Good evening. I want to call this meeting of the Durham City Council to order. Thank you, Tom, for Monday, February the 19th, 2018 at 7 p.m. We're certainly glad to have a welcome everyone here in attendance. Thank you so much for being here. We please now take a moment for silent meditation. Thank you. I'm now going to recognize Councilmember Reese to introduce the folks who will lead us in the Pledge to the Pledge. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate that. Good evening, everyone, and happy Presidents' Day. And on this Presidents' Day, we have Troop 451 from right here in Durham to help us with the Pledge. So if it is your practice to do so and if you're able, please rise and join us as the Scouts come up and help us with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Troop 451, we're glad to have you here. And I would like to ask the city clerk to please call the roll. Mayor Shul. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Here. Councilmember Alston. Here. Councilmember Caballero. Here. Councilmember Freeman. Is it Councilmember Middleton. Here. Councilmember Reese. Here. I've just been informed that the Girl Scouts that we were going to recognize tonight won't be coming to our next meeting. Councilmember Freeman. So we'll do that. We'll do that next time. But tonight we do have a neighbor spotlight. And I want to ask if Vicki Clay is present. It could please come up here. How are you? We're glad to have you here. Thank you. Do you have family members with you? I do. Would you like to have them come up with you? Neighbors. Neighbors. Okay. That's my hood. All right. Awesome. Well, we're glad you're here.  He's a heck of a Boy Scout. I'm going to be introducing Vicki Clay, who's the winner of our neighborhood spotlight award, which is a really important award that we give in the city of Durham. And I'm going to read about her. Vicki Clay is the recipient of the neighbor spotlight for the month of February 2018. The neighbor spotlight award recognizes community members that have gone above and beyond in volunteering their time to serve the community. This month, Vicki Clay, a resident of the Creekside at Bethpage neighborhood, that must be you all, was nominated and selected because of the wonderful work she has done in her neighborhood, including, but not limited to, starting Pay It Forward, a neighborhood group where neighbors help neighbors in times of need, organizing neighborhood functions and events to the activities committee, developing creative solutions in partnership with neighbors, such as a medical loan supply closet where people can borrow supplies they may need. Mrs. Clay, congratulations on being the February neighbor spotlight for the city of Durham. And thank you for all the great work you were doing to improve our Durham community. And I would like to now ask your friends and neighbors if they would please stand. Thank you all for being here. I'm going to present to you this neighbor spotlight award. And if you would like to say something to the folks here, feel free. Come on, you can take our picture. How do we look? How do we look, Kevin? Is the sign right side up? Okay. Thank you.  Kevin, don't go away. You're talking to this microphone. Kevin, please don't go away. Nice try. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to the city of Durham. I greatly appreciate this award and I'm really honored to accept this on behalf of Creekside at Bethpage and also the Pay It Forward organization that we have that's going now. A lot of this, most of this wouldn't be possible without Kevin Walls and his organizational skills. And you know, I mean, Kevin and I have worked really hard to pull all of this stuff together. I just appreciate the community so much. As I say, anytime we're speaking, that the world is tough right now. It's not a nice place all the time.  Boy scouts kind of do that type of thing, but just being nice to each other. And Kevin, if you want to say something, feel free because we owe a lot of this to Kevin. So thank you. Thank you very much. Congratulations.  Thank you, Ms. Black. Turn out. We now have one more ceremonial item that you won't find on your agenda, but this is a very special night because we are tonight swearing in our new city clerk, Diana Shriver. Let me just say, Diana, you can come on up. Let me just say briefly what my council colleagues know is that we had a long search process for our city clerk. Our city clerk is one of the three appointments that the council makes. We appoint our city manager, our city attorney and our city clerk. Diana has been the deputy city clerk in Durham for a number of years. She has recently been our interim city clerk and she's done a marvelous job in those roles. And we are thrilled that she is now going to be sworn in tonight as our permanent city clerk for the city of Durham. So Diana, I'm going to ask you to place your, is your husband here? Great. And so do you want to hold the Bible? Sure. Y'all come on up here. Y'all come right up here. All righty. Diana, if you would repeat after me. I, Diana Lynn Shriver, I, Diana Lynn Shriver, do hereby solemnly swear, do hereby solemnly swear, that I will support and maintain, that I will support and maintain, the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully and impartially, and I will faithfully and impartially, discharge the duties of my office, discharge the duties of my office, as city clerk of the city of Durham, as city clerk of the city of Durham, so help me God, so help me God. Congratulations. Good evening everyone. Mayor, council, I would like to say I am privileged and honored to be offered and given this position of city clerk. I have very large shoes to follow following Anne Gray, and I will do my best to take care of council in the city of Durham. Thank you. Thank you, Diana. I will just note that this must be, this has to be signed by our city clerk, Diana Lynn Shriver. I'll now ask if there are any announcements by the council. Council members, any announcements? Thank you. Are there any prior items by the city manager? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. No priority items this evening. Any prior priority items by the city attorney? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No priority items. Madam clerk? No items, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. And now we're going to move on to our consent agenda. The next order of business is our consent agenda. All items on the consent agenda can be approved with a single vote, unless an item is removed by a council member or a member of the public for separate consideration at the end of the meeting tonight. And I'm going to read each of the consent agenda items. Item one, approval of city council minutes. Item two, cross-connection control follow-up performance audit, January 2018. Item three, FY 2018, transportation planning grant project ordinance. Superceding grant project ordinance number 15144. Item four, Durham Orange County Transit Plans grant project ordinance. Item five, watershed protection plan and authorization to participate in watershed protection projects. Item six, bid report for December 2017. Item seven, FY 2017, 18, capital improvement project budget amendment, capital improvement project closeout. Item eight, contract for construction of parking lots at Birchwood Park and American Tobacco Trail. Item nine, South Albury stormwater restoration building demolition services contract, SP 2017-01. Item 10 to 12 can be found on the general business agenda or public hearings. Item 13, contract with Mars and McDaniel to conduct promotional testing, assessment service and job task analysis. Item 14 can be found on the general business agenda. And those are our consent items. I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Move to approve. I can. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the consent agenda. Madam clerk, will you open the vote please? Close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. And now we'll move to the general business agenda. We have one item. Item 14, thank you. Amendment to city noise ordinance section 26-23. And I believe, do we have a staff report? City attorney's item. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, members of council, the noise ordinance that you have there, and we discussed this at the work session, is in response to complaints that were made from the, it was the Central Park, the Liberty, Liberty Warehouse, concerns about noise that was coming out of Central Park, particularly with a group called the Patala Durham. The ordinance amendment that I have in front of you is something for you to consider relating to sounds coming from Central Park, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. I did share this information with the folks at Central Park and got some feedback that they were generally supportive of the amendment, but did ask about potentially moving that, the back end of that exception from 8 p.m. to I believe it was 9 p.m. But beyond that, I don't have any other additional information. And I did give you all a revised document that has more of the ordinance formal language, should you wish to move forward with that today. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. Are there any questions for the attorney? Any questions for the attorney? Council Member Frieden? Specifically, I'm just trying to figure out exactly when the team or the group is practicing. Is it between 10 and 8? Patrick, do you know that? I don't know. I can help with that, Mr. Mayor. Okay. I can help with that. Their rehearsals typically end at 8.30 in the evening. And so the 9 o'clock time that was proposed by Central Park would be perfectly fine. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Okay. I just, I'm sorry, Charlie. I'll just speak just for a moment about the particular issues raised by the ordinance before we hear from, do we have someone here? We have someone to speak, but go ahead. Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I have a couple of apologies. I want to apologize to my colleagues for having been absent at the work session, which this item was discussed. I apologize because I was the person who raised this issue and asked the city attorney to draft us the revision that came before the city council that day. So I am sorry, but I'm very, very happy that my colleagues raised a number of broader issues relating to the enforcement of the noise ordinance in its current form. I never referred that matter back to the environmental affairs board. Look forward to that board's work on looking not only at how our noise ordinance is currently enforced, but also looking at other communities and how they tackle the issue of the enforcement of the noise ordinance. As I said, back when I first raised this issue, we don't have roving bands of Durham police officers with noise meters enforcing the noise ordinance by themselves. It is like a number of different laws in Durham. It complaint driven, and that can lead to some problems in enforcement. And I hope that the environmental first board looks into that aspect of it as well. In addition to the issues raised by the mayor pro tem at the work session relating to other residential areas, other areas where this type of activity has been long enjoyed by the community soon becoming more residential in nature and the ensuing conflict that that can bring. So I really appreciate that. The other apology I wanted to make was that I was not present to propose a broadening of the of the exception period in line with what Durham Central Park asked or the city attorney for us to consider. And so at an appropriate time, I would amend the proposal from the city attorney to extend the exception drafted to end at 9 p.m. rather than 8 p.m. Thank you. I think we'll wait on that. This is not that time. I understand. Speaker. Yeah. Thank you very much. Any any other comments at this point from council members or questions for the attorney? If not, I want to ask Mr. Justin Anderson to speak. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson, you're welcome to be here and we you could you have three minutes. This work. Please give us your name and address and you have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Justin Anderson. I live at 3209 Oxford Drive Durham to 7707. I'm one of the founding members of Batala as it was as we were discussing earlier. We're a local Samba reggae group. I wanted to thank the council and city attorney and everyone present for taking up this issue and you know, amending the noise ordinance for Durham Central Park. Our group has been rehearsing in the park for the past two summers and we're looking forward to the next summer. And last summer didn't go quite as well as the 2016 with the new Liberty lofts opening. And for this summer, I went ahead and applied for another permit. We were grand temporary permit for the end of the last summer to continue our rehearsals. And I think that the amendment being proposed tonight is much more permanent and concrete solution, in my opinion. I think that the when we were dealing with it last summer, the noise ordinance came down to one person's opinion of what was reasonable and versus another person's opinion. And so this would sort of dictate, you know, in clear concise manner what we were allowed to do and what we weren't allowed to do. So I appreciate that more clear language with the continued development of the park and other buildings near nearby the park. So the condos apartments, there's another building up to the east. There's another one behind the pavilion that I believe is either open or opening soon. We need to sort of stake out some of these areas in Durham that are allowed for people to, you know, meet and congregate and do community events and use these high traffic areas for things that are not just, you know, having conversations, you know, to be able to be creative and be artistic. Let's see. So last Friday, I noticed in Councilman Reese's Facebook post that he proposed that we, or that this would go continuing on to the Environmental Affairs Board. And while we stand to benefit from the vote that's taking place tonight, I think that's great that we're going to be allowed to, or if this passes, we would be allowed to reverse unencumbered. But I think we need to sort of stake out some more areas around the city to be able to say what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for other areas. So yeah, that's great for Central Park for us. But what about other organizations that want to do Forest Health Park or other areas in the city? So people can be in public areas creating and being social without the risk of police enforcement like we were subjected to last summer. So again, thank you to the Council and everyone here. And I look forward to rehearsing in the park again Monday nights. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. We look forward to hearing your music. I'm going to ask Councilmember Reese if he has a motion. I do have a motion to amend the proposed revision to the noise ordinance at page three, subsection E paragraph seven at the end where it currently reads between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. I would move to revise that to 9 p.m. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we amend the proposed noise ordinance as stated by Councilmember Reese. Is there any discussion? If not, Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. All right. We will now move on to item number 10. Yes, I'm sorry. I believe we'll need to make a motion on the underlying matter. But also before we did, I forgot to let folks know I took the opportunity to reach out to the co-facilitators of PAC-5, of course, the area and around downtown to get some feedback from them on this proposal. There are, believe it or not, five co-facilitators for PAC-5 heard from one who said that this seemed completely reasonable. I heard from another who said it should be that the exception should last much longer than 8 o'clock. She didn't think that 8 o'clock was nearly late enough for this kind of joyous event. And so I just wanted to let folks know that we've reached out to the folks who live in this area and done our due diligence. Thank you. So your original motion was just to amend not to pass with that amendment? That is correct. And I'll move to my misunderstanding. Do we have another motion? Yes, I'll move to pass the ordinance revision as revised tonight. Okay. It's been moved to second that we pass the ordinance revision, ordinance as revised. Any discussion? If not, Madam Clerk, would you please open the vote? Close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. And now we will move on to the public hearings. The first item is Item 10, Unified Development, Ordinance, Tax Amendment. Omnibus changes 11. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Michael Stock with Planning Department. Before I begin, I would like to certify that all public hearing items before you time from the Planning Department have been unnoticed according to state and UDO requirements and on file for review. Text Amendment TC-17-0005 includes technical revisions and minor policy changes to various provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. Amendments are identified as necessary corrections, clarifications for organization rather minor changes to more accurately comply with the intended regulations or codify interpretations of regulations or to reflect minor policy changes that are not solely technical in nature. The details are found within your memo packet. The JCCPC was presented with a draft for review and comment on October 4, 2017 and no revisions beyond technical corrections were requested. The Planning Commission did recommend approval 13-0 on December 12, 2017. As a reminder, City Council will be required to take two actions. The first would be an action on the appropriate statement of consistency, which is found in Attachment A in your packet, and the second would be an action on the Ordinance Amendment itself, which is Attachment B. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. I appreciate your report from the staff and I will declare this public hearing open and ask if there are any questions or comments at this point from the Council. Council members? Any Council members? All right. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item? If no one is signed up to speak, is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item? If not, let the record reflect that no one else, no one is requested to speak on this item. I now declare the public hearing to be closed and the matter is back before the Council. Mr. Mayor, I'd move to adopt the appropriate consistency statement in the manner directed by the agenda. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the consistency statement. Any discussion? If not, Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote, close the vote? Motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. And now, do we have a motion on the second motion? Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'll move to adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance as specified in the agenda. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Let me just add one piece of discussion, which is this is always my favorite moment of the year on City Council. The omnibus reconciliation. And it's one of those things. I'll tell you seriously why I like it. It's one of those unsung, unheralded, but really important pieces of work that our excellent staff do all the time. Mike Stock does this every year with the help of many other people. And it should not go unappreciated. It is appreciated. And I do enjoy it and you never know what the heck's going to show up in this item. And you certainly had the kitchen sink in there this time. It was my honor to bring you such joy. Thank you, Mike. We have a motion. We have a second. Any more discussion? If not, Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. All right. Thank you very much. Now we'll move on to item 11, the Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Technical Updates regarding sedimentation and erosion control and state legislation. And I'll ask for the staff report. Well, if you like the first one, you're really going to like this one. Very awesome. Text Amendment TC-1706 includes proposed amendments based upon changes to state law regarding the following. Modification to exemptions to subdivision requirements per session law 2017-10 and modifications to performance guarantees for infrastructure improvements associated with development projects, which is session law 2015-187 and 2017-40. Additionally, to update requirements based upon the Sedimentation Act of 1973 updates to that. Amendments requested by sedimentation erosion control are also within that set of amendments. Again, details are within your agenda packet. The JCCPC was presented with a draft for review and comment at its October 4, 2017 meeting. And again, no revisions beyond technical corrections were requested. And the Planning Commission recommended approval 13-0 at its December 12 meeting. And again, as a reminder, the City Council will be required to take two actions. First would be an action on the appropriate statement of consistency, which again is in attachment A for this item. And second would be an action on the ordinance amendment itself, attachment B. And again, thank you and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. You have heard the staff report and I'm to declare this public hearing open and ask if there are any questions or comments by Council members. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a question for the staff, but I did just want to make the public aware that some of these changes, which were made to comply with new state laws, significantly weaken the controls that the city had in place prior to the passing of these state laws. And so we are once again being put into a position by the North Carolina General Assembly where we have to weaken our own environmental and other protections in order to comply with state laws that are being imposed on municipalities by our legislature. So I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. That was a very important point and I'm glad that you made it. Any other comments or questions by members of the Council? No one has signed up to speak on this item, but is there anyone who would like to speak on this item? So public hearing, is there anyone who would like to speak on this item? If not, I'm going to declare this public hearing closed in the matters back before the council. Do I have a motion on a consistency statement? Motion to adopt the consistency statement. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the consistency statement of discussion. If not, Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Close the vote. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you. Do we have a motion to adopt the ordinance? Motion to adopt the ordinance amended in the UDO. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the ordinance to amend the UDO. Madam Clerk, will you please open the vote? Close the vote, please. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mike, and it's going to be hard living this whole year without that item, but I'll look forward to it next year. Now we'll move to item 12, the Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Compact Neighborhood Interim Affordable Housing Bonuses, and we will hear from staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Hannah Jacobson with the Durham Planning Department. The Text Amendment TC-1605 proposes amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance that are meant to encourage the development of affordable housing in compact neighborhood tiers through the use of density and height bonuses as well as relief from minimum parking requirements. Incorporated into the Sex Amendment are other technical changes to Section 6.6 of the UDO that were originally a part of the Omnibus 11 Text Amendment that you just approved. Before getting into specifics due to some late-breaking policy changes that were discussed at the work session and some technological difficulties, a new version of the memo and of Attachment B were updated only today, so we apologize for any confusion. It might have caused and we're happy to clarify any of those questions that you have. Could you go through all those, Hannah, as part of your presentation so there's no misunderstanding? I wasn't aware of that. As you all know, in 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution that was in support of affordable housing in late rail transit areas. In support of this goal, this Text Amendment seeks to offer density bonuses that are up to 75 units an acre, up to 90 feet in height, and zero minimum parking for development projects in compact neighborhood tiers, where at least 15% of the total number of units are affordable to households earning 60% of area median income or less. That is a change that was discussed at the work session. We had originally proposed an average of 70% of area median income. It was discussed at work session to make that a 60% threshold to be consistent with the City's resolution. Projects are also required to meet some basic urban design standards, which are meant to encourage walkable neighborhoods. Finally, if a development project meets the requirements for affordability and design, the affordable housing bonuses would be applied administratively through the site plan process and would not need to come to this body for a rezoning hearing. Additional changes are proposed to section 6.6 by staff. These deal with minor and technical changes to the affordable housing bonuses in the urban and suburban tiers and were originally part of the Omnimus 11 Text Amendment. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval 12-1 on December 12, 2017, and as a reminder, the City Council will be required to take two actions. The first would be an action on the appropriate statement of consistency found as attachment A. The second would be an action on the ordinance amendment itself, which is found in attachment B. Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Hannah. Council members, you've heard the staff report. I'm going to declare this public hearing open and first ask if there are any comments or questions about members of the council. And quickly, Council Member Alston. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just for everyone's benefit. Yeah. Can you just speak? I just want to clarify that the income threshold is 60% or less than not an average of 60%. That's correct. Thank you. I'm sorry. So would you speak specifically to the changes in the memo? You and the ordinance. The ordinance or the memo? So let's hear about the, were there changes in the ordinance as well? The ordinance and the affordability requirement has been changed from 70% to very median income to 60%, and the definition of an affordable housing dwelling unit again specifies that 60%. And we saw, but that's what we saw already previously. Is that right? Or was that also corrected? It was also corrected. Okay. And the memo? And the memo is just to be consistent with those changes, describing what the affordability requirement is. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? Council members? You mentioned the council, the commission voted 12 to one. Was that on the 60 or 70? Or was it just specifically on? It was specifically on the set on the draft that reflected the 70%. Although many in their comments, you will note recommended a preference for the 60% to very median income. Other comments or questions? I'm now going to ask if there's anyone here who would like to speak on this item. No one has signed up to speak. Is there anyone? I'm sorry. Apparently someone has signed up to speak. Thank you very much, Donetta. Thank you. Now we have one person who has signed up to speak, Jim Svara. Jim, you have three minutes. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Jim Svara, 1114 Woodburn Road. And I'm here speaking on behalf of the coalition for affordable housing and transit. We recommend that the council adopt the interim affordable housing density bonus as a very helpful incentive for the addition of affordable housing units in Durham when future multifamily developments are created close to light rail stations. This incentive would offer developers significant benefits in reduced parking requirements, much greater density and profitability, and a shorter, more certain review process. The community would benefit from the addition of new affordable units and the developments incorporation of transit-oriented development characteristics for the first time in Durham, this incentive links upzoning with the inclusion of affordable housing. We commend the staff for responding to the comments from the community, including the coalition and the planning commission to define the affordability requirements as a project that provides at least 15% of the dwelling units as affordable for households earning 60% AMI or less. This makes the density bonus consistent with the affordable housing resolution that the council adopted in 2014. The 60% or less AMI focuses the benefits on residents who are having greater and increasing difficulty finding decent affordable housing. There are many persons in Durham with serious housing needs. In the slide presentation made at the work session, slide 22 compared income and housing costs and it showed that the maximum 40 housing costs for a two-person household with a 60% AMI income of just under $34,000 would be $750 a month. That's what 30% of their income is for rent and utilities and other expenses. Think of the wide range of jobs that pay less than this amount and how few housing units are available at this cost or lower. These lower income persons need access to light rail. Let us recall that a tremendous public investment is being made to construct the light rail system. Access to stations should not be an amenity that is reserved for high income persons. In addition, this public investment produces sizable benefits for property owners, for developers who build housing and can charge high rents in station areas. They should make available 15% of their units to persons with incomes just under and substantially under 60% AMI. This is an important step forward to incorporate the private sector in expanding affordable housing in Durham. Let me just note that we have had very fruitful and interesting discussions with planning staff over a couple years and I'd like to commend Dick Hales and Becky Winders who are here along with Wibgallee and Christine Westfall for their contributions to this project. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jim. I appreciate your comments and the work of the coalition and Dick and Becky and Jim and the others as well. Thank you so much. Council members, any any other questions or comments at this point? I just have council member Freeman specifically to the 60 and 70%. So just can you break down for me exactly what it what it means if we move from 70 to 60 and the difference between the two?  Yes, we've done, you know, a fair bit of talking, discussing with the coalition, looking at some basic financial proformas for development projects and there exists what's called kind of an equity gap or a revenue gap in a lot of these projects that are affordable housing that you try to incorporate into market rate projects and typically they work when you have area median incomes that are you're trying to serve higher area median incomes. So one of the reasons that we had originally floated the 70% of area median income is that we we felt as if there might be a better chance that a developer might be able to take that project up. However, we don't have site specific market level data that kind of justifies that but we do believe that there are certain projects that will be able to take advantage of this bonus that are able to serve 60% of area median income specifically. Perhaps Fayette Place could be could be a good example of that. So we still think it's worthwhile to continue with this with a 60% of area median income with the other understanding that within one year if it's not effective we'll come back and we'll reevaluate the policy. So within that one year the current zoning that's on those lots if they were to build as is that could be commercial, it could be industrial, it could be whatever is set currently and that would be no affordable housing at all. Right, every property is zoned for something and so they're able to build to what they're entitled to build. By right. And I just want to make sure that I'm hearing you didn't speak to developers, you spoke to the coalition about the density bonus conversation. We had a couple different groups, we did have a developer's focus group that helped us to kind of understand some of the market dynamics as well as the members of the coalition. We even I think we even had a couple joint meetings or where representatives from the coalition were present at the developer's table too. Thank you, appreciate it. Heather, could we look at slide 17 permitted and bonus density comparison? Are you with me? I am with you. At this point? I am with you, I don't know that we have the presentation loaded. Okay, all right. I am with you. Well, then maybe what we'll do is I'll try to get you to explain it. Looks like Vivian's trying to get it loaded. Thank you Vivian. I'm sorry I didn't give you a heads up. Thank you. Thank you Vivian. I really appreciate that. Hannah, could you explain this chart because this is where we show the potential density gains or that a developer could achieve. And I just think it's important for people to understand this. So could you explain this chart to us? Absolutely. So you'll see the dashed line at the