licant in the zoning case and we would ask you and the city is bound by the laws just like any other applicant and we would ask you to critically and carefully consider the rezoning that puts in place requirements on property owners have expectations and previously approved plans that complied with the ordinance in place at that time I would tell you that your code says you're to consider the suitability with present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood and the suitability of the subject property for uses permitted by the current versus the proposed district and we would suggest to you that this is just premature in the location of the shopping center at the intersection of highway 40 and 15501 so we would ask to be excluded I thank you for your time tonight thank you good evening, I'm Bob Healy I live at D-39, Sushfield Street I have for most of the last 27 years been either chair or co-chair of the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee and what I'm going to say is roughly consistent with positions of the Sierra Club New Hope Audemann and the Durham Open Space and we have been consulting with them a couple weeks ago when the weather was nice, my wife and I took a hike at the Johnson Mill Triangle Land Conservancy Preserve which is about two and a half miles up the New Hope from the 15501 bridge it is 299 acres it is an investment of well over a million dollars in state and private funds South of it is the Duke Forest, a couple thousand contiguous acres South of that is the Hollow Rock Park which is another million dollars of public and private money if you go to the bottom of the New Hope Corridor, above 54 you find Leafarm Park another million dollars of federal, state local money private money if you go north of there you get both big contiguous tracks and you also get the Chapel Hill Road Park going right up to the bridge now the bridge really is as Reynolds said, a pinch point between two enormous contiguous corridors that have over the last 27 years put together at the expenditure of great cost and treasure the bridge itself as a result of a vote of every single one of the four jurisdictions that the voting authorities was raised by the state reluctantly at a cost of a million dollars to improve the connectivity of this corridor now we have consulted with six ecologists these are people who have lots of experience three have PhDs four of them have worked specifically in the New Hope for 25 and 30 years all of them really know the New Hope well and their recommendation to me has been that A, all the slopes need to be protected we think that the staff recommendation goes a long way toward doing that and secondly, they say that at least 300 feet from the boundary toward 15501 they say needs to be protected frankly I'm not asking for that nor the staff is asking for 200 feet, I'm asking for 300 as something where the values of the New Hope corridor will be considered not a new build zone and we have never ever been density bashers and we think in this case especially with regard to transit and affordable housing we shouldn't bash density what is good design we want is a chance to have the project designed so it does not affect the resources of the corridor now we have had two negotiations with the developer about this, we hope to come to an agreement with the developer the developer will not tell us what he intends to build talk to the ecologists they say look it's not just about coverage it's about light it's about massing, it's about windows it's about vegetation and we think that this idea of a 300 foot corridor in which a special use permit would be required with some added protections referring just to the New Hope plan are an appropriate solution to this dilemma, thank you thank you, John Kent John Kent 394 Cup Creek Road, Chapel Hill North Carolina I am, I have several hats in regard to the New Hope Creek corridor and the Patterson Place Compact Neighborhood, I'm on the board of New Hope Audubon I am a technical advisor to the New Hope Creek corridor advisory committee I'm a regular attendee of the open space committee of DOST and I'm 28 years doing stream watch monthly volunteer sampling on New Hope Creek from Stagecoach Road to North of Calvander in Orange County what I want to say is number one I support the steep slopes proposal as staff has proposed and I want three I I strongly support actually the original staff proposal about the 300 foot setback from the edge of the 100 year flood plane I recognize that state law will probably not allow that so I am willing to compromise to go down slope to the compact neighborhood boundary and I want to point out that this is a compromise a couple of times already on how much setback is done and I want a setback not a to a setback the New Hope Creek corridor is one of the best hardwood bottom lands remaining in the North Carolina Piedmont you have to go Charlotte to the Adkin PD to get something similar furthermore this is a pinch point in a regional wildlife setup which has intrinsic value it has even more value because of its position as a link between very large areas of open space that we have the Jordan Lake Game Lands and the Duke Forest connecting on to the Eno to the North and thank you very much for your time thank you Mr. Kent we are going to close the public hearing that was everyone who was signed up and we appreciate you working with our time limits on the public hearing I expect we're going to have a lot of questions from commissioners some of you may get called back up so if a commissioner specifically asks a question and asks you to come back up we ask that you if you're willing to come back up to the microphone and to help just answer that specific question as we have them but we'll start to my right Commissioner Morgan? Yes I had some comments on the transportation plan from the last person that was I'm sorry I forgot your name but the one for no it was on the pro side yes actually I like your vision in transportation certainly I think a lot of the things with autonomous vehicles of taxis and shuttles I think that provides a lot more vision I'd encourage you to be part of that and many thoughts on that because I know that's changing rapidly from that perspective any comments on that primarily because I see this as the antidote to the problems of the 260 foot and sometimes 310 foot right of way for 15501 I mean as far as I'm concerned the vision for 15501 of converting it ultimately to a freeway I think is old 80s think I think what we have here is an opportunity to create an urban node even if it's just on the Durham side but hopefully in conjunction with Chapel Hill and I would hope that we would seek to integrate through every means possible the north and the south sides and then across I-40 back over to the Chapel Hill quadrants and I think that addresses some of the concerns about the New Hope Commons area and being able to provide access between the two areas yes okay thank you Commissioner Johnson alright so I'll just start with two questions one for staff and one for Mrs. Trios so for staff the comment was mentioned that by Mr. Kent that he didn't think that the state would allow for the 300 feet set back from the slope drop off my question is if the initial recommendation from staff was 300 and it went to 200 just can you provide insight of how you got from 300 to 200 and can you provide any comments is it the case that the state won't allow that 300? Certainly so as we were drafting proposals to bring out to the public and get feedback and then continue to refine the project one of the things that was put out for public comment was the idea of a flood plain setback as we were in further conversation about that tool and consulting with our attorney we do not feel that we have the authority to do that based on the restrictions and environmental protection regulation that have been put in place by the state so then we tried to do tried to figure out a mechanism where we could look at the use intensity adjacent to a use outside the tier a setting outside the tier that's very different from what's inside the tier and came up with a transitional use area mechanism at the same time so the 300 foot distance came from there's there's a lot of literature about what the right distance for different kinds of environmental considerations of buffer is appropriate and we've been presented with information from a couple of different sources of stakeholders in the project related to that the review of those materials show depending on what it is that you're considering whether it's wildlife movement or it's stream buffers or things like that the range can be anywhere from 50 to as much as possible but also looking at the measurements the discussion where the 300 foot distance came from was measured from streams as opposed to flood plain we also realized that in trying to administer this regulation that we really needed to be doing so from a legally defined non-changing boundary so we then revised our proposal to the 200 feet from the compact neighborhood boundary because that compact neighborhood is based on existing easements or property lines or rights of way so that was how we ended up there and so my question hopefully my colleagues my peers are asking some other questions but my question for Ms. Treos am I saying that right? Treos is you're asking for our exemption for your client the owners of New Hope Commons shopping complex and so my as I look at what's proposed my thinking is that this will increase the value of the owners of this complex just simply from a highest and best use standpoint so beyond that what do you see this proposal requiring you to do say from a cost at a cost or whatever that you would not have to do with the existing zoning that you have? Yeah so their fear is with the really prescriptive nature all the architectural requirements on the block perimeter if they're coming in they may be