01] investment. Gotcha. Thanks. Yeah. No, I

[2:45:03] think, you know, reading the literature on incentives,

[2:45:05] right. Some of the best folks in the country to look at this

[2:45:07] like, it's not often it's hard to make the case, but but where

[2:45:11] you can make the case is when an incentive does bring

[2:45:14] economic activity to an area that might not receive that. So

[2:45:17] I appreciate that. I mean, I think this is a really

[2:45:18] compelling one. But again, I just want to make sure we're

[2:45:21] clear as a city with a with a tight budget, if we're giving

[2:45:24] away public dollars to private businesses, I want to make sure

[2:45:27] that we're very strategic about how we invest those dollars.

[2:45:29] But again, I think in this case with the neighborhood that

[2:45:31] needs that kind of investment, I can I think it does pass my

[2:45:34] threshold. So thank you. Thank you.

[2:45:37] Thank you, Councilmember. Mayor Williams.

[2:45:43] Council Member Burris I'll be brief in my remarks. I'm not

[2:45:45] going to come short. Rapid fire. I'm excited to support a

[2:45:48] legacy business considering what's happened in that quarter

[2:45:50] right now and what these businesses have to endure. As

[2:45:52] you said, this is right there, I believe the intersection,

[2:45:54] Fayetteville Road and pilot. And so if you drive down at any

[2:45:57] point in a day, you will see what happens on that trail. And

[2:46:01] so I can only imagine that at some point that may be a

[2:46:03] deterrent from any business owners in that community

[2:46:05] because of what it looks like. So I appreciate and I

[2:46:08] appreciate the packet in terms of how we look for support.

[2:46:12] This private business. But however they are, they will

[2:46:15] generate tax revenue and commercial dollars. It's going

[2:46:17] to help essentially benefit our entire community. So I look

[2:46:20] forward to seeing projects of this nature will make sure that

[2:46:23] the legacy owners, as that corridor is changing, they

[2:46:26] still have some skin in the game. If they are able to

[2:46:28] provide for their families for generations. Thank you all so

[2:46:30] much for your work. Thank you.

[2:46:33] Thank you. Council Member Burris mayor Williams.

[2:46:35] I should have gone before her. Basically, I was going to say

[2:46:39] the same thing for a community like Durham who believe so much

[2:46:43] inequity. First, I want to appreciate Council Member

[2:46:46] Burris, you know, really focus on this. You've been very

[2:46:50] consistent on it, and I appreciate you. You know,

[2:46:54] leaning in and and but also, you know, making way when, when

[2:46:58] you say it's compelling enough. But Durham believes in equity.

[2:47:01] And this has been one of the most divested communities in

[2:47:05] our city's history. The houses along this corridor were built

[2:47:09] by carpentry students at Hillside High School and nCCU

[2:47:13] way before I was born. This has always been a community that's

[2:47:17] been invested within itself, and I look at it this way two

[2:47:21] things can happen. Investment can happen from within the

[2:47:25] community, or investment can happen to the community.

[2:47:27] Usually when investment happens to the community, the people in

[2:47:30] it are placed out. And this is an opportunity for us to not

[2:47:35] necessarily gentrify, but revitalize and and based on

[2:47:40] Durham's rich history and what's happening in the past,

[2:47:45] there are some parts of the city where we owe some form of

[2:47:49] repair. And I think this is an opportunity to do that. So I

[2:47:54] look forward to supporting it. Any other comments or questions?

[2:48:03] Oh, sorry. Council Member Kopac.

[2:48:04] Yes. Thank you. Just say very briefly that I'm glad we have

[2:48:08] this neighborhood revitalization program. I

[2:48:11] appreciate council member. Careful. I toward use of public

[2:48:15] dollars and use of incentives. I'll just echo my colleagues

[2:48:20] Council Member Burris and the mayor saying that I, I do

[2:48:23] believe that investment in this quarter is so critical and so

[2:48:27] necessary and so appropriate. And so I appreciate your due

[2:48:30] diligence in evaluating this. The applicant's long term

[2:48:33] investment in our community in this quarter. And there

[2:48:37] willingness to to to reinvest in this really important part

[2:48:42] of, of of, of our city. And so I look forward to supporting

[2:48:45] it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member

[2:48:50] Kopac. Unless I have any other questions or comments, the

[2:48:53] motion before us is to authorize the city manager to

[2:48:56] execute an economic development agreement with AMEC properties,

[2:48:59] or Amoc properties, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $150,000

[2:49:04] for building renovation project at 2919 Fayetteville Street,

[2:49:07] Durham, NC. So.

[2:49:11] So move. Thank you. Second, thank you.

[2:49:15] I have a motion and a second. Madam clerk, could you please

[2:49:17] open the vote? Could you please close the vote?

[2:49:25] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

[2:49:29] Congratulations. Congratulations.

[2:49:40] I like when we get to do happy things like that. Our next.

[2:49:44] The rest of the evening is going to be just like that.

[2:49:46] It's going to be. Amazing. The next item.

[2:49:51] Mayor Williams, do you want me to keep going?

[2:49:54] Yeah. Keep going. Okay.

[2:49:57] Item number 21. Next agenda item is a public hearing and

[2:50:00] economic development incentive agreement with cocoa Fro, LLC.

[2:50:06] Could l, Mr. Dickey? Good to see you. I'll take our staff

[2:50:10] report. Madam Pro Tem members of

[2:50:13] council. My name is Chris Dickey with the Office of

[2:50:17] Economic and Workforce Development. Before you as an

[2:50:19] item and consider approval of proposed economic development

[2:50:21] agreement between the City of Durham and Cocoa Pro LLC. Cocoa

[2:50:26] Pro LLC is now preparing for his next phase, establishing a

[2:50:29] permanent home at 104 1004 Morning Glory Avenue in Durham,

[2:50:33] North Carolina. This 1300 square foot space will serve as

[2:50:37] a production facility and public facing tasting room,

[2:50:40] bringing in manufacturing, retail and community engagement

[2:50:43] under one roof. To make this possible, the building requires

[2:50:46] comprehensive rehabilitation plan. Improvements include

[2:50:49] structural repairs, upgraded plumbing and electrical systems

[2:50:53] to support commercial commercial equipment, fire

[2:50:56] safety enhancements, and the installation of a fully

[2:50:58] compliant commercial kitchen. Exterior improvements will

[2:51:01] restore the building's presence, creating a clean,

[2:51:03] well lit and welcoming environment. This project

[2:51:07] represents a tangible investment in a local economic

[2:51:09] growth and neighborhood revitalization. By activating a

[2:51:12] currently underused property, it will create stable

[2:51:15] employment opportunities, contribute to local tax base,

[2:51:18] and help shift the trajectory of the surrounding corridor. A.

[2:51:22] Thriving storefronts signal possibilities. They attract

[2:51:24] foot traffic, reduce vacancies and encourage additional

[2:51:27] business development by transforming this site into a

[2:51:30] vibrant, professionally operated facility. Cocoa LLC

[2:51:33] aims to demonstrate what is possible, helping to catalyze

[2:51:36] further investment in long term community stability. The

[2:51:39] proposed project will attract $593,000 in private investment,

[2:51:44] with 150,000 $115,000 in city funding, producing

[2:51:49] approximately 5.16 to 1% private to public funding

[2:51:53] ratio. A major priority of the City of Durham is increasing

[2:51:57] and strengthen the economic stability of the city. The

[2:52:01] proposed project, when completed, will be a key step

[2:52:03] in implementing the Neighborhood Assessment plan

[2:52:05] that was approved by the City Council. This assessment plan

[2:52:08] calls for the renovation of blighted and underutilized

[2:52:11] buildings as a means of attracting private capital

[2:52:14] investments to promote business development and stabilization

[2:52:17] in the City of Durham. Designated Community

[2:52:19] Development Area. The opportunity to attract this

[2:52:22] type of capital investment is somewhat challenging, since

[2:52:26] it's considered high risk for successful economic

[2:52:28] development. The project will serve as a catalyst to attract

[2:52:31] additional business and development projects to this

[2:52:33] area. Staff endorses this project, which align with the

[2:52:37] goals and objectives of the Neighborhood Ization Grant,

[2:52:39] incentive program. Thank you. I'm going to declare

[2:52:47] this public hearing open. Now that we've heard the staff's

[2:52:49] report. Colleagues, before, I invite any speakers. Do you

[2:52:53] have any questions or comments for staff? Okay. Go ahead.

[2:52:58] Council Member Rist. Mr. Dickey, I just have a

[2:53:01] question about the location here. And this just came up in

[2:53:03] a conversation with the applicant. So this is in the

[2:53:05] Goose Creek outfall area, right? Correct. And you've

[2:53:08] mentioned sort of plumbing improvements, commercial

[2:53:11] kitchen. So is is is this project in any way? I know

[2:53:14] we've sort of like we're now trying to deal with the

[2:53:16] capacity of the Goose Creek area. Is this is this a y'all

[2:53:21] looked with planning to make sure that this is compliant

[2:53:24] with given our new sort of how we're proceeding with the sort

[2:53:28] of development approvals in the Goose Creek outflow area. If

[2:53:31] the manager knows as well. But I just want to make sure we're

[2:53:33] there. We're not sort of running afoul of those

[2:53:36] restrictions that are in place right now, is we address a

[2:53:38] sewer capacity. Can you hold hold on one

[2:53:39] second, please? Yeah. We haven't discussed that

[2:53:53] with planning. We can do that and report back as it relates

[2:53:56] to the plan. So yeah, we don't we don't we don't have an

[2:54:00] answer for that. Okay.

[2:54:04] Excuse me. What? I'm sorry.

[2:54:07] Excuse me. What? I do have an answer for is what our office

[2:54:11] has been asked to do here. And that is a blighted building

[2:54:15] that has been blighted for about 3 or 4, about 3 or 4

[2:54:17] years. It was a church at one time, a coffee shop at one

[2:54:21] time. And if you go behind Morning Glory, the morning

[2:54:24] glory Avenue in that particular area, it's right behind Golden

[2:54:26] Belt. If you look in that particular area, there's half

[2:54:29] $1 million houses that are lined up there. But what you

[2:54:32] see on the corner, there is a house that's currently on for

[2:54:34] sale that's blighted. The next piece of property over is this

[2:54:39] particular property which has been sitting there. And then

[2:54:41] there's a new property that's currently going through zoning

[2:54:44] right now. And then the next property is a property that was

[2:54:48] just recently redeveloped by Cor, which is a, a lounge that

[2:54:53] has opened in the past year. So there's been some strategic

[2:54:56] things happening along that corridor. And, and we just

[2:54:59] believe in reference to anything that's in our

[2:55:01] community development area that's going to bring

[2:55:03] production. We have an individual who lives in Durham

[2:55:06] who's moving his business from Hillsboro, who's going to

[2:55:09] upgrade that building. And I believe and we believe over the

[2:55:12] years will create jobs. Although this is not a job

[2:55:14] creator initially, but what we are doing is bringing some

[2:55:17] stabilization to this neighborhood and getting ready,

[2:55:20] getting rid of an eyesore that currently exists there. And

[2:55:23] that's the purpose of the neighborhood violation.

[2:55:25] Yes. So again, again, understand all that, appreciate

[2:55:27] that sort of the business itself and just appreciate the,

[2:55:29] the the neighborhood and efforts to sort of revitalize

[2:55:32] the neighborhood. I just I want to make sure that if we're

[2:55:36] making an investment again, that this is something that can

[2:55:38] take place in the next couple of years as we're dealing with

[2:55:41] sewer and we do have planning staff here, I would like to

[2:55:43] know, get some sense of like, what's the impact of this

[2:55:47] potential business or how it impacts the sort of the the

[2:55:50] Goose Creek outfall issue we have with sewer capacity.

[2:56:00] Good evening. So as. Director Gunn mentioned, we

[2:56:03] haven't had a chance. To look at this together. As

[2:56:06] you know, water. Management is.

[2:56:08] Looking closely. At these and finding.

[2:56:10] Ways to permit projects. As long.

[2:56:15] As there. Is some nominal increase.

[2:56:18] They the. You've been.

[2:56:20] Seeing utility. Extension agreements come

[2:56:22] through. Fairly quickly now. So there

[2:56:24] are other ways that improvements can be made in

[2:56:28] terms of tying into adjacent areas, etc.. So I can't speak

[2:56:32] for water management and the specifics of this site, but I

[2:56:35] can tell you that it is something that we will look at

[2:56:37] with them. If I may. Council Member Rist

[2:56:41] thanks staff for providing the context, but my read of the

[2:56:45] process. So first of all, we don't have a clear answer for

[2:56:48] you tonight. We'll get one. My read of the project is a as a

[2:56:52] rehabilitation, as it is likely under the threshold of anything

[2:56:55] that would trigger any concerns in the Goose Creek basin. But

[2:56:58] we will get information for Council and clarify that going

[2:57:01] forward. My recommendation would be for council to go

[2:57:04] ahead and consider the item tonight and give us your

[2:57:06] direction. Should we find that there's anything that that

[2:57:10] prevents this project from moving forward, be happy to

[2:57:12] notify that Council and make this contingent on that. But

[2:57:15] that'd be my recommendation this evening.

[2:57:18] Thank you. Okay. I think Mayor Williams Council Member Burris

[2:57:22] Council Member Baker. Yeah, that was going to be my

[2:57:25] comment. To my understanding, based on prior matters. If this

[2:57:32] was adding additional needs or needing more capacity than

[2:57:38] what's already allotted, and it would not, but I is this the

[2:57:43] the little white church looking thing where a coffee shop was

[2:57:46] once so so it was so it had functioning plumbing and that

[2:57:51] was that was just a few years ago. And I mean, are you

[2:57:56] expanding to the port was going to be like some big business,

[2:57:58] more capacity. It's still going to be it's still the it's still

[2:58:03] going to be the same. I guess what I'm asking is.

[2:58:08] Is similar, similar usage thresholds. Yes.

[2:58:12] Yeah. So I guess that's the information we'll need to get

[2:58:14] back to my understanding, there's been I don't want to

[2:58:18] say a one for one, but the nominal usage or or increases

[2:58:23] or just. Yeah, the nominal increases if needed that then I

[2:58:29] think it would be fine. But that's what I just wanted.

[2:58:32] Clarity on that. Thank you. Thank you. Council

[2:58:34] Member Burris. Okay, I just have a quick

[2:58:37] question in the packet we received. Is there any

[2:58:40] particular reason why the grant application is empty? It's like

[2:58:42] nothing in there at all. Well, it's just blank. It's just

[2:58:46] eight pages of like nothing.. That should not be. That was in

[2:58:52] an oversight. That was. No, this one is great.

[2:58:56] You see, it's nothing in here. It's empty.

[2:59:00] And there's only a narrative. Yeah. The text didn't copy over.

[2:59:08] Yeah. This is the application here. I don't know.

[2:59:10] What the application is. Okay. Yeah, the form didn't

[2:59:15] copy over. Council Member Burris. Did you

[2:59:23] have any other questions? No. Well, I guess, like, just

[2:59:26] to be, as we've gone through before, you know, about

[2:59:31] applications and everything being there, I want to make

[2:59:33] sure, because I did have a chance to meet the applicant

[2:59:35] earlier, and I expressed my concerns in regards to the time

[2:59:39] it would take for you to actually hire folks. We know

[2:59:42] this community is definitely undergoing changes. There's

[2:59:44] some commercial businesses there, but if you go on to

[2:59:46] other side of the street, there's a lot of activity as

[2:59:48] well. And so I believe you said that you guys will be hiring

[2:59:51] like 6 to 8 people within the next two years or so. And so

[2:59:53] I'm just trying to make sure that the city is getting there.

[2:59:55] The same to my colleague Council Member Rist. If we are

[2:59:58] preparing our staff for a tough budget year, we want to make

[3:00:01] sure we're allocating dollars in a way that gives us the

[3:00:03] biggest bang for our buck. And so having a critical piece of

[3:00:06] information that is missing gives me a little bit of pause

[3:00:10] in terms of like, I do see the, the the business project

[3:00:13] narrative, but I don't have that other information. So that

[3:00:17] is where I'm looking at right now.

[3:00:19] Thank you. Council Member Burris Council Member Baker.

[3:00:22] Yeah, I appreciate all the comments of my, my colleagues

[3:00:25] and Council Member Burris. Thank you for your questions on

[3:00:28] both of these items. Definitely have some some heartburn

[3:00:32] myself. I guess I would just say that moving forward I would

[3:00:38] be, you know, comfortable, more comfortable with tightening up

[3:00:42] the vision and the policies that are that are supporting

[3:00:45] these. And then also just making sure that departments

[3:00:48] are talking to each other and notifying one another, one

[3:00:53] another so that they can identify any of these kind of

[3:00:57] big, bigger issues. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public

[3:01:03] hearing. I don't have anyone signed up to speak, but I don't

[3:01:06] know if the property owner of anyone else wanted to speak.

[3:01:12] Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening, Mr. Freeland.

[3:01:18] Good evening. Mayor Pro Tem and mayor.

[3:01:21] City council. Members.

[3:01:22] Your name is up. There's a.

[3:01:24] Button. Like, kind of know the to the right.

[3:01:28] Of to the right of the. Oh, here he comes.

[3:01:32] Okay. Just your right hand under it up there. There she

[3:01:36] is. I have to press the button. Let

[3:01:39] me help you out here. We did. look at that. Except I set my

[3:01:43] own time limit. Okay.

[3:01:44] No, I was about to ask. You make the podium taller.

[3:01:47] Thank you. Awesome. Mr.. Mr. Freeland, how much

[3:01:49] time do you believe you need? Oh.

[3:01:51] Just 90s will be plenty. Perfect. Thank you.

[3:01:53] Can you please put two minutes on the clock?

[3:01:56] I mean. Madam Clerk. Greetings. My name is Pierce

[3:02:00] Freeland. My wife and I started a freeze dried ice cream

[3:02:03] company called Cocoa Fro last year, based out of

[3:02:05] Hillsborough, North Carolina, and quickly outgrew the

[3:02:08] commercial kitchen, the Piedmont food processing center

[3:02:11] where we were renting and started looking for a place to

[3:02:14] expand. And we want to serve ice cream. We want to create

[3:02:18] living wage jobs and build manufacturing infrastructure in

[3:02:21] a historically underinvested area of East Durham. And we

[3:02:25] can't do that without support from the city. We don't want to

[3:02:28] move to Oxford or Morrisville or Raleigh. We want to plant

[3:02:32] seeds right here in Durham, where I was born, where our

[3:02:35] family is raised and where our first client is at the Museum

[3:02:37] of Life and Science. So I'd like to thank Mr. Dickie and

[3:02:41] Mr. Gunn and the wonderful folks at the Office of Economic

[3:02:44] and Workforce Development for seeing the vision and

[3:02:46] partnering with us to put this on today's agenda. And we hope

[3:02:49] to have your support. And I do want to say one thing about Mr.

