ment. Somebody asked during the E-town hall meeting what council does to create jobs and you know, I'm looking at this project and we've been looking at it for a few weeks and you know I look at the scale and I say look on the one hand they have they've got, they're an established community citizen. G is a minimum $20 million investment estimated at 29. A minimum of 50 jobs. Permanent full time estimated $60,000 per year average. And they're going to work with our job link career system. And that doesn't count all the additional jobs that are created by creating because it's exponential. And on top of that they're going to pay an estimated $557,000 in extra property taxes over five years. And what's our part in it? $400,000 over five years. And why, why would I, 25% of our children live in poverty. We need jobs. We have too many unemployed. And opportunities like this are something we should reach out for. So I appreciate the time to make that comment. Thank you. Will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes seven to zero. Thank you. We'll move on to item 20, comprehensive plan amendment 800 West Cornwallis Road. Good evening. Excuse me. Good evening. Steve Medlin with the Durham City County Planning Department. Before I again, I'd like to certify that items 20 through 24 have had proper legal notice provided in that affidavits are part of the case files for public review. Plan amendment case A-1302 800 West Cornwallis Road is a request by FZH management to change the future land use map designation from medium density residential to commercial for a .174 acre track. The site is located in the urban tier north of West Cornwallis Road west of Hope Valley Road and south of Durham Chapel Hill Boulevard. In reviewing the application, staff determined the request to be consistent with criteria for plan amendments in the unified development ordinance and with policies found in the conference plan. Staff is recommending approval of the change to the future land use map. The Planning Commission heard this case on April 9th of this year and by unanimous vote, recommended approval. I'll be happy to answer your questions the council may have. You've heard the staff report. It's public hearing. I'll create a public hearing to be open and ask other questions by members of the council on this item. Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on this item? You have two minutes. You can set your name. We're getting all these former city council people speaking tonight. Kim Griffin. I'm Kim Griffin. I'm with Griffin Associates Realtors. Proud to see you here tonight Howard. At this hour of the evening, I'm brushing my teeth and getting ready for bed. So if I fall asleep, please wake me up. I'm representing Ferris Hannah who bought 2715 Durham Chapel Hill Boulevard. We've leased it out to the pennies for change. Thrift store for the Durham Crisis Response Center. When he bought the property, we had some dead trees next door. We went and talked to Mechanics and Farmers Bank, our neighbor. They said that they'd like Mr. Hannah to have the lot versus them so he purchased it. And it's got a lot of pine trees that were diseased so they've all been taken down. We've run out of parking. The thrift store is done very well. The restaurants across the street have done very well. The folks come and park on his property to go to the other surrounding businesses and so what we'd like to do is expand the parking a little bit. And I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. Anyone else that wants to speak on the side? Thank you. If not, let the record reflect. No one else has to speak. I'll declare the public hearing to be closed as a matter of fact before the council. Move the item. The property moving second. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. Get past the 7 to 0. Move item 21, zoning map change, 800 West Cornwallis Road, Z-13000003. Good evening, Steve Medlin with the Durham Planning Department. Once again, Zoning Case Z-1303800 West Cornwallis Road is a request to change the zoning designation of a .174 acre track located at 800 West Cornwallis Road from residential suburban 10 to commercial general. Staff has determined that their request is compliant with the future land use designation of the conference of plan, which designates the site as commercial. The Planning Commission heard this item at their April 9th meeting and by a vote of 13 to 0 recommended approval. Again, this is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. You've heard a staff report would ask the first questions by members of the council. If not, I have Kim Griffin that has signed up to speak for item 21. Does anyone else want to speak on this item? I'm sorry, I recognize Councilwoman Cattati. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to ask staff to please clarify the buffer requirements and if any additional plantings will be required. There will be an opaque buffer required between the commercial general zoning and the adjacent residential zoning on Cornwallis. We're looking it up. We'll verify. The current ordinance provision would require a 20 foot buffer. In essence, yes. Is that it? Again, I have one speaker, Kim Griffin. Anyone else want to speak? I'm not recognizing Kim Griffin. She was not to speak. Let the record reflect Kim Griffin. I would say the same thing. Let the record reflect that no one else wanted to speak on this item. I'll declare the public hearing to be closed. Madam Clerk, we open the vote. It passes 7-0. Thank you. Move to item 22, conference plan amendment Enoeconomic Development District A-12-0-0-0-12. Good evening, Steve Medlin with the Durham City County Planning Department. Enoeconomic Development District Plan Amendment Case A-12-12 is a request to make the Durham Flume Future Land Use Map consistent with the Orange County Land Use Plans. The Planning Department is recommending a number of changes to the Durham Future Land Use Map in an area known as the Enoeconomic Development District which is located west of the City of Durham near the interchange of I-85 and US-70 in Orange County. These proposed changes come at the tail end of a process that began several years ago. In 2008, Orange County adopted a small area plan that did two things. First, it laid out a vision for the area to become a hub of economic activity with light industrial distribution office service and retail uses. And second, it endorsed the idea of an interlocal agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham to extend water and sewer services to help support those economic development initiatives. The interlocal agreement regarding the water and sewer extension was approved in 2011 and the engineering process for the extension of the utilities has begun. After 2012, Orange County amended their future land use map for the district to economic development. The purpose of these proposed planning amendments is to be more compatible with Orange County's future land use map and the intent of the Enoe Economic Development District small area plan. While this planning process has been largely, excuse me, largely led by Orange County, Durham planning staff believe that these proposed land uses are reasonable given the investment in water, sewer infrastructure and the presence of major transportation corridors. These proposed changes are strictly policy changes and do not impact current zoning. The zoning in this case is still in Orange County's jurisdiction. Planning Commission recommended approval of these amendments at their April 9th meeting on a vote of 13-0. I'll be happy to answer your questions as the council may have. Again, this is a public hearing item. You've heard the staff report. The public hearing is open. I would ask first of the questions by members of the council. We have five persons that have signed up to speak. But let me hear your comments, questions by members of the council. If not, Darcy Wilson, if you can come to the podium to the right, Sarah Glass, Chris Zekirby, Joseph Henderson, Dr. Tom H. Arvick. Each have three minutes. Hi. My name is Darcy Wilson. I live at 5315 Old Hillsboro Road, which is also Old NC 10. The area across NC 10 for me is proposed that it's changed from residential to industrial. This area also adjoins adjacent to other residential areas. This proposed land use change allows large areas of industry adjacent to and surrounding existing residential communities. This will destroy the neighborhood and disrupt the homes and lives of the people who live here. Development should enhance the existing community, not destroy it. It is important that development include areas for shopping, working, schools, childcare, medical facilities and jobs in a balance. Transitional zoning should be utilized to shield existing and new residential areas as well as environmentally sensitive areas from industrial areas. The current proposal has the majority of the Enoeconomic Development District classified as industrial. In the 80s when the district was created, the plan was for mixed use development that would be sensitive to the Enoe River Duke Forest as well as existing residential areas. This proposal does not do that. I believe it would be in the public interest for the City of Durham to consider changes that address these issues before allowing this proposal to move forward. Thank you. You're welcome. Sarah Glass. Thank you. My name is Dr. Sarah Glass. I live in Weldon Ridge Court, which is just south of the area in the Enoeconomic Development District. Two FYIs I'd like to start with. One is that our neighborhood was actually not notified of the meeting that Mr. Medlin has spoke about where this was actually approved. Although we were on the list the affidavit which Hannah Jacobson provided, none of us in our neighborhood for some reason received this, since we were unable to actually influence the planning board in this decision making process. Also importantly as Mr. Medlin highlighted, this is consistent with Orange County. What Orange County has not passed along is that the property owners who are affected by this plan have actually not had their concerns sufficiently addressed. So I'd like to highlight four concerns that I personally have as a new mom, a scientist, and a community member in Durham in the city that I love and choose to raise my family in. The first concern that we have really is around environmental water concerns. In the plan, the Region 2 which we don't have in front of us is changed from very low density residential to industrial. This area includes the Stony Creek Wildlife Corridor and the next Reno River Strait Park to the Duke Forest. So zoning changes in 2008 which were mentioned led to an industry called Gorilla Industries Moving In which resulted in stormwater rain off that come from mountains of materials that are of unknown origin and these all go into Stony Creek which then contributes to the new water supply or Falls Lake. So my question is does the planning board have scientific data that has actually evaluated the effect of this stormwater rain off into the Stony Creek and if Gorilla or a similar industry went into these proposed areas does the planning board actually have data to say that this is not going to have a negative impact on our environment. Secondly as a mom and someone raising my family I have significant concerns about the air quality. Obviously increased industry really has impact on increased heavy equipment for transporting materials which during which a line of pollutants is generated from the point of origin to the destination. Old NC-10 is a primary root affected here. Studies actually suggest that mortality and disease rates including cancer and severe respiratory rates are higher in residents who are affected in close to industry areas. And so this is actually worsened if the products are transported through the residential areas as are along NC-10 which is 100 feet from my back door where I open up every day to let this beautiful North Carolina weather in. Third is safety and I would encourage a lot of you to just drive through this area. It's a beautiful rural road, it's too lane, however it's a curvy road that's bookended by two railroad tracks that are low bridges. There have already been two individuals who have died at the intersection of Old NC-10 and Mount Harmon Church. I would like to ask the planners has this been sufficiently