required to upfit their project in a way that they would not be required under the existing ordinance so we've talked with staff about what happens when tenants are being changed in and out as happens in the ordinary course of a shopping center and staff has said to us well those things would not require that you make changes to your shopping center but that's not laid out precisely in the ordinance as we understand it so we're concerned about that we're concerned about adapting small projects that are necessary to maintain the viability of the center and being required to build a very urban intense facility in an area that is not doesn't accommodate that kind of use as it exists today and so this is an ordinance this is not the comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan can serve as a guide and it can be flexible and folks can come forward with zoning cases and say we know the plan says this but there is no way across 15501 today and so we would like to do X here if you put this ordinance in place our clients our property owners are constrained by it it's the law and it seems to me that if we were coming before you as a land owner making this proposal to you given the circumstances as they exist in this area today that you would laugh at us that this is not a walkable area given the improvements that exist there today and my client feels it's just inappropriate to require that they up their facility for something that doesn't exist so they would like to be exempted and if I may Mr. Chairman I forgot to tell you how much I appreciate Lisa Miller's help I've called her probably 25 times and she's been lovely so you have great staff thank you I know that wasn't the scope of your question but that was a lovely thing to say so we'll accept that Commissioner Johnson and I will reserve my general comments and again I will say we're dealing with an enormous amount of information we have three motions so we're going to give this ample time so if folks have additional questions or comments we will come back to you Commissioner Bryant thank you Mr. Chairman I want to start by thanking Ms. Miller, the planning staff all the people who provided input and the people who came out tonight to speak I really appreciate your effort I also want to apologize to my colleagues because going through this has generated quite a few questions I'm going to try to ask some of them first question I hope is simple but attachment A that came with us there were three different numbers for the acreage of Patterson Place attachment I has a fourth number which is 603.28 acres all I want to know is that latter number the acreage that's before us in the proposal tonight yes thank you the gateway station area which is adjacent will there be any compact neighborhood around the gateway station I cannot answer that question with any certainty but I can tell you in the conversations and the coordination that we have had with Chapel Hill staff in the planning department that part of the work that came out of the TOD planning grant was to start drafting regulations for the gateway station area we have reviewed that draft form and there was a lot of consistency with our design district format I know that the timeline of that grant project my understanding is that they were unable to get to conclusion of that but they're continuing to work on that okay thank you you might as well stay there I would be the letter from Nelson Mullins we heard what Miss Trejo said it seems to me and I'm not going to dwell on this that you're being asked very nicely at this point to exclude the New Hope Commons area I just hope you keep talking about it because I don't want it to get nasty and sometimes when you're doing with letters from lawyers things can get a little further along um one of the things that bothers me is the inclusion of I-40 in the area and the removal of portions of our major transportation car to overlay I'm all in favor of having the compact neighborhood to support transit and everything but I for one don't think we should be sacrificing our major transportation car to overlay zone in order to accomplish it and that's just my opinion I do note that down the road there are several improvements proposed for I-40 project ID 45-2 will add I-40 managed lanes from NC 147 to US 15501 and then somewhere further down the line another project will add I-40 managed lanes from US 15501 to NC 86 both of these are considered regionally significant projects and I don't know if it would impact the design of the I-40 15501 interchange or not but I would I just don't think we ought to be infringing on the interstate now I have some questions about these split parcels that you talked about parcel A and parcel B I heard what you said but it seems to me based on the fact that the greater part of these parcels outside of the proposed compact neighborhood and the portion that's outside does have environmental protection why not just exclude these parcels from the compact neighborhood so that was not an option that we considered the boundary so the when the project that completed in 2016 that looked at the compact neighborhood suburb and transit area to the compact neighborhood boundary there was extensively the area was extensively looked at for where the appropriate locations for this boundary to be there are definitely some difficulties in this area because there are some very large parcels that include land that is right up against roadway that's part like the historical part of the kind of developed area as well as going all the way to the edge of the new Hope Creek and so I will say that part of what was established in the compact neighborhood report and part of the reason for including it in your packet is that again making sure that we're using legally defined boundaries so that we have a clear edge of where different zoning regulations apply there were certain easements there's a trail easement, a sewer easement and property lines and rights of way that are used to draw the edge of that boundary and then there was some discussion about protection and increasing steep slope requirements for areas within that but the interest of consistency along the streetscape along the streets within the compact neighborhood I think that we feel confident that we can translate what is a current condition to maintain that protection without pulling any land out of the developable area under this vision for the compact neighborhood you know I think as far as these areas have already been rezoned you know there's got to be well defined property boundaries in the areas that have been rezoned so I can't see the boundaries will be a problem well because part of the area inside the compact is inside that boundary and part of it is out and the parcels are shaped very weirdly also any place that has so there's a mixed use zoning and there's a PDR and leaving that kind of particularly for the mixed use piece if you pull that parcel out it's just a parcel with a restriction and the mixed use area all of the development has been built out under it throughout Patterson Place it's part of a much larger project so it's kind of a weird piece just kind of that's a messy situation that we want to address okay I've heard several requests read several requests from several people wanting to see a 300 foot transitional use area I'm not going to get into the legalities of it I just want to state as I told you when you gave your questions I prefer to see the 300 foot transitional use area and I hope that we can do that I think it offers a little bit better protection I do have a couple of questions about transitional use areas there are trees in these areas and places will those trees be protected so anything that is proposed within that area would require to go through the major special use permit process so the only way that those trees would be removed is if there's permission granted through that process that has those review factors that are related to that applied okay and the slopes that are internal steep slopes that are internal I noticed in my driving around that those also seem to have trees on them so I'm assuming those trees would also be protected so many of the slopes that are internal some of the things that show up on that map are constructed which are exempt from protection but there are there's a kind of in the southeast portion there's a stream that would have a buffer as well as I think a wetland area with protection so those standards are in place okay another thing I noticed in your table of uses all the residential uses have this L which I think means permitted subject to limitations not quite sure I understand that but if I own the single family home say in district S2 should I be worried that something might happen that's going to affect my home so the reason so and this is a point that I think is important to convey is one that came up in the previous consideration of the text amendment that Michael Stock presented to you all the way that our regulations work is that if you come in to try and make a change then the regulations apply so in the case of an existing use there are you know that use can continue there's the ability for that use to change within the existing structure but once you come in to start making changes then what we look at if it's a non-conforming structure which a single family structure may be then we would look at whether the proposed change makes it more conforming that is the threshold so it's a pretty flexible especially compared to the non-conforming use restrictions which are a little bit more restrictive then that is pretty it should be a relatively easy case to make okay referring to this sheet here it seems to me that the core sub-district somewhat lopsided relative to the proposed location of the station and we already saw the proposal to maybe push it out a little bit what do staff think about that so we did slightly expand it based on public