[3:02:53] Question. We met earlier this week. I did look into the Goose

[3:02:59] Creek sewer Capacity website and saw there that on the FAQ

[3:03:06] page it says, does this affect current residents or

[3:03:08] businesses? And no, the only issue affects new development

[3:03:12] projects in the impacted area. Existing homes and businesses

[3:03:15] are not at risk. So I appreciate you bringing that

[3:03:19] question to me and try to do a little digging myself. And

[3:03:22] according to the website, this is not a new development. It is

[3:03:25] a it's an existing space and the capacity will be similar to

[3:03:29] what the previous capacity was. We just need to build it up to

[3:03:32] be a commercial kitchen so we can make our product. So thank

[3:03:35] you for your time and appreciate your consideration.

[3:03:39] Thank you. That is the only speaker that we have. So the

[3:03:44] public hearing is now closed and this item is now before the

[3:03:46] council. Does anyone else have any other questions or comments

[3:03:50] to make before I ask for a motion? Mayor Williams.

[3:03:53] Yeah, I'll I'll say I'm going to support this even though the

[3:03:57] application itself is not in the packet. I do have enough

[3:04:01] information, I need it. I want to be very clear. I support our

[3:04:06] small businesses, support our small business community. We

[3:04:11] just landed the biggest investment in Durham's history.

[3:04:15] AbbVie. They're investing $1.4 billion in our community, and

[3:04:19] we put up a huge incentive for millions and they are coming

[3:04:25] out of Illinois, coming out of Illinois to hear this is a

[3:04:28] Durham based business that I look forward to supporting.

[3:04:32] It's not millions, but it's it's a business that we can

[3:04:36] invest in here locally. And again, I think that, you know,

[3:04:39] considering the history of Durham, we have a lot of pain

[3:04:42] back to do. And I think that even in a in a tight budget

[3:04:46] year, I don't want to let technicalities hold up an

[3:04:49] opportunity to support another small business in this

[3:04:52] community. And I can tell you firsthand, as a small business

[3:04:55] owner, there are vulture commercial tenants, commercial

[3:05:00] landlords out there, and it is a very, very aggressive world

[3:05:04] to try and do small business. And so if you have the

[3:05:08] commercial space, commercial real estate space, where it's

[3:05:11] extremely aggressive and you have a history of divestment

[3:05:15] and small locally owned businesses, especially black

[3:05:18] owned businesses, and you have a just the ability to do

[3:05:21] business in this industry and this market right now, as it is

[3:05:25] the only place sometimes you can go is to your city. And I

[3:05:28] think Durham is a community where we're willing to invest

[3:05:31] in our in our own. So I'll support it.

[3:05:37] Council Member Kopac just to assuage the concerns, perhaps,

[3:05:41] of staff like it may be issue of laptop versus iPad, but I'm

[3:05:45] on my laptop and I have access to the completed application.

[3:05:48] Okay. So it sounds like there's a

[3:05:49] technical issue. There's a glitch in there, but the

[3:05:52] completed application was included and I can see it.

[3:05:55] Well, thank you. And I apologize. I'd like

[3:05:58] council members to let me know which of you had trouble. I

[3:06:00] know we verified it. It is on the website and it is in my

[3:06:04] packet. It sounds like it's not in some of yours, so definitely

[3:06:07] want to get to the bottom of that, but do want to verify

[3:06:09] that it was made available to the public. Anyone who had

[3:06:12] reviewed this beforehand should have gotten that attachment,

[3:06:14] and we apologize for the problem.

[3:06:16] Thank you. Manager Ferguson Council Member Rist. Did you

[3:06:19] have a question? Yeah. No, I just just to say I

[3:06:21] have deep appreciation for the applicant, one of our former

[3:06:23] colleagues here on the on the dais. So thanks for being here.

[3:06:26] I do love the investment in East Durham. As the mayor said,

[3:06:29] I but I, I do feel like I'm not quite ready to support this

[3:06:34] with given the questions we have about the sewer capacity.

[3:06:36] We're talking about increasing sort of manufacturing capacity.

[3:06:39] I don't have the application here. I don't I feel like when

[3:06:42] we're again, utilizing scarce public resources, I think

[3:06:45] voters want us to make sure we know what we're doing when

[3:06:47] we're casting a vote. I don't have the information here. I

[3:06:50] don't know if that's an error on the part of the city or. But

[3:06:53] I'm just not without that information. Not comfortable

[3:06:56] right now with this. So thank you.

[3:07:02] Mayor Williams. Would we be interested in maybe

[3:07:06] by continuing it or sending it back, or until we get the

[3:07:10] technical? I just don't want to blame a an applicant on

[3:07:14] something. That's a technicality on our part,

[3:07:16] because I think it's fair. You can't see the application. I

[3:07:18] can't see the application. And we feel differently. You can't

[3:07:22] see the application. But, you know, we feel differently about

[3:07:24] it. I don't think we should vote up or down on something.

[3:07:26] That's a technicality on our part. And it doesn't mean

[3:07:30] you're a former council member, but it has nothing to do with

[3:07:32] it. It's for anyone that would be in this situation.

[3:07:35] Thank thank you, Council colleagues. Does anyone have a

[3:07:39] comment or question around that? Council Member Burris I

[3:07:41] know you were one of the did you want to address that?

[3:07:42] Yeah, and I just want to clarify that there will also

[3:07:44] like provide space for Council Member Rist questions to be

[3:07:47] addressed as well before we come back. Right? Yeah. Okay. I

[3:07:51] think. We would leave the public.

[3:07:52] Well, I close the public hearing, so I don't think we

[3:07:55] can leave it open, but we can I don't know, how.

[3:07:57] Did you. Close, Madam Attorney? Get to

[3:08:02] reopen it. I think you could reopen it.

[3:08:03] Okay. And then continuing. What we could do is just reopen

[3:08:06] the public hearing. And that would give staff an opportunity

[3:08:10] to upload the appropriate documents. Council colleagues,

[3:08:15] do we want to do it to the next one? To the subsequent one? I

[3:08:18] guess that's the question I have for you all. I feel like

[3:08:22] we do need to deal with this before we go on our break in

[3:08:24] June. So one cycle or two. I mean, however long it takes.

[3:08:30] It's a question for staff around public hearings at the

[3:08:34] at the next, I guess the okay, let me synthesize the question.

[3:08:39] So one is making sure the application is in our packet so

[3:08:42] that council can see it all to was to make sure that the water

[3:08:45] department has done the necessary analysis on the goose

[3:08:48] fall out creek thing. Sorry. And I think those are the two

[3:08:55] kind of outstanding questions that council member or council

[3:08:58] colleagues had. And so I would I'm going to look at Director

[3:09:03] Young because you probably know how many zoning cases we have

[3:09:05] next round. And I think that does influence if we go to 1 or

[3:09:08] 2 cycles out. So you're asking about whether

[3:09:31] to go 1 or 2 cycles out. And the Madam Attorney just

[3:09:35] reminded me that the May 18th, when we have a long work

[3:09:37] session, a council meeting, and it's public hearings, so maybe

[3:09:40] we want to go to the subsequent one in the first one in June,

[3:09:42] but that's a public hearing for the budget. Yes. So either way,

[3:09:46] we're kind of going to be here a long time. Maybe the second

[3:09:50] one, the one in June would be better, because that way we're

[3:09:52] not doing a work session and a council meeting and. Okay. And

[3:09:55] you're nodding your head. Yes. Is that's a better option? Mr.

[3:09:58] Freeland, are you comfortable with that? It would be two

[3:10:01] cycles. So the first whatever. I think June, June 1st, it

[3:10:05] would be Monday, June 1st. Okay. Okay. So I'm going to

[3:10:09] reopen declaring the public hearing. Nope, I closed it. I

[3:10:13] need to reopen it. I'm going to reopen the the public hearing

[3:10:17] is now open again. We are going to continue this case until

[3:10:22] June 1st at our council meeting. Thank you so much.

[3:10:27] Thank you. And then we're going to reorder

[3:10:36] the next agenda items. Because the way that it's listed it's I

[3:10:42] my belief is that items 23, 24 and 25 are going to be pretty

[3:10:49] straightforward. We don't have a ton of speakers on those. So

[3:10:52] we will be taking up item number 22. Last colleagues, are

[3:10:57] we good with that. So it lets folks who don't need to be here

[3:11:03] go. So it is helpful for folks I know it's hard. So the first

[3:11:11] item that I have then is item number 23, Consolidated

[3:11:16] Annexation, 1735 Fletcher Chapel Road.

[3:11:32] Mayor Williams Mayor Pro Tem Caballero.

[3:11:34] And honorable Council members. Good evening.

[3:11:36] I am Peyton Burgess. With the Planning.

[3:11:38] And Development Department, and I am happy.

[3:11:39] To be here with you tonight. A request.

[3:11:42] For a utility. Extension agreement. Voluntary

[3:11:44] annexation and initial zoning map. change has been received

[3:11:47] from Gray Madden. With Madden Construction.

[3:11:50] For one parcel of land zoned residential rural, totaling

[3:11:53] 0.83 acres and located at 1735 Fletcher's Chapel Road. This

[3:11:58] annexation petition is not contiguous to the primary

[3:12:01] corporate limits and would create a new satellite. This

[3:12:04] request would allow the applicant to connect to city

[3:12:06] water and sewer for one single family home. This is a direct

[3:12:10] translational zoning. A direct translational zoning is one in

[3:12:13] which the existing Durham County zoning is translated to

[3:12:16] the identical Durham City zoning district. Upon the

[3:12:18] annexation of the property into the city limits. Since there is

[3:12:22] no request for a change to the existing zoning attached to

[3:12:24] this annexation petition, there is not a development plan under

[3:12:27] consideration and therefore no proffered commitments. Any

[3:12:30] future development may proceed according to what the zoning

[3:12:33] would allow. The properties are currently designated mixed use

[3:12:36] neighborhood on the place type map. The existing residential

[3:12:39] rural zoning is generally consistent with the designated

[3:12:41] place type. If the proposed zoning is approved, there will

[3:12:44] be no change to the place type designation. Thank you. Staff

[3:12:47] and the applicant are available for any questions, and I

[3:12:50] believe the applicant is available online.

[3:12:54] Thank you. And we've heard the staff report. now declare.

[3:13:00] This public hearing open. Colleagues does anyone have

[3:13:03] questions for staff at this time? Okay. The applicant is

[3:13:10] online and then I have one proponent and one opponent

[3:13:15] signed up. Those are all the speakers I have, madam clerk,

[3:13:17] is that correct? Okay. Thank you. Can we make the applicant

[3:13:21] here? Hey, can.

[3:13:27] You. Hear me?

[3:13:29] Yes, we can, Mr. Madden. Good evening. How much time do you

[3:13:32] think you'll need? Just a minute.

[3:13:34] Okay. Madam clerk, could you please put two minutes on the

[3:13:37] clock? I'm a local builder.

[3:13:42] I actually. Live right around.

[3:13:44] The corner from. This property. It's just a

[3:13:47] single lot we're looking to get annexed into the city so that

[3:13:52] we're able to tie in to the utilities, water and sewer that

[3:13:56] pass right in front of the lot. Currently, just one single

[3:14:02] family home. The owner of the property was actually there at

[3:14:07] the meeting, and I think he had to leave. But he's a local

[3:14:11] business owner as well. If there's any questions or

[3:14:15] concerns, I'm I'm happy to address them.

[3:14:18] Thank you. That's the only. Okay. And then I have Pablo

[3:14:26] Friedman signed up. Okay I have you down is 23. So I'll call

[3:14:33] you for 22. Sorry for 23. The opposite of what I just said.

[3:14:39] Okay. I don't have any other speakers this evening. So this

[3:14:46] public hearing is now closed and back before the council.

[3:14:49] Council members, any questions or comments before I call the

[3:14:55] motion? Go ahead. Council Member Baker.

[3:14:59] Yeah. This this feels kind of small and inconsequential.

[3:15:03] There's water and sewer that run right in front, but this is

[3:15:09] mixed residential on the place type map. It is not contiguous

[3:15:13] and you know, if we make a practice of of annexing small

[3:15:22] lots that are satellite lots over and over and over, that

[3:15:26] does add up over time. I'm kind of wrestling with that question

[3:15:31] a little bit. I wonder if I wonder if staff can provide any

[3:15:34] commentary on the fact that this is mixed residential on

[3:15:39] the place type map, that it's not contiguous? What kind of

[3:15:44] impacts do you think that will have? What happens if this were

[3:15:48] approved to the Future Place site map?

[3:15:52] Absolutely. So this site right now, although it would create a

[3:15:56] satellite for the purpose of the annexation, there is water

[3:16:01] and sewer right across the street. So those houses along

[3:16:03] that road have it. Additionally, the majority of

[3:16:06] the mixed residential place type that you're talking about

[3:16:11] that this site is in, is really primarily undeveloped right

[3:16:15] now. And so although this site is a single family home, there

[3:16:20] is the potential that there will be future development and

[3:16:24] future annexation that actually fills that area in and does

[3:16:28] actually add to a mix of housing types and meets the

[3:16:32] goal of that place type. All right.

[3:16:37] Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember.

[3:16:42] Miss Burgess. Sorry, we can come back there. I did note in

[3:16:46] the packet, so I had the same question Council Member Baker

[3:16:48] had I know this this does score revenue positive, which helped

[3:16:51] me a little bit on this. But also as I understand the

[3:16:54] packet. So the comp plan does allow for consideration of

[3:16:57] annexation of a single family residence, even though it's a

[3:17:00] even though it is not contiguous. Can you say more

[3:17:02] about that in our comp plan? How we like? What's the

[3:17:04] particular provisions there? Yeah, absolutely. So I believe

[3:17:08] that's policy. 165 that addresses that. But it does

[3:17:12] give sort of a opportunity for council to consideration.

[3:17:17] Consider situations like this when it becomes necessary for

[3:17:23] single family lots to connect to water and sewer to create

[3:17:27] those satellites. And so policy 165 really gives council the

[3:17:32] opportunity to consider those, even though they might create a

[3:17:36] satellite. I appreciate that. Yeah. I

[3:17:38] think bringing folks on the water and sewer is always

[3:17:40] better. So yeah, I think that makes sense. I appreciate that.

[3:17:42] Thanks for explaining. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, I

[3:17:47] appreciate those comments. Colleagues and I think it is

[3:17:52] tricky. I guess this is a question for staff. Sorry.

[3:17:59] Obviously we have water and sewer. They're taking advantage

[3:18:01] of a thing. I would want city water and sewer to I think

[3:18:05] sometimes becomes an equity issue, especially as people's

[3:18:08] wells age or it becomes more expensive when we lay water and

[3:18:14] sewer in that type of circumstance that's in there.

[3:18:17] What is the outreach we are doing to residents that they

[3:18:20] are aware. That there? What was.

[3:18:23] That that they can't like? One side of the street is hooked up

[3:18:27] and the other side isn't. What are the opportunities for

[3:18:29] residents to know that that those possibilities.?

[3:18:33] So I would think that if if somebody who is wanting to

[3:18:37] develop their property, that's kind of where it starts, okay.

[3:18:41] Whether that's through a metal meeting, signing up or starting

[3:18:45] to submit applications and realizing that you need

[3:18:49] annexation for water and sewer, I feel like that is where I see

[3:18:53] the majority of applicants, kind of especially these

[3:18:55] smaller single family lots. That's that's when I see the

[3:18:59] majority of applicants getting. Thank you. Okay, colleagues,

[3:19:07] the motion before us is. Hold on. First motion is to adopt an

[3:19:20] ordinance annexing 1735 of Fletcher's Chapel Road into the

[3:19:25] city of Durham, and to authorize the city manager to

[3:19:27] enter into a utility extension agreement with Cecil Gray.

[3:19:30] Madden, the third. So moved.

[3:19:32] Second. Have a motion a second. Madam

[3:19:34] clerk, could you please open the vote? Could you please

[3:19:44] close the vote? The motion passes 5 to 1 with

[3:19:50] Council Member Baker voting no. Thank you. The second motion is

[3:19:55] to adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development

[3:19:57] Ordinance by taking property out of the residential rule.

[3:20:00] Falls Jordan District B watershed protection overlay

[3:20:04] county jurisdiction and establishing the same as

[3:20:06] residential rural falls. Jordan District B Watershed Protection

[3:20:08] Overlay city jurisdiction. So moved.

[3:20:12] Second. Have a motion a second. Madam

[3:20:13] clerk, could you please open the vote? Could you please

[3:20:18] close the vote? Motion passes unanimously.

[3:20:23] Thank you. And the last motion? Motion is to adopt a

[3:20:26] consistency statement as required by section 160 de 605.

[3:20:33] So moved. Second.

[3:20:35] A motion. And second. Madam Clerk, could you please open

[3:20:37] the vote? Could you please close the vote?

[3:20:43] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item in front

[3:20:49] of us this evening is item number 24, consolidated

[3:20:51] annexation experience. Reality. Glenn West.

[3:21:01] Mayor Williams, mayor pro Tem Caballero and honorable council

[3:21:04] members. Good evening. I am Peyton Burgess with the

[3:21:07] Planning and Development Department, and I am happy to

[3:21:09] be here with you tonight. A request for utility extension

[3:21:12] agreement, voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change

[3:21:16] has been received from Jeff McSwain with Experience

[3:21:18] Reality, Inc. for seven parcels and a portion of an eighth of

[3:21:22] land totaling 25.949 acres and located at 4007 409, A, 49 B 40

[3:21:31] 1140, 1340 15 A, 4015, B 49 1940, 21, 4023, and a portion

[3:21:38] of 4026 Glenn Road. This annexation petition is not

[3:21:41] contiguous to the primary corporate limits, but is

[3:21:44] contiguous to an existing satellite. This request would

[3:21:47] allow the applicant to connect to city water and sewer, while

[3:21:50] the current residential rural zoning would allow for up to 36

[3:21:52] single family homes. The Utility Extension agreement

[3:21:55] only allows for a maximum of eight. This is a direct

[3:21:58] translational zoning. A direct transactional zoning is one in

[3:22:01] which the existing Durham County zoning is translated to

[3:22:04] the identical Durham City zoning district. Upon the

[3:22:06] annexation of the property into the city limits. Since there is

[3:22:09] no request for a change to the existing zoning attached to

[3:22:12] this annexation petition, there is not a development plan under

[3:22:15] consideration and therefore no proffered commitments. Any

[3:22:18] future development may proceed according to what the zoning

[3:22:20] would allow. The properties are currently designated mixed

[3:22:23] residential neighborhood and established residential on the

[3:22:26] place type map. The proposed residential rural zoning is

[3:22:29] generally consistent with the designated place type. If the

[3:22:32] proposed zoning is approved, there will be no change to the

[3:22:34] place type designations. Thank you. Staff and the applicant

[3:22:37] are available for any questions.

[3:22:40] Thank you. You've heard the report from staff. I'm going to

[3:22:43] declare this public hearing open. Colleagues, are there any

[3:22:46] questions for staff before we take any speakers? Okay. Can I

[3:22:52] go ahead and invite the applicant up for this item?

[3:23:00] Good evening, Mr. Jewell. How much time do you think you'll

[3:23:02] need? 4 or.

[3:23:03] 5 minutes. If you can put five up, I'll be.

[3:23:05] Faster than that. Okay. Thank you. Madam clerk,

[3:23:07] could you please put five minutes? Thank you.