top. That is representative of 75 units per acre. The colored bars that are in the chart represent the zoning districts that are currently available that are in these compact neighborhood tiers. So the yellow bars represent the residential districts. The red bars are commercial districts that include some multifamily housing. And the blue are mixed use districts including the compact design district. And the ranges show the available ranges of density that are currently allowed within each of those zoning districts. So if you look at say the red bar for commercial neighborhood, CN district, you can build multifamily in that zoning district anywhere between zero units per acre and 14 units per acre today. If you were to take advantage of the density bonus, you'd be able to build up to 75 units per acre if you included affordable housing. That's a great explanation. Thank you. What I want people to understand who are looking at this and if you are a developer who's thinking about developing affordably in Durham and you would like this density bonus, this is another developer said to me recently, we really need to go up in our density bonus. We need to have at least two units or maybe three units per additionally. And you can see that in, for example, that you said Hannah, where you could go from potentially 14 units to 75 units in the CN district. So we're offering an extremely large density bonus. We are also offering the parking policy exception, what would you call it Hannah? Waving minimum parking fee. Thank you. Waving the minimum parking as well as you're able to come in and do this without a rezoning. You can do this by simply meeting these requirements. Jim pointed out and I agree that this is very, very significant. It is definitely, as I think Pat said during our work session, the most progressive housing density bonus in the state of North Carolina. I do think it still begs the question. And I think Deidreana, my council member Freeman was getting to this with her questions as to whether or not, as to under what circumstances this will be able to be successful. Will developers even given these large density bonuses still desire to take advantage of this? And of course, this is something we'll find out. I appreciate staff presenting us with alternatives at the work session. And I think we've landed where we need to be. And I think it's, it's, it's, you know, we will be able to test it and see. And Hannah, I wanted to add, as I said to Mike, Mike's doing a lot of the unsung work. I would just say that this is kind of the opposite. You've been doing some work here in the eye of the storm, shall we say? Something that everyone in Durham has been paying a lot of anybody. Everybody in Durham is working on housing has been paying a lot of attention to. This brings with it its own pressures and difficulties. And I want to thank you for doing such a great job being the point person on this. And thank the people in planning have supported you as well. So awesome. Council members, any other comments or questions? Mr. Mayor, I do. Yes, sir. Ms. Council, you go first and I'll get council member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Mary. And you sort of touched on it. And thank you, Jim, for your comments. I was intrigued by the part of the memo that talked about it just doesn't work. And spoiler alert, I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote to approve the interim strategy. But there were some points and I thought some salient points made in the memo. First of all, we're doing this within the context of the market forces still apply. And this may or may not be palatable to developers. I found, Hannah, you may want to speak for the sake of the public. There are some things that also could happen if developers do not respond to this density bonus in terms of just taking the development somewhere else and then impacting prices outside of the compact district. So I guess what I'm saying is I'm inviting the coalition to stay engaged and citizens to think about this and send us your ideas because this might not work. And if it doesn't, then we could potentially have around our transit stops lower density and higher prices because of less supply. And I don't mean to rain on the parade, but I'm going to put that out there. So we still need your brainpower to talk about what happens if this does not work. And that's the part of the memo that I found most intriguing. With that, I'm going to support the, of course, support the strategy, but I just want to put that out there that we've still got some work to do. Thank you very much. Council Member Freeman. Thank you. I would concur with Council Member Middleton and Councilman Schultz. I mean, Mayor Schultz, sorry. Comments. And I think that the coalition has done a lot of great work, but I do want to highlight that we've been down this road a number of times around many rail stations across the country. And what I'm most concerned about, and I continue to push on, is the first station stop where we're seeing the development occur around Patterson Place. We've already seen what happened at Irwin Square. I mean, yes, I want the most affordable housing available at all station stops, but if this doesn't work within the next year and five or six developments are done at, by right, the current density, which is none, we're at a loss. And you can't take back what's built. I mean, it takes a long time before that property deteriorates, and then there is redevelopment. This is the one shot at it. And I just impress upon, I really, I really was, I want to be supportive of whatever we put forward, and I don't want to just support because. I want to believe that it's going to work. And I do believe that at 70, as an average, it would work. Because I know that there are local developers who are interested in doing affordable housing. The increase in the availability of capital for that equity gap can be addressed if we support with a by right 70% average. I don't know that it will happen at 60. And that's all, I mean, I'm not trying to say that it won't. Anyway, I'm just. Councilmember Freeman and Middleton, I want to thank you all both for adding the necessary complexity to this issue, which it deserves. I completely, I think I think you all have really nailed the question that's in front of us and agree that we're going to find this out. But I think your points are very, very well taken. All right. Thank you very much. Would you like to speak on this item? Miss Peterson. Thank you, Miss Peterson. You have three minutes. Thank you. I just want to, there are some concerns also with some other areas, some other things coming into the community. Oops. Sorry about that.  You want to start it all over? I don't need three minutes, Mr. Mayor. Okay, go ahead, Miss Peterson. There are some other concerns that is going on and that we really need to be very careful when we're bringing in the bus and the light rail for affordable housing and some other development. There's been a change about where even the light rail is going to come in. It was supposed to be coming in on Fayetteville, down on Fayetteville Street. Now it's being moved over. So we're also going to be looking at dealing with the busing as well as the light rail. There needs to be some development also going out on Austin Avenue. I don't know if you are aware of that, but on my understanding the light rail was also supposed to be going down Fayetteville Street down to North Carolina Central University. That has been changed. And we who live in the area where it's going to be new, down on Austin Avenue going towards Central, no one has talked to us about our housing and about the housing area over in that area also that needs to be developed and those who may would like to sell their homes or whatever. I'm sure there's a lot of people who do not want to live in the middle of our light rail. They're going to already put a light rail in the middle of an African-American community and there has been very, very little dialogue about it. Because my understanding when I was going to the meetings, Mr. Mayer in the beginning, that light rail was coming down Fayetteville Street down towards Central. Somehow it has been changed. Now it's going to come down on Austin Avenue going all the way to Central. Well on the left hand side of Austin Avenue is a residential area over there by Russell Memorial Church. If folks, if you know that area on the other side, you have some commercial stores, but you also have housing in that development. So if you folks are talking about remodeling and putting in some new housing and some new development, please also look at that area also because it's going to be looking terrible once they stick that, once they put that light rail up in there as well as the busing. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Just to be clear, the original light rail proposal was to, and you may be seated Ms. Peterson, thank you, the original light rail proposal was to end the light rail just around Grant Street up around Pettigrew and Grant. And so now as you're correct, it's now going down Austin Avenue and but the good news is that assuming that the light rail does everything we would like it to do in terms of timing, the construction would begin in a couple of years and we would be building it for 12 years. There's a lot of time and discussion that needs to happen and you're absolutely right about the importance of these discussions in terms of residential neighborhoods near the light rail. So thank you for raising that. Mr. May, can I add to that side? Please. So I just also wanted to add to that. Ms. Peterson, please be seated Ms. Peterson. You've had your three minutes. Thank you. I just want to let you know that the actual meetings for the light rail were held at Russell Memorial and a lot of outreach was made to residents in the community. I know it needs to continue and understand that you might not have been at the meetings, but I do know that the outreach has been done and it has been very. Ms. Peterson. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Freeman. Are there any other, is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? This is a public hearing. There are anyone else who wishes to speak on this item. Is there any member of council who has any more questions or comments on this item? Any questions for Ms. Jacobson? If not, I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. Let's see. I believe we need two motions on this as well. The first will be to adopt the consistency statement to adopt the consistency statement. Do I hear a motion? Move to adopt. Second. It's been moved and it's seconded that we adopt the consistency statement in discussion. If not, Madam Clerk, could you please open the vote? Close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. And now the second motion to adopt the ordinance amending the UDO. So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the ordinance. Madam Clerk, can you please open the vote? Close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. Hannah, thank you again for your work and thank you to your colleagues. That is our last item for tonight and I'm going to declare this meeting adjourned at 7.54. Thank you for coming. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.


Hi, everyone. I'm Ingrid Betonen and I'm head of the intellectual property legal team here at Nokia and I'm here with my colleague Jonna Soinenen, who's head of open source initiatives and by way of introducing today's topic it's often said that people are afraid of things they don't really understand and today we'll tell you not only about how we do open source compliance at Nokia, but about our journey in demystifying open source within Nokia and removing that fear factor. But first to tell you a little bit about our company. So Nokia is a company with 155 years of history. Over time we've made various things, toilet paper, boots, gas masks, and also mobile phones. And today we have a leading position in telecommunications with an end-to-end portfolio and around 1.5 billion euros in net sales. We're a complex and diverse company and we have almost 100,000 employees in 120 countries and what we are today comes in part from big acquisitions from Siemens, Motorola, and Alcatel Lucent just to name a few. We've made some 129 billion euros investment in R&D over the past couple of decades and today we have over 20,000 patent families, including a leading portfolio of standard essential patents. Since GSM times, Nokia has been a leader in developing the telecommunications standards which enable global interoperability. Long gone are the times when you weren't able to use your European handset in Asia or the USA. But in order to achieve this, what we've done is to actively and openly disclose our proprietary technologies, our most cutting-edge proprietary technologies, making these patented technologies available to third parties on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms or or franned license terms. So all in all, given the size, complexity, and patent-focused company that we are, you can appreciate that Nokia wasn't the easiest place to set up a forward-leaning, company-wide open-source process. Yes, but despite all that, we've actually been active and we have been using open-source from very early on. We actually had products already in by the end of 90s that were using significantly open-source and we started basically having our open-source process also already in 2004, where we introduced open-source as part of our product creation process and we created our own tool to support our open-source compliance called TALACO and we're using that tool still today. But also there, of course, what we needed to do is contribute to open-source as we were using a lot. We needed also to change and influence open-source. So we also started to contribute to open-source quite early and we have done it in different levels throughout the history of the organization. Obviously, quite recently, we have increased our contribution to open-source quite a bit more as open-source has become an integral part of the telecommunication industry. And we are basically there, now we have even products, again, that are based on open-source technologies such as OpenStack and Kubernetes. So what do we think about open-source in general today? It's quite obvious that we don't just download random stuff from the internet and just contribute to any place. Oh, you don't? Oh, yes, that is, it might sound like different sometimes when we're doing it, but it's actually, no, there is a method to this madness. What we basically have is criteria of how do we use open-source. So we basically look at that this software comes from a reputable source, it actually does what we are supposed to do, and it has actually good quality. I'm like, those are things that are very important. But even maybe more important is when we look at that where we contribute, because this is one of the key questions for our organization is actually to look at that where you contribute, what you open and what you keep closed. And therefore, we are actually doing that with quite careful. How do you look at that, which are the right places to contribute? You look at it the same way, or that we look at it the same way, as we look at what makes open-source projects successful. What you need as the first thing is basically you need a shared problem. So you have to have a problem that everybody recognizes, and everybody thinks that it's worthwhile solving. And usually that, and important is, of course, solving it together. So what is there usually the important thing is that it's a problem where there's a little differentiation. Because if companies are competing in that area, the interest of actually solving that together goes away. The other thing is what is important that in the open-source project, and in the work itself, people are aligned. People have a common goal, and they want to solve the thing in the same way. If you don't get alignment, you don't get people working towards the same direction. The other thing is, which is often forgotten, is actually the governance. The open-source projects need to be somewhere where people feel welcome. They feel that they are treated on the equal footing. They are treated well, and they can actually contribute and influence the work. And this is important for an open-source project being successful. But it's also important for us when we get active in something that we basically feel that we are welcome and we can contribute. And our contribution is regarded as something that is wanted in that approach. The other thing is what is then needed is support. So not only that there is a willingness and alignment, but people are actually also willing to invest, that people are willing to put developers there, and willing to develop and spend time in the project. Last thing is, of course, is timing as well. So the thing is that basically it sometimes starts need to align. It's not just that you have the other things, but you also have the right time to solve this problem. And those are the criteria that you need to meet to have an open-source project be successful. But this is also what we think, that these are things that need to be aligned when we contribute to something, and when we get involved in something, especially when we become a member in an organization. And the thing is really that for us is that one cannot mention it too often. It has to be a little differentiation that people are actually willing to work on that, rather than competing. But what do we think that our open-source is going forward? We believe that open-source evolution will continue. We think that there is a really a need in shared R&D in our industry. And this has been shown in many cases in the technology now. And we believe this will not go away. That's why for us already, this has become part of our R&D development. It's not an external thing, but actually we have built it into our processes and into our R&D teams. And it has become at least in part something that people just do as their normal thing. It's not that mystical or magical anymore. It is real work and part of our R&D development. But this doesn't mean that the differentiation would go away. We think that differentiation will continue. And we will continue to building commercial software and we will continue to have proprietary innovation. And what we think is that this is actually good for the industry. There is also benefit from having competing implementations and competing products in the market to drive the industry forward. Now taking this all in and thinking that, okay, how do we make actually a successful open source process? We started to think when we redesigned our process by having kind of like certain goals in mind that we had to meet in order to this process to succeed. One of the first things was basic, well, not one of the first things. The main thing was that the open source process is there to support the business and the R&D. Basically making our business successful and enabling the business in the market and enabling them to do the best products they can using open source where they want to and contributing in the open source in the most efficient way. Then of course what was important for our legal is that we actually do the right thing. I mean like this is not normally what I say about legal departments but here it's true they were really just interested to do the right thing. Which means that you comply to the different licenses. You don't comply just to what is written down but what is the spirit of the license. And this is very important. You have to do this in both when you use open source and when you contribute to open source. In the end you are using what other people have contributed. So you should respect that. The last thing but one of the important things really keeps a criteria for us was to protect the Nokia IPR. And this is basically protecting our patent portfolio and making sure that we don't license something that we don't want to license and we don't jeopardize something that we don't want to jeopardize. And this was very key for us to make sure that in a company like ours we can actually be successful in open source. So at a high level key to the success of our open source process have really been a few simple yet difficult things. People, communication and collaborative spirit. What we did in reformulating our open source process was to bring together representatives of each of the relevant interests. R&D, legal and our patent business. We handpicked people for their ability not only to represent their own particular interest vigorously because of course that's important. You want the lawyer to be able to represent legal principles very strongly. You want the patent business to stand up for their asset. But we wanted those people also to have an open source facilitating mindset and a strong sense of collaboration. And the team of people we have within Nokia who does open source compliance is known as the FOSS advisory team and they're the team that's driven the how of Nokia's open source compliance process. From the perspective of business enablement we realized early on that open source compliance needed to be as and Yone alluded to this before an integral part of our product creation process. So our product teams need to be transparent about open source usage from an early stage of their product development and then we screen this intended usage using our homegrown telco tool that Yone mentioned. I'll talk in a minute about the criteria we use when we're doing this screening but importantly the screenings a dynamic process. So our process allows teams to change their mind flexibly you know as they need to do during the course of their product development. They're able to flexibly update their compliance check as and when needed. And of course and Yone mentioned this as well it's important not only that our businesses can use open source software but that they can play an active role in contributing to open source projects. We're really not a fan of forking and we would prefer that our businesses can be actively engaged with the upstream. And to enable this our internal process covers not only the screening and approval of use of open source software but also of outbound contributions. So from a legal perspective as Yone mentioned we try to do the right thing. Now we aim to support safe and compliant engagement with the open source community whether we're using open source software or whether we're contributing to open source projects and we're aiming not just to comply with the letter of the licenses but to comply with the spirit of the licenses. As a lawyer I'm proud to say that we don't set out to prohibit particular activities. We don't set out to prohibit any particular licenses. We do start with a business minded business facilitating approach. We work with our R&D teams really to understand their use case and to assess case by case whether it would be problematic for Nokia to comply with the applicable license terms and to go forward with what they want to do. And here again our telco tool comes into play. We use the telco tool for doing our legal reviews and for documenting our recommendations. Perhaps the hardest nut to crack in all this has been the tension between Nokia's intellectual property interests and in particular our patent interests as against Nokia's business interests in open source engagement. You know there have been different ways that other companies have tackled this challenge. I've heard of cases where companies have just segregated their open source activities or their patents into a non-affiliated legal entity. And that's certainly one approach but at Nokia we rather see the need for open source to coexist with patents and patent licensing and to handle tensions really as we would handle any other case of competing business interests. So we would weigh the respective interests and assess in the particular circumstances which one should prevail. Here the area of technology in question is usually decisive. And Iona mentioned this already that there are some fields where Nokia's proprietary IP assets and I'm not just talking about our patents I'm talking also about our proprietary software implementations are critical business differentiators areas where we compete with others in the field. Our crown jewels if you like and generally it's determined that in these areas we can't compromise the interests that we have by participating in projects that would require us not only to grant royalty free IP license but also to make our proprietary source code available to the world. But at the same time there are plenty of areas where Nokia and other companies benefit from a shared effort in creating necessary but generic and non differentiating implementations. And over time we realized that it would actually be possible to map out the areas which are more or less suited to open source engagement. And internally we talk about this approach as the Swiss cheese model are you intrigued. Anyway the cheese represents Nokia's most valuable and differentiating technology and the holes which you know are still part of the cheese other places where open source initiatives could be interesting to pursue. One thing that's worth noting is that we screen not only open source contributions for IPR related conflicts but but also open source usage and our telco tool includes an IPR check function where potential issues are flagged for further investigation. Well hang on I'm like I hadn't noticed this before but you basically have called us nice all this time. That's the first time you've noticed. Oh well I'm a little snow. Oh okay now I know where we stand. Right, the snow road is anyway. Yeah exactly the squeaky voices. Anyways just to quickly summarize what got us here. So our main thing was really to enable the business. Enabling R&D, enabling us to both use and contribute to open source in the kind of like best possible manner. Making sure that there were no artificial boundaries between the R&D teams and the contributions and the usage of open source. To do that we had to recognize that basically patenting and patents and open source can exist in the same organization and make sure that both sides are respected and that was what enabled us to create this process and that the governance around it. But to enable to do that was basically it needed people and it needed the right people like Ingrid said that people had to be handpicked in the kind of like making sure that they are willing to work together they respect each other but especially that they were enthusiastic about open source and that was key to our success here. So like anything else in the end it's just down to people. Isn't it? It is indeed. I have one question for you. Sure. Why did we call this presentation flies like an arrow? Well of course. Would you believe if I would say that it's because it's so efficient our process? Oh yes indeed. Well it actually comes from that that time flies like an arrow fruit flies like a banana. Okay thank you very much. We're now ready to take your questions on the all the channels that where you can send it.


As a recent research paper on the subject of organizational collaboration notes, quote, collaboration does not come naturally for most employees, particularly those born before the millennials. Previous generations were taught that competition was good and that individual hard work, the nose to the grindstone mentality, would be rewarded with steady career progression. The nature of work has changed, however, and the management and knowledge silos that were created in the 20th century are no longer tenable today if organizations are to succeed. Collaboration helps to break down those silos so that organizations can be creative, flexible, and ready to meet the changing, demanding needs of business today. Interdependence is one of the key characteristics of complex systems of all kind. In simpler, linear systems, there is a low level of connectivity, meaning the elements can be relatively independent of each other, but as we turn up the connectivity, these connections become pathways for interdependence. So although interconnectivity and interdependence are two distinctly different phenomena, interconnectivity does create interdependence. As we turn up the connectivity within the system, the parts develop or evolve in relation to each other, and this creates interdependency over time. The development of the modern nation state might be an example of this. During the modern era, different societies around the world declared their independence from each other by forming their own sovereign nation states. Today, with the rise of globalization and information technology, this interconnectivity is increasingly requiring us to recognize our interdependence, whether this is desirable or not. Interconnectivity is making interdependence increasingly apparent whether we're looking at financial systems, supply chains or environmental concerns. The fundamental dynamics to independence and interdependence are very different from each other. Independence invariably creates zero-sum interactions, because the two elements states are independent, one side can win while the other one loses, like two companies competing for the same customers in a market, what one side wins, the other loses. But with the dynamics of interdependence, we get non-zero-sum outcomes, because the state of each element is coupled with that of the other, we get either negative-sum outcomes where everyone loses, or we get positive-sum outcomes where everyone wins. For example, with increased global connectivity, we get the phenomena called complex interdependence, whereby the welfare of our economies becomes dependent on that of others, meaning going to war with another nation is less of a zero-sum game, where one side can win and another loses, and more of a negative-sum game, where everyone loses because of their interdependence. Zero-sum games create attractors towards competition, because it's possible for one side to get ahead by competing and winning against another. Non-zero-sum games create attractors towards cooperation, because everyone loses or wins together. Much of our traditional management apparatus is designed to manage organizations with a low level of connectivity, where we're trying to coordinate independent members around zero-sum games. We do this by building up a centralized hierarchy, where conflict over rival goods can be easily resolved through a clear chain of command. As we turn up the connectivity and interdependence within an organization, the traditional approach of trying to coordinate relatively independent components in a top-down fashion becomes no longer necessary. Instead, we can now harness this interdependency between the members towards achieving the desired global outcomes. This interdependency creates a very different type of organization, what we might call a collaborative organization. Collaboration should not be confused with cooperation, cooperation is when each person on a team develops his or her own plan and shares that with the team. There may be joint discussion, but the focus remains on individual actions and achievement rather than on collective strategy. Collaboration