input that we received to push it to the west I think part of the reasoning there is because there's existing development whereas the area particularly to the across southwest Durham Drive south of the Ford dealership there's not existing development on a large portion of that property so pushing the core into that was not necessarily desirable again our reasoning was really trying to keep the core small in order to make sure that there is a large area in the support one where that affordable housing bonus has a really big potential impact a suggestion that was made I think at your previous presentation was maybe shrinking the core area just a little bit and setting up a situation where once we fix the core it's going to be there have a core an area that could either be core or support one and leave it up to see what developers would bring in and I've noticed this hasn't changed any from your presentation so I take it that suggestion didn't go over very well well what we're proposing is what was presented based on the public process that we put together and we did respond to the input that we heard from the stakeholders that were involved in that process that is not to say that there couldn't be a change but from the informational item to the public hearing in front of you all didn't seem like the appropriate time to do something like that thank you Mr. Chairman I have a number of little nitpicky things but I'm going to save them till later great can't wait thank you Commissioner Durkin sorry you can you're going to have to stay there all of my comments and questions are based on the affordable housing component with one related but non-density bonus point or comment just there is a provision that says that payday lenders are limited in one section and permitted outright in the rest and I would just like to voice my complete opposition to any payday lenders especially when you're trying to make something like affordable housing conducive and bringing low income people to this area their predatory and should be not permitted at all as an aside so my questions on the affordable housing bonus I have a few of them but the first is these intended to apply to both rental and ownership housing it's not clarified but it's not clear that it would apply to both yeah okay and then how would they be enforced so that's something that again we're working through with the community development department I don't know if you have any more specific information we don't we're working with our community development department to come up with a manual for the enforcement guidelines for the affordable housing density bonus since it is actually in place already and in the comeback neighborhoods well actually kind of wide there wasn't language in the proposed text amendments that would make it clear that they were tied to some kind of rules and regulations and while those could change I think it should be clear that there's something an enforcement mechanism both an enforcement mechanism and rules to follow so if it's ownership maybe there's a deed restriction or if it's rental there's a lease right or makes the tenants aware of the fact that they're in some kind of regulated state of being in their tenancy and have rights that they can enforce because otherwise people are just operating in a vacuum but you don't have I don't think you have to describe those in this text but it needs to link to something where it's clear that there are rules and regulations and I don't think it does that right now I believe that it's in the the 6.6 6.6 the affordable housing density bonus section there does lay out what the city can do to enforce it which is probably not included it's in the code but not in the handout okay got it that's good to know and then one thing really kind of to both any new development that would occur but also the existing naturally occurring non-regulated affordable housing how is there any how do we know that people who are actually low income or under 60% of AMI going to be the renters because while the rents could be lower that doesn't mean that the tenants are actually low income so it could be higher middle income people benefiting from lower rent which I don't think at all is the intention of any of this right so there's nothing that we can do to regulate that obviously with the naturally occurring affordability however if we were to be able to preserve that affordability then that would come with the income restrictions that are also in place for the anything that would be created under the affordable housing and I guess there was mention of incentives to preserving the naturally occurring affordable housing and is there any movement on what that looks like that has not been fleshed out enough to be able to tell you this is how we do that but it is something that has been discussed quite a bit as an important priority for not just our transit areas but in general looking at the areas where there is naturally occurring affordable housing that that's a great opportunity and a lower cost opportunity and creating the new development providing those units. I think my last question is how long the regulatory restrictions or restrictions in general would apply to housing created under the bonus structure in order to provide a better understanding of the needs of the community. I'd like to echo commissioner Brian's thanks to everyone for coming and for the comments we have a lot of good feedback and we have a very big packet and I especially want to thank Lisa for the staff report. of consequences. So I'm gonna ask you some more about that and kind of follow up on Commissioner Durkin's questions about housing. So I'll start with something that struck me and I you know some of this I mentioned last time. On page seven of the report you say that the current proposal allows right 145 feet of height by right in the core but with the by right densities that you have proposed you say that this approach will likely encourage more non- residential development in this area in close proximity to the station right in the core. So can you say more about that? I want to hear kind of your take on it before I sure I think that it's more so as you're looking at the compact neighborhood as a whole and what the intensity regulations are both in height and density by having a relief from a suppressed height that requires affordable housing to allow greater height then that would allow the non- residential uses in the location that we want them to be at an intensity that is greater than what is allowed by right elsewhere. So it is not necessarily saying you have to put office here or encouraging office there but it is it is creating a situation where you're going to be able to get greater intensity of that use within the core. Okay so let me ask you to stay on this I think Mr. Hikes is that right from go triangle spoken favor of this proposal but you also wrote a letter to us from go triangle that I think the suggestion from go triangle was that the densities be higher so I think in the core they suggested 35 to 45 units per acre and then S1 and S2 all of those are higher than what is in there is what you're proposing and can you so can you say more about that because that's also that applies to S1 and S2 I'd like to hear. So the feedback that we have received related to the bonus has been very interested in keeping those by right densities low and so what we did is we reached out to the TOD planning consultants that were go triangle was managing that grant process asked them to help us it's very hard to define what's the minimum transit supportive density but we asked them to using their national expertise help us answer that question and what they came back with was about 25 units per acre within a quarter mile of the station so that was kind of where how we ended up at lower numbers than what go triangle was looking for okay and again there's a lot of different things that go into what supports transit looking at what your parking policies and parking pricing looks like and a whole host of other things but that was kind of their best boil it down to a number okay so I guess what concerns me is that the core right now as it is currently is relatively you know new commercial and a lot of asphalt and parking so there's and I guess I'll ask the question that Mr. Waldrop had which is why not extend the core you know northeast of Southwest Durham because that I mean you said that there's vacant land there I would think that you would want to have some core there to to promote I guess what I'm worried about generally is that we are and by your own admission that we are potentially encouraging commercial in the core and hoping that residential will go in the s1 and s2 right but but s1 you know parts of it are more than you know half a mile away from me I'm just kind of looking at the you know quarter mile more than close to half a mile away from the station one of the things we got feedback on is that people are more likely to use transit if they're within a quarter of a mile and so it seems to me like we're creating an incentive here for commercial and I'm not even sure if we're creating an incentive for office in the core and having residential be a little bit further out I don't I guess I don't quite understand the logic of that especially if we are trying to get people within a quarter of a mile so my understanding is different from yours okay that the quarter of them not the quarter of a mile the six there's a 600 foot area where office uses places where people are going to jobs using the transit to get two jobs is an important area for office use and then the area within a half mile of the station is the area that is typically used as this is it this is the area within which we create transit oriented development in order to support the transit and that the residential uses are you're going to get more ridership from residential users that are