[3:23:10] Great. Appreciate it. Good evening, mayor Pro tem. Mayor,

[3:23:13] Council members. Attorney and manager.

[3:23:17] I'm Dan Jewell, reside at 1025 Gloria Avenue. I'm here at the

[3:23:21] request of Jeff McSwain with Reality Ministries. We've

[3:23:26] helped him prepare this application. He's asked me to

[3:23:28] make a few remarks to clarify some things in the staff

[3:23:30] report. First, this is by no stretch of the imagination a

[3:23:34] development. These are eight existing lots that are already

[3:23:37] adjacent to city water and sewer. And we simply want to

[3:23:41] connect, which is why we made the request for annexation.

[3:23:45] Utility extension. Secondly, clarify. Even though the staff

[3:23:49] report calls us rightly, a satellite annexation, it is

[3:23:53] anything but remote. The existing neighborhood to the

[3:23:56] south is served by city water and sewer, and the only reason

[3:24:02] it is not in the city limits is that it was developed years

[3:24:05] ago, before the policy was in place, that if you wanted city

[3:24:08] water or sewer, you must apply for annexation, otherwise it

[3:24:12] would be within the city limits. And those lots are

[3:24:15] actually a little bit smaller than the existing lots on this

[3:24:18] site. And additionally, there is a neighborhood directly to

[3:24:22] the north across the land that's controlled by Aqua

[3:24:24] called Glenstone. That's a denser project, city water and

[3:24:28] sewer. And in the city limits, finally, and we think most

[3:24:32] importantly, these new homes will serve a very special

[3:24:36] community. I hope some of you are familiar with the North

[3:24:40] Street neighborhood just a few blocks up that way between Geer

[3:24:45] and Club and Gear and North and Madison, Jeff and his team with

[3:24:50] Reality Ministries were able to turn a dozen derelict, empty

[3:24:54] old apartment buildings into an intentional community of

[3:24:57] families with adult children who have special needs. What

[3:25:02] they were able to do was to allow families to buy those

[3:25:06] units and have actually a separate unit within them,

[3:25:10] totally independent that their adult kids could live in. So

[3:25:14] they would get not only the support of their families as

[3:25:17] they aged, but the support of the rest of the neighborhood.

[3:25:21] This community is now going on 15 successful years. We help

[3:25:25] Jeff design it and get it approved, and it's become a

[3:25:28] vibrant and very important part of the Durham fabric. But

[3:25:31] there's more need than can be met over there. And when Jeff,

[3:25:36] who's now has experienced reality and affiliated

[3:25:39] organization, came across this property, he saw an opportunity

[3:25:43] create a similar, although less dense community. And the homes

[3:25:49] that will be built in this new neighborhood. They will all

[3:25:52] have ADUs. Those homes will be offered to again residents who

[3:25:57] have adult children, who have special needs of some kind or

[3:26:01] another so they can live in the accessory dwellings as part of

[3:26:04] that community and be nurtured as part of that whole

[3:26:08] neighborhood. I hope you noted the unanimous recommendation

[3:26:12] for approval received from the Planning Commission, and will

[3:26:15] follow in suit, and we appreciate your time. I'm here

[3:26:19] to answer any questions that you might have. That's the end

[3:26:21] of our presentation. Thank you. Thank you so much. Those are

[3:26:27] all the speakers that I have. So I'm going to go ahead and

[3:26:29] declare this public hearing closed and back before the

[3:26:31] council. Council colleagues, do we have any questions or

[3:26:33] comments. Go ahead. Council Member Baker.

[3:26:41] I appreciate all the commentary. And you know, there's of

[3:26:47] course, the the story behind annexations and rezoning. And

[3:26:50] then there's just the cold, hard of law that applies to to

[3:26:56] these cases. I one question to to staff. Again, similar to my

[3:27:01] last question, this is a direct translational rezoning. Direct,

[3:27:09] translational. And annexation. I'm sorry. And from a rural

[3:27:16] residential to rural residential and it's in the

[3:27:19] mixed residential neighborhoods. Are we saying

[3:27:21] that rural residential under the Udo is consistent with

[3:27:25] mixed residential neighborhood place type?

[3:27:28] It can be because it offers a type of housing. So especially

[3:27:34] when it's combined with other zoning things that allow

[3:27:38] additional housing types, it is possible for it to be

[3:27:43] consistent. Okay. Thank you.

[3:27:50] Thank you. Anyone else have any questions? Go ahead. Council

[3:27:53] Member Rist. Thank you. Mayor Pro tem. Yeah,

[3:27:56] this is this case is an easy yes for me. And it's not

[3:27:59] because Mr. McSwain is actually a lifelong friend, one of my

[3:28:03] dearest friends in the world. It's because, as Mr. is a jewel

[3:28:09] said, this is not your ordinary development. Not at all. I

[3:28:12] actually had the privilege of touring with Mr. McSwain 1520

[3:28:16] years ago, North Street Community, when it was

[3:28:18] literally, as Mr. Jewel said, dilapidated buildings right

[3:28:22] near full steam Brewery. Now it's a marvelous community.

[3:28:26] It's absolutely an example of God's beloved community on this

[3:28:29] world with folks with disabilities living with able

[3:28:31] bodied families. It's amazing model. We usually see

[3:28:34] developments where developers want to maximize number of

[3:28:37] units on the lot on their parcel. This is not the case

[3:28:40] here. Mr. McSwain is not trying to maximize profit. He's trying

[3:28:43] to maximize joy and love in the world. This is an amazing

[3:28:47] project. I'm so proud to support this. I love the idea

[3:28:51] of both. And this is not only housing, it's also below market

[3:28:53] rate housing with AA to use to support more units. So this is

[3:28:56] a beautiful project. We don't see stuff like this much. So I

[3:29:00] just want to thank the the Mr.. Mr. Jewel and the applicant,

[3:29:03] Mr. McSwain, my good friend, for an amazing project that

[3:29:05] will make this a more beloved community. So thank you.

[3:29:10] Thank you council colleagues. Anyone else?

[3:29:13] Everything Council Member Rist just said thank you.

[3:29:16] Perfect. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and move us

[3:29:20] forward. My first motion this our first motion this evening

[3:29:24] is to adopt an ordinance annexing experience reality.

[3:29:27] Glenn West in the city of Durham, and to authorize the

[3:29:29] city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement

[3:29:31] with Experience Reality, Inc.. So moved.

[3:29:34] Second. Have a motion and a second.

[3:29:36] Madam clerk, could you please open the vote? Could you please

[3:29:41] close the vote? Motion passes unanimously.

[3:29:46] Thank you. And our second motion is to adopt an ordinance

[3:29:50] amending the Unified Development Ordinance by taking

[3:29:52] property out of the residential rule falls Jordan, district B

[3:29:56] and falls, Jordan Falls, Jordan District. A watershed

[3:30:00] protection overlays county jurisdiction and establishing

[3:30:03] the same as residential rural falls. Jordan District B and

[3:30:07] Falls Jordan District. A watershed protection overlays

[3:30:10] cities jurisdiction. So second.

[3:30:12] A motion. And second, Madam Clerk, could you please open

[3:30:14] the vote? Could you please close the vote?

[3:30:20] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And our last motion

[3:30:24] is to adopt a consistency statement as required by NC

[3:30:27] section 160 D-605. Move to adopt consistency.

[3:30:33] Got a motion a second. Madam Clerk, could you please open

[3:30:36] the vote? Please close the vote.

[3:30:43] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. thank you. Have a

[3:30:47] good night. Next up is item number 25, consolidated

[3:30:53] annexation 1418 South Miami. Good evening.

[3:30:56] Thank you. Mayor Williams. Mayor Pro Tem caballero, an.

[3:30:59] Honorable council members. Good evening. I'm Andy Lester with

[3:31:02] the planning and development department. It's good to be

[3:31:04] with you all. Before I begin, staff, I'd like to state for

[3:31:07] the record that all planning department hearing items have

[3:31:09] been advertised and notice, in accordance with state and local

[3:31:11] law and affidavits of all notices are on file with the

[3:31:15] Department. A request for Utility extension agreement,

[3:31:18] voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change has

[3:31:21] been received from ten stivers of community for two parcels of

[3:31:25] land totaling 3.44 acres and located at 1404 and 1418 South

[3:31:30] Miami Boulevard. Annexation petition is for a contiguous

[3:31:34] expansion of the primary corporate limits, with the

[3:31:37] intent to connect to city water and sewer. As part of this

[3:31:41] annexation petition, the applicant is not seeking a

[3:31:43] change in the underlying zoning districts of commercial,

[3:31:46] general and residential suburban 20, a direct

[3:31:49] transitional zoning is the general zoning map change, in

[3:31:52] which the existing county zoning is translated to the

[3:31:54] identical city zoning district. Upon the annexation of the

[3:31:59] property into the city limits. Since there is no request for a

[3:32:02] change to the existing zoning attached to this annexation

[3:32:06] petition, there's no there is not a development plan under

[3:32:09] consideration and therefore no proffered commitments. Any

[3:32:13] future development may proceed according to what the zoning

[3:32:16] would allow. The properties are designated highway commercial

[3:32:20] on the place type map. The proposed Commercial General is

[3:32:24] generally consistent with the designated place type, while

[3:32:28] the proposed residential suburban 20 is not generally

[3:32:30] consistent with the designated place type, staff does not

[3:32:33] recommend a change in the place type because the proposed

[3:32:35] zoning in the LDC will be consistent with the place type.

[3:32:39] Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any

[3:32:41] questions. Thank you for the report from

[3:32:46] staff. I'm now to declare this public hearing open. First.

[3:32:49] Colleagues, do we have any anyone have any questions or

[3:32:52] for staff? Okay. And I think I just have. One speaker yeah, I

[3:33:03] have one speaker right now. Just the applicant, Tim Sivers,

[3:33:07] is that right? Here you are. Where'd you go? Good evening,

[3:33:13] Mr. Cyrus. How much time do you think you need?

[3:33:15] One minute, two minutes. Perfect. Thank you, Madam

[3:33:18] Clerk. Could you just do it? Thank you.

[3:33:20] Good evening, Council members Tim Sivers.

[3:33:22] With community 16. Consultant Place. So, yes, the

[3:33:24] project in front of you. Is for two.

[3:33:25] Parcels. To be clear, this is owned by Admiral Properties who

[3:33:29] I'm here representing tonight. That same property owner owns

[3:33:33] the two parcels between these two that are being annexed. His

[3:33:36] intent is to sell all four properties which are currently

[3:33:39] on the market. We did hold two neighborhood meetings. Both

[3:33:42] meetings had one neighbor in attendance. The first meeting,

[3:33:46] actually, that neighbor asked to be part of the application.

[3:33:49] The second meeting, that neighbor was signed up for the

[3:33:52] wrong meeting. So technically he that person jumped out of

[3:33:55] the meeting. So we had no attendees at the second

[3:33:57] neighborhood meeting. Planning Commission did recommend

[3:33:59] unanimous approval of this, and I request that you follow their

[3:34:02] recommendation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[3:34:08] Thank you. Those are all the speakers I have signed up for

[3:34:12] this item. Let me just make sure. Okay. And so at this time

[3:34:20] I'm going to close the public hearing. The back before

[3:34:23] council. Anyone have any questions colleagues questions

[3:34:26] or comments. Okay I'm going to keep us moving then. So the

[3:34:33] motion in front of us right now is to adopt an ordinance

[3:34:35] annexing 1418 South Miami and to the city of Durham, and to

[3:34:40] authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension

[3:34:42] agreement with Admiral Properties, LLC.

[3:34:44] So move. I have a motion. A second.

[3:34:47] Madam Clerk, could you please open the vote, please? Close it.

[3:34:55] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Our second motion is

[3:34:58] to adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development

[3:35:01] Ordinance by taking property out of the commercial, general

[3:35:03] residential suburban Dash 20 falls Jordan Watershed Overlay

[3:35:06] district B, Dash district Dash b overlay County jurisdiction

[3:35:10] and establishing the same as commercial general residential

[3:35:14] suburban Dash 20 falls slash Jordan Watershed overlay

[3:35:17] district B overlay city jurisdiction.

[3:35:19] So moved. Second have a motion a second.

[3:35:22] Madam clerk, could you please open the vote? Please close the

[3:35:27] vote. Motion passes unanimously.

[3:35:31] Thank you. And last motion is to adopt a consistency

[3:35:34] statement as required by NC General Statute, section one

[3:35:37] 6605. So moved.

[3:35:41] Second. I have a motion and a second.

[3:35:46] Madam clerk, could you please close the vote? Open the vote.

[3:35:48] Close it. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously.

[3:35:52] Thank you. Our last item, if I'm not mistaken, before us

[3:35:59] this evening is item number 23, consolidated Consult. Excuse

[3:36:06] me. Thank you. Consolidated annexation enclave at Little

[3:36:10] Creek. For. annual action plan CDBG,

[3:36:29] the homes. Hold on. Yes, sir. Sorry. That

[3:36:42] was under consent. So unless that item got pulled, if I'm

[3:36:46] not mistaken, the item is under consent. So unless it was

[3:36:48] pulled, we passed that earlier in the evening. So our. Sir,

[3:36:55] I'm not going to speak to you back and forth. Maybe somebody

[3:36:57] from staff could. Am I wrong on that, madam? Which item? He

[3:37:01] said. We're talking about.

[3:37:06] Item number 26. Correct. Is that right?

[3:37:10] 26. If staff could speak with the

[3:37:15] resident around that, that would be helpful. Thank you.

[3:37:27] What's going. On?

[3:37:33] Good evening, Mr. Lester. We're ready for the staff report.

[3:37:36] Appreciate your patience. No worries. Thank you. A

[3:37:40] request for utility extension agreement. Voluntary annexation

[3:37:44] and initial zoning map. Change has been received from no.

[3:37:47] Ghost of Morningstar law Group for one parcel and a portion of

[3:37:51] another, totaling 47.85 acres and located at 55, 24, and 5515

[3:37:58] George King Road. This annexation petition is

[3:38:02] contiguous to the primary corporate limits. Due to a

[3:38:04] recent annexation by state law. The request is considered

[3:38:07] non-contiguous because it was at the time of submittal, the

[3:38:10] applicant proposes to change this designation of one part of

[3:38:14] one partial parcel read 232242, totaling 45.95 acres to plan

[3:38:21] development residential 5.006 to allow up to 230 townhouses,

[3:38:26] multiplexes and or apartments. The applicant is also seeking

[3:38:30] an initial zoning map change of Rs 20 county jurisdiction to Rs

[3:38:36] 20 city jurisdiction for the other parcel, read 140495. Any

[3:38:43] use within the Rs 20 district will be allowed. The properties

[3:38:47] are currently designated Mixed Residential Neighborhood,

[3:38:49] Transit Opportunity Area and Recreation and open space on

[3:38:52] the place type map. The proposed PDR 5.006 is generally

[3:38:57] consistent with the mixed residential neighborhood and

[3:38:59] recreation and open space, place types, and the Rs 20

[3:39:03] zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type,

[3:39:08] as the district allows residential with limited

[3:39:10] non-residential uses. Individual higher density and

[3:39:13] intensity uses are still desired in the Toe area. Thank

[3:39:17] you staff. The applicant are available for any questions.

[3:39:23] Thank you. Having heard the staff report, I'm declaring

[3:39:27] this public hearing open before we take speakers. Colleagues.

[3:39:32] Does anyone have any questions for staff? Okay, based on my

[3:39:38] count and I'm just going to take a second to count how many

[3:39:41] speakers I have that are not the applicant. I have 21

[3:39:59] speakers on this item, so. I'm going to allow one minute per

[3:40:05] speaker. Please do not yell at me. It's not going to. It's

[3:40:09] 10:40 p.m. with 21 speakers. It's 21 minutes. I understand

[3:40:15] that y'all are displeased, but as presiding chair, I get to

[3:40:19] make that decision. Mr. Ghosh, you are the applicant. Thank

[3:40:29] you, Mr. Ghosh. How much time? And please don't say too many

[3:40:34] minutes. Less than. 21 minutes.

[3:40:37] I was going to say. Maybe 12 minutes.

[3:40:43] Okay. Madam clerk, could you put 12 minutes? And the way

[3:40:48] this works, please do not yell from the chambers. I taught

[3:40:54] middle, I taught preschool through middle school. Do not

[3:40:57] yell. Thank you. If the. We have to allow equal time. So if

[3:41:04] for whatever reason, the applicant goes longer, more

[3:41:08] time gets added to the other side. That's how this works. It

[3:41:11] has to be fair. And in fact, we are already not following our

[3:41:14] own rules because we are only allowed by our own procedures.

[3:41:17] It's 15 minutes per side. That is actually what our procedures

[3:41:22] say. And we adopted those procedures, re-adopted them in

[3:41:26] June of 2025. So by our own procedures, by letting everyone

[3:41:31] speak, we are already forgiving and adding more. So I'm just

[3:41:37] sharing because I know some of you all are not. You don't come

[3:41:41] here as much and so you don't know what all the rules are. So

[3:41:43] I'm explaining our procedures. Our procedures allows 15

[3:41:46] minutes per side. Opponents and proponents. That's our

[3:41:49] procedures. Go ahead. Mr.. Gosh. Thank you.

[3:41:53] First of all. Thank you.

[3:41:54] Mr. Lester, for your presentation.

[3:41:55] And good evening. Mayor Williams.

[3:41:56] Mayor Pro Tem. Caballero .. And members of the

[3:41:58] city Council. I'm Neil Ghosh with the Morningstar Law Group

[3:42:01] at 700 West Main Street in Durham. I'm here tonight

[3:42:04] representing the application for this rezoning and

[3:42:06] annexation request. Our team includes Tim Sivers with

[3:42:10] community, who you heard from earlier, and the developers, Ty

[3:42:13] Armstrong with Abode and Ted Heilbrunn with Kelly on the

[3:42:17] affordable component. There is a lot to talk about here, so

[3:42:21] I'm going to jump right in rather than repeating what Mr.