addressed? What is the impact of all this new equipment driving on this Old NC-10 going to have? What is it really going to take? Is it going to take another death before the officials and the city actually consider our concerns? That's it. Thank you. You're welcome. Again if you have written remarks if you have written remarks you can leave them with Chris Kelsey? Kelsey, yes thank you. So I have two primary concerns regarding the Durham Comprehensive Plan Amendment First in my opinion there's been insufficient public involvement and opportunities for public input in regards to the Durham Plan. Second there's been a lack of communication and or planning in regards to this area. So for example the public really became aware of this about two years ago when a neighborhood meeting was held right in our neighborhood that Orange County kind of chaired. There was some involvement by the Durham Planning Board. There was another neighborhood meeting. There was two meetings by the county commissioners in Orange County and overall the public response to this was decidedly negative for many reasons and because of public input Orange County decided not to change the zoning from rural residential to heavy industrial and light industrial along Old NC-10 in the surrounding area. There's really been minimal involvement by the Durham Planning Board in regards to this and these are really really big changes. This is changing a rural residential neighborhood into a big industrial footprint and so in my opinion I think there needs to be more input from Durham, the Durham Planning Board communicating with the neighbors and getting input. For example I personally would recommend a neighborhood meeting where the Durham Planning Board came and spoke to the neighborhood and discussed their plans. For example the very first neighborhood meeting there was many many people that showed up which I think gives the Planning Board an idea of what the public feels about these proposed changes. Second there's also been a lack of planning and communication in regards to three things. Environmental safety and land valuation. So as Sarah commented on one of the areas that's earmarked for industrial involves the Stony Creek Wildlife Corridor which was set apart in August on August 5th 1996 to connect the Stony connect the Ena River State Park in the Duke Forest and this industrial area which is currently rural residential becomes industry and there's been no comment from the Durham Planning Board on how they're going to protect this area and this wildlife corridor. Second there's no talk about safety. There's no access to I-85 South from Mount Herman Church Road. So these big industrial trucks go up to old NC 10 the road that I live on which is a two lane rural residential road with multiple low clearance railroad trestles with very tight blind S curves. This road is not equipped to handle the heavy traffic that industry would provide. And third there's been no discussion about how a big industrial footprint is going to affect the rural residential neighbors who are there first. So I would recommend more public input and more neighborhood meetings. Thank you. Welcome. Joseph Henderson. Good afternoon Mayor City Council members. I'm here to speak for Miss Lucinda Harper who is the owner of the acreage at 316 Old Hillsborough Road. She couldn't make it here this evening but said she welcomes her presence from the city of Durham. Old Hillsborough Road is probably one of the most bucolic and beautiful entrances into our city. And I think that as you move ahead on this you really shouldn't think about how you're going to do it because only one time it's one of the times when you really get a chance to sit back on the drive and say I am coming into the city of Durham. And I think this is a very special thing. And some of the things I think from Mrs. Harper's standpoint that you need to consider on doing this is to take a stance now in your proposal to allow multi-tier apartment buildings along that acreage. Also maintain a two unit per acre limit on that on those properties going down old ten. I think that's fair within and just in keeping with the general beauty that surrounds there. Also on 70 say no right now to any drive through restaurants. I mean that is one of the things that we have enough of as we move further down Hillsborough Road and we certainly don't need anymore as you go on 70. Also I want you to really think very to move slowly in any kind of economic development along that property. As we move forward you can at any time legislate big box development. Anytime you can do that. But you only get one time to legislate beauty. So let's take our time on this project and ease into it and really preserve that driving view into our city that we have going on old ten. We will all enjoy it for many many years to come. Thank you. Welcome. Dr. John H. Harvick. Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the City Council, thank you for your attention. By being present tonight I have demonstrated my respect for your expertise and for your service to the city. That is I have been retired over six years and I love it. But I don't shave and wear necktie and stay up this late for just any old butt. Last week I sent each of you a brief email detailing my concern about the proposed comprehensive plan changes with Orange County. In it I presented data and information about the risks of placing commercial and industrial operations in close proximity to residential areas. I reiterate here my deep concerns about the probability not possibility probability of higher rates of cancers respiratory and cardiac diseases as was mentioned by Dr. Glass and the loss of quality of life near Highway 70 in old NC-10 should such operations be approved. I understand that Durham did not request this alliance with Orange County has no mandate to perform but should not accept the liability for the increased risk that is inevitable should this area be re-zoned from rural residential to industrial activities. The area included in the Eno Development District has been zoned for residential use for many years and it contains a significant environment protected area. The area is served by old NC-10 and is an area of beauty and of historical significance. It has already been violated by at least one serious pollution source of airborne particulate matter and if you recall the video you saw earlier in the evening of the truck going down the road and the dust coming out just think of that as the entry way to this one business that has been allowed in there. Please let's not encourage another. I ask your positive consideration of my written concerns and that you grant my professional concern that the respect that over 50 years of experience in scientific research, health safety, business management and economic development should deserve. Thank you for your attention. You're welcome. Is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item that has signed up to speak? If not let the record reflect that no one else asked to speak on this item. Before I close the public hearing I guess I want to make sure you understood Steve the question about notification on this item. I'm speaking to the point that the gentleman raised about not having actually been notified. We did, I was made aware that there was a concern that notification was not carried out in accordance with general statute of review. By law we are only required to put the letters into first class mail and we were able to verify that those letters were mailed on time and we have affidavits to that effect that they were mailed. Unfortunately once it gets into the U.S. postal system we have no control over whether they actually get returned. I did verify with Ms. Jacobson the case planner on this that we did not receive any mail back from the postal service so we're not sure exactly what happened but we have fulfilled our legal requirements. Yes whoever raised the question the point. Dr. I think one of the problems that we have here and that we have all had as residents of this new developed area some years ago is there are two Weldon ridges in Durham. The letters did not go to our Weldon Ridge. It went to the other Weldon Ridge which is some considerable distance away that is not affected by this change. Let me understand. Weldon Ridge, I thought they were mailed to individual houses. We did verify that the addresses were correct for these citizens. So the documents that were provided on the website and that we received by email from Ms. Jacobson suggest that that's not the case. As you look at Weldon Ridge and it has it different. It's like Tyler Cork or something like that and not Weldon Ridge Court which is our home. Let me ask again before I close the public hearing. Are there any comments, questions by members of the council on this? I recognize council member Cotadi. Thank you mayor. I have a few questions and I do appreciate folks coming and staying this late. Complaining staff please clarify exactly what the jurisdiction is between Orange County and Durham City and then also the water and sewer status and then I have another question. Sure. Erin came with the planning department. This is an area of Orange County that is still under Orange County jurisdiction. So all Orange County zoning currently applies and will still apply no matter what action you take tonight. But it's a portion of Orange County that is included on the future land use map of the Durham Comprehensive Plan because there have been talks for many years between Orange County and the City of Durham about extending water and sewer services to this portion of Orange County as an economic development node for Orange County. So we participated with Orange County from 2006 to 2008 on putting together a small area plan for the area and the action that we're asking you to take tonight would make our future land use map congruent with what Orange County adopted in their small area plan in 2008 and the changes they made to their future land use map in 2012. Thank you. My next question is about Orange County zoning. I mean I know what Durham's UDO says but I don't know Orange County's rules. What is the buffer the zoning buffer from industrial to residential? Do they have a transitional use area like we do? I don't know that they do and I could not speak at all with any certainty on Orange County zoning ordinances or zoning regulations. I don't know. Steve behind me was planning on saying something. No? Okay. So then another question if you look at the map, the land use map, the bulk of it was in purple before so industrial. There's one small parcel. I don't mean small by any stretch but I mean on our map area number seven that has gone from I believe very low residential. I'm not looking at the map. You're looking at area number two I believe. It's going from very low density to industrial. No I'm looking at area number seven. So low density to industrial which seems like the most extreme transition for that one parcel and then the other areas five I guess five went from thank you Steve low density residential to office. But seven seems the most concerning to me and I'm not familiar with that. It's sort of internal to the parcel. Can you comment on that? Excuse me. Only that we've got to remember that industrial does not necessarily mean heavy industrial. In Durham parlance industrial could mean anything from heavy industrial resource extraction that sort of thing typical smokestack industries to warehousing and distribution to self-storage to those types of uses industrial means a very wide range of uses in Durham. So we don't expect that this area would all eventually become some sort of heavy industrial. We don't expect that at all. What we do expect is that there would be eventually should water and sewer be provided to the area some land agglomeration some land aggregation in the area so that higher intensity uses could be used. Take advantage of the water sewer and take advantage of US 70 and the interchange with I-85 which is expected to be improved over the next I believe it's eight to ten years. So we're taking a very long range view of this. We don't expect any of these changes to occur in the near future. Probably sometime after the interchange improvements in the next eight to ten years. And just lastly if it was if water and sewer were to be extended it would come with a voluntary annexation petition even in Orange County? Correct. They would in order by policy and it's acknowledged in the small area plan that Orange County adopted in 2008 in order to be able to get access to the city of Durham water and sewer services. It would be through a voluntary annexation as if there was anybody in Durham County looking to tap on and become a member of the Durham City. And just for the record what is Durham's UDO policy and transitional area from sorry buffer from industrial to residential? Is it 150 foot? It would be a point eight which is any or 60 foot buffer excuse me. 60 foot. Thank you. You concluded your comments questions. Are there other questions or comments on this item? I have to admit I'm a bit befuddled about this because I know we had spent a considerable amount of time talking about extending water and to this area because of Orange County's desire to change the economic development area over in that particular part of the county. But I didn't realize the impact that we were talking about having on persons on outside of the line over in Durham. So I don't know what can be done to address the questions that the persons have raised. I know what could be done. Just wouldn't approve it. But I'm not so sure I'm at that point. Do you have any suggestions from the staff on this item? I think one thing that was brought up was environmental concerns especially along Stony Creek and to remind everyone that we do have rules in Durham should it be annexed and developed under Durham standards we do have minimum 50 foot buffers if it is in a protected watershed it would be a minimum 100 foot buffer on either side of the stream. So there would be some stream protections in those areas and they would not be able to build right over the streams. We do have stormwater regulations that require stormwater treatment before anything is discharged. So we do have some pretty strict and for North Carolina we have some quite strict environmental standards that would need to be upheld as part of any future development in that area. Yes, since you've raised a lot of questions. Stony also has those strict regulations and the reality is and we've actually sent letters, numerous, many letters, photos, everything. The reality is even if these setbacks are in place 50 feet, 60 feet, 100 feet, 150 feet does it really make a difference if you have a mound of 50 feet of dirt that's just sort of piling. If there's 50 feet and there's storms like we had today it's going to go into the stream. The reality is it's going to go there. If I live half a mile away am I going to see a smokestack? Absolutely, absolutely. So I think with all due respect to the setbacks and everything I think it just also needs to be acknowledged that setbacks when it comes to industry next to residential don't really actually do what they're designed to do. Thank you. Alright, we need to take some action on this. I haven't closed the public hearing. I'm about to close the public hearing or continue it so let me any other comments on this? I just wonder if some of you know I'm I guess I'm surprised to hear these comments and I'm not sure you know maybe that's because it's an Orange County matter and that haven't heard from people I did get your one email but you know I'm a little bit I think you used the word befuddled Mr. Mayor. I'm having a little bit of the same feeling about it and just appreciate some more guidance either from my colleagues or from the planning staff about you know kind of you know what people are thinking about proceeding from here. I am a little bit disconfident about the notification I understand from Steven totally believe that you sent them it also does seem to me that they didn't get it and I don't understand what process Orange County went through and what folks could participate in because we're not in Orange County and so you know it's kind of an unusual situation usually I think we can really count on our process because it's our process and I know that I have a tremendous amount of trust in it here I don't know exactly what these people have gone through so is there any other guidance that you could give? Certainly I would appreciate the comments that were received this evening from the public I think certainly an option before council is just to refer this matter back to planning staff allow us time to work with the community sounds like there's a little bit of education that needs to occur specifically about what is actually on the table and also allow us time to try to address some of the concerns that have been raised this evening I've heard a motion second it's a discussion on a motion questions raised councilor Moffitt I just wanted to raise one question. City manager had a comment coming back to the councilor Schultz comment about the process so could you clarify for the record what communication or relationship our planning staff has with Orange County planning staff I don't know if anybody is here from Orange County this evening on their professional staff that might comment obviously when we have these things come before us because we have a joint city county department we know the folks are one and the same but seems like there may be an opportunity for this body even at some point to hear from the Orange County planning staff in conjunction with your consideration rather than us try to interpret or communicate on their behalf since it is a little bit different than we're used to. Sure I would like to ask Aaron to respond to that first question there involving the engagement side of the process here he and his staff were the ones that were most directly involved. So I was the original staff person on the small area plan representing Durham on the small area plan in Orange County I participated as well as Ted Voorhees from the city manager's office from 2006 to 2008 we had at least six meetings of a steering committee that was also open to the public and Orange County to the public in the area and many came. The primary concerns at that point were bringing out the water and sewer services and what would be the rules and regulations that would need to be followed for extension of water and sewer but the idea at that time the idea of non-residential development of greater intensity of development for economic development in that area was pretty much understood and accepted by those who participated in that process once the small area plan was adopted in 2008 Orange County began its process to put together the interlocal agreement that you all approved in 2011 and then once that interlocal agreement was approved they moved forward with doing the land use changes and we decided to let Orange County do their land use changes first for the future land use map and then for the zoning and then once Orange County approved theirs in the fall of 2012 we began our process on the Durham side. We did hold the one neighborhood meeting as required by the UDO in the winter of 2012 at the Morphery School over in Orange County and continued to field questions and answer questions as they came to us but this was something primarily driven by Orange County but we did have staff participation both at the planning staff level and at the city managers level as well going back to 2006. We have still discussion that Councilman Clement and I was going to recognize Councilman Moffitt, Councilman Cotati but I deferred to the city manager to get this question and that's, I recognize Councilman Moffitt. Thank you. I'm going to pass. I guess my question is do we need a date certain or we just send it back and that's it. You'll bring it back when at this juncture I would just simply refer it back to the staff will we advertise and we notice obviously when it does come back partly because we're not sure I'm not sure how quickly we would get something back to you at this point. Well in that case I'll close the public hearing if you will re-advertise it. That's correct. I have a motion on the floor to refer it back but I'm going to close the public hearing now and entertain the motion. The motions are made. Any further questions on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? It passes 7-0. So that deals with 22 when your comments on 23. Good evening, Steve Metland with the Durham City County Planning Department. The evaluation and assessment report the EAR serves as an opportunity to look back over the previous calendar year to evaluate progress towards implementation of the conference of plan to propose changes to policy language and to rectify any differences between the city and county future land use map. This year there are two new sections that we've added. The first is a technical update to the open space and agricultural layers of the future land use map and the second is a report prepared by graduate students at UNC Chapel Hill on the topic of forecasting land use and planning trends. Staff would like to publicly recognize and thank the two students who volunteered to put together the report Holly Safie and Daniel Band. I think you've seen the report and I think it's outstanding and staff really does appreciate it. I think we're going to see that it's going to serve as the foundation for a lot of our work that we're going to be doing in the next year. The staff's recommendation is that the council approve the evaluation assessment report specifically by rectifying the future land use map by accepting the one plan amendment approved by the Board of County Commissioners which was the Alexander Park Development case A1108 adopting changes to policy language proposed by individual departments and agencies and amending the recreation, open space layer and agricultural layer of the future land use map to reflect updated information received about land held in permanent conservation easements. The planning commission recommended approval of the evaluation assessment report by about a 13 to 0 on April 9th of this year. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. This is a public hearing matter. I'll be declared a public hearing to be open. You've heard the staff report and I won't ask other questions by members of the council on the staff report. Questions or comments? Recognize the councilman. I just want to agree with Mr. Mendel's assessment of the report. It's extremely high quality and at appropriate time I'll be happy to move that we approve it. Any other comments by members of the staff? I mean the council. Is there anyone in the public that wants to comment on this item? Neither for or against. Let the record reflect anyone else who wanted to comment on this on the public hearing. I'll declare the public hearing to be closed. Matters of fact, before council. Move approval. Second Madam Clerk. We open the vote. Close the vote. Passes 7 to 0. Thank you. We move to item 24. Consolidated annexation item 751 South. I recognize the planning director. Good evening. Steve Mendel with the Durham Planning Department. This is a consolidated annexation item which includes a utility extension agreement and voluntary annexation petition for the 751 South Development and the adjacent 751 Investment Assemblage. The sites are located on the west side of 751 South of Stage Coach Road. The extension agreement would allow extension of City Water and Sewer to the project. The proposed effective date of the annexation is June 3rd 2023. You've heard the staff report. This is the public hearing matter. I recognize the city attorney. Mr. Mayor and members of the council, there have been revisions to documents based on some occurrences that have taken place since you took action on May 9th to adopt a resolution requesting special legislation to amend section 2.3 of the City Charter that would allow you to delay the effective date of annexation for up to 10 years. At the time that the documents were prepared, there was an anticipation that we would have that legislation in place by this time. We do not have that legislation in place at this time. In fact, there is a hearing scheduled for 8.30 tomorrow morning in the finance committee. It's been made clear to me that the General Assembly wanted the city to act first on the annexation and utility extension agreement request before they would put in front of the body the City Charter request that you've made back in May of this year. We have changed some of the language and the tweaks that I had mentioned to some of you earlier today essentially make this entire process the items that are in front of you contingent upon the General Assembly actually passing that request for the Charter amendment to allow us to delay annexations for up to 10 years. If they do not take that action in this session, then anything that you do tonight will fail and be null and void because it is now contingent upon that legislation piece. We've also made adjustments to the Meats and Bounds attachment essentially the piece, from what to better term call it the Culvered Farms piece, the Meats and Bounds were put in four separate tracks but we really needed one single track with the perimeter on that and those changes have been made and have been uploaded to your agenda. If you have any questions about that item just let me know. Are there questions on the City Attorney's comments relative to this item? That being the case are there any comments on the Council before I go to the persons that want to speak and sign up to speak? We'll move with those that have signed up to speak on this item. I have one, two, three, four, five, six persons that have signed up to speak. I'm going to call the names let's try four minutes each. Helen Fisher Steve Aquino, Victoria Peterson Susan Sewell, Donna Rudolph Carolyn Aronson and as anyone else that wants to speak whose name I didn't call Tom Miller anyone else? Okay. Helen Fisher Hi, yes, thank you. All great cities protect their watersheds. New York City and Boston City leaders recognize the necessity to have clean water and protected theirs. Certainly private companies have their place but is an LED company which claims to be energy and environmentally conscious really so if it's willing to foul all our water for the profit of a few. Privatized gain and socialized risk this company's influence did not allow an impartial survey by county commissioners to clearly and fairly draw the critical watershed lines. They sanctioned the private survey approved by the former planning director done during a severe drought when the water level was so low that the 167 acres in question fell outside the line. A second survey not done during a severe drought showed 751 South to be inside the critical watershed. Over and over the agenda item for digital billboards kept returning. What goes into digital billboards? Isn't it LED lights? A former county commissioner said the agenda item had been turned down so many times it had literally been beaten to death. I guess no never really means no if they don't respect you. It keeps resurfacing. Large digital billboards filled with LEDs not on our road sides but over our highways. Don't these lights factor into the private company's profits? And in the last two months we've heard from the DOT what a great idea is to have stoplights at the end of every highway ramp. How have we ever managed to ride on highways and interstate since the 1950s without having stoplights filled with LEDs at every entrance ramp? A private company subsidized by taxpayers. And now we as consumers we've been offered the opportunity to purchase LED light bulbs for the incredibly low $49 per light bulb for one light bulb. Again private gain for the company. I ask you is this the vampire squid on the face of Durham? I recommend voting against extending utilities to 751 South and against annexation. If the state legislature passes a law mandating cities to extend utilities don't give them political cover. Let them stand and fall by their decision. If we in Durham have more needs than revenues don't give $10 million of our taxpayer money to a company which already exerts undue influence and is profiting at our expense. Thank you. Welcome. Steve Bocchino. Steve Bocchino 7340 Abram Drive in Durham. Mr. Mayor, City Council, good to see you Mr. Clement. We all know why we're here tonight. It's extortion, pure and simple. And who are the extortionists? The very same people in the General Assembly behind voter suppression, behind women's oppression, behind racial regression. The reason a thousand people assembled in Raleigh tonight and adiated them from Durham.  They say pass this annexation or else. The extortionists are led by one Tim Moore, Republican from Kings Mountain out in Cleveland County, 120 miles away from here. He's from Kings Mountain but now he thinks he's the king of Durham. If you vote for this development you're given the extortionists exactly what they want. In my experience that's not the way to discourage them. It would be truly a hollow gesture to pass a resolution. A resolution supporting Memorial Monday after voting to support these extortionists. You'll be able to hear their laughter all the way from Raleigh maybe even from Kings Mountain. They'll be saying how mighty Durham has fallen. Thank you. Victoria Peterson Mr. Mayor, many of us in this community and a lot of them are not here tonight. We support. I supported the 751 project from day one. I continue to support it. We have funded numerous projects even when the voters voted against the ballpark. When persons in this community voted against all this building going on downtown by the second richest man in this state. A few weeks ago this council approved for that project downtown again to get additional dollars. Tax dollars have been used for years to take care of the Durham Bulls stadium plus the other projects that's going down there downtown Durham. Now my understanding unless something has changed here about the 751 project. That those individuals are going to pay for this out of their own pocket from day one they have stated that. My understanding that Durham residents will get jobs. I'm hoping that when they build some buildings down there for jobs for companies to move in for small shops. That that will also be possible not trying to embarrass anybody in this room but somebody write a letter to Mr. Goodman and ask him how many African American businesses are down in the American tobacco project down there of all the tax dollars that have gone downtown on that project. Where many of us pay taxes in this community as well as African Americans. Tell me how many black businesses is downtown on that project. That is there that they have an office on that project. How many African Americans do you see even working down on that project. Now the 751 individuals have made a commitment to this community that people in this community will be employed. I don't know what the problem I don't know if it's political Mr. Mayor I don't know what the problem is fix this problem approve this and let's get this project going and moving and I'll tell you something else. I've heard this I've heard the city manager say and in that report and I'll show you if I'm wrong it should not be in there. That this city is losing I'm sorry that the city is losing dollars. The tax dollars we're losing 4.2 million dollars. Is that right are we losing monies or are we not losing monies. Last time when you worked on the budget still again we were losing not tax dollars. If this project is going to generate tax dollars to this community why are we jerking these people around and trying to hinder their project and the amount of monies that they're spending going to court and going here and going there they could be putting that monies into this community. Have we lost our minds stop jerking these people around. It's ridiculous you're supposed to be professional people on the move having a good understanding of this government and what this community needs and this community is losing tax dollars and we need this project and thank you very much Mr. Mayor. You're quite welcome. Susan Sewell Thank you it's Susan Sewell I live on Legion Avenue in Durham. I'm here to oppose the current proposed agreement with 751 South. Back in 2010 I presented a letter on behalf of Tuscaloosa Lakewood Neighborhood Association to the county commissioners during a zoning hearing. I want to take a moment to highlight some of the reasons we oppose this development at that time. It would drastically alter our county's development direction. They have manipulated the UDO's to sidestep important planning considerations by using required stream buffer areas to double as green space and buffer requirements. This plan includes much less open space than other plans its size. Good planning requires all interested parties participating in an open process which has not been the case for this plan. Perhaps most disturbing to us is that the development plan has few committed elements this is not typical of large development plans or of good planning practice. The developer's refusal of reasonable and typical committed elements and processes indicate that they are not willing to work with citizens and planners to ensure that what they build contributes positively to our region. These are decisions the developers made and this city has been very supportive of understanding those issues up to this now and I thank you for that up to this time. These issues are still evident in this development plan they will cost the city if we annex. I urge you to postpone this agreement so that you can include the surrounding neighbors and other stakeholders to at least mitigate the worst of this development. I hope that we can add additional commitments that can mitigate some of the issues and help pay for the consequences of others such as transportation that we've been trying to deal with in the budget. Thank you. My name is Donna Rudolph and I live on 751. It's my way to get home tonight and out every morning and contrary to what one speaker said, is it Victoria? Yes. They are not paying for everything. The costs that will be inherent in putting the traffic, 1300 housing units and 600,000 square feet of commercial and office space will generate a great deal of traffic and what so the road 751 will have to be completely redone because I see the traffic now that goes on there and I cannot imagine the heavy construction traffic for this project let alone the 2.2 occupants times 1300 houses that will have car trips coming in and out and for example the developers will set aside a spot for a school with as many inhabitants as they're going to have they may need an elementary and middle school and who takes the brunt of it while they're getting enough the bond issued pass so that all Durham pays for the schools, Creekside and Parkwood will be overwhelmed. But in addition to the traffic and the police and the fire services all of these cost money what happens is all of those that the developers don't pay for which are most of them are going to be on the backs of all of the existing Durham residents so what is the best plan for Durham growth south to build a whole new town on the borders of Jordan Lake or to develop other pockets of Durham within the comprehensive plan that were designated before as important development areas. But I want to ask a very, very essential question. Where is the extra water coming from? The American Water Works Association says that the average householder inside the house, that's not the lawn that's not washing the car, the house inside your washer you're brushing your teeth taking a shower, 69.3 gallons a day. If you take that times the number of people who are going to live in the 1300 houses based on the census I get 288,833 gallons of water a day will be needed by those 1300 houses and when we have a minor drought where do we get more water for Durham? The people who have 500,000 people depend on Jordan Lake for their water supply not only is it going to be stretched for these people who are wanting for this development that will take nearly 300,000 gallons a day but it's going to be polluted. Jordan Lake can say goodbye to any control on pollution. I pointed out 81 acres of this, 166 acres will be paved over. In fact if you picture it anybody's owned an 80 acre of land if you're not in agriculture I grew up on a farm and that's a lot of land to pave. But look at it at 61 football fields paved and that's how much runoff will go because the impermeable surface in this development is so great and it is in the water boundary runoff of Jordan Lake where I'm telling you again that 500,000 people depend on for the water supply. So I think it's a devastating abuse of environmental laws and it also puts a great deal on the back of existing Durham residents and if you put it to a vote would rather see other parts of Durham more rationally developed. Thank you. Hi I know it's late but this is really something so important. I want everyone just to take a big breath and just forget about the history of this development and just think about today right now and think about what you're facing. One of the groups that I'm involved with it to me has taught me so much as I'm a Rotarian and one of the things that we always say every meeting is, is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendship? And fourth will it be beneficial to all concerned? Those to me are the words to live by. Those words sum up the way we need our politicians to be. We need you to face the truth. Have the people that have been involved the developers been honest and truthful. We can look at the history. I don't have to remind you of all those details. We've all been living it for four years. And I personally have been paying for it because I pay the attorney fees because I believe in the rights of citizens to have a protest petition. I mean I'm just a naive Democrat. I can't help it but I really believe in the truth passionately. And I really admired you more than you can ever imagine last year when you unanimously voted against annexation and you voted that way because you were voting for the truth. Even if this is forget good or bad development. Personally I think it's a bad one. But look at the way they're going about this. Is this the way we want the politics of Durham to be in the future? We are at a fork in the road. We've all had those forks in our lives. Whether to go for the truth or whether to lie. Whether to stand up for ourselves and be strong. Even when people are trying to knock us down. Or whether to just give in to the easy way to adapt to make excuses. We've all had those chances. We all have. And this is a chance for each and every one of you to stand strong for the truth. It's a test. It's not just about 751 anymore. It's about each of one of you looking in the mirror tomorrow and saying was I honest? Was I honest? Did I vote for the citizens of Durham? Did I keep integrity? I found a thing of yours, Eugene Brown that was dear to my heart when you were writing in The Independent about what your mission statement was for the city of Durham. And I thought my God I love this man. He sounds like my mission statement. It was about integrity which is dear to me. And when I think of their approach and the developers threatening Durham with the state law and going to those measures. Whether it's a good or bad development it wouldn't matter to me. It's the principle. And to me sometimes I don't know. I feel like Ms. Aronson goes to Washington or Mr. Smith goes to Washington. I saw that movie too many times and I loved it and I would stand here all night long and filibuster till I fainted if that would make a difference. But I only have 23 seconds to tell you be honest with the citizens of Durham. Don't sell us down the river to the developers. Don't be manipulated by them. Be honest so tomorrow when you wake up and you look in the mirror the vote that you made was a vote from your heart a vote for the truth. Thank you. Mr. Mayor and members of the council my name is Tom Miller and I live on Virginia Avenue. And for all the reasons that the previous speakers have laid out before you are I urge you to vote against this tonight. But I'm not going to raise a policy issue. Whether you intend to adopt this annexation agreement or not you can't do it tonight. For the simple reason is you don't have the authority. It's a well settled principle of North Carolina law that a city or a local government only has the authority that's been expressly given to it by the General Assembly or those with limited implied powers that must necessarily flow from an express grant of authority. Well if the General Assembly hasn't given the city of Durham the authority to do an annexation ten years in the future you cannot do it. You cannot do it conditioned upon it becoming law later. And then we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. There will be a public hearing in the finance committee. That ain't enough. You just can't do it. You cannot do something the law does not permit you to do if you don't have authority. You cannot do that which is illegal today conditioned upon it becoming illegal at some point in the future. Now if the city of Durham gets the authority to do this annexation because the charter is amended well then fine. At that point hold the public hearing, consider the agreement and annex this place if that's what you want to do. You cannot do it tonight. It is not legal. Thank you. Let me ask other persons that want to speak on this item. Again this is a public hearing. I'm going to reserve closing the public hearing until I have an opportunity to hear from members of the council. So I haven't said that unrecognized persons that want to speak unrecognized councilman Cotati, councilman Moffitt in that order. Thanks. Let me start by noting for everyone that the original request was for 167 acres. This request actually includes an additional 86 acres which is the Colbert farm. The request now includes 253 total acres. We did not do a cost benefit analysis on the entire parcel. When this council or most of this council unanimously rejected it a year ago the cost benefit analysis was upside down for many many years. I ask the questions that Mr. Miller raised to the city attorney right before again one last time do we have the authority to pass this or to use the date of June 3rd 2023 and so I'll stop now and ask the attorney to address that and then I'd like to continue my remarks. Thank you councilwoman Cotati. Where we are with the legislature is that I made the request of both the developer and representative Moore for the same reasons that have been addressed which is that we need the authority to do this now. I was told under no uncertain circumstances that that authority would not come now it would come after the city has adopted the annexation agreement. So my hands quite frankly are tied. What I have done through the research in terms of who would have standing to block the annexation the primary standing holder would be the property owner and we have required the property owner to agree in this document to not challenge the validity of the passage of the ordinance tonight and to make this entire document contingent upon getting that authority in this general assembly session. So that's essentially where we are right now when we are negotiating with folks you know my preference clearly would have been to have the authority today. We are not going to get the authority until you move forward so this is the best that we've been able to put forth. I believe that certainly the property owner has bound not to challenge the annexation ordinance should you pass it tonight and we'll have to see where we are tomorrow. But this is the best that I can do in terms of where we are tonight given the constraints that have been put on or at least delivered to me by the general assembly. I appreciate that response and quite honestly I do appreciate your efforts and your entire staff's efforts. This has taken a lot of legal interpretation but I'm still not clear that we actually do have the authority to use a 2023 10 year annexation date whether conditional or not but I'll leave that for now. I will say that I'm surprised that the developers of the applicant isn't here. It's most unusual never in my 10 years of experience has the applicant not been present in front of council to respond to questions. I actually consider it highly disrespectful. I'll leave it at that. I will just remind citizen people that the developers Alex Mitchell and Neil Hunter the co-founder and former CEO of Cree are not here nor is their attorney former Democratic Senate candidate Bill Cunningham. I recommend that you all remember those names. I want to thank everyone quite sincerely for the years of effort on this project. It's been I know more heartache than I can imagine to see what all of you as citizens have fought really hard for and of course for the funds that have been invested in the lawsuits. I also want to thank folks for the very thoughtful and unique comments that we've gotten in the most recent email barrage. This was not a one liner. Here you go. I was really taken back by the hundreds of emails with personal stories. Many people I'd never met or heard of before residents in the area all over the city. These were heartfelt messages. This was not a routine email campaign. So thank you all for that. So I'm going to say that I appreciate my colleagues position on bringing this forward. The water and sewer extension request in the face of threatened legislative sorry can't talk legislative action but I personally cannot ignore the many maneuvers related to the rezoning of this property that have gotten us to this point. This project is a poster child for land use planning bad poor land use planning backdoor schemes and intimidation including administrative amendments to the lake boundary disregard of sound science on the lake survey lawsuits and subversion of our citizens right to a protest petition with a very controversial land donation to NCDOT among others. In this most recent batch of emails we got emails from former NCDOT staffers that had very specific comments about this. I'm telling you this was a very wide ranging express concerns from our citizens. So I'll just say that I've expressed concerns about this project in the past. They're all a matter of public record. I stand by those concerns and I'll be voting no and I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me. If the General Assembly wants to force us to extend water and sewer let them do it. This council should not do it. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I want to say this was not a simple decision for me. I find it to be a complex issue with many facets but I intend to vote no. The deciding factor for me is that the project this is the deciding factor for me. The project completely undermines the comprehensive plan. For some the COMP plan is merely a document and a formality but for me it represents the community's vision for our city, the city in which our children are going to live. It was developed over an extended period of time by representatives from across the community and it should not be disregarded. The irony of this situation is that there's a site that's ready to go for this project with approval for 1300 homes, a million square feet of office and 150,000 square feet of commercial right where it belongs near I-40 on Page Road. While on the planning commission I voted to recommend approval of that project. This developer plus that location could be glorious but the location of 751 South will drive sprawl all the way to the Chatham County line and beyond. The choice we face is whether we want to be like Atlanta with brutal car commutes and stop and go traffic or whether we want a better denser urban environment where development is focused along the transit corridor. The community spoke through the comprehensive plan and I cannot vote to undo that work and that vision. Thank you. I'm trying to recognize persons that want to speak on this item before I make a comment. Recognize Councilman Brown and Councilman Shewell. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was fond of saying that on occasion we all need a lesson in the obvious. So here's mine tonight that regardless of how we vote tonight 751 will be built. I do not necessarily say that with joy but with the harsh reality I hear from the many colleagues I've spoken with members of our local delegation as well as representatives from the League of Municipalities. There are arguments for supporting this. Some of which can be compelling. Well if they're going to build it anyway then we might as well get something from them. That is a promise to enlarge 751 up until the interstate highway. Additional cost of around 2 million dollars. Now I applaud our Mayor for trying and apparently getting an agreement done after long negotiations and I will add to my colleagues' comments that I've been here for 10 years and for me this is one of my more difficult decisions and I've pondered and gone back and forth and way into the night. And my record on development and development projects is usually in support of development and indeed I do not believe that the D in developer stands for devil but I must say I'm troubled by this one. I don't like the fact that very few concessions have come from the developers particularly concerning density. I don't like the fact as Diane pointed out that we have gone from 167 acres now to 253 acres. And so what we're talking about here ladies and gentlemen is another Woodcroft size development next to a major water supply in Jordan Lake. And you do not need a PhD in environmental science to realize this is problematic. Indeed some people would say idiotic. Concerning the highway expansion I've been in real estate for over 30 years and I have perhaps more than anyone else sitting up here some idea of what sells houses for the development unless there is a decent and adequate transportation system to move the residents of these rather expensive homes from their home to their work unless the road is enlarged this development may go south. That is a top priority of anyone really buying a home and particularly to one that's in the price level of 5, 6, 7, 800,000 dollars. Now some of you don't know this but when I left Capitol Hill in Washington I moved to Denver to be the director of communications for NCSL which is the National Conference of State Legislatures. It's a non-profit very much like the National Governors Association except we represented all the state legislatures and legislators nationwide. I've learned many things from that experiment and especially what works and what doesn't work about state legislatures. Now I realize as Tom pointed out that cities are and were created by the state but I must say what we're seeing in Raleigh what we're seeing with this General Assembly with their intrusion upon local governments and indeed even local school boards is not the use of power it is the abuse of power. Now do I exaggerate perhaps? Talk to the city council members in Asheville where the General Assembly forced them to regionalize their water department or speak with the city and county leaders in Charlotte where the General Assembly has ordered their airport authority to be reorganized and look at what they have done in Wake County and Greensboro by forcing changes from the outside to everything from the voting districts to moving from non-partisan to partisan elections to even the tenure from two to four years for school board members. Now with some it is said that to rise up and vote against this development tonight by the Durham City Council may be the equivalent of giving the fingers of the General Assembly and they may in return respond by giving us their fist. I hope they're not that petty but call me old fashioned but I don't like being intimidated by anyone. Be it on the playground or in the halls of our General Assembly bullies are not welcomed by Durham citizens. So why should we sell our public soul for the sake of supporting the development that is too big too close to Jordan Lake and too upsetting to too many surrounding neighborhoods. So tonight let it be said that at least here, at least in Durham, we do not like negotiating with a gun to our heads not here, not in the bull city. Recognize may I approach him and then Councilman Shul? Thank you Mr. Mayor. We all know what got us here every trick in the book has brought us to this point every back door legal maneuver and as we acknowledge in our six to nothing vote not very long ago we know this isn't good for Durham. Where is the developer and why won't he show his face here I think we all know that reason too and we need to not be rolling over for these shenanigans it's one of the speakers calls it extortion. It is extortion. There is no sense in taking a road in exchange for our acquiescence in this. There is a $600 million development that eventually does get built down there they're going to have to build that road anyway. Let's don't agree to this so that in exchange for a road they would eventually have to build anyway. Let's don't agree to foul our own water supply and let's don't sell Durham's soul for a road widening. Our community does not want this. No matter how much campaign money was spent here by the developer our community has spoken on several occasions and it doesn't want this. So I hope that we will defeat this and if the General Assembly makes a decision so be it but I don't think we ought to be acquiescing in it and as I said let's sell our soul for a road widening. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I just have a question for our attorney and I hate to put you on the spot because you're not a politician. Now what happens if we vote not to approve this item and the General Assembly passes a bill stating that we force in us to do so do we really have to do it then or do we go to court and what would the cost be? Madam Mayor Pro Tem you raised some very good questions and of course I'm speaking hypothetically. A lot of it depends on what if anything the General Assembly did in response to a vote to deny water and sewer to this parcel but as I've mentioned before we would look at whatever comes out if something comes out and certainly advise you at that time as to what you could and couldn't do. I've seen drafts of what may come down but having not seen a live proposal statute what have you I'm really at a bad situation in terms of actually advising you on what might happen in the future based on a statute or a directive from the General Assembly that they haven't actually made yet but I would tell you that we would review it and then advise you in terms of what your options could be at that time if that situation occurred and council directed we could file an action I believe that Asheville has filed an action as it relates to the situation with their water system but again I don't know what would be coming down and what I would recommend based on it's my understanding that Asheville has filed a complaint to enjoy the enforcement of that statute. They're challenging that statute. Before that anything is I thought that we would be able to get that tenure annexation clause in place and we are seemingly there waiting to see what we're going to do even with that. It is not in my nature to do anything mandatory fashion because I don't think that we will prosper from that but somehow I just don't trust any of the players in this process and so I'm going to have to meditate over the next few moments to see which way I'm going to go with this. I'm really troubled that we are at this point in the history of the North Carolina where we have spirits that are, I don't know how to describe them that are taking us back to slavery times and that's the way that I see this now is as if we are slaves to the General Assembly that's not a good feeling and I'm supposed to be on voice rest so I'm going to stop talking. If no one else wants to comment I'm going to share my thoughts with the council on this issue. I don't think anyone is surprised at my comments and I guess first of all I need to say for the record and for persons who have spoken I'm being truthful with myself and what I say and what I do. I have no reason to be any other way but that. I've probably been closer to this situation than any of my colleagues on the council not because of my choosing because I'm the mayor of the city of Durham and I think we just need to recall the only reason we are here tonight discussing this issue about the extension of water and sewer is because when it came up last year in the General Assembly it fell by one vote at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning in the senate side it had already passed the house but not for the work of Senator McKessick and others and I give floor credit because he stood there. It fell but I should also tell you because I think you need to understand this I should also tell you that shortly after that I received a comment from a very reliable source from one of the leaders in the house to say that if the city and the developers were not able to resolve their disagreement that this surely would come back to the General Assembly in this session both on the house side and the senate side. You can call that a threat you can call it whatever it is but that's the statement that came back and I had no reason to not consider that so I began giving some thoughts as to what our alternatives were. I was being the city council in view of those comments and my rationale was not just for the present future of the city council but future city councils and looking at that project. We were dealt the cards we have. This was all a county zoning matter. The city never set the zoning for this issue. When the developers came to us and almost demanded that we respond to their request for extension of sewer and water utilities we said unanimously no. Different people might have had different reasons why they said no but my rationale was that we have said very clearly that we were not going to entertain the issue of extending water and sewer utilities until the litigation had been settled and some of you know there was some litigation going on others might have had other reasons for it. So we said no. And it was after that that they went to the general assembly and got legislation which I just described which came within a vote of passing on the senate side. Since that time I'm convinced I'm convinced and that's why I'm telling I'm being truthful. I'm convinced that no matter what action we take tonight you look to say yes or no and it's pretty obvious that we know that the general assembly is going to pass legislation which will force the city of Durham to provide water and sewer utilities to that development as it presently has been zoned by Durham County. That's my thought. I could very well be wrong but I'm telling the rationale for why I've taken the position that I've taken and will continue to take. So if I believe that I'm not saying what's going to be built if I believe that there's going to be a requirement that water and sewer utilities be extended to that development my question is what type of things can we get out of that from the city. And there were only two things really. I mean because the development had already been zoned it wasn't a question of going back reducing densities or changing this. There were about 46 plus committed elements in this development and one of them being a commitment to affordable housing. Those weren't issues to be discussed. What were to be discussed was how can we get 751 wide to accommodate the resultant traffic that this development would bring in the event that it was developed to as fullest. And that's part of the agreement which the attorney didn't speak to this in a part of that agreement that the developers will widen 751 up to Renaissance Parkway with the exception of the portion that they would depend on other developers to widen. The other issue was which was a lot more broader than just 751. We've been fortunate as a city and cities across the state to be able to grow and develop and expand because of the annexation laws which basically said cities could involuntary annex properties if they saw it to be to their benefit. I mean I set on this sort of reminds me of when I was chair of the Board of County Commissioners and we were going through this whole issue about whether or not we should approve the development of Traven, watershed issues etc. and I was on the county side when the city side but a part of that was that Traven knew that at some point in time when it became feasible for the city they were going to be annexed to take advantage of the resultant tax base. The way the laws have been written now that's not going to happen. It's going to be very hard to annex any piece of property unless persons voluntarily want to be annexed. One of the things that we did and I'm repeating it but I think it's important one of the things that was done even when this was being considered for annexation when it was made to request annexation the staff went through and did the financial feasibility as to when it would be financially feasible for the city to annex this area such as services we provide it would not be at a law city it would be a net gain and the estimation was that it could be anywhere from seven to eight to ten years depending on how soon it developed. So that was another reason as a part of this discussion with the persons over in Raleigh on the house side was to get our charter changed so that in the future anytime someone came to us and asked to be annexed we could make that decision up to ten years rather than the three short years our present charter require so that's another part of the provision that was in this. So having at least gotten a commitment on the part of the developers as the attorney has described in the written contractual agreement and a commitment from persons in the house that that would happen left me with the position that I would rather see the annexation take place with a guarantee that the road was going to be widened the fact that we had up to ten years to annex this property and also would allow for any other pieces of property that come to the city's attention for annexation that would be in the same situation and I'm convinced again that the general assembly is going to require the city of Durham to provide water and sewer and if it does under those conditions whether 751 gets built or not it certainly isn't going to be built by the developers I don't necessarily agree that the developers are going to spend their money to do it they may that's good and the other part about it is that we won't have the annexation change in our charter so it doesn't put it puts future councils in trying to deal with annexation issues I haven't tried to pressure anyone on this council to vote either way on this issue I've simply presented my best guess my best rationale for saying what I've said and I respect their choices in terms of how they vote we'll deal with this and move on to the next issue so I'm going to call a question on I'm going to close public hearing on this item I'm going to call a question on what's before us and what's before us is a request for annexation of this particular property which would include the extension of water and sewer utilities condition on the fact that the general assembly passed legislation which would change the charter for the city from annexation from three years to ten years I think that is the question that was before us and I think we all know we phrase the question in the process so people can vote negative for it and recognize the mayor pro term let me just say Mr. Mayor I have a lot of respect for you and the work that you've done on this and even though I am still troubled by how this has all come about I am going to vote in support of this item not feeling good about it but I do respect the way that you came across in the explanation. Again ask I can't make the motion but I would entertain a motion on the item recognize council member Katari I move the item with the intention of voting now. Is there a second to the motion please. It's been properly moving in a second. Madam clerk will you open the vote close the vote it fails three to four with mayor bail voting yes council member Clement voting yes and mayor pro Tim Cole McFadden voting yes let's move to the items that were pooled as item eight on the consent agenda. I'm waiting for it to show up thank you for my minutes all the timing okay you have two minutes I'm sorry two minutes can you start it over again do I have three minutes two this is a consent agenda item all right Mr. Mayor just wanted to just to sort of ask some questions here quickly I was trying to add some numbers up here and you know I support trying to help our youth in the community but this budget here on number eight well over well over 50% of the budget is going towards staff and I just have a little concern about that it says $92,000 for staff and then you have 26,000 for health benefits but it doesn't tell you how many staff members this budget was really taken care of and I just I would sort of like to know that also I would really like to ask the city manager if he could get some kind of report of how many youth with some names of the youth that this company has tried to help they have here somewhere in something I was reading that 93 of the young folks are still in limbo it doesn't state that they're employed it doesn't state that they're in a GED is just that they're still working with 93 and in the report it mentions GED as well as employment and as well as job training and I would like to see if we can at least get how many young folks are actually employed who are they employed with how many of them it does mention about the GED but it doesn't mention about what kind of training what kind of job training are they doing also is there a possibility of some of the projects that's coming down that this organization is working with some of the new jobs so that some of these young folks can get hired assuming if some of them are going to college then they must at least be 18 I was also curious of the age but anyway Mr. Mayor I don't know if anyone can answer those questions but I would like to see some kind of written report of how many young people are actually working because a lot of numbers are thrown out and as I said they're asking for 175,000 and they added up about 140,000 is being put on staff do we have any comments on this? Mr. Mayor and Council again Kevin Dick with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development Ms. Peterson mentioned several questions and so I'll try to take them one by one number one I would encourage the staff members that are employed by Community Partnerships Inc. for the Yes program provide career counseling I believe there is a program manager and three career counselors to help provide framework services which are basically intake career counseling, case management planning and this life guidance to 150 140 youth per year and so basically young people that receive these kinds of services that are out of school that are hard to serve cannot career counselor case manage themselves so staff salaries are required the youth, the age group of the youth that are being served are generally between the ages of 16 and 21 93 people that are currently still enrolled in the program are in some form of either career counseling intake or case management activity many of them are in educational activities such as GED or high school diploma pursuit the federal common measures that govern the program actually have various outcomes that youth are trying to achieve not just employment so there's a positive outcome rate that relates to either being generally speaking employed enrolled or enlisted there are skill credential attainment goals as well as literacy and numeracy gains and so as I said the young people that are being served range of age from 16 to 21 so employment is not always the goal for those particular individuals another activity that a young person could be involved with is occupational skills training but there's a myriad of services there's a myriad of job preparation activities that young people are involved with you know to ask exactly how many are being employed by the program I don't have that number right now but what I do know is that this provider over the past several years has helped our region to exceed the youth goals that are based upon the federal common measures that govern Workforce Investment Act programs so hopefully that addresses it the information is public record could you provide that to Ms. Peterson with numbers but not names okay entertain a motion on item second Madam clerk will you open the vote close the vote and finally item 9 Ms. Peterson again Senator 9 contract Amendment with Achievement Academy of Durham provide workforce investment for that youth program element services from July 1 to December 31 yes Mr. Mayor you have two minutes yes Mr. Mayor same thing again I think that if we're going to be allowing these programs to receive dollars we've got to get some better reporting here and it should be in the reports how many of our young folks are employed how many of them are working on their GED and what kind of training they are if you have a hundred and some young people that are in this program ten of them are working on their GED twelve of them are at Durham Regional Hospital in the Nurses Aid program thirty of them are working over there at Duke there should be a breakdown not just somebody coming out throwing out numbers not really showing improvement when we had our program at least we have our program but when we were dealing with the federal dollars we had to give an account names and social security numbers to show that these people were actually in the program and for several years now we come in there's city money state monies and government monies given to these programs but that doesn't seem to show our young people who are really active in these programs we have still a huge a large numbers of juvenile crime going up in this community if we have all these programs then why is it that juvenile crime is growing do we have an area for those young kids who have committed crimes those are in some of those programs are they in these programs to get the job training to get the GED I just think that there needs to be some better reporting not trying to get on anyone just some better reporting here on how many young people being funded and thank you Mr. Mayor you're quite welcome so maybe I can get a report on that also Mr. Bondfield he can talk to you at Atherwitz you don't have to go through it now I say he can get with you Atherwitz entertaining the motion on the item he's been properly moving second Madam Clerk will you open the vote close the vote it passes 7 to 0 are there any other items to come before the council as we adjourn at 1142 p.m. thank you Mr. Mayor


Hey, Matt. Ms. Marco. I'm not sure if Lee's end is going to take over the client tidy issue, or I should still try to take a stab at it. Definitely need to basal. So I think he has a PR that actually fixes it. Did you see his fixed PR? No, I missed that one. I guess I'll go take a look. Yeah, let me find it. I can drop it in the chat once. Yeah, one thing that would be helpful with his fixed PR, I'm guessing for the last few months we've had quite a bit of regressions. So if you're able to actually run it locally and you want to fix some of the master regressions, that would be really useful. Hold on, let me find it. Yep, I can definitely do that. Yeah, it was really unfortunate when that broke. This is our first 5 PM slot time, so I'm not sure who's going to show up for this one, although looks like we have quite a few. Pretty light ease, of course. But I wouldn't take too many folks from here. Oh, hey, Melissa. Hey there. Yeah, for some reason, Zoom wasn't working. I restarted enough things to get it going. Looks like we got one thing on the agenda. Was that you, Harvey, with the external dependencies? Is that my rant? Yeah. OK, all right. Yes, please ask the agenda if anyone has anything else. I don't know if there's anything else. I did get this really cool spreadsheet for Michael Payne, which has all the dependencies. Yes, I actually edited that a little bit. And yeah, it looks good. I think it's a really nice contribution. I think the idea is what I spoke with Michael about is that we would annotate repositorylocations.bzl with where the dependencies are being used and that will be sort of essentially just metadata, which will be used by folks who are doing these updates in the future. And that will obviously appear in the diff in GitHub to let us sort of get a better picture of how important this dependency update is. And if we can ideally group these bumps so that we can just deal with, oh yeah, all those build time ones and test ones, just get them out of the way. We can focus on those dependencies which are actually really interesting for Envoy's behavioral and security properties. Yeah. Did he make this by hand or is this done with a script? Yeah, I think he built it by hand. It's really cool though. Is it, I mean, I'm assuming we could probably make this with a script, right? Because that would be up to you. Well, once we have those annotations, yeah, we'll be able to build that with a script. Could we go even further and actually for extensions, could we break apart that repositories.bzl file and actually have the extensions define the repositories that they need? Because that would be even more explicit in terms of being able to look through and say that an extension uses a thing, right? Because I'm looking at a bunch of these and a lot of these I know for sure are only used by a particular extension. Yeah, we see HTTP JSON transcode, I'm using extension of the thrift stuff. So yeah, yeah, yeah. So I feel that would actually be a really huge improvement to the build process if we could use the, in particular, we could condition the build. So we're not even pulling down these repositories if you haven't actually been doing your build, these extensions. I think that probably works already, right? Like, doesn't Bazel, wouldn't Bazel already do that? Yeah, it's probably already doing that, yeah, yeah. Yeah, you're right. But it just seems like it would be a little more explicit because then we wouldn't have to keep the mapping up to date in that single file with what extensions actually use them, but I'm not sure what's possible. Yeah, the thing is if we scatter this file across the tree, I mean, anything's, it doesn't really matter, like with tooling, we could always do this, but it'll be nice. It's nice having a single pane. I would like to keep maintaining some sort of single pane of repositories and be able to easily query that. Yeah, I think that's fine. I mean, I think if there's just some way that whether it's through Bazel or some other script, like I feel like through Bazel, we should be able to know all of the code that uses a particular target, right? Like, doesn't Bazel query do that? So, I mean, it seems like we should be able to run a query. Yeah, if Bazel query could do something like that. I mean, again, like, I think of a tool, which is a little more sophisticated, which actually includes this metadata and prints things out nicely and associates them with extension. Yeah, I think we would ultimately need something a bit more about Bazel query, the Bazel query's a building block for whatever you would build. Oh, sure, yeah. I guess I was just saying that I think whatever we should do, we should try to make it part of CI. So that, for example, like if a new piece of code uses like an external dependency that we didn't know that it uses, like we should make sure that the annotations are actually up to date. Like, if it's done by hand, that seems very fragile. I agree. I mean, right now, the thing I'd say by hand is saying clearly that this is data playing a build or test. And I don't think we can possibly infer some of that through Bazel magic, but that's probably not too fragile. Like, you know, Bazelisk is never gonna appear as part of the data playing, for example. And yeah, wrapper JSON may come into the data playing some of the time, maybe control playing the others, but there's relatively few external dependencies which straddle that line. And I think those ones we can maintain by hand. So like that aspect of tagging, I think that metadata can be done by hand, but association with extensions certainly is best done through tooling. Yeah, this list is actually not quite as bad as I had thought. Like, I mean, I had thought that it would be worse. I'm just like, I'm just browsing through. Is this especially public? Is it okay to share it? I'm not sure. You have to check with Michael. I mean, there's nothing secret in here. But you know, just courtesy to check with someone, perhaps. Well, I just put it in. I'm not sure. I mean, there's nothing in here that's secret. But I don't know if it's open or not. So. Yeah, so, yeah. So anyway, I think we can add another thing that I'd like to see sort of added or something. It's an acronym I just learned about today, but maybe our good friends, it's a red hat like Kevin, or he's on the local window about this. It's a CPE. So apparently, like all software has like its own unique identified just like CVEs, you can identify exploits or vulnerabilities. CPEs uniquely identify products. So if we could include the CPEs for external dependencies there, that would be a huge solids favor for at least us at Google. And I'm sure other folks would love to have that information as tagged along because it allows you to then map back from like the stable version and that CPE to known vulnerabilities and that kind of thing. Sorry. What is a CPE? It's like a unique ID identifier for a piece of software. So like Envoy would have a CPE. At a particular version or? Yeah, the full CPE string includes version, but you can, I think that like there are variants where you can like, you know, some cases and still reason about that CPE. But like if we, so is this the reason that we eventually want to only use versions? So like we would say that all of our dependencies should have a CPE assigned or is the SHA and GitHub good enough for a CPE because that's a firm version in time. I mean, I'm not an expert yet on the CPE rules. I just learned about this acronym today. So what I think though is the ultimate goal is to get to the point where we can just start reasoning about the security history and status of all of our dependencies and that will be a desirable property. Again, not so important for stuff like Bazalisk, but pretty important for things like nghtb2 or cell or any of these dependencies that we have which play a role in the data plane. And right now we're in this situation, which is my agenda item where we have a whole bunch of dependencies which are just like, yeah, this is something like random repository maintained by a couple of people and there's no release process and we just had some SHA there. And that doesn't really facilitate this kind of like reasoning in particular as we scale the number of dependencies. Ideally this can be done in a tool-based way or through standard notification mechanisms like GitHub release watches on GitHub release is this kind of thing. So this is kind of where I would like us to get towards. And I think the way we can get this maturity is first of all by being pretty skeptical about new external repositories which don't match this. Like if you're coming along with a, you know, your own external repository library to help you out with your filter and that filter, well, you should really go and make sure that there's some sort of release maturity that's being practiced. And I mean, we could take this even further and ask for, you know, well, you should have like a security policy and all these kinds of things. But the very least like table stakes is being able to cut releases and have a version history and be able to reason about what happened between two releases. Like to me, I can't think of anything more basic than that. And it's true if you just wanna work on a rolling master's release candidate, you could do something like that with the right version history and so on. But I don't think many projects really practice that either. Yeah, this is kind of like where I would propose we go, at least for those dependencies which are actually important to data plane behavior. Yeah, I mean, this sounds fantastic. I think that anything we do here would improve the security posture. My only concern is what I put into the GitHub issue, which is just that I wanna make sure that if we specify these rules or what we expect from other projects, they actually make sense and they're not just arbitrary because it's like we can go to some of these people and be like, we want you to cut releases and then they just go into GitHub and press the button and then they tell us that they cut a release and it's like, it doesn't change anything. Again, if all they did was cut releases and maintained a version history between them, that to me is already very useful in being able to start to reason about history and being able to, and assuming they're just put through var in the version history, I mean, we want them to actually have a actively maintained version history which represents security. Right, so I am 100% for this. I just wanna make sure that if we do this, we apply this across all projects and by that, I mean that we have a bunch of Google projects here and Google's used to working for master and again, I mean, I think this is great but if we're gonna apply this, we can't say that Google projects don't have to do this because they're used to going for master or something like that. No, I think a lot of the good, it's only the much smaller Google projects which are in that category, things like, I don't know, the job authentication or the, basically places where we've told people to go kind of separate repository because we don't wanna put in the main envoy one and that's basically where they are and I think it'll be nice if we could get something a bit more solid going on there. Agreed. And then there are some major ones which I think quite a lot's taken action to do a better job on with cell and others like that and cell is kind of like, yeah, it exists internally at Google and then we just decided to open sources and I don't think there's been much in the way of process or that kind of thing added to that yet. Yeah, and again, that sounds great. Like I know that for some of these dependencies without naming names, I know that some of them have been put into other repos to avoid our extensive code reviews. So, which kind of defeats the purpose of what we're trying to achieve. So, you know, like we should just make sure that we write down what our expectations actually are. I mean, one of the nice things is if we could do what you said at the beginning and start to associate and directly the extensions with the repositories is those repositories which don't have release maturity and we can tag that against a bit of metadata there.  And there is prior art here, like there are best practices, badges for projects and things like that. And this is actually, I put it in the issue but it's something that has come up in the CNCF context quite a bit because every project pretty much has this problem and it's even worse in other ecosystems. Like C++ isn't, I actually think quite as bad just in the sense that there's fewer dependencies, more software tends to be written either from standard library. If you look at something like Go, it's basically like no JS. I mean, it's like these projects pull in literally like hundreds of nested dependencies. So keeping track of that is very complicated but there is interest in trying to do better here. So in so far as some of the security folks in the CNCF context could help here either with guidelines in terms of what we wanna see from projects. Like I feel like this is stuff that doesn't apply to just us.  Yeah, I mean, do you have like dedicated folks in CNCF who are working on this? Or is it just like, I just applied to chat about security. No, so there is something called SIG security in CNCF. There are people that focus on both the security projects and just general security posture for the CNCF ecosystem. I doubt about this issue and I was told to basically open an issue against SIG security. And one of the things that we might consider doing is you or I or both of us, we can go presentially present or talk about it at a SIG security meeting just to explain some of the problems that were happening and maybe see, I mean, again, I don't know that we're gonna get anything useful out of that but given the fact that a lot of what we're talking about is not really on voice specific, it's just dependency maturity and like dependency tracking and things like that. It seems to me that there's a lot of common stuff here. Cool, cool. Yeah, so let me, it's on my to-do. I will open that issue and I'll make sure that you're tagged and then maybe we can get a meeting slot and we can at least go talk to them. Sounds good to me. Cool. Yeah, but in terms of near term stuff, I mean, I love the idea of getting this spreadsheet like built into some tool that's actually checked in CI and like we can make sure that the annotations are correct on the extensions. And at least then it would allow us to understand like what do we depend on? What is it used by? You can imagine that now that we have all these annotations around, is an extension like alpha? What is the extension security posture? Like maybe we have different rules around what we require from DApps. It's like if they're in the core extension or they're trusted for untrusted data, like maybe they have to have a different posture. I'm not sure. Yeah, I think that'd be great. So yeah, hopefully, I think Michael's next planning is to take that spreadsheet and at least add some to turn into metadata and we'll see from there what we can do. Sweet, that sounds great. I think that's all I had to say on that topic. So yeah. Cool. I don't think I had anything else did anyone have anything that they wanted to chat about? Anyone? All right. Have a good evening. Bye.