further from the station because again the proximity of your job to the station is more important for choice riders than it is for having your residents that close but that court there that half mile area is the area that's kind of defined as the the walk shed the 10-minute walk for that area okay station thank you so is there no reason to require particular uses I mean if we if we want a good mix of these things read the residential office and commercial there's can we not require that we're not required to mix you know require mix use or something in these zones or we could require mixed use but we are going to so one of the things that we're trying to balance with the design districts we are create so I guess to take a step back certainly form-based districts in general are moving away from dictating use in order to a look to focus on the the way that buildings are interacting with the public space and creating environments that are positive for people to be in we have never done a sort of strict form-based code where we divorce use from those form standards and don't have intentions to do that but one of the one of the potential criticisms which you heard from the representative of one of the current property owners is that regulating the form and the streetscape and design elements is very restrictive so when you take your typical land use your typical zoning of commercial there's not a lot of restrictions on what you can't like what your building has to look like what the public space around the building is that there is public space around the building and we're putting a lot more emphasis on that so in order to in some respects it's offsetting some of that where we're allowing greater flexibility for your interior space and if we start getting into a particular required mix of uses we already know that there is difficulties in getting financing for it's more difficult to get financing for mixed use projects than it is for single use projects in most cases it's more difficult to get developers to want to do those things and so adding those two things together seems like it would be a concern to actually get implementation of this vision that we have for how this place changes thank you so I am concerned about this because I I think that we are potentially creating some unintended or we don't know what the consequences of this will be especially on housing both supply and affordability of housing in this area and I if you look at the two reports that we got attachment a was from a few years ago and it looked like I mean roughly speaking there were 30% of units in this area were affordable to 60% am I or less and if you look at the more recent numbers it's seven and a half percent are affordable to 60% am I unless or less now you know can we do anything to stop that I'm not sure that we can but I am concerned that we're going you know we don't know what the consequences are we may be encouraging more commercial here we may be encouraging people to build nice apartments that are not going to be affordable at all I am really I you know to come Commissioner Durkin's point about how can you how can we preserve the naturally occurring affordable housing units I'm not sure there's anything in here that does that and it's possible that we're going to have the opposite effect you know I looked at some of the you know we got our tax valuations recently and I looked at some of those around there and you know they have gone up considerably I mean I'm not sure how that will factor into rentals and all that but I I'm really concerned and I guess my you know my big point is that you know so from the expanding housing choices report we saw that the biggest shortage is for small units is for you know one unit you know one or two people and I'm not sure that we are creating those kinds of potential incentivizing these kinds of residential units in this area I'm you know my I guess my big or what I would like to say is or what I would like to see is for us to really study the effects of this a little bit more I'd like to point out I know this is it's hard to get exact numbers on what the effects of this will be but I'd like to point out that you know just a couple of months ago we we passed an amendment that said if a neighborhood proposes an NPO the staff will look into how that would affect housing supply and all that I think we should do something like this like that for this you know we should really assess what this is going to do to affordable housing in this area what it would do is supply I know there's a lot of moving pieces but I think if we go through with this we are likely you know we're creating a policy that's at odds with what the city the city stated intent is to create or to have 15% affordable units around transit stops and we are already lower and I you know my gut tells me that this is just based on the fact that people developers have not used the density bonus very much or at all I'm skeptical that that is going to change in this case I'm worried that it's going to promote again more commercial or redevelopment so I you know I'm going to vote no on this I think you know the last case that we had on landscape and trees I had hesitations but I voted in favor of it because it's I thought it was in the right direction I'm worried that we're something this big if we pass it we may the consequences of it may you know be negative in a way that we can't undo so I'm going to vote for against it and urge you to do the same to my commercial thank you vice-chair Hyman yes I have a question for staff a part of a presentation that was made to us indicated that a number of clients within this compact district want to opt out or be exempted you know from participation and I my question to you is under what circumstances could that happen so we have some pretty substantial comprehensive plan policies get as well as direct work program and direction from our elected officials to pursue putting design district zoning in place in the compact neighborhood tier that is not to say obviously when this goes to council for the rezoning for their action they have the ability to modify that but we feel like there is substantial direction to continue on that front as well as substantial justification for why it should not be detrimental for that entity it's one entity to be part of this district so there is the possibility for council to make that call we don't feel that there is a good logical argument for why we should promote that okay and the other part of my question would be allowing an entity to opt out yeah I mean what effect would that have on the greater project so I will say that with the so one of one of the important things is that the street network is kind of looking at this entire area as well as connectivity across interstate 40 that network applies to the compact neighborhood tier not to the zoning district and so it would still be applicable if the property was removed from the zoning it would be a lot harder for us as that property if that property redeveloped we don't have the same street standards like the street designs in place outside of design districts and so there would be some some issues with continuity and kind of creating that more multimodal human friendly street network that's such an important piece of this project thank you Commissioner Miller thank you Mr. Chairman I'm gonna start with some of the technical things on page 16 where we are looking at 3 3 2 e and we're talking about drive-in windows and it says any speaker systems associated with the drive-through facility shall be designed located so as to not adversely affect adjacent uses I don't think that's an enforceable standard that is existing language that's repeated I realize that I don't think it's an enforcement standard work on some modification I think it needs to be a little tougher even if if it needs to say where it could be located or something I don't know but I think that that doesn't quite make it and I had the same criticism when we did it the first time whipping through here so now I'm on page 24 I'm at 1613 D no excuse me C to B and so we're talking about exemptions for buildings with one or two dwelling units and I look at the exemption in a and that's a sentence and in B it's not a sentence I noticed that earlier today and just to be clear those exemptions are related to requiring a non-residential use on the ground floor and that's not clear from the way I'll make sure that it is clear but we still it should be a sentence thanks and then my biggest concern out of the way everything is drafted is not is we're in the transitional use area which I actually as a result of your presentation have a much greater appreciation of than I did when I was just reading this and trying to reconcile what I was hearing from the community about whether this was the way to go I get it now but I still think that we've got problems and it needs work so we have factors not standards they are statements of they're essentially not even sentences they don't express policy in other words preservation of tree cover that to what degree are we in favor of it and then the standard is essentially is adequately addressed well adequately addressed is not a standard against which a legal standard which against which performance can be measured when you go to the board of adjustment it's okay to have leeway but it's got to be a standards guided decision making so that if I go to the board of adjustment and I'm turned down I can go to the court and say you know the standard is this and they clearly didn't follow the standard this doesn't have a standard especially in five it's other review factors that aren't even named are adequately addressed I just think that we need to say more specifically what we want out of these standards what's good that we are looking for or what's bad that we want to avoid in and how we develop inside the TUA and so I can't vote for this until this is fixed I would like to be able to vote for this but if we are just gonna if we're gonna push it through tonight then I have to vote no if we could delay this for a little while while we could tighten these standards up and make them especially standard number one really get at what the advocates for the New Hope Creek corridor are trying to protect to give to send a clear signal to the development community and what they should be proposing for a use permit and then also that the decision-makers and since it's major special use permit I'm assuming we're talking about counsel and I've always had some misgivings about conducting quasi-judicial proceedings at the council level is that still the difference between major and minor I would be much more comfortable with sending to the board if it just only different but so but I leave that to you and to and to my uppers on the city council but I would like to have stricter standards that tell the people who have to follow them what's good what am I supposed to be accomplishing and if there are more of them or if they are written longer well perhaps that doesn't worry me but it's adequately addressed isn't good enough as a as a legal standard in my opinion now I could just we can certainly I'm not saying this to say that we can't modify the language but this language was drawn from the major special use permit section of the ordinance that exists using some of the language from the review factors and beefing it up so I just wanted to put that out but it's still a problem I'm not thinking about this for letting you know where it came from I have lots of concerns and I've expressed these for a long time I was very involved in the development of the Night Street design district which is the only non downtown design district that we've got and we did a lot of things that were right and we did a lot of things that in my opinion were I wish we hadn't done we did some things wrong and we did some things that worked out okay but it wasn't because we we shaped it or planned it and based upon that experience I think we do design district planning incorrectly and I'm not talking about the public outreach and going on that's good I think that for each design district we need to create a design district plan which then gets put into the comprehensive plan and in it we should lay out the goals of the design district in it we should draw the map and say for the initial rezoning for the design district zones will should look like this and then say but then as the design district develops over time identify say possible expansion area for core possible expansion area for support one possible expansion area for the design district and say draw dotted lines outside and then say but for these expansions to occur these are the things that we would want to see happen here we and that way we could start with a small core the development community could look at the comprehensive plan and say well I wish I had the I own the support one property next to the core I wish it were core and so we could look in there and say okay this can be core if if the project he brings in say with a development plan because you're gonna have a development plan with design district zones and we can then shape our design districts grow we the way we do it now is we throw it on the ground and we that it all turns out right let's not do that I I don't see any reason why we have to we have comprehensive planning we can use a comprehensive plan to say this is our these are our expectations for design districts start small give away the core give away some support one but then save to expand it these are the things we want and then we can shape how it grows project by project that's the way we ought to be doing this and I feel strongly about it I wish we actually did it a little bit with night street because we adopted a plan and then we adopted the text ordinance and then we applied the text and we did that in stages over over months I would like to do that as we move forward because we have lots of these to do and they're hard to do you're you've been doing the work and I appreciate it I want to talk about affordability because I attended it's been years ago now but it doesn't seem that long ago because what was said was so true I attended a JCC PC meeting and people from the planning staff with interns had interns one year and you said go out and find places where our affordable housing dense where affordable housing density bonuses are working and find out why there's work on our stuff and they came back and they said two things one is you got to have a three to one or four to one ratio for the bonus and the other thing is is that you can't already have development limits that make that disincentivize and so we are finally doing that here by dropping that height in support one down to 45 that's bold and I think it's great what is the height limit in support one in night street don't know I can see this is licensed to make something up but it's a lot more than 45 feet because that's the height limit in support to and we're building and we know that the real limitation in the way we we build residential dense residential projects isn't the zoning code it's the building code it's the how much wood frame you can put on two floors of concrete podium we know that this drives this says cuts under that and it no longer is what controls what developers build we now have zoning back doing it again and this is a good thing one of my concerns though about this design district and the way we've done all design districts is is that people slip in and do rezoning up underneath them just as we're pulling the plans together so first of all we've got a lot of relatively new commercial old-timey commercial strip shopping centers it's just this district is flooded with them and they're not going to go away there you they have lots of useful life there and the people who are not going to say oh goody we can do more we already have the example of one who says not who would like to be able to continue to develop the old way and I worry that it'll that it'll be so long before we see redevelopment of the existing commercial and this particular design district that a lot of the plans and policies that we are making today and just throwing on the ground are not going to be relevant at the time redevelopment begins to occur that's why I like this planning idea better because we can continue to mold and shape and what have you we don't have to go back and recapture what we've already given away it's easy to relax the code it's hard to make it stricter again so I wish we were doing it that way but I do like the boldness of actually adding that in that other component make your your affordable housing bonus more liberal in that in that you drive the ratio of which is it now three units there's so by removing the density limitation you like you're not then still restricted by a number of units that's then going to drive the size of units but you're actually removing the right right so just it's just a height bonus yes so whatever you can build within building code in the massing allowed with that overall height is what your density can be right you can go up in height but you still have to include a certain number of units in order to build to exploit it the other thing is as we've removed all other incentives we no longer have you know when they when we did the night Street district there were all kinds of density bonuses that was one for public art what I called the concrete sea horse density bones the we've fortunately got rid of that but so I think this is good I think the core is still too big simply for this reason is is that once you give somebody core it's you've given it away we're done so what zoning is over for that piece of property forever because it's our most permissive zone apart from what we have done in the research triangle park which I was against that too so so there's so much about this that I really like and I would love to fix it and vote for it let me ask a question if I understood you correctly in response to the questions that some other people were asking though the city's legal people have had trouble with the idea of a of a setback from the edge some some defined edge or reasonably defined edge inside the Newark Hope Creek Corp. said well that's a problem but so we went to the transitional use if the transitional use was distance was 300 feet instead of 200 feet is there a legal problem with that if we did that based upon because I know that when you pull together all the people who are stakeholders and what have you kind of a compact is formed and when you start messing with it then you're messing with the kind of agreement that people came to the consensus with people would there be a stay an identifiable stakeholder group out there that would howl so I would say that the reason that you heard what you heard from folks who came to speak tonight is because there's not 100% agreement that there's there's that distance is there's still some disagreement by the various parties is it possible to have it be 300 feet near the pinch point that has been identified and maybe 200 feet further away where the where the corridor is much wider potentially in other words but that's essentially a mapping exercise that's not impossible and then finally I have a lot of sympathy for the New Hope Commons developer it's not a form of development that I like very much but I buy the argument that right now there is one vehicular crossing there there is no there is no pedestrian crossing that I would want to do when I have my sign out and I'm collecting coins I don't cross that street it's scary and if we make it a divided limited access highway and we separate the grade at that point which is a currently one of our plans I think it even gets scarier because I do occasionally walk the Lundale Fulton which has ramp all kinds of ramps coming together and there are cars coming from lots of different directions and they are looking to exploit vehicular opportunities and they're not thinking about me as a pedestrian and it's scary I have always had some misgivings about whether or not everything on the other side of 15501 from Patterson Place ought to be involved here right now we have one property owner who's on the northern edge of this district who would like to be opted out I do not see why letting them out it affects the integrity of what we propose for the district and also what we propose for the larger area in terms in terms of connectivity so I would like to really consider that unless there are stakeholders that feel like somehow letting that new Commons shopping center out of there is going to mess up the plan of salvation and I'm not suggesting this because I believe we shouldn't rezone something when when a property owner doesn't like it I'm but I do I am sympathetic and I want to look at the reasons for the when they complain I think that we have to give the reasons for inclusion stricter scrutiny and I am swayed by not all the arguments that Mr. Aho listed in her letter but certainly the first couple of them resonated and so I would like to delay this so that we can have better standards and that we can look at the width of the transitional use area in a way that responds more effectively to the concerns of the New Hope Creek corridor I have Hildegard Riles somewhere back here just have to be able to go home face her and then and then also talk about this situation with Ms. Trejo's client I would love to have 60 days to look at those things and see if we can have better standards better transitional use area and a more effective ultimate boundary for the stakeholder property owners involved so if the appropriate time I'd like to be an opportunity to make that motion and we will come back yes thank you I would like to just hear now before we continue with additional questions and comments from staff on on that that notion of a 60-day or 30-day continuance I'm asking now because sometimes motions get put on the table and seconds happen and things move quickly what does the staffs take are there specific issues we need to understand say that our resources are limited with what we can work on and so if we delay the 60 days we're delaying every other project we need to work on 60 days and we've been at this for three years thank you additional questions and comments let's start here let me I'm gonna start with the commissioners who haven't had a chance to speak yet and then we'll circle back so commissioner Kenshin yeah I want to first come in staff this is actually outstanding work I know how hard you guys worked I'm always impressed by the professional planning staff so another great job I worry though that we're this is very good and I worry that we're letting the perfect be the enemy of the of the good of the very good and I would caution the commission not to do that this time and I'm taking a back by something that commissioner our talk said to about affordability and you know being someone who advocates for affordable housing I would be really upset if we were doing something that was going to be against affordable housing so I'm curious as to what I know I don't know if Dr. Savara is here on behalf of the coalition for affordable housing in transit but I know they worked hard and I respect the work that they do in their opinions I'm just curious as if they've got a position about again I don't know that we that we know we don't have a crystal ball to know exactly what's gonna happen but I'm curious as to whether there's any kind of indication from you all or whether we're on the right path and to have what we anyone I'm not sure I'm just calling on Dr. Savara but anyone well and I would actually say I appreciate your direct question and mr. Savara I actually would rather not have a question of anyone here to answer the question but mr. Savara if you are willing to offer your thoughts to the question okay and so of for those watching at home there's been no group discussion yet from an affordable housing standpoint the floor is yours Commissioner Kenshin if you have additional no no that's that's it I just think that again I think I love the density bonus and I think that it could work I think it's a really good shot we don't know but I think it's the best like Commissioner Miller said it's a really good shot and I like this when I like to see us take so I'm gonna be voting in favor of this I know it's not perfect I don't know that ever will be perfect despite how many hours and how many years I think you said you worked on in three years but I think it's very good and I'm gonna vote in favor of it thank you Commissioner Hornbuckle yes ma'am I do appreciate all the work is going to it I'm still kind of on the fence though as to with with the with the New Hope Commons side maybe you can clarify it or clear me up some but it's just suppose something if we did approve this and and New Hope Commons was was was still was included in this and something happened as such has happened you know in Raleigh 35 years ago in a tornado or fire something and a lot of businesses are really damaged or destroyed over there where where they put them at a ground zero of having to start and go back to comply I just I'm really confused on that matter sure so we have had as Mr. House mentioned had several conversations about this property and her clients concerns one of the things that we have made sure is the case as we put design district zoning in place we understand that it's going to create nonconformities or or in some instances continue nonconformities and make more aspects of the property nonconforming and that's why we make sure that we have nonconformity provisions that can address some of those situations so with this particular site the New Hope Commons site nothing about this proposed rezoning would create a nonconforming use the uses that are there are allowed under the provisions of what we have proposed in addition the current zoning of that site is commercial center where the I forget the exact word but the the primary use has to be commercial right whereas the design district zoning actually allows greater flexibility in what uses you can have within that existing structure without having to make changes to the structure and then if you do want to make changes to the structure then the litmus test is are you becoming more conforming to those new standards than you were before so you just have to demonstrate that you're moving in that direction you don't have to comply you don't have to build under these rules you have to show that you're coming into greater conformance and then in the situation you mentioned where a destruction of the the structure happens with a nonconforming structure you are allowed to reconstruct without a minor special use permit process just a by right process to the existing or the previous footprint okay well I feel better about that in my but my also as mr. Miller said my one of my biggest concerns is I would feel much more comfortable with the 300 foot buffer in the creek area and if it could the borders could be set back but at the area closest to the creek area I really feel that should be a 300 foot buffer and I feel much more comfortable with that thank you commissioner harm buckle we will circle back for additional comments we'll start it just for my sake and keep it easy commissioner Morgan okay I have just a couple comments just listening to this I think there's just certain areas that I think really I you know appreciate what staff's done and putting this together I think we do need to tighten this up a little bit more in in those areas of certainly understanding looking for ways to bridge to say the New Hope Commons being able to do something in considering how we do it I think of like the North Hills area in Raleigh where they have ways to get across that busy street and six forks I mean I think there's some things that could be done better there that we could incorporate into the plan and those are part of that 15501 corridor study that's ongoing right now as improvements to that yeah and so I mean I think there's ways to do that and expanding the core is is one area to and being able to promote more I guess what I'm thinking and we talked about mixed use being able to provide more people close to this to the station as well as have commercial use as well so I do think there's ways to try to prove it I understand the concerns and comments made about it may be more restrictive and getting financing and other things like that but anyway my my impression right now is it does need a little more tightening a little more tweaking to this before we can move forward with this thank you mr. Johnson mr. Brian thank you mr. Chairman I'll try to go through these things fairly quickly page 16 number to be at the top drive-through facilities shall only be permitted for bank or pharmacy uses anything wrong with fast food so we actually don't allow drive-through facilities in any of our other design districts and this provision was a response to specific feedback from the stakeholders in this process for those particular uses are you going to restrict the number of lanes that was a I got your email and I appreciate that comment we have not incorporated changes based on comments from that but that's certainly something that we can look at incorporating into that section okay because as I pointed out a lot of bank drive-throughs you might have three lanes that where you can get service from the bank on the fourth lane for an ATM so you know how many lanes are we talking about on page 17 just in front of outdoor recreation this county only within the SRPC district the following shall apply that's just a num because the renumbering okay included just for that purpose apologies for any confusion with the excerpts on page 18 item number four as you're coming down the page and then further down item number five it's phrase starts in the RR district is that correct that is an existing provision that is in place yes okay I didn't write that one that was a little can play Mike maybe that's that's that's a little maybe older than when he was working on page 28 item number C3 you say open space amenities are you sure you don't mean public space amenities thank you for catching that and other two comments I would make I'm also think that we need a little bit more time to digest this and maybe polish it I agree with the Mr. Miller's comments about having more better enforceable standards for example I think you a yeah I think you know we need to spell some more things out and I'm also I don't know that we can do anything about it unless we have more standards put in place at some future time but I am also concerned about the affordable housing situation I agree that we might be doing something that is not what we really wanted to do with the way it stands now that's all I have thank you Commissioner Brian Commissioner Durkin thanks for being patient one question related to the New Hope Commons development there was mentioned that there were outfits that would have to be made based on this change but I just want to make it clear there is nothing that they would need to do that's their current structures yeah there's until somebody wants to make changes and again changing the uses inside the structure so long as those uses are permitted which again this would expand the allowable uses that can occur but if there are going to be changes that they propose to the building and site that's when the standards start to kick in okay thanks Commissioner Turk thank you chair quick question Lisa you mentioned stakeholders and I know you've been working on this for a while have any affordable housing advocates been part of this process I mean I appreciate Commissioner Kenshin meant you know asking for input have you gotten input both either you know positive or negative on this yes we have had and I don't know all of the members of the coalition affordable housing in transit but I know at least one other of their members has has showed up and been involved in our public meetings and showed support for this as well as other folks in their responses to the proposals at those public workshops and and outside of those responding positively to the proposal but nothing since we've gotten the full draft or or anything that includes with the full draft so the last public meeting that we had was in October of last year before we started preparing the items for the adoption process and that not only had it wasn't just concepts it was the full draft text at that point which hadn't hadn't changed from the concept that was provided at the previous meeting that we had heard support for and again had support for thank you additional comments or questions from commissioners I do want to just reiterate before we have a motion and Mr. Gibbs I will recognize you as well we really even if we were voting tonight for or against or to allow additional time to can tighten this up really appreciate the exemplary work of the staff this is very hard stuff and I understand the challenge of putting it off and some additional commitments that that might entail but but I also think it's important to get it done fast but to get it done right and so I've heard some good comments that I think we want to take under consideration tonight as well commissioner Gibbs just just a few comments every question and statement that's come from this commission tonight indicates and and it's my feeling to we need more time to study and I think staff maybe could benefit from whatever input from from us from other bodies other people when this thing started out I was at a meeting last night and I mentioned I made a comment that this and it was about the light rail the light rail started out as a transportation project but it has evolved to a development project no matter what anybody says that's what it is and it is probably can be considered as both but just to comment for instance about the affordable housing we have had issues with trying to set an affordable housing plan or requirement or whatever it can be called for years just in the city the same process is going to occur along these rail stops and in Paris in place and in other areas so we can expect just because this is on a light rail line or has access to it it's not going to settle the issue we're still going to have the same problems to try to work with to come up with solutions for well that's just my frustrations and I think we've we've all said enough tonight and it's and I do appreciate what the staff has done Lisa she'll appreciate this you've given us another Bible and thank you to you to all of the staff thank you thank you Commissioner Gibbs I don't see any additional comments I do see staff willing to reiterate one more time when I say other projects will be delayed I mean the new comprehensive plan will be delayed by two months if you you all vote because that's that's our trade-off that that's important to note I what I do hear though from the Planning Commission is a general sentiment saying we're not saying to start over we're recommending to hone in on two or three specific areas that we believe would be important and I say that because I don't want the guilt hanging over us for two months of the comprehensive plan being set aside if what we're saying is we want to make sure that we have a little additional time to understand the affordable housing implications even though we've done a lot of work there we want to look at the the pinch point of 200 or 300 feet setbacks and we want to allow additional conversation around the New Hope Commons question so I mean is that is that accurate that if we're saying these are the three things we'd like additional time and energy on that the comprehensive plan just sits in the parking lot for two months it's a lot of work with my my primary resources that would be working on the comprehensive plan I think that's something you could certainly put in your comments as to explaining your vote that stuff will definitely get worked on before it goes to City Council and County Commissioners if we have those comments tonight we can provide that to them when we do our work session presentations in March just be advised that if it's not just two months it also means that two months from now you would put it at the June City Council meeting which is a budget hearing so it would mean they would have to go to August so it's effectively four months delay so just want you to keep all that in mind before you vote thank you Commissioner Bryan I understand exactly what Scott is saying but my only counter argument is is that I believe we need to take the time to get this right Commissioner Miller so Mr. Chairman I move that we continue case TC 18 quadruple zero nine until the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting in April and during that time it is our hope that we can get the staff to look at and revise potentially the following items one would be the width of the transitional use area from 200 to 300 feet the second one would be tighter and more enforceable standards with regard to the issuance of use permits inside the transitional use area the third item would be the advisability of excluding from the proposed design district the property that is the new Hope Commons shopping center and then the fourth item may have to ask for some assistance on his concerns about affordability especially with the is it the size of the core or for those of you who are concerned about affordability what is it that you want staff to look at well I need more time to think about that so and I'm not I'm going to vote no on the continuing so there's if they want to oh did you you mentioned affordability and I actually might recommend that just for ease of this vote that we understand the intent if you're voting for it I believe there are just a few items that folks on this Commission are hoping we might tighten up an address but it may just be so I'll stop at those three items and that's my motion second all right well that is properly moved and seconded before we vote I do want to allow time for any discussion and to be clear if you think we need to vote on this this evening whether you're going to vote up or down you should vote no on this motion but any discussion commissioner out there and then commissioner Brian yeah I mean I will vote no on the continuous because I I think you know it seems like staff doesn't want it they are I know you've got a lot on your plate right now I'll be voting no if we vote for tonight but I want to at least give staff the the option to just go through with it so the good news your vote no either way that's right yes it's an easy mr. Brian I'm feeling yeah I'm I will vote yes for the continuance if I have to vote up or down the night I'm also voting no because I think it needs more work put into it despite all the work that's been done and in addition to you know I know mr. Miller listed a few things I'm going to just go ahead and send some comments to staff anyhow things that I've identified that I hope they can look at if we do continue Commissioner Johnson I just want to be on the record to say that I will vote no for the continuance because and because I'd rather just vote tonight because I want to vote no as well and not doing this because necessarily staff is overwhelmed I'm more of a do it right rather than you do it right you actually do it like you do it wrong you do it long so it may be the case that the City Council has sent the same concerns and voted down and send it back so may still be on a delay and so I don't think that taking the considerations of the time constraints if it's not where we feel that we can get it and I don't think that this is a function of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of good here but we've identified where there are opportunities for us to really do better you know you don't have to get it absolutely right to get you don't have to be perfect to be good and so I just I'm gonna vote no because I think there are opportunities to improve it to a point where you can satisfy all almost all of the concerns I don't think the fort of housing thing is gonna be solved with this just given what we're trying to do here but beyond the other concerns and issues that were raised I think that they can be addressed and you know time constraints shouldn't limit us from doing the best that we can to create a product that works for Durham and the people who will directly and directly be impacted by it thank you Commissioner Durkin I'm also voting against the continuance I think we were able to make it a vote and reflect our comments in the comment section and have that pass on to council great and Commissioner Gibbs and my my approach is from the other direction I'm going to vote for this with a whole bunch of notes as cautionary as things to be questioned explored and if it doesn't come from city council or county commissioners and whoever else gets to review it that's tough and Commissioner Miller well the reason I put the motion is I want to vote for this we we need a design district here we need a good design district here it should be reviewed by this body and I would like to have us have an overwhelming majority voting for it when it goes to council so we send a clear signal rather than ten different sets of comments and signals and if it takes 60 days then and I realize resources are limited and those things but I think we need to get it right and we need to pull together and work work together I don't think any other body is going to give this at the decision-making level the degree of review that we have done this is a great planning Commission and we need to take advantage of of what we have to offer and I like it when we send strong signals rather than a whole bunch of mixed signals which authorize the people who get the signals to ignore them that's why I would like to have this be better I would I don't want to vote no on this because we got to have a design district very brief Commissioner Gibbs I just want to comment mr. Chairman I agree with the comment I know I'm supposed to address you but that miss that messes my mind up anyway he's listening to the bodies that this goes forward to we're the planning Commission there should be communication back and forth on something like this on anything that is of importance we can't just operate in a vacuum from each other and just scribble a few notes and say here y'all settle it and I guess what I'm saying is on this and on anything from this point forward there needs to be organization as far as their questioning us conversations with us our conversations with them I find out a lot of information from them to maybe that wouldn't muddy the waters I don't know but I do think there needs to be a more cohesive approach to settling issues like this I don't know if anything else the staff can do except for whatever they're instructed to do if they've got the time and and their bosses are not us it but it is the council and so that's that's just my thinking on it thank you so the question before us is a two-cycle continuance with specific areas we'd like to address and we'll ask for the roll call vote please Commissioner Morgan yes Commissioner Johnson no Commissioner Brian yes Commissioner Durkheim no Commissioner Turk no Commissioner Hyman no Commissioner Busby yes Commissioner Miller yes Commissioner Kenchin yes Commissioner Hornbuckle yes Commissioner Gibbs yes and the motion passes seven to four thank you all very much we have just one question under new business but there may be other items for steps with other items with this item that you probably need to take action on and let's we that took action for all three Mr. Chair mr. Miller's motion for continuance I thought only covered TC 18 oh sorry staff would just was talking that since they have to go together that they'll have to continue together and track together all three motions will need to track together we'll just combine them yeah okay mr. Miller that was my intention yeah okay that's fine I just wanted to make sure that was your intention if that was my intention okay great so so to just say that on the record the motion that was approved by a seven to four vote was a two-cycle continuance for the three items that were paired together right thank you are there any other staff updates so I did not provide and may I ask if if you're may I ask we're still not adjourned so if you're having excuse me excuse me sirs mr. Healy Bob and I'm sorry we're still meeting so if you can go in the hallway that we appreciate it thank you I did not provide your what what to expect next month report because I'm still trying to flesh out one of the cases of whether or not it'll actually happen next month by the end of the week you'll get that via email just wanted to let you know but with the one thing that we've gotten a lot of emails back and forth on is expanded housing choices the staff have any idea when that might come to a shit that was why I didn't provide your update for next month yet I'm waiting to hear back on that so hopefully we'll know something pretty soon as soon as we know we'll let you know well thank you and I will note that while we were meeting I was not checking my email I looked at my email to reference which case you needed to you needed to recuse yourself from but we did get an email from from the planning director Pat young that that did if I understood it correctly someone correct it from wrong that his recommendation is that this will be the the expanding housing choices proposal will be in front of us at our next meeting and that then it is our determination on how this moves forward and the mayor replied to that email and said that that right the mayor I thought I think it's the last I heard it was still with the mayor and he's trying to do have some communications with others there are emails during others when I was recused myself I looked at my email and saw that I apologize I was too busy doing other things you're doing your job yeah okay well I'll send you the list regardless this week how about that that's great any other any other questions or comments we are adjourned thank you all


We've been supporting queer youth activity since 1997. And the reason we're able to do that is because we have a lot of partners. And both individuals and regional foundations who've contributed funds to the community foundation so we can invest. So I think one of the things we've been able to do is raise awareness about the needs of the queer youth community and convince people that it's an area that's worth investing in. And I'm proud to say that since 1997 we've invested about a million dollars in the LGBTQ committee and about 35% of that's gone towards youth related projects. I think the formal beginning of our organization's awareness of queer youth needs was back in 1997 when we were invited to participate in a national partnership with foundations around the country who were trying to encourage community foundations to be more receptive to the LGBTQ community. And as a part of that process we conducted a needs assessment in 1996, 1997, which raised the issue about youths. And we conducted a similar actually with a more in-depth assessment in 2001 where youth really were named as a priority community to be addressed, and particularly Latino youth. Well you know when people think about foundations they think about us giving money. But we don't have a lot of money to give. So one of the other things that I think we could do to continue to support this community, especially youth, is to do one of the things that we've done before obviously continue to invest some financial resources. But also I think what's important is really raising the community's awareness of the youth community's needs. And one of the things that we did at the end of last year 2013 was we named the Safe Schools Project at the task force as one of the grantees for the Good Times Community Grants Program. And we did that very intentionally and I think one of the good things that came out of that was not only some funds for the project, but more importantly a lot more people aware of what's going on with LGBTQ young people. Could they invest in projects that would help address those needs? So I think that's a really good role for us. And I think another thing we might be able to do and we've done before is some convening of the players, particularly providers, to again make some connections and think about things that they could do with groups like the Diversity Center, the Cantu Center, what would they do together with some of those groups to serve youth more effectively? Well, you know, that's a, what's my favorite movie? That's one of those questions that always stumps me because I can barely remember the name of movies that I've seen. I often watch the same movie twice. But I try to think about what movie would I like to see over and over. And this is a movie you probably haven't even seen, given your age and mine. But that's the Yellow Submarine, you know, the Beatles Yellow Submarine. And I said, why do I love that so much? I can look at it over and over. And that's because obviously the colors are gray, the music's wonderful, but the message that all you need is love. I like that a lot. My favorite color, what is my favorite color? Well, if you looked around my house and my get-ups, you'd see a lot of red. So that is a color that really draws my attention. And in terms of how it affects my work, you know, I think of red, I think of energy, I think of passion and movement. And I think that speaks to me in terms of how I like to approach my work.