[3:42:24] Lester has already told you. This is a challenging site, but

[3:42:27] I believe our team has risen to that challenge. When Ty

[3:42:30] contacted me, he told me his goal was to put a high tech

[3:42:34] deal on this site. Married with a market rate component. When

[3:42:38] we looked at how that might work, we had to make some tough

[3:42:41] decisions. Just like you will need to do tonight. But I want

[3:42:44] to walk you through that process. Here's the site and

[3:42:50] just for orientation purposes, the right hand side of the page

[3:42:53] is south at the top of the page where George King Road is is

[3:42:56] the east. You can see the Chapel Hill community is on the

[3:42:59] bottom of the page, which directionally represents the

[3:43:02] West. This is one of the few areas where the homes are

[3:43:06] within Durham County, but also are within the town of Chapel

[3:43:09] Hill rather than the City of Durham. And anyway, you can see

[3:43:12] on this page that there are some streams on this property,

[3:43:15] and there is some natural heritage designation on the

[3:43:19] site. I thought it would be useful to start there. The

[3:43:25] brown area on this slide represents the natural Heritage

[3:43:28] Area designation on the site, so you can see it's basically

[3:43:31] all in the southern portion of the site. You can also see that

[3:43:34] there already are impacts in that area with this existing

[3:43:38] gas line right here. That's already there, right. And but

[3:43:43] what really is this natural heritage area. And if you zoom

[3:43:47] out, I think you can get a better picture. The natural

[3:43:52] heritage area that exists on our site is the very periphery

[3:43:56] of a much larger natural heritage area. In fact, the

[3:43:58] area to our south all the way out to highway 54 is all

[3:44:02] natural Heritage area. And that portion south of us is

[3:44:05] federally managed. In other words, there's a huge chunk of

[3:44:09] natural heritage area that is already being preserved on our

[3:44:13] site. We have two categories R5, which is a general category

[3:44:17] as opposed to a top or high priority area, and C4, which

[3:44:22] signifies limited or lower priority if it were a high

[3:44:26] priority, one would imagine the federal government would have

[3:44:29] taken it for preservation. Like the area to the south. Now,

[3:44:35] this image is from an item in your agenda packet. The UEA or

[3:44:39] Utility Extension Agreement. This is a document prepared by

[3:44:43] the city staff to tell us what we need to do on our dime to

[3:44:48] bring water and sewer to this site. If we are annexed. As you

[3:44:53] can see, the site has been identified for a public lift

[3:44:55] station. The ideal location for a lift station, just generally

[3:44:59] speaking, is at the very bottom of a drainage basin which

[3:45:02] happens to be on the site, and this infrastructure will be

[3:45:05] built by the developer at a cost of around $1.5 million. So

[3:45:13] that's where the lift station is, right in the natural

[3:45:16] heritage area. And don't forget, we would have to build

[3:45:19] a road to it for access and extend utilities to and from it.

[3:45:25] Now, this is a figure from the adopted collector street plan

[3:45:30] for this area. You can see all the roads have been planned

[3:45:33] through this parcel, which is a fixed feature of the site that

[3:45:36] we have to take into consideration for development.

[3:45:39] The developer will build portions of these roads and off

[3:45:42] site improvements, including extensions of utilities that

[3:45:46] have costs of around $2.5 million in public

[3:45:50] infrastructure. Now, here are those roads again in that

[3:45:53] roundabout and again, right through the natural heritage

[3:45:57] areas. Honestly, I don't really understand this. This transit

[3:46:00] plant or collector street plan. You kind of could not draw

[3:46:04] these roads in a worse way with more impacts. But luckily there

[3:46:08] is some flexibility for property owners on how the road

[3:46:11] goes through the property. The end points are more or less

[3:46:14] fixed. The road on the southern side, our southern boundary

[3:46:21] actually is not entirely on our property, so we will not be

[3:46:24] building it. Or I don't think any portion of it actually,

[3:46:28] which I think is a good thing given its significant impacts

[3:46:30] to the natural heritage area. And we intend to design the

[3:46:33] other road, the one that goes to the middle of the property,

[3:46:36] so as to avoid the first little stream finger, right, right

[3:46:39] here we want to turn that road. So we miss that. We want to

[3:46:42] straighten out the crossing of the stream and hopefully get

[3:46:47] all of that road out of the natural heritage area. And

[3:46:52] significantly, as I mentioned at the beginning, my client was

[3:46:55] dead set on finding a way to include a light tech component

[3:46:59] in this project. We found a great partner on the on the

[3:47:03] affordable side and Ted, Halbrand Kelly development. And

[3:47:06] you all might be aware that light tech deals have a scoring

[3:47:10] rubric, which includes many facets. And among those are

[3:47:15] proximity to and drive time to amenities

[3:47:17] Like grocery stores or. Pharmacies.

[3:47:19] And also access. Our valuation.

[3:47:22] Of the site basically indicates there are only.

[3:47:24] Two locations. On the parcel.

[3:47:26] Which will score adequately to be awarded tax credit. And you

[3:47:30] guessed it, both are within the Natural Heritage area. I said I

[3:47:34] wanted to walk you through the decision making process here.

[3:47:37] In a nutshell. We found that we really cannot avoid impacts to

[3:47:41] the natural heritage area based purely on the infrastructure

[3:47:44] requirements. The lift station, the roads, the stream crossing.

[3:47:49] No matter how this site is developed. The natural heritage

[3:47:51] area will be impacted. Secondly, we took into

[3:47:55] consideration the state's own value of this particular

[3:47:59] natural heritage area. Not all are created equal. These fell

[3:48:03] into the lower categories. And finally, we ultimately decided

[3:48:08] that if impacts to the natural heritage area are inevitable

[3:48:11] and these areas are not of particular significance, that

[3:48:15] it makes sense to include the light component despite it

[3:48:20] impacting the natural heritage area. The city has already

[3:48:23] decided to pick infrastructure over natural heritage. We are

[3:48:28] hoping you will pick affordable housing over natural heritage

[3:48:31] as well. To wrap up, I have two more slides. Tonight there are

[3:48:36] a few more commitments we would like to add. We want to

[3:48:40] increase our school commitment from 11,000 to 25,000. We also

[3:48:44] want to commit to handling the 100 year storm. And then these

[3:48:48] last two are meant to provide specific commitments for

[3:48:51] greater protections to the natural heritage area. We are

[3:48:55] committing to having a 30 foot natural buffer along our

[3:48:58] southern property line, and we are prohibited prohibiting land

[3:49:01] disturbance south of that gas easement that I pointed out

[3:49:04] earlier. These are great commitments on top of the

[3:49:08] already great commitments the project has, including several

[3:49:11] of which were negotiated with our Chapel Hill neighbors for

[3:49:14] buffers, additional plantings, and height limitations. We also

[3:49:19] already have decreased the allowable impervious from 70%

[3:49:22] to 60%. We have three times the amount of UDL required, tree

[3:49:28] coverage, and of course the affordable housing commitment,

[3:49:31] which requires a minimum of 20% of the units to be affordable.

[3:49:37] My client is deep into this project and at this point is

[3:49:40] therefore in a position where they intend to develop the

[3:49:42] site. This last slide, I just wanted to point out the various

[3:49:46] outcomes here. Tonight. We are asking for your approval of

[3:49:49] both the annexation and rezoning. This will result in

[3:49:53] about 230 units, roughly $4 million in public

[3:49:57] infrastructure, and 20% affordable units. If instead

[3:50:01] you approve only the annexation, the project would

[3:50:04] shrink to about 91 single family detached units. The

[3:50:08] public infrastructure would still be there, but we would

[3:50:11] not be able to do any of the affordable housing. And if

[3:50:14] neither the annexation nor the rezoning are approved, my

[3:50:17] client would intend to build this site on well and septic in

[3:50:20] the county for about 25 estate lots. Again, I recognize this

[3:50:26] will be a hard decision for you. It was for us. We

[3:50:30] understand that we already went through the mental math on

[3:50:32] this, and obviously we decided to move forward. This is a good

[3:50:35] project. Despite the challenges that the property presents, and

[3:50:39] we hope you see it the same way. Our team is here to answer

[3:50:42] any questions you may have, and thank you for your time tonight.

[3:50:47] Thank you. I have been given a list of residents in the order

[3:50:55] that they would like to speak, so I'm going to call that list,

[3:50:57] and then I'm going to have to cross-reference it to the list

[3:51:00] that signed up with the clerk. So just to make sure I don't

[3:51:02] skip anybody. I think what I'm going to do, and actually I'm

[3:51:07] going to take the online speaker. I think we have one

[3:51:09] online speaker, Mr.. Jonathan Langston.

[3:51:19] Can you hear me? Can you speak up just a little

[3:51:22] bit? Yes.

[3:51:24] Can you hear. Me now?

[3:51:25] Yes. We can. Thank you. Good evening. You have one minute.

[3:51:29] All right. I'm Jonathan Langston, and my

[3:51:31] home is located at 5508 George King Road, adjacent to the

[3:51:34] proposed site. I think the stormwater issue is one of my

[3:51:37] biggest concerns for roadway and sewer infrastructure, and

[3:51:40] the legality of the water utility extension agreement.

[3:51:43] Currently, there are several developments around the area

[3:51:45] which have been approved, and I don't believe the city is

[3:51:47] taking into consideration the exorbitant amount of runoff

[3:51:49] that we're cleared with this development. The connector road

[3:51:52] from George King Road to Lancaster connects directly

[3:51:54] above a creek that crosses George King Road and onward to

[3:51:57] Lee village center. And I have all ideas that the City of

[3:52:00] Durham will have future problems and costs of this

[3:52:02] road. With the roadway connector for George King

[3:52:04] washing out the location to the creek due to stormwater from

[3:52:07] surrounding development and most importantly, affecting the

[3:52:11] sewer pumping station outlined in exhibit B of the Utility

[3:52:14] Extension Agreement. Another big concern I have is the

[3:52:17] legality of the drinking water infrastructure outlined in

[3:52:21] exhibit A of the utility agreement downward, North and

[3:52:24] South. My 2022 plat registered with the county memorializes

[3:52:29] the width of the road and my neighbor to the west of me.

[3:52:34] There have a conservation easement to the center of

[3:52:37] George King Road. So thank you. I hope y'all vote no.

[3:52:44] Those are all the online speakers I have. First, sign

[3:52:48] up. This is the order that folks said that they wanted to

[3:52:51] speak in. So I'm going to call you up the first five Melissa

[3:52:55] Cain, Ruth Ross, Linda Shiflett, Brian Sugg and

[3:53:00] Michael Wilder. Good evening. My name is

[3:53:18] Melissa Kane. I live in the Oaks Villas in Chapel Hill and

[3:53:21] in Durham County. Thank you for taking my emails. As the

[3:53:26] president of the. HOA.

[3:53:28] The Oaks Villas Owners Association, I felt obligated

[3:53:34] to explain to you the value of this particular land and why it

[3:53:41] is vastly inappropriate for development. First of all, Oaks

[3:53:45] Villas is adjacent to Little Creek. It is adjacent to the US

[3:53:49] Army Corps of Engineers. Land. North Carolina Game Lands and

[3:53:52] and 5524 George King Road. The proposed site for enclave is a

[3:53:59] site that stands out as the northernmost boundary of the

[3:54:04] Army Corps Watershed Protection Agent Area. It is the

[3:54:10] headwaters of the Jordan Lake watershed. No other property in

[3:54:16] Durham County is like this property. It is unique. Is that

[3:54:24] it? Yes, ma'am.

[3:54:25] Thank you. That is it? Yep. Thank you, Miss Ruth Ross.

[3:54:35] My name is Ruth Ross on. Helmsdale Drive and I've lived

[3:54:39] in Durham and Durham County since 1970. I have watched this

[3:54:45] community grow, change and prosper over many decades, and

[3:54:48] I care deeply about the decisions that shape its

[3:54:51] future. The question tonight is whether the enclave project

[3:54:56] will be the right kind of growth in the right place.

[3:54:59] Durham adopted clear goals in the 2023 Comprehensive Plan for

[3:55:05] Complete Neighborhoods, transportation, access and

[3:55:09] Environmental Stewardship. Enclave may add housing units,

[3:55:13] but it falls short of these larger responsibilities. I'm

[3:55:18] especially troubled by what this proposal means for the

[3:55:21] land itself. Once mature, trees are removed, streams disturbed,

[3:55:26] and large areas covered with pavement and rooftops. Those

[3:55:30] natural protections are lost for generations. When the city

[3:55:34] approves annexations and rezoning, I believe those

[3:55:38] decisions should fairly clear the long term public good.

[3:55:42] Thank you. And then just real quick, some of the folks who I

[3:55:46] have in the order that they want weren't I don't I'm not

[3:55:49] matching them. So I may I may read your name out afterwards

[3:55:52] and just make sure that you register with the city clerk.

[3:55:54] Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Miss Shiflett.

[3:55:58] Yes. Good evening. My name is Linda

[3:56:00] Shiflett, and I'm here to speak about enclaves, affordable

[3:56:03] housing model. At first glance, at 20% affordable housing

[3:56:07] commitment sounds meaningful. And I want to acknowledge that

[3:56:10] Durham does need more affordable housing. We've heard

[3:56:13] it a lot tonight, but tonight's question is not whether

[3:56:16] affordability matters. It's whether this model delivers it

[3:56:20] in a way that is equitable, reliable and aligned with your

[3:56:24] comprehensive plan. Based on the details on the staff report

[3:56:28] and the Planning Commission report, it does not. First, the

[3:56:32] 20% commitment is misleading. The proposal allows a portion

[3:56:36] of that obligation to be met by conveying a separate three acre

[3:56:40] parcel to another developer. That means the affordable

[3:56:44] housing is not concurrently built, not guaranteed in

[3:56:47] timing, and not controlled by this project. It is deferred

[3:56:51] and has uncertainty. This model creates separation, not

[3:56:55] inclusion. Market rate units are clustered in one area,

[3:56:58] while income restricted units are placed in another. This is

[3:57:02] not a mixed income community, its economic segregation.

[3:57:06] Durham's policy calls for integration where affordability

[3:57:10] is woven into the fabric of a neighborhood.

[3:57:12] Thank you. Thank you so much, Brian Sugg.

[3:57:27] Good evening. Good evening Brian.

[3:57:29] I live in Durham. County and the community that borders the

[3:57:32] western boundary of this project. There's a lot

[3:57:35] happening in the near vicinity of our neighborhood, and I

[3:57:37] wanted to call that out here tonight to quantify the impact

[3:57:40] that not only this development, but the other developments are

[3:57:42] having on our neighborhood. I provided this map to all of you

[3:57:45] in email yesterday, and I bring it here tonight to show that

[3:57:48] there are 12 projects in total on this one square mile of map

[3:57:55] that you see here on the screen tonight. Six of these projects

[3:57:58] have already been built primarily along Farrington

[3:58:00] Road. Five of them are active cases. That is listed on page

[3:58:04] seven of the zoning Map report in your packet. And then you

[3:58:07] have the enclave. I bring this to your attention one, because

[3:58:10] there are 4800 units that have been planned for this one

[3:58:14] square mile of development, and at 2.2 people per unit, that's

[3:58:18] over 10,000 people being squeezed into this amount of

[3:58:21] area that is constrained by wetlands to both the east and

[3:58:24] the west. And this enclave proposal is only one of two

[3:58:27] remaining in rezoning and application rezoning phase. And

[3:58:31] you have an opportunity to preserve some of what's left.

[3:58:33] Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, good.

[3:58:55] Evening, good morning. I so my name is Michael. Wilder and I'm

[3:59:00] here tonight to oppose the annexation. Rezoning. I'm going

[3:59:04] to deviate from my prepared text to talk about an exchange

[3:59:09] of emails I've had with Andy Lester and Eric Kane over the

[3:59:14] last few months. First of all, and your documents tonight for

[3:59:18] the annexation petition in the first paragraph, state pretty

[3:59:22] clearly the state law requires this application to be

[3:59:25] considered as a non-contiguous, because when it was submitted

[3:59:29] to the city planning, the city county planning, it was not

[3:59:32] contiguous could not be considered contiguous. So it's

[3:59:35] not a it's a non-contiguous annexation. Secondly, I've

[3:59:39] exchanged email once again with Andy, and here is the place

[3:59:43] type map for the properties along George King Road. And you

[3:59:47] can plainly see, as Andy has confirmed with me, that the

[3:59:51] acreage set aside for 5524 George King Road, the enclave

[3:59:57] development, is not a Toa. It's not designed as a toa unlikely

[4:00:03] village, which is on the east side. Thank you.

[4:00:06] Thank you so much. The next few. And then just very

[4:00:09] clearly, Miss Melissa and Miss Ruth Ross and Miss Linda

[4:00:13] Shiflett, I don't have you on our registered list with the

[4:00:17] clerk. So before you leave, just make sure you register.

[4:00:21] Thank you. The next few folks I have are Gordon Gardner, Abbey

[4:00:26] palms, Crag Palms and Patrice, Captain or Captain. Oh, and

[4:00:34] then Tyler Bennett. Sign up.

[4:01:11] I'm sorry. Go ahead. Good evening.

[4:01:12] Thanks for having us. My name is Gordon Gardner, and I'm

[4:01:15] opposed to the approval of the enclave development and the

[4:01:18] proposed connection of Lancaster Drive through the

[4:01:21] development. Our streets, like sidewalks and bike lanes,

[4:01:24] pedestrians, including children and elderly residents, are

[4:01:28] forced to share the road with vehicles. And the road does not

[4:01:31] meet connector street guidelines. I'd also like to

[4:01:35] piggyback on the views on the affordable housing. The

[4:01:39] proposal does not guarantee any affordable housing will ever be

[4:01:42] built, and if it is, it's not an inclusionary way. I'm a

[4:01:46] retired teacher of Durham Public Schools, having served

[4:01:49] 29 years at the very schools. This proposal in my own

[4:01:52] neighborhood send their children Geffen's middle and

[4:01:55] Jordan. I. Research shows an inclusion of affordable housing

[4:01:59] significantly narrows the academic achievement gap,

[4:02:03] leading to higher test scores and improved reading and math

[4:02:06] proficiency. Beyond academics, living in a stable mixed income

[4:02:10] communities reduces the toxic stress associated with housing

[4:02:14] insecurity and neighborhood violence. I urge you to vote no.

[4:02:28] Yes. Good evening.

[4:02:30] Thank you. Good evening.

[4:02:32] Unfortunately. my presentation. Didn't get uploaded. So you

[4:02:36] have received this. There's I'm not going to go through it, but

[4:02:39] there's a great deal of pictures in there just

[4:02:42] depicting our neighborhood. Just to let you know what it

[4:02:43] looks like. We have a lot of seniors, probably 90% seniors.

[4:02:47] They use assistive walking devices to get to mailboxes. We

[4:02:50] don't have sidewalks and we don't have bike lanes. We

[4:02:54] simply have to walk on the road to get everywhere. I also

[4:02:56] wanted to mention there's a map in your in your documents that

[4:03:02] Mr. Ghosh didn't recommend. Didn't mention one area.

[4:03:05] There's a brown area in that map above the Natural heritage

[4:03:09] lands, and that is the North Carolina Natural Heritage

[4:03:13] Program. Biodiversity and Wildlife Assessment Area. It's

[4:03:17] a birding area that was authorized by the the Audubon

[4:03:22] Society. So that's also another area to consider when you make

[4:03:25] this decision. The other thing is this is immediately adjacent

[4:03:30] to hunting grounds. And I want to just stress that these

[4:03:33] places are going to have children playing in yards,

[4:03:36] right at hunting grounds. Thank you.

[4:03:47] Good evening. Are you Craig? Craig. Perfect.

[4:03:50] Good evening. Thank you, thank you Craig

[4:03:52] palms. I live.

[4:03:53] On Lancaster. I appreciate your time tonight.

[4:03:56] So my comments and I think this got.

[4:03:59] Uploaded to you also. So I'm not.

[4:04:01] Going to go through. The whole thing.

[4:04:02] This relates to the southwest Durham southeast Chapel Hill

[4:04:05] collector street plan. And as.

[4:04:07] You probably aware, the document was adopted as a

[4:04:12] policy planning guidance document. Okay. And I don't

[4:04:16] have time to go through the whole thing. But this current

[4:04:19] development that what they are proposing as far as connecting

[4:04:25] to Lancaster as a connector street, doesn't comply with the

[4:04:30] document. The document talks about collector street plans

[4:04:33] having adequate space for cars and bikes and sidewalks to talk.