is when two or more members recognize their collective interest in achieving the same overall outcome, and through this, individual goals become subordinate to the collective achievement. A thing to note here is that we're not talking about the level of altruism of the members in the organization, we're assuming that that stays constant. What is happening is that as we turn up the interconnectivity, people come to more readily recognize the interdependency of their actions with those of others and the whole organization, and from this, the need to achieve an optimal global outcome in order for them to achieve their own desired results. Trying to resolve global climate change could again be a good example of this. No society can solve it in isolation. Each society can only really achieve their desired results by the whole organization achieving an effective result. The type of organizational structure used to coordinate the members is then relative to the level of interconnectivity and interdependence. At a low level of connectivity where zero-sum games dominate, it makes sense to use a top-down hierarchical model in order to resolve these conflicting interests through a strong chain of commands. But as the organization evolves to become more complex, it becomes more interconnected and interdependent, and is now no longer necessary or even appropriate to use this traditional model. In these complex organizations, it is more appropriate to switch to a collaborative, bottom-up organizational structure that harnesses these interdependencies to achieve optimal global outcomes. Many traditional organizations structured through hierarchies have a strong dichotomy, with the interests of the entire enterprise only really being closely associated with those of the individuals at the top of the hierarchy. Top management's interests may well often be closely aligned with the overall project, as their positions inherently give them a strong stake in the overall organization, but as soon as we go lower down to mid-management, operations management and the front lines where people are operating within their own departments and functional domains, this connection and interdependence with the whole enterprise is quickly lost in the silos and departments. Meaning that those in the higher strata of the organization have to continuously exert authority and incentives to assure those lower down are acting in the interests of the whole organization. But this authoritative structure that is required at a low level of connectivity is not really required when we turn up the connectivity and interdependence. In such circumstances, through intelligent design, it can be more effective to switch to a collaborative model. Achieving a collaborative organization means directly connecting the feedback loops and incentives of the individuals with those of the whole organization. Whereas within the reductionist approach, we break complex organizations and processes into small parts and then have lots of people focus on those individual stages within different departments. We develop a hierarchy of management above this in order to ensure their activity is aligned and integrated with the overall project. But breaking things down and dividing things up into small specialized units disconnects those performing those activities from the whole enterprise. Thus their activities may no longer become interdependent with others and the whole as local interests come to dominate. Creating this interdependence means directly connecting everyone's local activities to that of the overall enterprise. Placing the overall project at the center of people's activities and enabling people to see their interdependence with others in achieving their own desired results thus fostering collaboration. And this is in contrast to our more traditional incentive structures where we often are incentivizing the individual to achieve. In small organizations, this is not very difficult to achieve. Small traditional communities often exhibit strong social solidarity that is expressive of the dense interactions through which they can recognize the interdependency that drives collaboration. In large complex organizations this is much less easy to achieve and we see this clearly in modern societies particularly in large urban centers where there can be a high level of inequality. In such complex systems we have not yet been able to effectively form collaborative organizations. In such circumstances we have formal traditional organizations or nothing much at all but information technology is changing this by reducing the barriers to interaction, connecting people and giving them information. It is much easier for us now to create dynamic collaborative platforms at low cost capable of coordinating thousands or even millions of people within loosely associated networks. Through information technology it is much easier to directly connect people across the entire organization and directly connect their actions with the overall outcome even in very large organizations to recognize everyone's real contribution to the overall endeavor and make that explicit through feedback and rating systems. The best way to get employees invested in the collaborative process is to give them an opportunity to contribute to a shared vision and purpose. This is about taking the time to articulate the why to everyone involved in the collaborative process or on a particular project or initiative building the values of the organization into everything that is done. Leaders must ensure that all employees understand how their work contributes to the goals of the organization and how collaboration will help them to meet their individual goals. When employees understand their broader purpose they can make more meaningful contributions to their team. What we're trying to do then is change zero-sum games into positive sum games and this is part of the systems thinking paradigm that we don't settle for either or situations where we get one thing but have to sacrifice another. In trying to look at the whole we have the possibility to find integrative synergistic solutions not just new different ways of dividing up the existing pie but actually creating synergistic solutions that make the pie bigger. Instead of going and competing with others for the same resources in a market by seeing the whole system we have the possibility to in fact create an entirely new industry. What is called a blue ocean strategy. And we see this a lot at the moment as information technology gives us new ways to connect people entirely new value propositions and markets are springing up such as Apple creating the iPhone that gave rise to an entirely new app industry that has come from nowhere to the fastest growing market in the US within just a decade. It just goes to show that many situations will initially present themselves as zero sum games with an either or dynamic. But if we're committed to finding integrative solutions we will invariably find a whole new dimension to the situation that is invariably being completely bypassed or underutilized because it is more complex and challenging. Creating positive sum integrative outcomes then requires us to solve the challenges and complexity of this alternative approach. In so doing we make what was previously a more challenging course of action for the members into an attractor the course of least resistance which becomes the default position whilst also being the best outcome for the organization as a whole.  You can't control based on the past. You have to create solutions by creating an attractor context that integrates the micro and macro so as to get the emergence of a future optimal global outcome. For example we already see this starting to happen with alternative technologies whereas previously we had a strong either or dynamic between choosing the easiest cheapest energy source or some other environmentally friendly option. In such a case either you were part of a minority that cared about the environment and was prepared to make that extra effort in order for your activities to be in line with the best overall environmental results or you simply took the default course that resulted in suboptimal macro outcomes. But as we've invested in the development of alternative energy technologies such as solar voltaic they're starting to reach grid parity. We're now moving towards a new attractor that results this zero sum game and may well in the long run turn into a positive sum game of abundance and secure clean energy that was never possible within the previous model. But of course none of this is easy. It is the essence of leadership and leadership is never easy. It truly takes intelligence and long-term commitment to really solving problems. Leadership is not a position within an organization it is being aware of and choosing the course of action the results in the best outcome for the entire organization irrespective of what others choose to do. In any organization there will be a disparity between the micro and macro and part of being a leader is in creating synergistic solutions that resolve this and turn it into a positive sum outcome. In summary then we've been talking about interdependence a key characteristic to complex organizations of all kind. We discussed how independence and interdependence create very different dynamics what are called in game theory zero and non zero sum games. With independence zero sum games may prevail where parts of the organization gain at the expense of others often creating an attractor towards competition. In contrast interdependence changes this dynamic to outcomes that are beneficial or detrimental to all creating a strong attractor towards collaboration. We then looked at how creating collaborative organizations requires connecting people and aligning their incentives and interests with the whole organization and how through systems thinking we can try to identify integrative solutions that turn zero sum either or dynamics into positive sum situations.


Good morning. My name is Jose Ocasio Christian. I'm the chairman of the board of the Cales Foundation and I'm thrilled and I'm excited to have a great discussion here in the next 10 or 15 minutes with Mr. Kevin O'Connell, the founder and CEO of a space economy rising LLC. Also, as many of you know, he is the former director of the Office of Space Commerce in the U.S. Department of Commerce. Kevin, welcome. Really excited to have this conversation with you. Please give us a introduce yourself to the audience that may not know you as well and a background in the space sector. Thanks, Jose. Hello, everyone. Again, I'm Kevin O'Connell. I'm the former director of the Office of Space Commerce at the U.S. Department of Commerce. In that role, I served as the executive branch advocate on behalf of the space commercialization and the U.S. space industry and I was very proud to do that. My career in the space sector dates back almost four decades when I started to look at the emerging markets for commercial remote sensing, satellite imagery, and I've written a number of articles and op-eds over the years on that topic, including my co-edited volume, commercial observation satellites at the leading edge of global transparency that we wrote in 2000 and that looked at the emerging markets for satellite imagery, but also some of the links to security and relations with other sectors of the economy. Kevin, thank you for that response. And what I want to do is drive into some of the questions to help our audience understand better about how you're seeing this space economy and commercialization. From your viewpoint, what are the drivers of the space economy? And how do we move from what you and I both know is a government-driven sector to a more diversified commercially focused sector? Thank you. Great question. Governments are still very, very important in setting national priorities and stretching the boundaries of scientific exploration and actually being a customer of commercial space services. But the real driver of the space economy is imagination and entrepreneurship. This is a key driver. From my time in commerce, American entrepreneurship is broad, deep, and dynamic, and we see entrepreneurs emerging in different areas. Those that want to do commercial functions that exist already in a better way because they have a different technology or they have a business model that's different, people that want to invent new capabilities for space exploration or for creating exciting new services on Earth. We're also starting to see a whole new wave of entrepreneurship in areas related to what I'll call the infrastructure space, whether it be certain technical enablers of space or those that want to train, feed, and house the next generation of spacefaring travelers. And those will be some government people, but they'll also increasingly be just private citizens as well. Very exciting aspect of it. Other factors of course in the space economy, private finance and insurance are key enablers in this area. This is an area which has become much more diversified in recent years. Finance has become much more savvy about what makes a commercial space business successful and how to invest it in many, many different ways, but also the wide range of talent that is needed. Talent is very, very important in the space economy. We know for sure that we're going to need as much technical talent as we can for the hard science and engineering pieces of the space economy, but we also know we're going to need artists. We're going to need business people. We're going to need economists and 100 other fields in order to take full advantage of the space economy. Again, either in terms of exploration or in terms of creating new services here on Earth. Now, Jose, you asked an important question. How do we make sure that this is moving from one sector to another? As people on this discussion actually probably already know, over 80% of what is counted as the global space economy today, roughly $400 billion, is actually commercial in nature. But I think this is an area where our nations need to collectively explore what does the term commercialization mean. But the reality is that commercial activities are growing quite substantially and they're also diversifying. And we're seeing a lot of dimensions of this and we'll talk about it more as we go on. A lot of dimensions that are bringing capabilities to market faster and in a more diverse way. Tremendous amount of imagination out there about things that can be done in and from space. Kevin, I want to thank you for that. And I want to summarize a lot of what you said here. The first part is when you're looking at commercialization, there's that commercialization with the functions of government that you just discussed. And then there are new, I wouldn't say new, they are growing effects of the consumerism as a result of the commercial market. And commercialization takes on both. So, but neither of those can be successful without the right workforce development. And as you know, we don't have, you know, if we don't have enough people from the jobs to filling the jobs, it becomes really difficult. And it has to become a global play, because not one country has it all. They are people around the world that can help with it. So with that in mind, what do you see as the role of market and commercial competition growing in that space economy you and I just described? Well, sure, let me let me go back though to a point you just made a minute ago before I answer the question. You know, I think everyone here recognizes that that our populations, our people don't always recognize how much they're using space in the course of the day, whether it be for checking the weather, whether it be for navigation purposes, or even some of the more sophisticated services that we see going on. And that's the paradox of space. On the one hand, you know, making much, much more use of it than ever before. And that trend is going to continue. But at the same time, not explicitly understanding how important space is. And we'll come to that a little later when we talk about things like space safety. In terms of market competition from the American perspective, this is very, very important. There are a number of ideas. There are many ideas about space exploration and the creation of new services here on Earth. And the best ones typically survive based on competition, you know, who can do something better, who can do something more efficiently, and who can meet customer needs more efficiently and more effectively. You know, what we are witnessing in the global market is the application of commercial efficiencies and business practices to traditional government space acquisition models. And what's that that is having the result of is bringing capabilities to market a lot faster and a lot cheaper and in many ways creating much more diversity. And that's based on competition. People who can actually understand how they have to be the most efficient in the market in order to provide a service at the best possible price and with the greatest possible value to the customer. Very important to mention. Kevin, thank you. I like to transition from that point that you just made into a discussion about your personal perspectives of Chinese companies. Because obviously in your previous job, the global competition for assets and consumerism and all these things that you just presented. Obviously, it was your job to look at China to look at other countries around the world and how they perform or not performing and how that brings to our interests, either impacts them positively or it challenged our interests. So, but, but I'm asking you a personal question at this time. From your personal perspective, how does Chinese companies, you feel can fully participate in the space economy. And what do you think that relationship would be now having participated with the government for a number of years for many years, not just in space commerce or one of the rules as well. We're sure. So let's start with the Chinese government. Obviously, the Chinese government has demonstrated a very serious commitment to space activities, including activities that are often described as commercialization. And, you know, again, in my experience talking on a limited basis with Chinese officials, we have a very different understanding of what the phrase commercialization means, the role of the government, the role of private sector, the role of private finance and others that we've already talked about. And that's something that's definitely worth exploring in a dialogue like the one we're part of here today. US companies will, of course, be both competitors and potential partners in the market. Our business models are very, very different. Typically, US companies partner where there's both a technical and a business value associated with it. In other words, as we would like to say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and where their partners bring in world-class technology and established or recognized business practices. And so those business practices include things like open contracting, transparent contracting and finance, intellectual property protection, very, very important in this area. And, you know, other issues that I would describe under the category of what constitutes fair competition, those early discussions are the basis for potentially US companies partnering in the market. It's taking me a second and I'm here and I'm going to leave that there to recording because that was a lot and I want to capture it because I want to capture it for the audience. The first one that you brought up is language and the definition of commercialization. And what I'm seeing from the other discussions, obviously we're prepared for this, but it's those definitions that clarify the perceptions of how we're going to get to clear business practices. And that includes everything from partnerships, from what is fair competition for those matters. And I think it's really interesting that while most folks, as you and I know, most folks around the world and news media will focus on the technology growth, in the technology and the advancements of policy, you know, the advancement of dialogue to to Dennis, between the businesses or in forums that can do that is so empirical. So so I'm glad we broke that up because what I want to do is break through our last question. And it wraps a lot of this discussion we just had. What now that you've spoken a little bit about all of this, how do you see this US China dialogue dialogue has changed related to commercialization. I shared some of it, trying to capture your words, but I think in your own words is better. And then of course, you having your familiarity with government, you the role of track to diplomatic discussions, not just one but the many in how that works to support commercial growth. So it's a great question. Obviously, the larger strategic relationship between our two nations will shape the discussion about space and the space economy. There's there's no doubt about that. And so it will it will set the context for the types of issues we discuss the depth of the conversation, etc. I believe that the track to is potentially very important for us to explore these concepts of commercialization. And again, the role of the government in commercialization, you know how how the government sustains it over time or not. Again, in the United States, we you and I would go into our garage and say, let's create a company and we may rely on government funding or we may not rely on government funding. And you know, at that point, we could have a completely different business as a parallel path to one that necessity by necessity involves the government as a funder. Obviously, in the governance sense, there's, you know, there's a different story there. I think there are basis for commercialization discussions in the track to dialogue, and even some first step conversations about issues like space safety, for example, something that I spent a lot of time on during my two and a half years of the process. So slow steps, early steps don't mean no steps, but obviously there are some discussions that we believe are worth having within a track to dialogue and I'm happy to be part of that discussion here today. Kevin, you summarized it perfectly and I want to thank you for for the sharing and the comments. Is there anything we missed that you care to share as we assigned off on this dialogue. Well, we see that the future of space is overwhelmingly commercial. And so we think this dialogue is very, very important. Governments are going to continue to play a very important role as well. But the imagination and the entrepreneurship, the creation of these new services that I've discussed is largely and overwhelmingly coming out of the private sector. And I don't see anything that's actually going to change that trend for the next couple of decades. Very exciting times ahead. Kevin, I want to thank you for your time and your service to the US in a variety of roles. And now in your private sector roles. Best of luck on what you're going to be doing in the future. And we hope to see where this conversation goes. So thank you so much. Thank you, Jose. And again, thank you to the careless foundation and to secure world foundation for inviting me to this discussion. Thank you.