[4:04:38] The document even goes on. There are some pictures in in

[4:04:42] this document that talks about trees, and I, you know, the

[4:04:45] last page of the document talks about the why the proposed

[4:04:50] extension into Lancaster isn't in compliance with with that

[4:04:55] planning and that guidance for you all. So we urge no, thank

[4:04:58] you. Thank you.

[4:05:04] Good evening. Hi.

[4:05:06] My name is. Patrice.

[4:05:07] Given the county is already. Moving forward with the county

[4:05:09] wide open. Space plan.

[4:05:10] In spring 2026, supported by the 2023 Comprehensive Plan,

[4:05:15] which calls for identifying and permanently protecting lands

[4:05:17] designated as recreation and open space. This parcel already

[4:05:21] carries that designation. It connects to Little Creek Trail,

[4:05:24] lies near conserved land by the North Carolina Botanical

[4:05:27] Garden, and supports a perennial stream and important

[4:05:29] habitats like that of affiliated woodpeckers. There

[4:05:32] are several pileated woodpecker that live in the woods, where

[4:05:34] the proposed enclave will be built. They are legally

[4:05:37] protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. That means it's

[4:05:40] illegal to harm, capture, or kill them or disturb their

[4:05:42] nests without a permit. They are a keystone species because

[4:05:45] they create cavities and mature forests with large dead or

[4:05:48] decaying trees. Please protect this Jordan Creek watershed.

[4:05:52] The. The southern portion of the site, adjacent to the Army

[4:05:55] Corps land, is designated as Natural Heritage land. It is

[4:05:59] named Little Creek. Bottomlands and Slopes. The conservation

[4:06:02] value is C4 and the rarity value was R5. It scored within

[4:06:06] both categories of conservation and rarity. Approving rezoning

[4:06:11] now would be premature. Respectfully ask that you wait

[4:06:13] until this parcel is reviewed through Open Space plan

[4:06:16] process. Thank you.

[4:06:25] Tyler. There we go. Come on. One second.

[4:06:31] There we go. Good evening.

[4:06:37] My name is Tyler Bennett, and I'm would like to speak.

[4:06:40] To the. Natural Heritage area and the

[4:06:43] recreational and open space areas on.

[4:06:45] This property. As Neal pointed out, this is a

[4:06:48] fairly complex piece of property. And what I show in

[4:06:51] this map, and I'm north is the top is north. We have the

[4:06:56] little Creek water fowl impoundment below the property.

[4:07:01] We have a flood zone. We have game lands below the property.

[4:07:05] And in the property we have two creeks that provide all the

[4:07:08] drainage for a series of seven ponds that are outside the

[4:07:12] property. And as Neal pointed out, it's very difficult to

[4:07:16] develop this land because of all these environmental

[4:07:19] concerns. And I think there's a very easy solution to this.

[4:07:22] Turn down. The request.

[4:07:24] Thank you. Thank you. Laura Elgin, Charlie

[4:07:37] Mondeo and TC MorphOS. Thank you.

[4:07:43] Thank you. Good evening. I'm Laura Elgin and I oppose this

[4:07:48] action. There are a number of reasons we oppose it, but.

[4:07:51] specifically I wanted to address my.

[4:07:53] Concern about stormwater. Runoff and its implication for

[4:07:56] most of the 14 homes on the east side of Helmsdale, my

[4:07:59] street, the proposed 60% impervious surface will

[4:08:03] significantly increase. stormwater runoff over the past

[4:08:06] 10 to 15 years. Residents of Helmsdale have experienced

[4:08:10] increasing incidents of flooding and drainage issues.

[4:08:12] Here are a few comments from many I received, but I've

[4:08:15] paired it down. My neighbor on 103 reports. Heavy rains bring

[4:08:21] water down from Lancaster, through my backyard and on down

[4:08:24] the hill, through the backyards of my neighbors at 105 and 107.

[4:08:28] Even with an elaborate French drain system, after heavy

[4:08:30] rains, it is still emptying water out onto the curb.

[4:08:35] Another, my other neighbor at 202 Helmsdale. There have been

[4:08:39] two flooding episodes, the worst being in 2013. Do well

[4:08:46] anyway, thank you very much for your consideration.

[4:08:49] Thank you. Hello Charles.

[4:09:00] Mondello. I'm an American.

[4:09:02] Society of. Photogrammetry and remote

[4:09:03] sensing imaging scientist, by the way, and I also happen to

[4:09:07] live on Helmsdale. You've seen many of these comments before,

[4:09:12] so I'm going to. Just flag.

[4:09:12] Your own data. for you. If you look at this slide, you will

[4:09:16] see where we have impacts from flat areas. That is where water

[4:09:22] flows. It's plain as day. It's visually right in front of you.

[4:09:26] It's a lean and Chantal, any addition of impermeable will

[4:09:32] cause that to expand. You have additionally a bunch of other

[4:09:36] slides I've given you. Without enough time to present. I've

[4:09:39] given you a Duke study from February of this year, which

[4:09:43] highlights here and in other cases where these kinds of

[4:09:47] things are a challenge. When you have wetlands like we do in

[4:09:51] this area. So please just read through this material and use

[4:09:56] this insight as you move on across many programs. Hopefully

[4:10:01] I've also given you the USGS and North Carolina State

[4:10:06] commentary on Risk, so I hope it helps you here and

[4:10:10] elsewhere. But please don't approve. Disaster do occur.

[4:10:13] Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is T.C.

[4:10:26] MorphOS. I'm a partner with a law firm

[4:10:28] in Chapel Hill, and I'm here on behalf of the Oakville

[4:10:31] Homeowners Association. I'm going to condense down my

[4:10:34] presentation to just make two points. One, I remind council

[4:10:37] that the Planning Commission voted 8 to 3 against

[4:10:40] recommending approval of this project, largely due to

[4:10:42] environmental concerns. Secondly, I would point out

[4:10:45] that the applicant has promised to expand George King Road to

[4:10:50] NCDOT standards and to provide water and sewer along much of

[4:10:54] the George King Road right of way. And I would say, with all

[4:10:56] respect to the Council and to the applicant, they cannot make

[4:11:01] those improvements. As you heard from me in December, in

[4:11:04] connection to the Village Center project, George King

[4:11:07] Road exists as a prescriptive easement, which means that they

[4:11:10] would need to get easements from private property owners,

[4:11:13] which I believe was the point Mr. Langston was going to make

[4:11:15] earlier. In order to be able to do those infrastructure

[4:11:18] improvements, should they seek to rely on the village center

[4:11:22] project, which, as council is aware, proposes to realign the

[4:11:27] George King Road project? I would say that that has been

[4:11:29] challenged in court and should not be used as a basis for

[4:11:33] approving this project. Thank you. Thank you.

[4:11:43] Thank you. That was the order of the folks who wanted and

[4:11:46] everybody else who came after had registered. And so thank

[4:11:49] you for that. And so now I'm going to keep moving on the

[4:11:51] list. That was the order that y'all wanted. I have Jennifer

[4:11:57] Mayer, Mimi Kessler. Pablo Friedman, Steven Cohn and David

[4:12:06] Barron. Yes. Thank you. Good. Good

[4:12:23] evening, Jennifer Maher. My address is on record.

[4:12:25] I'm co-chair. Of the new Hope Road. Alliance

[4:12:28] Conservation Committee. I'm not a.

[4:12:30] Neighbor of this property, so I'm speaking as a person

[4:12:33] concerned about the community of Durham and its future. This

[4:12:37] is a very attractive in on paper offer of affordable

[4:12:42] housing, but it needs to be balanced against possible

[4:12:45] damage of an long term damage of water that we've just heard

[4:12:50] tonight. We're going to be drinking from Jordan Lake, the

[4:12:53] Natural Heritage Area is not a small deal. It is a deal that

[4:12:58] protects birds, which we have found in new Hope. Audubon

[4:13:02] Research has found are in a steep decline, and that

[4:13:05] reflects what's going on with our environment for people. So

[4:13:09] how affordable is it when your heat bills cause the heat cause

[4:13:14] high bills? How affordable is it when your water is polluted

[4:13:17] and when this city has to remediate? So for all these

[4:13:21] reasons, I ask you to think a very difficult decision. We

[4:13:25] acknowledge that, but please vote no.

[4:13:34] Hi, I'm Mimi Kessler. I just want to amplify proximity to

[4:13:39] hunting, environmental sensitivity, including rare

[4:13:43] birds. To many people into small space. And the Planning

[4:13:49] Commission voted 8 to 3 against it. Please vote no.

[4:13:54] Thank you. Good evening.

[4:14:02] All right. Good evening. An apology and

[4:14:06] two points to my fellow premium tax paying brothers and

[4:14:09] sisters. I'm sorry you all have to sit and only get one minute

[4:14:12] of public comment. The presiding officer can make the

[4:14:15] rule, and they can change the rule. And elections have

[4:14:17] consequences. Two points I want to make. Point number one, I

[4:14:20] actually want to thank the applicant for increasing their

[4:14:23] proffer on education. It's funny how when council members

[4:14:26] lean in a certain things and the lawyers that represent

[4:14:30] these applicants listen and they improve their proffers,

[4:14:33] this is a substantially better proffer on education. And I

[4:14:35] want to congratulate the applicant on that point. Number

[4:14:38] two, that I want to make is specifically around emergency

[4:14:42] first responders. And I made this at the last meeting that

[4:14:45] you all had. I think it's really important that you all

[4:14:48] figure out as council members the the number of times that

[4:14:50] they've gone into stat mode for this part of Durham County. And

[4:14:54] how is this applicant going to adjust it? Because right now in

[4:14:57] Durham, there are times when you call 911 and you can't get

[4:15:00] an ambulance delivered to you. So if they're going to if we're

[4:15:03] going to give them this, which we don't have to, how are they

[4:15:05] going to improve public goods in Durham? Thank you very much.

[4:15:14] Steve Cohn, chair of the Open Space committee of the Durham

[4:15:18] Open Space and Trails Commission, as the citizen

[4:15:21] group that advises Durham's governments on all matters

[4:15:23] connected to open space, we've sent you our Open Space report

[4:15:26] card on the enclave at Little Creek with grades of 1D and

[4:15:30] three FS. As you've heard, there's a Natural Heritage Area

[4:15:33] involved with direct proximity to NC Game Lands and with a

[4:15:38] hunting safety buffer around it, and the developer is choosing

[4:15:43] to build over them with no commitment to protect the

[4:15:46] natural heritage area and to create an adequate buffer from

[4:15:50] the active game lands to the south, the developers can do

[4:15:53] whatever they want in this area and that is not acceptable as

[4:15:57] the planning staff's consistency review shows, this

[4:16:00] rezoning case fails to meet policy 79, policy 81 and policy

[4:16:05] 83 on protecting environmentally open space

[4:16:08] sensitive areas. It also fails to meet policy 80 on protecting

[4:16:14] the integrity of nearby parklands and nature preserves.

[4:16:17] We strongly recommend that the enclave at Little Creek should

[4:16:20] not be rezoned. Thank you.

[4:16:29] Good evening. Good evening. My name is David

[4:16:31] Barron. I'm speaking on behalf of the Environmental Affairs

[4:16:34] Board, Land Use and Planning subcommittee, where I serve as

[4:16:36] chair. The site sits in a very sensitive area within the

[4:16:39] Jordan Lake watershed, with streams feeding directly into

[4:16:41] Little Creek. Little Creek is already identified as impaired.

[4:16:45] Given that, as per other comment, we're concerned about

[4:16:47] the amount of impervious surface leading to stormwater

[4:16:49] runoff, sediment, and nutrient loading into an already

[4:16:52] stressed system. We're also concerned about the lack of

[4:16:54] attention to a designated natural area, identified by the

[4:16:57] National Carolina Natural Heritage Program on the

[4:16:59] southern portion of the site. These areas are identified by

[4:17:02] state experts because they contain high value habitat and

[4:17:04] biodiversity. For a little more clarity here. I do believe they

[4:17:07] send actual people out to these sites to make the determination

[4:17:10] of what is a natural area and what is not. We should not

[4:17:13] diminish that categorization there. When you need to put a

[4:17:16] lift station and do development in that area, it's kind of a

[4:17:19] clear indication that you do not have the right development

[4:17:21] for the parcel at hand. So AaBb Land Use and Planning strongly

[4:17:24] urges council not to allow development of this natural

[4:17:27] area and a minimum. We need to have a better understanding of

[4:17:29] the engineering stormwater management plan and sediment

[4:17:31] transport analysis. These plans would result in commitments to

[4:17:34] minimize impervious surfaces. Thank you.

[4:17:37] Thank you. Thank you. I have Sarah Morgan,

[4:17:45] Helen Westerman, Paul Casey, Drew Dorey. And Elizabeth Faber.

[4:17:59] Good evening. Good evening. My name is Sarah Morgan, and I

[4:18:02] live on Tweed Place. We support thoughtful development and the

[4:18:05] need for more housing. But growth must be aligned with

[4:18:08] safety. And this proposal is not. Durham is committed

[4:18:12] through its Vision Zero Action plan to eliminating traffic

[4:18:16] deaths and serious injuries. That commitment is grounded in

[4:18:19] a simple idea safe mobility is a right, not a trade off. And

[4:18:24] the data shows why this matters. In Durham, there are

[4:18:26] 32 crashes every day and a pedestrian is involved in a

[4:18:30] crash every three days at Farrington Road and NC 54.

[4:18:34] Adjacent to this development, there have been more than 40

[4:18:36] crashes and over 40,000 cars moved through this corridor

[4:18:40] daily. As of 2024. Now consider what the enclave would do. The

[4:18:45] enclave would connect to Lancaster, Hebrides and Dundalk

[4:18:49] roads, creating a cut through route that diverts traffic into

[4:18:52] residential neighborhoods that were never designed to carry

[4:18:55] this load. This increases exposure without ensuring

[4:18:59] safety infrastructure. Exactly what Vision Zero warns against.

[4:19:04] Please vote no. Thank you.

[4:19:12] Good evening. Good evening.

[4:19:13] I am. Helen Westerman. I support.

[4:19:16] affordable housing and I support strong communities.

[4:19:20] This plan does neither. It separates.

[4:19:22] Residents by income. Two storey townhouses with garages for

[4:19:26] some, and a four story affordable housing building

[4:19:30] built by a different developer for others. The result is a

[4:19:34] visually different and likely inferior structure set apart

[4:19:37] from the rest. That is not community, that is segregation,

[4:19:42] affordable housing should provide stability and dignity,

[4:19:45] not label people as less than in their own neighborhood.

[4:19:49] There is also no guarantee these units will ever be built.

[4:19:52] Low tech funding is highly competitive and this site does

[4:19:55] not appear to meet key criteria. Yet. The promise of

[4:19:58] 20% affordable housing is being used to justify a zoning

[4:20:02] change. While responsibility for these units is handed off

[4:20:06] to a third party. Once zoning is approved, accountability

[4:20:10] disappears, both for whether these units are built and the

[4:20:12] quality of what it is built. I urge you to reject this

[4:20:16] proposal. As it stands. My name is Paul. Sorry.

[4:20:27] Okay. My name is Paul Casey. I wanted to highlight quickly why

[4:20:30] we believe Lancaster is unsafe to serve as a through street

[4:20:33] for heavy traffic. Lancaster Drive is a residential street

[4:20:36] defined by private driveways, curb cuts and high pedestrian

[4:20:39] activity. Because we do not have individual mailboxes at

[4:20:42] our homes. Or and our residents, including many

[4:20:45] elderly neighbors, must cross the street daily to access

[4:20:48] shared mailbox stations. This is a walking neighborhood where

[4:20:51] families, children and pet owners are constantly active,

[4:20:54] introducing through traffic into this environment creates

[4:20:56] an immediate and preventable safety hazard. Second,

[4:20:59] Lancaster Drive functions as a central traffic hub for a great

[4:21:02] deal of activities in the Oaks neighborhood, including golf

[4:21:04] course, tennis and pickleball courts, and a pool. These

[4:21:07] activities generate a flow of vehicles, along with pedestrian

[4:21:10] crossings that are often obscured to drivers unfamiliar

[4:21:12] with this area. Adding high volume through traffic to a

[4:21:16] street where children are biking and visibility is

[4:21:18] highly, is already restricted is an unacceptable risk to

[4:21:21] public safety. You should turn this down.

[4:21:29] Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Faber. I'll speak

[4:21:31] before Jerry. Dory.

[4:21:32] Thank you. Thank you. Council members. I live on Nottingham

[4:21:35] Road in Durham and you have my photos and pack in your

[4:21:39] materials. So I'll just speak to my slides that the data

[4:21:43] shows that this proposal does not advance or even align with

[4:21:47] Durham's community goals and objectives speak about

[4:21:51] transportation first, the closest existing transit stop

[4:21:54] is 1.3 miles away at the intersection of highway 54 and

[4:21:59] Falconbridge Road. This is a 28 minute walk on a very busy

[4:22:02] multi-lane highway without sidewalks or bike lanes to

[4:22:06] reach a singular bus stop, you have to cross a very busy

[4:22:10] highway 54 without a traffic light or crosswalk, and I would

[4:22:14] add it respectfully that it contradicts today's

[4:22:17] proclamation of May as Durham's National Bike Month.

[4:22:21] Additionally, one of Durham's goals for health and well-being

[4:22:23] is for new developments to stay within a quarter mile of the

[4:22:26] pharmacy. This proposal does not meet this goal either. The

[4:22:29] closest pharmacy is two miles away. The closest health clinic

[4:22:33] is 1.6 miles away, or 35 minutes by foot. By foot. I

[4:22:38] respectfully ask you to oppose. Thank you.

[4:22:40] Thank you. Good evening.

[4:22:47] Let me get the right. Sorry. Let me.

[4:22:49] Get the right PowerPoint here and I'm going to zip through

[4:22:52] it. Part two. There we go. There

[4:23:00] you go. Yeah. Thank you. Good evening.

[4:23:03] I'm Andrea Doria. I live at 407 Lancaster Road in Durham

[4:23:06] County. I want to talk again about how this aligns with the

[4:23:10] objectives. Let's see. There we go. The 2025 CEO from Durham.

[4:23:15] How does it align with daily needs. So it should be a

[4:23:19] walking community. And this graph shows that 4840 or being

[4:23:25] within a mile of a grocery store is the goal. Our closest

[4:23:28] grocery store from this property is two miles 45

[4:23:30] minutes by foot. Similarly, for banking, they recommend a

[4:23:34] quarter mile from a bank and basically the closest bank is

[4:23:38] 2.4 miles away. So it's not a walkable community. In fact,

[4:23:42] there's a 1.2 mile walk to the closest elementary school. And

[4:23:47] as you guys know from family responsibility zones in 2025,

[4:23:51] walk zones that extend up to one and a half miles, where

[4:23:54] school bus transportation is not offered, that Brown. That's

[4:23:58] the Creekside Elementary school. There's an enclave.

[4:24:01] This is the road that people will have to walk down. No

[4:24:04] sidewalks, no lights, and poor visibility for dust. We

[4:24:08] recommend a no vote. Thank you. Those are all the

[4:24:19] speakers that I have signed up this evening. Has anyone? Oh.

[4:24:26] You have okay. I apologize. Go ahead. Good evening.

[4:24:37] Good evening. Sorry, I. Thought I signed up properly.

[4:24:41] It's okay. When you're done speaking, just

[4:24:43] make sure to register with the clerk. Thank you so much.

[4:24:45] Thank you. My name is Chris Bass and I am the owner of an

[4:24:49] ecological. Engineering company.

[4:24:51] I spend all day, every day trying to protect streams and

[4:24:55] build projects to restore them, protect wetlands. I build

[4:24:59] stormwater projects and I work on flooding resilience for

[4:25:03] communities. And both of those. That is the reason I'm here to

[4:25:08] oppose this development. It is located right downstream of the

[4:25:13] confluence of two of the very most flood prone streams in the

[4:25:17] entire triangle, Booker Creek and Bowling Creek. That entire

[4:25:23] corridor was damaged tremendously with hurricane,

[4:25:26] with hurricanes and Tropical Storm Chantal. And this

[4:25:30] development is right downstream of that. I also bring your

[4:25:34] attention to the natural Heritage area. This has been

[4:25:36] mentioned several times, but the impact of a 50 acre

[4:25:40] development directly adjacent to this will do almost

[4:25:45] irreparable damage. I see this is your opportunity to do

[4:25:49] something really positive for species and water.

[4:25:53] Thank you. Thank you. And Mister Bass, you

[4:26:03] had registered. I just had you as an online speaker, so you're

[4:26:06] fine. Thank you so much. Okay, now, I think I have gotten

[4:26:11] everyone who signed up to speak. This is a public

[4:26:14] hearing. I'm about to declare the public hearing closed. So

[4:26:17] if you did not speak or you signed up and weren't given

[4:26:21] your opportunity, this is your chance. Okay. On that, I'm

[4:26:25] closing the public hearing. And this item is before the council.

[4:26:29] Colleagues, questions? Comments? Go ahead. Council

[4:26:32] Member Burris. I have a question for the

[4:26:34] applicant. Somebody left their glasses up

[4:26:41] here. They're not mine. Oh. Did you?

[4:26:46] And sorry, Mr. Gauche, you do have time. But I'm going to let

[4:26:52] Council Member Burris ask her a question first. Thank you.

[4:26:54] Oh, no. You may. You may answer it in your response, so I'll

[4:26:57] let you I'll provide deference to you to go ahead and respond.

[4:26:59] And I can ask the question if it hasn't been answered.

[4:27:01] Sure. So just a couple things I wanted to respond to and I will

[4:27:05] ask Ted Halloran to hobble up here. In the meantime, there

[4:27:09] you are. All right. So that he can help respond. You know,

[4:27:13] some of the comments that you heard, I will say we had

[4:27:17] extensive communications with the with representatives of the

[4:27:20] HOA in the neighborhood to our west in Chapel Hill. We had

[4:27:24] come to add some zoning conditions to our to our

[4:27:30] project. As a result, we had extensive communications with

[4:27:32] them. After Planning commission.

[4:27:36] All you did. Ladies and gentlemen, what we

[4:27:39] would. Not tolerate.

[4:27:40] Is that. All right, let's be respectful. We're going to make

[4:27:43] sure that we're respectful mutually. This will not be one

[4:27:47] of those councils where we go viral on YouTube. Let's be

[4:27:51] respectful. Please. After planning Commission, the

[4:27:57] neighbors did hire an attorney, T.C. MorphOS, who I've. I've

[4:28:00] had a few conversations with about this project, none of

[4:28:03] which where where's it indicated that the neighbors

[4:28:08] were asking for any additional, you know, commitments or things

[4:28:11] like that to work on. So, you know, just just to give you an

[4:28:14] idea of where we were at on all that with the I want to speak

[4:28:20] on the the topic of affordability. This project has

[4:28:26] an affordable component. I think some there was some

[4:28:28] indication here that it's not actually affordable. I'm not

[4:28:31] really sure what that means. Ted.

[4:28:33] Child. Sorry, Kelly development.

[4:28:35] Do we have a timer on Mister? Gosh, right now no, I you had

[4:28:42] 12 minutes initially, correct? Yes. Make sure that I'm keeping

[4:28:47] track of time. Sorry. I'm not trying to be long

[4:28:51] winded. Let me just have Ted come up and talk a little bit

[4:28:53] about the affordable piece. Madam clerk, could you put

[4:28:56] three minutes on the clock. Please?

[4:28:59] Thank you everyone, I'll be brief. Just a sense.

[4:29:03] Of the. Plan that.

[4:29:04] We have. To build the affordable housing

[4:29:05] out here. There's been a lot of questions raised about whether

[4:29:07] it's viable or possible, or what timeline. So the market

[4:29:12] rate developer will be dealing the real estate to us for free.

[4:29:16] The infrastructure that's necessary for the affordable

[4:29:18] housing will be provided for free. The site planning and

[4:29:23] permitting, and some of the grading work for our pad will

[4:29:27] be done at no cost for us. So we're already ahead of any

[4:29:30] other fordable project that we would otherwise contemplate in

[4:29:32] the city. Because these improvements are being done for

[4:29:35] us by the developer. From there, the plan is to seek a 4%

[4:29:40] low income housing tax credit award, which here in North

[4:29:42] Carolina is not competitive. So the concerns about availability

[4:29:47] of credit aren't matched with the reality, which is 4% low

[4:29:51] income housing tax credit projects are not competitive

[4:29:53] here in North Carolina. We further intend to secure a

[4:29:58] nonprofit partner and secure real estate tax abatement,

[4:30:00] which enables us to size up more firm debt. We intend to

[4:30:03] work with Durham Housing Authority to process a rad

[4:30:06] conversion to move folks out of projects like Cornwallis and

[4:30:09] others, where there are folks living in conditions that no

[4:30:12] one in this room has, you know, spent a night in a bed. So

[4:30:17] these concerns about this neighborhood not being the

[4:30:20] right neighbor, we consistently hear concerns from residents

[4:30:23] who don't want to see projects next to them. That project

[4:30:25] isn't affordable enough or it's not integrated enough, or it's

[4:30:28] too hard to develop. And the reality is the alternative is

[4:30:31] we've residents across the city living in housing that's not

[4:30:33] livable. So the path ahead is going to take a few minutes to

[4:30:37] add conversions, take time with HUD, but there is a plan and we

[4:30:43] will be proud of the affordable project that gets built out

[4:30:45] here at this culmination. Thank you.

[4:30:48] Thank you Councilmember. Thank you.

[4:30:50] Oh, Mr.. Oh, yes. Yes. Right.

[4:30:53] So that didn't really get to the crux of what I was going to

[4:30:56] ask, but thank you. Clay will provide some insight around the

[4:30:58] 4% live tech. My question is around segregation. So is it

[4:31:05] can you clarify if the people who will have market rate will

[4:31:09] be separated from those who are in the affordable units? Like

[4:31:13] how does that look? Well, it's an integrated

[4:31:16] community. I mean, to be clear, there is a market rate

[4:31:20] developer and there is a separate affordable developer.

[4:31:23] So are they going to be are the units going to be in the same

[4:31:25] building? No. Are they going to be on the same road?

[4:31:27] Yes okay. Okay. Because I'm thinking about what we did to

[4:31:31] Rad conversion as was just referenced. Right. The idea was

[4:31:34] that you didn't want a community of people all with

[4:31:37] the same subject of background. You wanted to integrate them,

[4:31:39] but you want to make it look like, you know, everyone has

[4:31:42] equity around that. So I'm just trying to figure out in 2026,

[4:31:46] I'll hold that. So will the conditions, will the materials

[4:31:49] or the structure be different for the affordable component

[4:31:53] than for the market rate? Yeah, absolutely. We're

[4:31:55] building apartments as a part of the affordable housing

[4:31:58] project. But I'll also tell you is that it is not simple and

[4:32:03] often not possible to combine the financing for a low income

[4:32:06] housing tax credit project with a market rate development, two

[4:32:08] separate capital stacks. So in North Carolina, with almost

[4:32:11] near certainty, projects are not integrated where you have

[4:32:14] true market rate, unrestricted units and then low tech income

[4:32:17] and rent restricted units, it would would make this project

[4:32:20] unfeasible to accomplish it in the way you're describing. I'd

[4:32:23] also say when we talk about the demographics of the

[4:32:27] neighborhood, you know, we're saying that we're segregating

[4:32:31] housing by building affordable housing on a small parcel.

[4:32:33] We're integrating into the neighborhood as a whole,

[4:32:36] because not many folks have an opportunity to live in a

[4:32:37] neighborhood like this. So I think the lens through which we

[4:32:41] view mixed income neighborhoods is critical here. If we look at

[4:32:44] an acre, sure, we look at five acres. It's a very, very

[4:32:47] different picture. Okay. Well, I just okay. Thank

[4:32:55] you for that. Thank you for your additional proffers around

[4:32:57] the school. And also, I did see some A.D.A. compliance in

[4:33:01] there. These are humans and not props. As we think about the

[4:33:05] people who stay in our housing across the city, more so. So I

[4:33:09] want to be cognizant of that and that these are actual human

[4:33:11] beings. And so when you think about the environment, you want

[4:33:15] to ensure that people have a decent quality of life as you

[4:33:18] if they are transitioning. So I would just want to like, lend

[4:33:22] that to equity. I also have not heard enough addressing of the

[4:33:28] environmental concerns, but I'm really just stuck on the

[4:33:30] affordable housing piece. But I'll just yield my comments so.

[4:33:34] Okay, thank you. Other council members, Council members,

[4:33:42] mayor, anyone? I have a couple. Oh go ahead. Councillor. Oh

[4:33:46] Council Member Kopac. Go ahead.

[4:33:48] Yeah. Thank you, madam Mayor Pro Tem so I appreciate

[4:33:51] everyone who's weighed in on this case. Want to acknowledge

[4:33:54] the neighborhood and environmental concerns raised

[4:33:56] and appreciate the proffers that have been brought to make

[4:34:00] this a case worth considering. It's important to acknowledge

[4:34:04] there are some real trade offs here that we have to to wrestle

[4:34:07] with. Before I get into that, I just want to start with a

[4:34:10] couple other questions of some discussions that have been had

[4:34:13] around additional proffers. Has the applicant considered

[4:34:17] construction of a of a greenway?

[4:34:19] We have considered construction on the greenway. We actually

[4:34:22] floated some language to staff on that. We will be building

[4:34:26] portions of the Greenway, but the portions that we know we're

[4:34:29] going to build, therefore, the ones that we would be able to

[4:34:32] commit to in a zoning condition are ones that staff has

[4:34:36] determined would be required by the code based on other

[4:34:40] infrastructure that would need to be. So basically, the

[4:34:42] portions that go along George King Road right of way in the

[4:34:46] Lancaster extension, those are the portions that we know we

[4:34:48] would build. And I think the staff analysis was that

[4:34:53] actually those portions would be required to be built as part

[4:34:55] of those road networks. Anyway. It is it is Ty's goal to build

[4:35:01] as much of the Greenway as possible. However, that

[4:35:03] Greenway, not all of it can be accommodated within right of

[4:35:09] way. There are portions of it that go through the natural

[4:35:11] heritage area. So that's something we're you know, we're

[4:35:14] not comfortable making a commitment on for those

[4:35:16] portions because we haven't actually studied it in that

[4:35:18] much depth to say we know how to do it in a way that's going

[4:35:21] to be respectful of those areas. So we have not made that

[4:35:24] commitment. But we did we did consider it. In fact, we did

[4:35:27] float that language to staff related to the Greenway.

[4:35:32] Are there additional parts of the natural heritage area you

[4:35:34] can commit to protecting? So we added some commitments

[4:35:38] tonight, which include a 30 foot wide buffer along our

[4:35:43] southern property line. Our southern property line is, of

[4:35:46] course, where the natural heritage area is. So that

[4:35:48] buffer is an X and natural buffer, meaning as it is that

[4:35:53] that. I'm sorry. That would. So that's in the natural heritage

[4:35:58] area. We also made a commitment tonight to prohibit land

[4:36:01] disturbance south of the existing gas easement, which

[4:36:04] all of that area south of the existing gas easement is also

[4:36:09] Natural Heritage area. I think conservatively, we think that

[4:36:15] of the amount of natural heritage area that's on the

[4:36:18] property, you know, I think we're we're probably preserving

[4:36:22] around 25% of it as a result. And keep in mind some of the

[4:36:26] impacts of the natural heritage area are already required by

[4:36:29] that road network that's been adopted in the collector street

[4:36:33] plan. And for the lift station, which is part of our UEA.

[4:36:40] There was a statement about all street trees native. Can you

[4:36:43] make a commitment to all trees? Yes. Yeah. You did point that

[4:36:47] out and I had forgot to mention that. Yes, our our current

[4:36:51] condition says that all the street trees would be native

[4:36:54] and we would remove the word, you know, street. So it would

[4:36:57] be all other required trees would be native on this

[4:36:59] property. Thank you. I'm going to pause

[4:37:02] there for now, but I'd like to come back.

[4:37:05] Thank you. Council members. Anybody else? Go ahead. Council

[4:37:08] Member Rist. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem, I

[4:37:10] have a question about the road. Piece here. So I.

[4:37:12] Know there I don't know whether staff or the applicant. So

[4:37:16] there there is a concern. We heard about the previous

[4:37:19] development, about the right of way acquisition. So so can you

[4:37:23] help explain the right of way piece. Because your plan is to

[4:37:27] is to complete George King Road, correct.

[4:37:30] Well, no, our plan. Well, for purposes of this conversation,

[4:37:46] oops, this might be the best slide. Although this isn't

[4:37:48] quite if you go on GIS today, you'll actually see that George

[4:37:54] King road realignment has been dedicated across the village

[4:37:57] center. So the way that works. So this is our frontage on

[4:38:00] George King Road, right. And then as it goes down, I mean,

[4:38:05] all of this is a gravel road today. But since Lee Village

[4:38:09] Center was approved, it's not necessarily related to the

[4:38:11] approval, but the owner here has gone ahead and dedicated

[4:38:14] the right of way for realign George King Road. So it

[4:38:17] actually goes like this now. So the gravel road exists, but

[4:38:22] there's a there's a new right of way that's a realigned

[4:38:25] George King Road. So what we believe would happen here is

[4:38:31] that we would improve George King Road along our frontage.

[4:38:34] And then after it leaves our site, it actually will go

[4:38:37] through the Lee Village Center property like that.

[4:38:43] So you can you can do that. You've got this sort of on your

[4:38:46] on site. You can do your part of it.

[4:38:47] So the good thing about the portion that's on our side is

[4:38:51] that we can actually dedicate the right of way that we need

[4:38:55] on our site. So if we need 60ft, if we need 30ft, we can

[4:38:59] just dedicate our site. The idea would be to shift that

[4:39:01] road onto our site and then as it leaves the property, it goes

[4:39:05] through the Lee village center, where the right of way is

[4:39:06] already been dedicated. Okay, thanks for that. So and

[4:39:09] how about Lancaster Road? So I know there's I drove through

[4:39:11] the neighborhood today. There's a lot of signs. It's a traffic

[4:39:14] calming community. Right. There's there's I think speed

[4:39:17] bumps or speed humps or whatever. So so I know there's

[4:39:20] concern about Lancaster being sort of like a sort of like a

[4:39:23] pass through. Right. So can you talk more about the how you

[4:39:26] plan to realign Lancaster and is that partly it's a traffic

[4:39:29] calming piece or what's the what's the intent behind that

[4:39:33] sort of realigning Lancaster. Oh so. Well, our intent behind

[4:39:36] the realignment of Lancaster, which is in this deck. Right.

[4:39:40] But and I should say, by the way, yeah. So if I can say

[4:39:43] also, by the way, I did talk to some chapel town Council

[4:39:46] members today who had also heard from constituents on

[4:39:48] their side. And so there is concern about these wider

[4:39:51] streets in the in the development around the country

[4:39:53] club that are fairly calm. The people walking the street.

[4:39:56] Right. So can you say more also what the street network would

[4:39:59] look like on the on the enclave side, will there be sidewalks?

[4:40:04] What's the. Will be ten foot wide sidewalks

[4:40:06] on both sides of this road? It's part of the greenway

[4:40:09] system that I was referring to earlier, this road. So our

[4:40:14] intent in realigning it was to avoid as much as we can impacts

[4:40:19] to this stream. And in particular, this little finger

[4:40:23] that comes out of the stream. And also to try to avoid any

[4:40:27] further impacts in the natural heritage area. So we're trying

[4:40:30] to align this road through our property. So the endpoints are

[4:40:34] fixed. Right. So we have to connect the Lancaster here. And

[4:40:37] we're supposed to exit the property somewhere here. We're

[4:40:40] trying to align this road in a way that crosses this stream in

[4:40:47] perpendicular which is the requirement anyway for from a

[4:40:50] permitting standpoint. And which avoids this, this finger.

[4:40:56] And as much as we can impacts to the natural heritage area

[4:40:59] won't be real clear. This is conceptual. But this I think,

[4:41:03] illustrates this is not by any means an engineered. But I drew

[4:41:07] this. So this is by no means an engineer road design. But the

[4:41:10] idea is to avoid those those components on the site. What

[4:41:15] the road will look like is dictated by the city's street

[4:41:19] design standards. Right? So there will be ten foot wide

[4:41:22] sidewalks on both sides of this road. That's just what the

[4:41:25] standard is. And how wide will the streets

[4:41:27] be? What of the lane widths? I'm gonna I'm gonna ask Tim,

[4:41:31] who probably knows more about this specific road design

[4:41:34] standards than than I do. Typically.

[4:41:39] Tim Sivers community, those are. typically the.

[4:41:42] Right of way is about. 72 foot minimum.

[4:41:45] With those. Ten foot lanes.

[4:41:46] Or ten foot. Sidewalks on.

[4:41:47] Both sides. The lanes themselves are about 12 foot.

[4:41:49] Wide, 12 foot lanes. It has that compared to what's

[4:41:51] currently on the Lancaster on the on the other side, those

[4:41:55] are. Pretty within the Chapel.

[4:41:56] Hill area. Yeah. There's I believe Chapel Hill

[4:42:02] doesn't have any of the sidewalks in that area. So I

[4:42:06] believe that road I'm guessing is probably three lanes wide,

[4:42:10] but that's an estimate. I have driven down it myself, so I've

[4:42:12] driven those same speed humps that you're discussing. So I'm

[4:42:15] guessing that's about maybe 36 to 40 foot wide.

[4:42:18] So you're so you're guessing the street will actually be,

[4:42:20] like, narrower on the within enclave?

[4:42:22] Yeah. Potentially a little bit. And you have staff is

[4:42:24] available. They may be able to identify the exact widths of

[4:42:28] the collector requirements. But I believe I believe it's two

[4:42:31] lanes at 12 foot. Okay. Yeah. If staff could comment on

[4:42:35] that I appreciate that. Earlene Thomas. planning and

[4:42:45] development. So yes, the standard.

[4:42:47] Would be 212. Foot wide lanes with turn lanes

[4:42:51] at, you know, major intersections as needed.

[4:42:55] Probably the Chapel Hill side was constructed with three

[4:43:01] lane. As a.

[4:43:02] Three lane cross section, which would be typical, but we

[4:43:07] usually only require that center turn lane at, you know,

[4:43:11] an intersecting street when it's needed, necessary.

[4:43:16] So then so a driver driving from on the current Lancaster,

[4:43:20] the road would be would kind of narrow going into enclave.

[4:43:23] Right. Based on our our Durham City cross-section guidelines.

[4:43:27] It would narrow or neck down as you come into this development.

[4:43:32] Okay. Thank you. That's my question for I'll save my

[4:43:35] comments for later. Thank you. Anyone else have any

[4:43:38] comments or questions? Okay, I have a question for staff. I

[4:43:45] don't have a question for the applicant. And it might

[4:43:49] actually be a question for Director Young because sorry.

[4:44:04] Good evening. Can you remind me with the NC heritage

[4:44:09] designation, there was something that happened at JC

[4:44:13] peak where we were trying. It's not regulatory meaning it's not

[4:44:16] it's not rules. It's it's a program. But it's pretty like

[4:44:21] if it was regulatory, we'd have to follow it. Right. And a few

[4:44:25] months ago, I feel like we had some information presented to

[4:44:29] us because planning staff was interested in making it maybe a

[4:44:31] little bit more than what it is now. Can you just remind me

[4:44:36] kind of what the state's response was on that? Sure.

[4:44:39] This was actually. I think maybe.

[4:44:41] A couple. Of years ago now.

[4:44:43] Staff had. Looked at.

[4:44:44] Increasing some. Of. our environmental.

[4:44:47] Regulations in the. Unified.

[4:44:48] Development Ordinance. And one of the things we

[4:44:50] explored was whether. We could. use we could.

[4:44:53] Require that natural heritage areas.

[4:44:55] Be protected. And we met.

[4:44:58] With the state. I believe the state sent representatives.

[4:45:02] To that joint. City county. planning committee

[4:45:04] meeting. And the word that we got.

[4:45:07] From the state was that their program.

[4:45:08] Was never. Intended to be regulatory.

[4:45:10] And they did not want us to turn it into a.

[4:45:13] Regulatory program. So we backed off.

[4:45:16] On those changes. Thank you. That was my.

[4:45:20] Question. Mayor Williams.

[4:45:28] Yeah, just. could you just for the sake of clarification, I

[4:45:31] was listening to some of the comments and I just once again

[4:45:38] talk about. The financing structure for why the the

[4:45:46] affordability, the affordable housing units are separate and

[4:45:53] we talk about materials. You know, what what what

[4:45:55] differentiates that. Well Ted is coming up. Let me

[4:45:58] just also point out, just just to be clear, the first

[4:46:01] development agreement that the city entered into was for

[4:46:05] affordable housing project that was in conjunction with the

[4:46:09] with the market rate project actually off right in this

[4:46:12] area, off Crescent. Wendell, with the same kind of setup

[4:46:17] where the affordable units were not included in an integrated

[4:46:23] building with market rate units. Instead, what it was was

[4:46:25] very similar to this. It was a it was a standalone, low tech,

[4:46:31] affordable housing deal with a market rate component in the

[4:46:36] same vicinity. That's what it was. And the city approved a

[4:46:41] development agreement for that. They actually changed the code

[4:46:43] to allow development agreement for that approved development

[4:46:45] agreement for that and Gap Finance that this project is,

[4:46:48] is different in a few important ways. It doesn't need a

[4:46:51] developer agreement. It doesn't need any city subsidy other

[4:46:54] than that same thing that. Affordable housing deals are

[4:47:01] financed with tax credits that get sold to banks, and the

[4:47:04] compliance requirements that run with that last for 30

[4:47:07] years. So these projects are structured as long term holds

[4:47:11] by the developers. So and then to build in Durham I'm going to

[4:47:14] own for 30 years at a minimum. The market rate development

[4:47:18] model is different. Folks buy a site, rezone it, raise capital,

[4:47:23] build a project, stabilize it, and then it gets sold. And so

[4:47:26] you've got a capital stack that has to sit in place for 30

[4:47:29] years, with one that is not going to that has to generate

[4:47:32] returns to warrant the investment. And so in North

[4:47:36] Carolina, with the rare exception of, I think Charlotte

[4:47:38] Housing Authority did a true mixed income deal where they

[4:47:41] wrote the equity check for the market rate units in downtown

[4:47:43] Charlotte. That one exception, what you see are standalone

[4:47:47] high tech projects built on parcels that are specific to

[4:47:50] the high tech itself. And and that's been the case in Durham

[4:47:54] when we think about the projects at the city's gap

[4:47:55] funded over the years, it is standalone affordable housing

[4:47:58] projects, the opportunity to build them in what I would

[4:48:01] define as an higher income neighborhood is unique. A lot

[4:48:04] of the affordable housing that gets built in Durham gets built

[4:48:06] in qualified census tracks in lower income parts of the city.

[4:48:09] So to hear that this project is viewed as not sufficiently

[4:48:14] mixed income, I struggled to understand a little bit. And

[4:48:17] then on the the mixing of units, we don't ask the

[4:48:21] affordable housing community to build mixed income projects

[4:48:25] themselves, right? They build 100% affordable. They come for

[4:48:27] gap funding. Those get built. But we're asking the market

[4:48:29] rate community to do something that the affordable housing

[4:48:32] community themselves can't do. And to me, there's a disconnect

[4:48:35] there. Thank you. I. I just wanted to

[4:48:42] hear that again. I was fortunate enough to get

[4:48:48] selected to be one of the 100 mayors in the US, or no. 100

[4:48:55] mayors period in the world to be taken to Madrid last week.

[4:49:01] And and I walked the city a lot. The city's over a thousand

[4:49:07] years old, and I was just admiring how dense it was. I

[4:49:13] walked because I could walk. Yes, there was still a lot of

[4:49:18] cars, but the lifestyle was, was was different simply

[4:49:23] because of the density. And things were accessible. It

[4:49:28] wasn't always that way. They had to build today to get to

[4:49:32] get to that point. And. I, I, I always struggle when I think

[4:49:39] about, you know, the living conditions that we have here in

[4:49:43] Durham. For some people and how we're trying to have a very

[4:49:48] balanced approach. I think some of the concerns we had tonight,

[4:49:51] what's what's really sitting tough with me right now is, you

[4:49:54] know, the trade offs that we have to make in order to even

[4:50:00] have this case approved environmentally. But I also

[4:50:04] think about, you know, I think about some of our some of the

[4:50:08] conditions in which some of our community members are living in

[4:50:11] and how the ideal amount of emails that I get, you know,

[4:50:15] mayor, can you please call Da and have them relocate me

[4:50:18] somewhere and we don't have anywhere for them to go? That

[4:50:22] that does bother me. And these are some issues that we deal

[4:50:24] with in Durham that not a lot of people have to deal with

[4:50:28] across the triangle. And, and so I, I don't want to discount

[4:50:34] anything that anyone you know bought here tonight. But these

[4:50:40] are some of the these are some of the tough things we have to

[4:50:42] deal with. You know, could you tell me. One more one more part

[4:50:52] about the actually, no, I'm just I'm going to leave my

[4:50:56] comments there. Just I hear comments about, you know, based

[4:51:02] on paper this should be XYZ. We should be this distance from

[4:51:06] that, this distance from that. And you know, if it's not that

[4:51:10] and we're not going, we don't need to approve it. And I don't

[4:51:15] know any other way to get to where we are on paper. If we

[4:51:18] don't density, you know, and I'm, I don't want to just put a

[4:51:23] bunch of, you know, one type of housing up on the backs of

[4:51:27] someone else and just totally tear the character apart. But

[4:51:32] we do need to have multiple types of housing. This is

[4:51:36] minimum 20% affordable, and we're having an affordability

[4:51:40] crisis right now. That's compelling to me. One last

[4:51:44] question. Could you tell me what if this isn't approved

[4:51:48] tonight? Then what's the plan? Yes. So I had a slide about

[4:51:52] that as well. Was that the the two 230 versus

[4:51:58] 91 versus 25. Yeah. Basically the annexation

[4:52:03] rezoning would allow for the project as is 230 units, lots

[4:52:07] of public infrastructure. And as you know, we've committed

[4:52:10] 20% affordable if if the annexation rezoning are not

[4:52:14] approved, you know, we're looking at building this site

[4:52:19] in the county, unincorporated Durham County on well and

[4:52:22] septic, which ultimately is going to reduce the yield

[4:52:25] significantly. There will be probably something like 25 lots

[4:52:29] on well and septic. It wouldn't the lift station wouldn't be,

[4:52:33] you know, necessary. Obviously on one septic and obviously the

[4:52:37] affordable housing. I mean these lots themselves would

[4:52:39] probably be just a lot would probably be, you know, in the

[4:52:44] half to $1 million range. The homes would be probably 3 to $5

[4:52:50] million in that scenario. Right. And that's that's

[4:52:54] actually a lot closer, you know, when you look at, at some

[4:52:58] of the houses that are listed in the Oaks, you know, you've

[4:53:00] got a house listed on Helmsdale right now for 850,000. You've

[4:53:04] got one listed on I can't remember the name Notting

[4:53:08] Notting Hill for 2.1 million right now. That's you know,

[4:53:12] that's the I think we could get those kind of prices here. But

[4:53:16] that's not what, what we're actually asking for on the.

[4:53:19] Thank you. Thank you. And I and I

[4:53:21] understand that I don't shame anyone for the value of their

[4:53:24] home. I know we need housing. We're going to we're going to

[4:53:27] need housing at every income level, in every type of

[4:53:30] housing. So I don't demonize that. I do have a question for

[4:53:34] staff. If, if, if it's a if they built by right. The 25

[4:53:44] lots, are they required to still preserve the

[4:53:49] environmental nominee. The National Heritage Heritage area

[4:53:54] or are they what is that still required? I guess what I'm

[4:53:59] trying to say is or ask is if the if this is not approved,

[4:54:03] then they go, they're playing by right. Are they required to

[4:54:08] still protect the environmental the national heritage.

[4:54:10] No. They could they could develop.

[4:54:11] Single family lots. Within that that area. You have

[4:54:15] to. Vote by.

[4:54:16] Right. Okay. Thank you. So when I when

[4:54:20] I think about these trade offs, when I think about, you know,

[4:54:23] what our needs are in Durham, I understand that we're our MSA

[4:54:28] is triangle is Chapel Hill and Durham. But what I do think

[4:54:33] about, you know, the trade offs that we have here, the

[4:54:36] affordability crisis that we have, the pain points that we

[4:54:40] have here are, you know, their their preferences and then

[4:54:43] their needs. And that's what usually drives my decision

[4:54:48] making. So I'll be supporting the case.

[4:54:52] Thank you. Council Member Burris.

[4:54:54] And I just want to clarify. So like a couple of things could

[4:54:57] be true that we do need affordable housing and a

[4:54:59] variety and make sure affordable housing. But when

[4:55:01] you talk about specialized populations and thinking about

[4:55:05] you specifically mentioned Cornwallis in your statement,

[4:55:07] and if you think about the current infrastructure, there's

[4:55:09] there are bus stops right outside of that. And looking at

[4:55:12] this, the closest proximity to a bus stop is 1.3 miles. So if

[4:55:15] you don't have a car, then you're going to have to

[4:55:18] basically handle that by foot. Thinking about if your children

[4:55:21] go to school, you have a high school with 3.1 miles of Jordan

[4:55:24] High. So I'm just saying, like and then 2.6 miles to the

[4:55:27] nearest grocery store. And that's if you don't have access

[4:55:30] to a car in transit. So I do agree that we do need a variety

[4:55:33] of make sure housing. However, our neighbors should not be an

[4:55:37] afterthought. And that's my point right there. So I would

[4:55:40] have I do think that I appreciate some of your

[4:55:42] properties offered. However, the environmental effects as

[4:55:46] well as just, yeah, this affordable housing component

[4:55:50] and what I've heard thus far does not compel me to vote for

[4:55:52] this case. I'm raising my own hand here.

[4:55:59] Sorry it's late. I have a question. I have an

[4:56:06] understanding that there was conversations back and forth

[4:56:09] with the homes in both Oak. I want to say yes, but villas.

[4:56:13] Sorry. And maybe Oaks three HOA. Can you share with me

[4:56:19] where did what the. When? Hold on. I'm trying to find the. I'm

[4:56:30] going to find it, I apologize, it is late. Okay. What does it

[4:56:35] mean to be in the boot and. Oh., six affordable units in the

[4:56:42] boot of the 46 acre enclave track. What does that mean on.

[4:56:45] The site? All right, so I'm just using

[4:56:48] this slide as a proxy. If you look at the parcel, it kind of

[4:56:53] looks like a boot. And this is the toe and this is the heel.

[4:56:57] So the boot I mean generally refers to this section right

[4:57:00] here. You know that's that's so at some point a memorandum of

[4:57:08] understanding was pinned. I will say I don't believe we

[4:57:11] ever entered into it formally, but one was Pin and it was

[4:57:15] related to some of the things that the HOA representatives

[4:57:21] were. Their constituents were concerned about and wanted us

[4:57:26] to work together on to resolve. So one of them was, there's

[4:57:31] these two roads right here, Dundalk and Hebrides, that

[4:57:36] technically development of this site, regardless of what it is,

[4:57:39] what would be required under the Durham code to connect to

[4:57:42] these. I talked to planning staff about those connections

[4:57:45] to Dundalk and Hebrides and planning staff here said those

[4:57:50] are completely unimportant and they wouldn't mind if if those,

[4:57:55] those streets or portion of the streets were closed such that

[4:57:58] we wouldn't have to make a connection. We also spoke with

[4:58:00] Town of Chapel Hill staff about that. They indicated the same

[4:58:03] thing. They, you know, so this was something we thought we

[4:58:06] would work on together with the HOA.

[4:58:09] Another thing. That is still true.

[4:58:12] Well, my my understanding is that neighbors are have are

[4:58:15] pursuing these closures themselves right now. Okay.

[4:58:18] That's my understanding. Another thing that the HOA

[4:58:23] wanted to work on was what I will call a circuitous route

[4:58:26] for the extension of Lancaster through the site, and that was

[4:58:30] so as not to develop like a speedway through there, which I

[4:58:33] mean, frankly, we don't want our residents to be dealing

[4:58:35] with that either. So, you know, I think our motivations are

[4:58:39] aligned, however, that road design is, is number one

[4:58:43] happens at site plan, not zoning. And number two, a lot

[4:58:46] of that is driven by the MPO. So we recognize that that's

[4:58:49] something that we're gonna have to work on outside of the

[4:58:50] context of the zoning. And the last one was the placement of

[4:58:54] the affordable housing component. As I mentioned on.

[4:58:59] So where does. That fall?

[4:59:01] Different slide. Yeah. In that, in that the next picture, the

[4:59:05] one you just had, where would that fall.

[4:59:07] Yeah, I think this one shows these are the locations that

[4:59:11] that we evaluated on the site would score under the current

[4:59:15] light tag rubric for a 4% deal. And.

[4:59:20] The. The HOS preferred this

[4:59:23] location, which is something that we want. And frankly, I

[4:59:26] think we probably prefer this location as well.

[4:59:28] Preferred they prefer that one right there on the the lower

[4:59:30] part of the screen. I'm sorry. The HOA preferred the on the

[4:59:34] lower part of the screen. They preferred this one over

[4:59:37] here by George King Road. It's been hidden by your

[4:59:39] picture. Okay.

[4:59:41] Oh I'm sorry. Yeah I okay my. Yeah but.

[4:59:44] That's I know you all can't determine where like that's an

[4:59:48] open question mark, but was there an awareness from the

[4:59:52] neighbors part that that is in the heritage area?

[4:59:56] Well, they're both in the natural heritage area. Yeah.

[4:59:58] That is something that we discussed.

[4:59:59] Yes. Okay. So that was made aware to

[5:00:01] those neighbors that where would they wanted the

[5:00:03] affordable housing was actually in the most environmentally

[5:00:05] sensitive area. Well, out of two locations that

[5:00:07] are both environmentally sensitive. I mean, we're

[5:00:10] talking yes, I mean, they were aware of that, but that.

[5:00:12] I don't. Lose the HOA. Maybe not all the

[5:00:13] neighbors. I'm sorry.

[5:00:16] I said, maybe not all the neighbors, just the hos.

[5:00:19] The HOA representatives we received. Yeah. That's correct.

[5:00:22] Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then as far as the

[5:00:27] road, I mean, we've had to see, obviously when things come to

[5:00:31] the TPO, which council member wrist and myself are both the

[5:00:35] voting members, there have been adjustments on road alignments

[5:00:39] and things like that. Right.

[5:00:40] So it is not unheard of. It is not. An issue, at least in my

[5:00:47] opinion, when things have had to move forward, we've been

[5:00:49] able to do some things that are necessary around alignment. As

[5:00:52] TPO members and as, yeah, that's where I'll leave that.

[5:01:00] Does anyone else have any and colleagues or folks comfortable

[5:01:03] with us wrapping up questions and comments in the next couple

[5:01:05] of minutes? Okay. Thank you. Council Member Kopac. And then

[5:01:12] Council Member Baker. And then I'm just going to kind of go

[5:01:16] down and let folks do their last. Any last comments or

[5:01:19] questions that folks have? We're just going to start and

[5:01:23] then kind of come down if folks are comfortable with that.

[5:01:26] And do we get our time from the first time or just the second

[5:01:29] time? This is now your second time?

[5:01:32] Yeah, I'll use like 30s the first time.

[5:01:34] Oh, I see, I'm yeah. I mean as long as you're not going in six

[5:01:37] minutes and we're. Good.

[5:01:40] I mean, at a high level, our community decided in our comp

[5:01:43] plan that this is an area where we're going to see more growth

[5:01:46] in this corridor, more housing, more commercial, more transit.

[5:01:49] And the updates to George King Road will bring infrastructure.

[5:01:53] The proximity to Lee village will add bike in and walk

[5:01:56] mobility, along with transit. And I always sympathize with

[5:02:00] anyone who has concerns about what's being changed where they

[5:02:03] live. But if we're going to achieve our goal of of a

[5:02:06] polycentric city, the development in this area

[5:02:08] alongside a Toa with the step downs nearby is kind of the

[5:02:13] goal and the point of the comprehensive plan for this

[5:02:15] area. It's significant that we're seeing 20% affordable

[5:02:20] housing income restricted for people making $60,000 or less a

[5:02:23] year, with proximity to employment and future transit.

[5:02:28] And some people who make $60,000 a year or less do have

[5:02:31] a car, and there will be other ways to access the future

[5:02:36] mobility options. This area is going to bring in the questions

[5:02:39] of the benefits, and the cost of growth is always a tough

[5:02:41] one, but I think just considering ourselves a

[5:02:44] progressive community in Durham, I think I mean, The

[5:02:46] Oaks is a beautiful community. The ones nearby, it are

[5:02:49] beautiful and I think that it's an equitable choice to have

[5:02:53] this area welcoming new neighbors, just like we ask,

[5:02:56] and often put the burdens on historically black and

[5:03:00] gentrifying neighborhoods to accept more housing. I used to

[5:03:03] be an advocate for low income housing tax credits for my

[5:03:06] profession, and this is not low quality, segregated housing.

[5:03:10] It's the same housing we're advocating for. And 505 Chapel

[5:03:12] Hill Street. It's the same that we're supportive of in Bragg

[5:03:15] Town neighborhood. And so, you know, it's okay for those

[5:03:18] areas. I think it should be okay for, for for wealthier

[5:03:21] areas that are developing as well. The environmental impacts

[5:03:26] are what give me the biggest concern in this area. And I

[5:03:29] think this is where the trade offs come in. And, and, you

[5:03:31] know, kept me up last night. I don't think I've ever supported

[5:03:34] a case. I'm planning commission or council that didn't align

[5:03:37] with policy 79 around environmentally sensitive

[5:03:39] areas. And professionally. I used to bring philanthropic

[5:03:44] money to help support studies that did wildlife corridor

[5:03:47] assessments. So this area is already stressed. I get it.

[5:03:51] Like the Oaks development put stress on the forest and on the

[5:03:54] natural heritage area, you know, and putting more growth

[5:03:58] in this area will put additional stress. And I want

[5:04:00] to be able to go along with the recommendations of TCC Wildlife

[5:04:03] Resources Commission, EAP dost for how to improve the

[5:04:07] proposal. Like that's what I want, but ultimately we can't

[5:04:11] dictate that the development is done in a certain way. And so

[5:04:15] we also have to understand the practicalities of what could

[5:04:18] happen, even with even with a no. And, you know, the

[5:04:23] Lancaster Street that's under adopted plans, that's going to

[5:04:26] happen anyway. It's like you're going to see some development

[5:04:28] happen in this in the natural heritage area. Regardless, it

[5:04:32] does give me some comfort to know this is it, the periphery

[5:04:35] that it does not rate highly for biodiverse qualities. It

[5:04:41] does not disrupt the area. Wildlife corridors. We do get

[5:04:44] more trees, but I want all the things for environmental

[5:04:48] protection. And so that's why I'm struggling here. But I'm

[5:04:51] struggling to if we adopt maximalist positions here, that

[5:04:54] we have to be really clear eyed about the trade offs we're

[5:04:56] accepting, including a loss of significant affordable housing

[5:04:59] and housing overall, which, while it does have a harm for,

[5:05:04] you know, the species that may have been identified, there's

[5:05:06] also the endangerment of our people, of our residents. So we

[5:05:10] talk a lot about species, but we also have to think about our

[5:05:13] people and those who are most endangered at being displaced.

[5:05:16] And that's where a development like this can be most

[5:05:18] beneficial for neighbors who are in need of that housing. So

[5:05:24] this is a tough one to weigh. I think there's definite pros

[5:05:27] that align with our comp plan. There's definitely drawbacks

[5:05:30] and the environmental side, and this is one that I'm going to

[5:05:32] continue to weigh. So thank you.

[5:05:37] Council Member Baker. I appreciate those comments.

[5:05:43] Council Member Kopac I appreciate the deliberation of

[5:05:47] my colleagues up here. You know, since.

[5:05:51] My colleagues here hear me say this a lot, but since 2017,

[5:05:55] we've sprawled by half the year of Manhattan. The vast majority

[5:06:00] of approved cases in that time period don't have anywhere near

[5:06:05] the quality of commitments that this case presents to us today.

[5:06:13] That get us closer to the comprehensive plan. I think

[5:06:16] that that each one of these commitments, it's not just

[5:06:18] about giving us something or giving us that, giving us

[5:06:22] something else, but moving us toward the comprehensive plan,

[5:06:26] the community vision, the goals, the policies that were

[5:06:30] laid out by the community. I voted for Lee village, right

[5:06:34] next door. We had a lot of people show up, speak against

[5:06:38] it, and I felt that that case crossed the threshold.

[5:06:44] Threshold. It was a departure for me because I'm so used to

[5:06:48] voting against cases that are large scale and on large

[5:06:54] forested properties. But to me, it had the right combination of

[5:06:59] the things that I am consistent on, which is about walkability

[5:07:03] and walkability. You know, Mayor Williams, you talked

[5:07:07] about Madrid density, diversity and design. That's what that's

[5:07:10] what places like Madrid and other much very walkable cities

[5:07:15] have. That is the there's the the ingredients of walkability.

[5:07:19] And so this case provides public goods. And to me we need

[5:07:26] cases that provide public goods that also have the combination

[5:07:31] of walkability. Because walkability is sustainability

[5:07:36] is equity. And I think that those are all critical

[5:07:40] elements. So for me, until we adopt the LDC, which builds

[5:07:46] much more walkable urban design into the fabric and into our

[5:07:52] standards, we really have no guarantee of walkability unless

[5:07:56] those are spelled out explicitly to me. We we need a

[5:08:02] a paradigm shift in the way that we do things. In Durham.

[5:08:06] Only 4% of our residents can can walk anywhere. There are

[5:08:10] decent elements in this case that I, I had to sit back and

[5:08:16] and listen to to the presentation and think a lot

[5:08:22] about what my colleagues were saying up here. But for me, I'm

[5:08:26] not going to budge from my position. I'm consistent. I

[5:08:29] will remain consistent on what I believe is, is the dramatic

[5:08:33] change that is that is needed in in the way that we plan and

[5:08:37] build our city. You know, as far as approving an application

[5:08:44] and it becomes what the presentation shows versus if

[5:08:49] you don't approve the application, we will build

[5:08:51] under the UN annexed land in the county. And the very low

[5:08:55] density that that's not how I review these cases. I really

[5:09:00] look at what they are truly proposing. And for this one, we

[5:09:05] there's a lot of good in here, but for me, it hasn't quite

[5:09:08] persuaded me and it hasn't crossed that threshold. Thank

[5:09:11] you. I'll be brief. My final word.

[5:09:15] So as a new elected official, I've learned over the past like

[5:09:19] four months that sometimes we don't have someone's lived

[5:09:23] experience. You may not want to make comments about what

[5:09:25] someone has endured. And so I think about that in terms of

[5:09:28] like for some of our people in our community who I've always

[5:09:30] advocated for in terms of how they're treated in community.

[5:09:33] So I'll just leave with that. We are currently in a drought,

[5:09:37] as we all know right now, and as a result of growth, like we

[5:09:41] have realized that, you know, trees have a purpose. We have,

[5:09:45] I think, our environment for a reason. And so I really just

[5:09:48] want to ensure that we are not setting ourselves up for future

[5:09:50] harm and thinking about proximity to a major water

[5:09:53] source and just about how. And then also the 100 year storm.

[5:09:57] Like if you think about it right now for the drought, talk

[5:09:59] to my dad are days like, we're going to need a hurricane to

[5:10:01] get out of this drought pretty soon, and if you're a North

[5:10:04] Carolina, you understand how that works. So again, I, I've

[5:10:08] already stated my position on that, but I just want to make

[5:10:10] sure that we are giving grace to each other and just yeah, in

[5:10:13] honoring each other's lived experience and sometimes

[5:10:15] knowing that is listening before you speak about other

[5:10:18] people that you don't relate to.

[5:10:22] Thank you, Council Member Rist and then Mayor Williams.

[5:10:27] Thanks, mayor Pro tem. Yeah, I'm with the mayor in this. I

[5:10:30] think, you know, we've seen the data, right? We're growing

[5:10:32] rapidly. We the MTP shows we're going to grow or the the our

[5:10:36] transportation plan shows we're going to grow by 50% in the

[5:10:39] next 30 years, right? 90% jobs. The data shows during Durham

[5:10:44] County, median housing prices have gone up 58% since 2019.

[5:10:47] Prices are going up. People need places to live affordably.

[5:10:51] I think our housing gap, estimated by city staff, is

[5:10:53] like 25,000 rental units. We need for families. They qualify

[5:10:57] for income, so we need housing. I think I also want to zoom

[5:11:01] out. You know, we we get so focused on individual cases.

[5:11:04] Right. But the truth is like, you know, it's and we gotta, we

[5:11:08] gotta we gotta judge it based on the confines of this case.

[5:11:10] But I've been around long enough. I'm the old guy on the

[5:11:13] council, and I've been around long enough to know that back

[5:11:16] in the 70s, when The Oaks was built, 70 or 80s people in Glen

[5:11:19] Lennox were upset about that. Right? They didn't like the

[5:11:21] fact that there was tearing down trees like in their

[5:11:23] neighborhood. Right. So Chapel Hill has moved west, you know,

[5:11:27] The Oaks was built. The first phase was built. And then

[5:11:30] there's Meadow Mont, right. Meadow monster. And the folks

[5:11:32] in the Oaks were mad about betterment because it was

[5:11:34] taking down trees. Right. So we're growing. Ideally, we grow

[5:11:38] within our urban growth boundaries. So we preserve open

[5:11:40] space that we need. But who's to say who gets to pull up the

[5:11:43] ladder and say, we got to stop here, right? I don't think

[5:11:45] that's fair. We've got a comprehensive plan as as

[5:11:48] Council Member Kopac referenced, that looks for this

[5:11:50] to be a mixed residential neighborhood near a transit

[5:11:53] opportunity area, I see actually abundance here. I do

[5:11:56] see we talked about this before. I see a 20% of mobile

[5:11:59] housing that's, you know, we talk about the need for

[5:12:01] affordable housing. I think our plan requires Director Young,

[5:12:04] what is the plan and vision? Maybe 15% affordable is our

[5:12:07] goal right. This is a and we often proffer with developers

[5:12:12] to get six, seven, 8% affordable. There's a developer

[5:12:15] that's coming to us that's giving us 20% affordable.

[5:12:18] That's above the goal we set from the get go. We need that

[5:12:22] affordable housing. We also need partners who are willing

[5:12:24] to like, I'm on the Housing Authority board. We need

[5:12:26] partners that are willing to allow folks to transfer from

[5:12:29] existing public housing communities as we're renovating

[5:12:32] them. So that transfer of assistance we've offered is a

[5:12:34] key thing. We need to be able to transfer folks as we're

[5:12:36] renovating our key public housing assets, the the proper

[5:12:40] stormwater hundred year stolen. That's a key proffer there.

[5:12:43] That's we've got to protect our stormwater tree coverage is

[5:12:45] great. It's also worth noting that we are building a

[5:12:48] community here, right? We don't have all the infrastructure

[5:12:51] that we need for the future. We're building towards that

[5:12:54] highway 54. A bunch of us in a focus group just of the day.

[5:12:58] It's one of the corridors we're looking at for bus rapid

[5:13:01] transit. Right. That could be dedicated lanes. It could be

[5:13:04] signal priorities, it could be enhanced stations. But that's a

[5:13:06] corridor that will have bus rapid transit in the future. So

[5:13:10] it's going to be more accessible by transit. I do

[5:13:13] have heartburn about the natural heritage area. This is

[5:13:16] something that Council Member Kopac referred to. Again,

[5:13:18] that's something that I'm aware of. I am given comfort by the

[5:13:21] fact that this area is surrounded by this large core

[5:13:23] lands, which is also a natural heritage area. So there are

[5:13:27] always tradeoffs we face. Part of our job here at the council

[5:13:30] is to evaluate those. On balance. I think this case to

[5:13:33] me passes the threshold. I'll be supporting it.

[5:13:34] Thank you. Thank you.

[5:13:35] Mayor Williams. Yeah, I'll just be quick

[5:13:40] because it got really cold up here. My sinuses are just

[5:13:43] draining really bad. I, you know, I think about why I, why

[5:13:49] I'm here, why I'm sitting on this council. I'm here to be in

[5:13:56] the, in the affirmative. Like I'm here to do something. I,

[5:14:01] I'm not here. And and I want to be very clear. Each of us are

[5:14:05] elected separately. We're up here to be a representative

[5:14:09] body. And the mixed bag of opinions that you hear up here

[5:14:13] are what the voters have chosen. So this is what you

[5:14:16] get. So that means you're going to get a diverse school of

[5:14:18] thought. For me, my perspective is my, my, my I understand some

[5:14:25] things I can't control, right? I understand I have no idea

[5:14:28] who's moving here, but when I look at the data, it's a lot of

[5:14:31] people. And at some point in time, some of you all moved

[5:14:34] here. Most of you all moved to Chapel Hill or. But you're in

[5:14:38] the area. We're all in the same MSA. But what I can control is

[5:14:42] the decisions I make. And in the middle of, you know, this

[5:14:46] housing situation, we have this housing crisis of

[5:14:49] affordability. The decision I make, am I going to make a

[5:14:53] decision to be okay with 25 units or 230 units or 91 units?

[5:15:01] Am I going to be okay with the the preference of keeping it as

[5:15:08] is versus building on it? I try to I try to simplify it down to

[5:15:13] this in my mind, and I and I try to do that in the most

[5:15:17] sensitive way as well, because I know that you all have you

[5:15:20] live where you live. The folks that showed up to talk, you

[5:15:23] live where you live, and you are used to what you see and

[5:15:25] what you have. And then when there are changes that are

[5:15:28] coming, that's that's a big adjustment, you know? But I

[5:15:33] also realize that, you know, we as a community are evolving,

[5:15:38] you know, and and that and that matters. It matters to the

[5:15:41] people who are looking for someone to live. It matters to

[5:15:44] the people who are already living there. And so, yes, for

[5:15:47] me, I do break it down to those trade offs of what issues do we

[5:15:51] have and how do I address those issues and compare it to the

[5:15:56] preferences that we already have? You know, so you're here

[5:16:00] to diversity the thought up here. And and that's perfectly

[5:16:03] fine. And I respect everyone's opinion. And and we fall where

[5:16:09] we fall on it. And I respect yours as well. And I appreciate

[5:16:12] everyone coming coming here tonight. But I, I you know we

[5:16:16] have too many people that are looking for a home. We have we

[5:16:19] have too many people that are, that are we have too many

[5:16:21] college students that want to stay here but have no idea how

[5:16:24] to get in the market. We have too many folks that are trying

[5:16:28] to upskill and get out on their own and be independent, and

[5:16:31] there's just too competitive. The market is too competitive,

[5:16:34] so 20% affordable housing. I think we're I think the trade

[5:16:38] offs are worth affirming this one. Thank you.

[5:16:43] Thank you. I'm going to be brief. I really appreciate

[5:16:46] these are we all know that these are hard cases. And

[5:16:48] you're always you're always doing trade offs. I will be

[5:16:52] supporting this case in large part because it does have such

[5:16:54] a large affordability component, and also because it

[5:16:58] doesn't involve city subsidy. I understand that disappoints

[5:17:02] neighbors. I understand it disappoints the folks who have

[5:17:04] to live there. We're all dealing with change in our

[5:17:08] communities. And I do want to say very quickly that a lot of

[5:17:14] the decisions that you all lifted up, Vision Zero, the

[5:17:17] comp plan, a lot of the decisions we've made as a

[5:17:19] council, I have been one of the yes votes on those decisions.

[5:17:22] I'm the council member who got us the Vision Zero coordinator.

[5:17:26] I'm the one who's been on the TPO denying MnDOT money for

[5:17:30] road widening. There's lots of ways to be an environmentalist.

[5:17:33] It's not just conservation. I appreciate all of the work that

[5:17:37] staff did, especially in exploring how we can get this

[5:17:40] NC heritage program, how it could actually be more

[5:17:42] enforceable, more regulatory. And that was that was the state

[5:17:47] at the very beginning of this night, I asked every single one

[5:17:49] of you to please continue to participate, especially at the

[5:17:52] state level. And so that is my urging tonight. We have a

[5:17:59] motion in front of us. Motion number one, to adopt an

[5:18:03] ordinance annexing Enclave at Little Creek in the city of

[5:18:05] Durham and to authorize the city manager to enter in a

[5:18:08] utility extension agreement with a Adobe Communities

[5:18:11] Acquisitions, LLC. So move..

[5:18:14] Second. I have a motion.

[5:18:16] Second, Madam Clerk, could you please open the.

[5:18:17] Vote? Could you please close.

[5:18:25] The vote? The motion.

[5:18:29] Passes 4 to. 2.

[5:18:30] With council. Members Baker and Burris voting

[5:18:33] no. Thank you. Next motion is to

[5:18:36] adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance

[5:18:39] by taking property out of residential suburban Dash 20

[5:18:41] fall. Jordan Watershed watershed overlay be county

[5:18:45] jurisdiction and establishing the same as planned development

[5:18:47] residential 5.006 falls Jordan watershed overlay B to city

[5:18:53] jurisdiction. Can I please get a motion.

[5:18:56] So moved. Second. I have a motion a second. Madam

[5:18:58] Clerk, could you please open the vote? Could you please

[5:19:03] close the vote? The motion.

[5:19:08] Passes 4 to 2. With Council Member Baker.

[5:19:10] And Burris voting no. Motion number three to adopt an

[5:19:13] ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance by taking

[5:19:16] property out of residential suburban 20 fall Jordan

[5:19:18] Watershed overlay. Be county's jurisdiction and establishing

[5:19:24] the same as residential suburban 24 Jordan watershed

[5:19:27] overlay be city jurisdiction. So moved.

[5:19:30] Second have a motion and a second. Madam clerk, could you

[5:19:32] please open the vote? Could you please close the vote?

[5:19:41] Motion passes forwarded to with council members Baker and

[5:19:44] Burris voting. No on motion number four is to

[5:19:46] adopt a consistency statement as required by section 16605.

[5:19:52] So moved. Second.

[5:19:54] I have a motion and a second. Madam clerk, could you please

[5:19:56] open the vote? Please close it. Motion passes unanimously.

[5:20:04] Thank you. Colleagues, we have one last

[5:20:06] item that we need to pass, which is our under supplemental

[5:20:11] items. I did not add it to the consent agenda. So it's the

[5:20:14] revision of to the 2026 City Council meeting schedule. Could

[5:20:18] I please get a motion to. Move?

[5:20:22] Second? Three.

[5:20:26] I'm just gonna do it to approve a revision of the 2026 City

[5:20:29] Council meeting schedule that rescheduled the Thursday, May

[5:20:32] 7th work session to May to Monday, May 18th at 1 p.m..

[5:20:37] So moved. Second.

[5:20:41] I guess to adopt an ordinance rescheduling the May 7th. Is it

[5:20:44] two different ones? Okay. Thank you. Okay.

[5:20:48] Let me. Yeah. We're just voting on the

[5:20:50] first one. Madam clerk, could you you opened it. Could you

[5:20:52] please close it? Motion passes unanimously.

[5:20:58] Thank you. And then the last one is to. a adopt an ordinance

[5:21:02] rescheduling the May 7th, 2026 work session to May 18th, 2026

[5:21:06] at 1 p.m.. So moved. Second.

[5:21:09] Could you please open the vote, madam clerk? Could you please

[5:21:15] close the. Vote?

[5:21:17] Thank you. Passes unanimously. I'll finish the meeting out.

[5:21:21] You can pass it back to me now. Okay. All right. Meeting

[5:21:23] adjourned. All right.

Regular City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript