Great. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. Uh this is uh the October meeting of the zoning advisory council uh the code refresh and uh I'm Preston Lloyd, the vice chair subbing in as chair temporarily as uh Miss Greenfield will be joining us in progress. Um and so to kick things off, we'll first do a call to order and roll call. Uh so I'm just going to run down the list. If you're here in the room, please say present. Wayne Credle. Any G? >> Thank you, Mr. Credle. We will uh get to you virtually in just a moment. Thank you for letting us know that you're here. Um see, Mr. Hart, Mr. Johannis, Mr. Mai, Mr. Menes here, >> Miss Mullen >> here, >> Miss Noral, Miss Overton >> here, >> Miss Pichon, Mr. Pit >> here, >> Miss Robertson, Mr. White, and Mr. Wilson >> here. >> Thank you. And we do have a few members who have requested virtual participation, including uh Mr. Credle, Miss Peachin, and Miss Noral. Uh, excuse me, Dr. Credle, I apologize. Uh, Dr. Credle, would you please let us know briefly uh your reason for needing to join virtually, and then we'll vote on virtual participation? >> Absolutely. Uh my apologies for earlier and good afternoon. Uh currently my home is being renovated. So I am out of the uh city today. >> Thank you very much. Uh we need a motion to authorize Dr. Credle to participate virtually. Do we have that motion? >> Is there a second? >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Great. Thank you. M Dr. Credle, you can participate virtually today. Our next uh motion will concern Miss Peachin. Miss Pichin, can you please unmute and state why you're requesting to participate virtually and where you'll be participating from today, please? >> Hello. I am participating virtually because I'm having some HVAC work done on my house and I have to stay here while the people are here. It's sort of an emergency. So, um hopefully they will leave and then I will come to see you guys in person. um very soon. >> Very good. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve uh Miss Peachin's request to participate in the meeting virtually? >> Is there a second? >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. Great. Thank you. Uh next we have Miss Noral. Miss Noral, uh Maryanne's going to unmute your box. Great. Unmuted. Uh if you please uh let us know where you are and why you're requesting to participate virtually today. Yes, I am on a work trip in Virginia Beach preparing for a work trip and so I will be participating virtually. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh do we have a motion to authorize uh Miss Noral to participate virtually? >> Is there a second? >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? Very good. Miss Noral is authorized participate virtually in the meeting today. Um briefly I'll run through the typical preamble. Uh this is the advisory council um that's been comprised as a subcommittee of the city planning commission for the purpose of advising the planning commission, the department of planning development review and the consultant team in the zoning ordinance revision process which we refer to as the code refresh. The public will have an opportunity to speak during the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting today. And as a reminder to the members, uh, please speak up so that online listeners can hear you and kindly state your name when beginning your comments during this afternoon's conversation. Um, next on the agenda is approval of the September meeting notes. Uh, hopefully the members have had a me an opportunity to review those notes and I'd entertain a motion to approve. >> There a second. All >> in favor? >> Those uh notes are approved. Next, we have the public comment session. And this is an opportunity for members of the public comment uh members of the public to comment on items that are not on today's agenda. Uh we don't have a speaker podium, but we do. Excuse me. We've reoriented a bit. So, apologies. If uh if each speaker could please come to the front of the room, uh identify themselves and you'll have three minutes uh to offer your comments. Thank you. the impressive speaking podium. Uh good afternoon. My name is Thomas Courtourtney. I'm a member of the first district. Uh I don't normally come to these meetings, but I have been prompted to get involved uh basically just because of the amount of feedback I have uh received from other people. Um some of that feedback is at public community meetings. They wish to enter comments into the zoning map. uh and those people have been unable to do that online. Uh I think part of that reason is is very difficult to use on a portable device which most people use to access that map and in particular residents of Southside uh may or may not have access uh to the technology necessary when those were the areas that were cited for being uh less than numerous participation for the recent Uh, the other comment I wanted to make is I'm kind of disturbed about about the amount of legal presence on this board and I think it's a conflict of interest for those who have seats on this board to actively participate in zoning matters in front of council. Those are my only pieces of feedback at the moment. And thank you. >> Thank you very much. Other members of the public, good afternoon. Hi everyone. Good afternoon. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Uh, my name is Maria Dster and I work at the Community Climate Collaborative or C3. We're a local nonprofit um, working in Richmond um, to further climate action at the city level. Um, I'm also a renter and a bus rider in the city. Um, as global warming and the impacts of climate change worsen, we believe that code refresh is an opportunity for the city to reinvision its future and to foreground sustainability, housing affordability, and justice in its zoning decisions. Um, and so I do I know that, you know, the draft map comments have closed and all that, but I just wanted to come today and kind of again center the importance of um, climate in a lot of these conversations. And I just wanted to briefly touch on two issues today. um one is multimmodal transit and the other is um zoning as a strategy for more inclusionary housing in the city. So um first um you know we believe that zoning can be one of a couple of different ways to increase multimmodal transit in the city. Um zoning should encourage mixeduse neighborhoods and transit or into development along and near transit corridors um such as increased density of housing and businesses within walking distance of um BRT stops for example. Um, we believe that centering multi multimodal transit and decreased reliance on cars reduces uh carbon emissions and transportation is the leading source of Richmond's GHG emissions. Um, it also reduces pollution and traffic and ensures that the needs of those who are unable to afford or access a car are prioritized in planning decisions. Um, you know, this might feel obvious to some folks, but, you know, by allowing for mixed use zoning, um, you know, along transit corridors near bus routes, um, people of all abilities are able to access the services they need, uh, ranging from grocery stores to medical care. Um, we also see zoning as a strategy to include in to achieve more inclusionary housing in the city. Um, single family zoning has long been used in Richmond and across the United States as a mechanism for segregating people along the lines of race and class by allowing only certain types of housing to be built in certain areas. For example, um, you know, single family homes, those who cannot afford that housing type are immediately priced out. Um, this is especially problematic in Richmond where the majority of Richmond's low-income residents are also black, brown, and renters. Uh these decisions pointedly limit housing choice and accessibility for certain groups. Um we strongly encourage the city at a minimum to allow for duplexes in an ADU across all residential district districts. And we'd also encourage the city to explore more missing middle housing options um in the West End and other historically exclusionary areas. Missing middle/medium density housing allows for multifamily properties that are still compatible in scale. uh with single family and transitional neighborhoods. Um and these housing types can provide more affordable rental units and broaden the ability for people to live in areas with a high density of resources. >> Thank you, >> Patrick. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. My name is Thomas Fitzpatrick. Uh I'm a member of the first I live in the first district. I'm also the executive director of housing opportunities made equal. We're a housing justice organization. I had the pleasure and of being invited to speak by the planning staff at one of the early sessions about a year ago and I think it's helpful to remind be reminded of what's grounding this work here. We have an affordability crisis but we also have a legacy of historic exclusionary zoning rooted here and born here in Richmond and Baltimore. And so this opportunity before you is to think about those tool missions and think about how do we provide more equitable access to housing throughout the whole city that we don't put the burden of affordable housing just on the same communities that have historically base and to carry the burdens for so many decades. And so I thank you for taking the time to do that. I echo the first speaker's comments. It was very hard to make comments. Uh my wife and I sat down for like 10 minutes trying to figure out how to do on our phones and gave up until we put up our laptop. more than 50% of the renters in the city, more than 50% of the residents in the city are renters. They don't have access to computers always to make those comments. And so I urge this body to think about how do we make sure that we get the voice of those tenants who don't always have that equal access to providing comments in this very important way we think about how we do land use for the next generation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Please let the record reflect that Mr. Gates has joined the commission. Any other speakers? You have any speakers on? Excuse me. Go. We do have one more speaker. >> Good afternoon. My name is Meg Lawrence and I'm a resident of the third district in Gerard Park. Um, I wanted to note the discussion last month about the um if a sidewalk should be required to go to the street in a neighborhood that had no public sidewalks to go from the house. And the thing I found so interesting and heartening about that discussion was the acknowledgment that one size does not fit all. And I I have to say that a problem that I have had and that I've heard expressed many times in many um public meetings is so much of the first draft had one size fitting all and it and and it it doesn't. you know, a a four-story building, a mixeduse four-story building in one location could have use permissions that could be completely inappropriate in another location. Um, I don't think that a gas station belongs in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Residential meaning both single family and multifamily. Um, I guess formbbased code is supposed to take care of that, but I'm not sure that you can create a formbbased gas station or auto repair shop surrounded by residences. And so I would encourage um everyone who's moving forward with a second draft to consider that to consider that these use permissions drastically sometimes need to be revised. Um I would hope that would happen. One size does not always fit all. From use permissions to types of zoning to um transit routes. Um not every transit route can be broad straight no matter how much people are trying to squeeze it in. Um finally I would like to say a suggestion. um that I've also heard from many people and that is that the second draft staff um needs to be talking to the community before the draft comes out. I realize you have comments coming out of your ears from the first draft, but there are issues about the process and one part of that process was that the community did not really get involved until the draft was done. So everything was reactionary. Please come to the community before the second draft is published. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who have comments on anything not on the agenda this evening? Marian, do we have anyone online? You're online and desire to make public comment. Would you please raise your hand so that we can >> Don't see any hands raised to you, Marian. >> I don't see any hands. >> Very good. That being the case, uh, we're going to close the public comment and bring it back to the council for our agenda. Uh, and the first item is a council recap and meeting introduction. So, Maryanne and, uh, delighted to be here in our new and renovated space with our new tech here. It looks good. >> That's all. >> Well, if it works. >> Thank you all. Miriam Pitz at the planning department. Um, at our last meeting, we had the opportunity to start reviewing the development standards, looking at some of the bike parking standards, vehicle access, um, getting into the details. If you have additional comments that you would like to provide on some of those standards, if you could provide those in writing and email us those comments, um, and we can resend electronic format if you want to leave comments on the document itself. Um today we are going to we have a several special guests are joining us today. Uh we have our director of the department of housing and community development Malone is going to talk to us some about housing policy and how that relates to the work that we are doing. We also have Guy Roach who is from GRTC who is going to be talking about the plan for the north south BRT just giving a brief overview of what's going on with that project since we've had several questions come up in regards to that. So the first half of the meeting will be spent with our special guests that we're thankful are here. Um we will then start in on um the consultant team will be bringing us an update just on some of the numbers of comments that we've been receiving online in our electronic map in our uh our document and in addition um discussing some of the draft development standards. The transition standards were one thing we didn't get to at the last meeting. So they'll be bringing those for our review and introducing a few other new standards regarding signage landscaping. Again these will be introduced to you for the first time. We're hoping you could take the opportunity to look at the document and again provide us with comments in writing. Um so we close the comment period September 28th. You'll hear about the num numerous comments we've received on the online math. In addition, we have about 350 emails that I'm currently going through and I'll send you hopefully a format that'll be easy for you to group and u absorb all the different comments that we're receiving. Right now, we're taking all of that information, coalesing all that information, working internally with staff and the consultant team on preparing that second draft that we're bringing in the week before Thanksgiving in November is the timeline on that. Um, and one other thing I did want to share last night at planning commission planning commission adopted a resolution to expand the number of people on this body um up to 21 that'll be appointed uh by the chair um along in consultation with city council to provide more representation. We have several districts that aren't represented at all on the council. So working with those districts and ones that have fewer representation utilizing the list of applicants that had originally applied for to be a part of this body. So the goal is to have by the November meeting >> appointed by the chair as in Elizabeth or the chair of the planning commission. >> Elizabeth emphasis on in consultation with city council. >> Elizabeth is not handpicking anyone. That is what I have for you. questions. >> I ask a question on that resolution you referred to. They talked about uh not the zoning advisory council but somehow I never heard of the zoning ordinance revision advisory committee. Is that what we used to be? It just got changed at some point >> I believe. So it's it's >> that is the legal terminology city attorney asked us to use but it is one and the same. It is this committee. >> Yeah. So the real that that's the real name of this committee you're saying or legally >> DBA zoning advisory council >> doesn't seem like >> to say character >> but but the new members will be appointed in time >> for the November meeting >> is there is there are there any updates as to like have we have we lost any members and then know that some people have not been seen in a while if that's something We have we've had there's um several people that have consistently not attended um with board obligations. So we've lost um several members representatives from seventh district or representatives of the fourth district. Those are the two that we have no representation. >> I'll happily hand the chairing duties back to Miss Greenfield. Apologize 95 was backed up. Um so uh thank you Maryann for the council recap and meeting introduction. At this time I want to introduce Merrick Malone. Mr. Malone. There he is. Uh Mr. Malone is the city's director of housing and community development. And um we asked Mr. Malone to join us today um to talk a little bit about um the work that his department does um kind of and his his thoughts on where zoning may play a role um to assist uh the housing and community development. It's oftent time comes up that um we're concerned about the lack of affordable housing displacement. So I asked Mr. alone um as well as staff to to join us to just talk to us a little bit about what we should be thinking about with the zoning advisory um uh update uh with these topics in mind. So with that, I'll turn it over to you. >> Good afternoon. Thank you. >> Um I relish this opportunity to be here. >> Um it's interesting because I was as I was sitting here, I was thinking about I am a former deputy mayor of economic development for the for the District of Columbia and DC. uh and uh we had to go through a comprehensive plan review every I guess seven whatever years. So I have seen had the experience of seeing what happens when you're doing a zoning refresh. Now I I'll be honest with you, I was stunned that the city had not had a zoning refresh since 1976. And when you think about that, I mean there were things that were done, but I'm talking about a comprehensive zoning refresh. Uh just think about that's almost 50 years. Think of all of the changes. Think of my how much you all have changed in that period of time. And this city has evolved. And this is an opportunity to kind of align the zoning with the realities of what is going on in this vibrant city. All right. I mean it's it's it has changed but some of the I won't use ills of the past but some of the things that were done in the past are stilling with us which we need to resolve. Now my job as director of housing community development is to in fact invest the city's resources to create a a spectrum of housing among all income levels to make it an inclusionary city. Um that is the and and I know that there's always tension and disagreement when you start talking about zoning. But you know John Adams said something he probably without Hamilton's indiscretion would never known who John Adams was. But the one thing he did say that st stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick stick sticks with me. Facts are stubborn things and we have an affordable housing crisis. Fact. My job is to try and my team's job is try to amilarate them and we use various tools. We create tools, incentives. Um we do things in my previous experience we have used mixed income where we have done 80% market with 20% affordable and you know there was no difference in the units. The amenities were market rate. The affordable units were uh able to access those. You had neighbors who didn't know they lived next door to a person who had affordable. It can be done and it can be done smartly. We have to figure out our task, my task is to create more affordable housing at every income spectrum. It is not to hijack a neighborhood to change the character. You ever hear the expression the same thing that makes you make you laugh or make you cry? The very thing that makes Richmond attractive to others is the neighborhood, its history, the characteristics. What that has done has made this a very attractive city from like five years. Just think about it. Five years ago, I have a conversation with people. I talked to people who have moved from New York, who had moved from Boston. They have moved from the DMV and they said, "We love Richmond." Now, what they've done, they've moved out of a high with a high income, high cost of living. still viewing Richmond as affordable. So what that has done, it has created a lot of increase in our tax base. And if as a economic development chief, you say, "Well, that's what you want." Let me go to the other conversation I had. America, I've lived in Richmond all my life. I raised my children in Richmond all of them. And now if I had to buy my house back, I couldn't buy it back. So we have to focus on my department and not just production of affordable. We have to we have to look at preservation. How do we retain people who have lived in this city all their lives who want to remain in this city? But the increased values coming from a lot of it coming from out new money coming from these areas that are like New Yorkers. One one person I know I know personally said, "Look, I I moved sold my house in New York. I not only bought a beautiful home here, I put money in the bank." So, I'm just saying you're seeing a lot of that that has put pressure on the market. So, let me give you some examples. From August of 2020, the median sales price to this date has gone from $285,000 to $430,000 in 5 years. We have got to figure out how to come together and manage and create a zoning policy. Now, we do know that in other cities, Minnesota, uh, and, uh, Portland, as well as some others, they have expanded their zoning footprint to allow for additional housing, additional affordable housing. We have a lot of tools, but the biggest tool that will help to create the most will be this zoning modification. And that again, I want to I want to go back to this Sometimes I I I I'll drive through the city and I'll see I'll see signs no density across a field that I could probably build a hotel on >> about a thousand signs at the same time. So I see that but at the same time I know that I'm looking at these neighborhoods you know 59% of this city is zone single family. Okay. So so we know but there are opportunities. We have incremental nodes of opportunity where we can add additional housing. We need to be able to look at even in I know people saying well the majority of the opportunity is in the south side of the city. Let's talk about the zoning issues though. I don't want to talk about exclusionary zoning from history, but the reason that it's available is because this is really what I call the last frontier because it is where the the cheapest amount of land is to buy right now to develop is in the southside. But that doesn't mean that that should be the exclusion of infield throughout the city where it makes sense. Let's let's be real. Every place is not it's not going to make sense to put additional density in places, but there are places and there are opportunities for us and we need those. You know, we talk about displacement. I talked about it earlier in talking to someone who says I can't afford to stay in my own house and I have to make a decision. they can't even do generational wealth of passing it down to their to and I think that's that's but at the same time when you look at uh some of the um the character of these cities a lot of it and as a former developer I'll reform design plays such a great importance I don't know if there any architects on the board but I have seen cool designs that are able to fit into various neighborhoods and you wouldn't it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. In order to solve the problem of affordability, we have to have every tool in our toolbox. We have to have subsidies. We have to provide performance grants that incentivize developers to build. We have to use every tool in that toolkit. And one of the big ones, and it's not just zoning. I mean, we got to look at the building codes. We have to look at how we entitle we streamline entitlement. We have to look at all of these things to be able to create affordability. And I will say that a creating affordable housing is intentional. And what I mean by that is if there is not intentionality in creating affordable housing, the market will do what the market does. So if you I like to say this, there's no such thing as an affordable brick or a market rate brick. There is only the cost of bricks. And when a lender, an investor comes in and says, and the market says that this this I supposed to sell this house at $100,000, but I'm trying to put somebody in it that can only afford $50,000. Where do you think that $50,000 delta comes from? comes from the public sector in some fashion or form. Whether it's zoning entitlement, whether it's a direct subsidy, whether it's an a performance grant, whether it's our affordable housing trust fund, but somewhere that gap has to be filled. I would submit to you the biggest opportunity to our ability to produce affordable housing resides in what you all do with disability. And it's a balanced approach. It's not we're going in to hijack a neighborhood. You know, it's funny. Affordable means different things to different people. As soon as you Some people hear the word affordable and say, "Oh, they're gonna put public housing right next to my house." That's not the case. Affordable housing is how do you fill that gap? Anytime you fill that gap, whether it's at a 0% of AMI or 100% of AMI or 120% of AMI, there's some kind of subsidy that's involved in Washington DC. And I'll use that example because that's where I was asking. Anytime we we had a public land that was this we had to have there was a requirement if you were building housing you had 80% we had a 20% requirement of affordability. Okay. 20 20%. So of course if I'm the developer I want to and I'm I want 80% of my market and I've got to I've got to build it to market standards. And so our affordable housing, the affordable units get the benefit of so many things, including the amenities, the gym, the things of that nature. We didn't believe in poor doors. In other words, where you had a door for the you didn't know who lived next to you. You don't know whether they were subsidized or not. It can be done. But we can't we have to look at the data and the facts because what happens in these kind of discussions, we let emotions get in it. Then we go to our neutral corners without really understanding and thinking about the overall goal and objective is to have a balanced approach to create ranges of affordability without destroying a neighborhood or lo, you know, destroying the character of a neighborhood, which is what made Richmond so attractive in the first place. And we're behind. We're behind. I think what happened is that we kind of did a status quo because it was easy but then we grew and we continued to grow and when we want to talk about displacement we always talk about in terms of but there's levels of displacement how about those of you who have children who graduate from college and want to come back and live close to mom and dad can they afford it could your children that you sent this school, UVA, Virginia, wherever you sent them, could they actually graduate and then come back and actually buy a home next to you? Those that's displacement in a lot of respects because they didn't have to go. We have great universities that these these these students want to stay. I'm just saying to you that this we have we have tools and we're creating more tools, but the biggest and the best that will give us the biggest opportunity to expand housing at all levels is what you all decide to do here. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. >> Dr. could we pause just for a second just in case any of the council or commission members um have questions for you? >> I have a quick question if that's okay. Um and then I see Mr. Go ahead Mr. Men. >> No, go ahead. Um you opened with you know your role and the role of your department is you know focusing on the production of affordable housing and preservation and as you touched on we hear often um whether it's in our discussions about what we're hearing from the consultants what the community brings forward displacement and um are there any I mean are there absent any state enabling legislation that says residents cannot be displaced Are there are there programs that you have in your department now that the city is implementing to address displacement? >> Well, it's interesting. our healthy homes program that addresses preservation and just that what that is is that we provide we provide subsidies to eligible that that are eligible uh that would provide like roofs repairs, roof doors, uh windows, capital improvements that would allow people to remain in their homes and at the same time our elderly population could age in places with >> no artificial colors allowed us. Sorry. >> These are good. >> Okay. >> Apologies. >> I'm not sure. But that's a program. Obviously, we have our uh eviction diversion program that we are working with and write the council. So, those are the kind of programs that we have then that we fund. We're getting ready to stand up probably natural affordable um uh natural occurring affordable housing for those uh multif family units that were affordable and we'd like to keep them affordable. So we're standing up that program so that if we're able to maintain affordability there as opposed to that that owner taking that property to market. Uh so that's a pro that's a that's a program we're we're we're actually having to fund and stand up. Um but again I think I think we're trying to minimize displacement as much as possible and again looking at programs to evolve but again and and I think that's the reality of the situation. There will ultimately be displacement. I think it would be naive to suggest that it isn't. Our job is to try and and minimize that because again we want Richmond to be an inclusive city and you know getting away from that experience of having been an exclusive city. We've now got a it's it's it's evolved again the the align the realities of the zoning since we're now doing a refresh with the realities of what is happening in this city as we speak. >> Okay. Thank you. That's question. So the elder population is like one of the largest growing homeless populations in the country which is for the United States but entire United States. It's not Richmond. Um unfortunately if you have an older person that moved in like you said from Boston, they're retiring and coming down here and they're they're purchasing a home and then they have some monies to to you know extra money but the people that were originally here they don't have the same income levels. So when those prices go up, it pushes them out. Like you said with displacement, you know, you're trying to minimize displacement, but you said the healthy homes program, I can mention that for for instance in 2023 when you open that up, in 30 days the money was gone. How is that helping a whole city with this many people? 30 days, all the money's gone for one program. And then there are people on waiting list in 2024 and 2025. from 2023. They never even got any other assistance, but they were on the list and they were said they approved because they they qualified, but there's no money there for them to get. So, where's the money going to come from? >> So, here's the thing, and and I'm like the lonest monk. I'm straight no chaser. We need more resources. We need more resources. I did tell you that affordable housing is intentional. It is intentional and you have to intentionally fund it. I mean again um and and I'll say this, our mayor is very much focused on that. That wasn't always the case that there was a focus on on affordable housing. For instance, we have an affordable housing trust fund which currently our our CEO and the mayor is looking at how do you make that more robust and how do you make other create more funding for housing and just to give you an example our affordable housing trust in Richmond that's been in existence for I think probably about nine years 10 years maybe >> funded for >> had been funded for 10 years the funding for that in total of 10 years has been less less than $10 million. I think the last time I checked it was like at 9.9 as opposed to when I was in Washington, our at one point it got up to um close to $100 million. We use this a dedicated source of re and that's what we're trying to do. Find a dedicated source of funding so that we're able to help create more units. To your point, we do need more resources to do that. We just added the mayor just added another 2 million to that healthy homes program. 2 million in preservation that hadn't happened. So we've added 2 million on that to be able to and so we have to use that money to leverage as much private partnerships as we can. So in the reality is that again I'll go back to using that word intentional. We do need more resources because and I said we're running out of time because we're it the market is is moving and we have to be able to try to intervene so that we are able to keep a inclusive kind of of of neighborhood. So I mean city and so again I'll get back to it. The work that you all are doing is very very important to the future of this city. >> We have a couple of questions. We'll do Charlie Menes then Preston then Charlie Wilson then. So, I assume you're familiar with this, but the Virginia Housing Commission issued a report. I think it was two years ago, uh, on whe on how you could promote housing construction through what they call local zoning preeemption upzoning. and the report you I won't take the time to to um to read each of these but the key takeaways from the report all indicate that um the upzoning has a statistically insignificant effect on on housing and they were studying uh Minnesota and Oregon and California you know and one or two other states and um so I think we all agree we need more housing in the city we need more affordable housing in the city. But um I have a hard time saying the zoning is the way to do it. Now maybe it's the way to do some things, but uh the the there isn't a good track record from what I can see. >> Zoning is zoning is just one aspect of non tool that one uses. So I'm not saying it's everything and if I did I don't want you to misinterpret. It is a big part of helping to create additional space, but it certainly isn't the only thing. I mean, again, I named some of the the tools that we use. I I talked about design. I talked about using different housing types. I think you got to look at um uh uh building codes, street, there are so many aspects of it and zoning is just a part of them. And if I didn't convey that, I'm not saying this the magic elixir, but it is certainly a major component of if we're going to be able to increase affordable housing in this city. >> Um, that was essentially the point I was going to ask. You know, what do you see limitations with the ordinance and does it require other tools? And you've just answered yes, it absolutely requires other tools. And I wonder if you could offer some context for this body on what you've seen as being the most successful tool outside of zoning that's within our toolbox today that is currently creating the greatest number of new units. And in your view, why has that specific tool been so successful? >> I think it's it's clearly hands down it's been the affordable housing performance grant. Um and that that provides the incremental tax uh rebate to the developer that really over 15 to 30 it get over a 15-year period. I think that that has been develop it has really been helpful to us. The other thing is why it's such a great tool is that our development partners have to compete for low-income housing tax credits in the state. And when we are able to put that into their capital stack, it allows them to be more competitive instead of a project going to uh you know going to Stanton or some other place. Uh our de our our our our tool the zoning tool I mean our our uh performance housing grant tool has been able to help do that. So I think without question that's it. I think we are now we're getting ready to also um develop as I told you the model kind of that we'd use in DC to use that with our surplus properties that the city owns um that we'll be issuing RFPs very shortly for developers to uh to come and develop these underperforming assets put them back on the tax roles and possibly create a fund out of that to to continue producing housing and preserving housing. Hold on. Hold on, Benny. We'll get Damian real quick. And >> there you go, Benny. I'm still kind of >> I'm wondering is there some kind of quantitative figure how many homes we're trying to preserve for the elderly? My mom's back there. She's 84. She didn't even ever put her house up for sale, anything, but she was just talking to we have a a friend that's in real estate and told her that she may think about considering. There was like 30 people that call her and like and all 30 young gave her off. This is before pandemic. This is like pre- pandemic. So it's just like she feels like they want to kill older people. Like they don't care about older people. They've neglected older people and it's just like they don't they don't care anymore. Like this country has gotten to the point maybe not this country but she feels like the city has kind of pushed older people out to the side. So I mean what is really being done to make them not feel that way? She doesn't deserve to feel like he's been here three generations and she's been here and she's raised her family. All her kids are RPS graduates. And I can go on and spill with that. But that's not that's neither here or there. Why does she feel that way? I didn't make her feel that way. Obviously, something is making her feel that way. I'm not just saying it's just housing, but I think the whole system is collapsed and it's not taking care of our elderly as it should. >> Well, I will tell you this. Our our mayor obviously like Mayor D. Mayor D is he is so committed to the very thing that you've talked about and commitment also means putting your resources behind the commitment and he's really committed to doing that that and and I think uh again I I will always say this is that Richmond was a little late to the party in terms of preparing for creating affordability for whatever reason that was it it it just didn't happen and and and so when you look at now there we're trying to have real commitment of funds to the very thing you talked about, not just not just housing, bricks and mortar, but also wraparound services that that that's important to have. So, you know, I think about the the other jurisdictions. Now, Richmond, this is not unique to Richmond. There is there is a 7 million I think it's a 7 million uh uh unit shortage of housing across the country right now. I think it's the deficit is is 7 million. So I think there are a lot of cities that are grappling with this with this challenge and we all talk try to talk about what are the best practices who's doing what to show. Um so we are trying to solve a problem kind of nationally with this with the h affordable crisis because the affordable housing crisis is a national crisis. >> Yeah. Just while we're talking about the commonly comes up, does supply affect price in the housing market generally? I'd be curious to see the report you're talking about if it's talking about bonafide affordable through like deeply affordable programs kind of like what we're talking about here or just the overall housing price in general. Austin, Texas is uh anecdotally anyway, right? It's not a report, but anecdotally, prices have gone down um pretty substantially, and it's a direct function of vacancy. Like in 2021, they had only 4% vacancy in the housing market. And then the average price per two-bedroom peaked like then and now vacancies up at like basically 10% which is pretty healthy as far as like housing economy goes. And uh prices have dropped in Austin like 20%. So, that's not nothing, but I'd just be curious like if we're going to claim like there's a report saying uh this doesn't generate more affordable housing. I I disagree with that personally. So, >> yeah. Well, just part of what I just glanced at the bullet points and part part of what it's saying is that and with respect to affordability in Minneapolis that the reasonzoning didn't necessarily translate to more units. Um, so it's the it's the reasonzoning to more units to affordability that's the the cycle that that that we're hoping for here. Um the uh but yeah my my question was around similar to what what we're all saying here is you know one of the things we're really grappling with in this process is the um the notion that you know we're some some of us here some of the advocates of of the um approach that's being proposed here are saying that more units in um is going to create more affordability. Right. But but the the when when people particularly in lower income or middle- inome neighborhoods see new units being built in their neighborhoods, those very units tend not to be affordable, right? We're talking about market rate, like a new market rate housing, uh you know, whether we're talking um a special use permit for uh town homes or or for multif family housing. Um people are from what I gather people are perceiving the new construction that's being built ventification as being units that are not affordable and the connection between that and the overall supply and demand effect that we're hoping to achieve to tamp down prices you know marketwide is um is difficult to convince people of at times. So I'm wondering what your your kind of responses to that. I think that um again I think that we would have to be intentional to to help subsidize those areas that are high I mean really in high density or look at or not high density but are in single family where you look at unit types where you you know where duplexes tribe you could triplexes those where only where it makes sense though not where it doesn't make sense but to look at unit types design again and see how how it now what happens is and that's and I think if we're going to be able to do some of the infield in some of those higher price jurisdictions and there are infield opportunities. I think it is going to require us to as a city to probably even be able to invest in the in help with that to make that happen to make again intentional because if left to its own device the market will and if we're talking about having an inclusive city where everyone is throughout the all seven I mean all nine council districts then it will take intentionality on our part to be able to uh to do that because again like I said if that to its own devices, but the market will the market will do what the market does. >> We have um Mr. Malone, I know that your schedule is is tight, but we have two more questions from our um Zach members that are online. So, if we can get those too, and then I think um you can tell that there's a lot of interest in what you do for the city and you've really helped bring some good information and answer some questions that have come up. So, it's not that I'm rushing you, but um I want to keep the agenda moving. So, I'm going to get >> shorter than this. Trust me. >> I think we could probably keep here all night, but um I want to be mindful of your schedule as well, but if we could get um Dr. Credle and uh Marissa should be able to >> Okay. >> Yes. Um Mr. Malone, you've been uh very uh helpful today. I just have a quick question. You mentioned um that it's important for us to consider several tools in our toolbox when it comes to zoning um and you mentioned the uh performance uh grant. Are there any other tools that you think that we should be mindful of while we're navigating this process that we can quickly notate? Well, the affordable housing trust, I mean, the affordable housing uh performance grant kind of came from us. Uh our our DCA Eert used the uh state law when it was allowed to the EDA to use the EDA to be able to use it for affordable housing and she crafted a program, probably the first of its kind in Virginia. But we use we have an affordable housing trust fund. I think from a zoning standpoint, I think the issues are looking at different building types, new building types. I mean, we have to look at manufacturing housing. You got to look at small, you have to look at even tiny homes development. There are certain that would require some zoning and entitlement changes. But again, uh think about these these the seniors and then think about the young people. the young people and their ability. I mean, I'm old, so I had an opportunity to be able to uh purchase a home. Uh, you know, it was a little different with my daughter um without daddy. But I look at it now and I could never there's certain place I could never even think about living. When I came out of out of school, even out of law school, I couldn't have thought about living. And so I'm just saying that the zoning piece is a part of it, but as you consider that, you also have to consider as you're doing this. How do we streamline zoning? I mean, I think we have opportunities to do some by right as a at quarter certain quarters you could do as a ma a matter of right development and it should be for affordable housing or some type of housing because there are those opportunities. Um, and that would be a big thing. That would be a big help. Again, having, you know, there's some Midlotheian, there's some corridors that could if we could really attract some if we just change the the zoning. The other thing is we have to also make sure that the process that we put developers and whether they're nonprofits or forprofits is streamlined and is and as efficient as possible. I tell people all the time, money goes where it's treated best, meaning investment. if it doesn't feel like it's treated well here, it'll go to Raleigh. It'll go to Charlotte. So, those are the things that I think that this this body has to consider. >> Thank you. Marita, did you have a question? >> You might be in transit here now because I don't see her online. >> Okay. I want to thank you for joining us and your time and expertise and I can tell by the little conversation. Maybe maybe get you back someday um as we get further along. >> All I'm saying you all know the need we have is the weight is on you all to to do what you >> I just want to tell you one more thing with my mom. They text email and call her about her home all the time. has never been put up on the market, but this is what they do to elderly people and it caused mental anguish and stress in them and it's not fair to them. So, make sure you tell that. >> I know he's a very caring person. I think he'll he'll understand what I'm saying. >> Stressing me out because I have a lot of elderly people in my family now. So, >> and unfortunately, that's not unusual with what's happening with this marketplace right now. >> Really? >> Thank you, sir. Um, and we've been joined by Councilwoman Robertson, who has joined us online. Um, so welcome, Councilwoman Robertson. Um, as we move through the agenda, at any time you have a question or comment, just raise your hand and we'll unmute you. Did she question that she raised? Okay. >> Oh, I think we technically need to vote on her. >> Okay. Um, do we need her to announce? Councilwoman Robertson, if you can hear us so that we can um officially uh vote and have you uh allowed to participate virtually, if you could just um let us know why you're logging in virtually. >> Uh yes. Can you hear me? >> You can. >> Okay. Yes. Um, I'm a little under the weather, so I'm I'm operating from home and appreciate being that in the meeting. >> Thank you. I hope you feel better having saw you yesterday. I knew you were a little under the weather, so I'm I'm sorry that it's not any better. Um, if we could get a motion to approve >> and a second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Great. Thank you for keeping me on track. Um, so at this time we'll ask um our uh representatives from GRTC, Guy Roach and Joe Dillard, if you want to come forward. Thank you for being here. Um, like Mr. Malone, um, we uh, asked you to come and join us to give us a little um, update on the north south bus route. Um, we've heard often through our conversations here on the Zach with the consultants and staff as well as the public that, you know, there's the potential for a north south route and we should be keeping that in mind as we look at some of the densities, but I think uh not everyone is fully aware of what the plans are. So, if you can give us an update, we greatly appreciate it. >> Happy to do so. >> Thank you. >> Okay. you have a presentation. >> I will I'm just going to share it from my computer and if you could tell me when to go next that would be >> a signal here. Hey. Um, hello everyone. My name is Guy Roach. I'm a capital improvement project manager with GRTC. Uh, assisting in what you see here on the title slide here, the GRTC pulse north south BRT. Um so what this if we can go to the next slide we'll see what's in store with this presentation. Um we're going to give a brief description of the project for those who are unfamiliar with uh the ongoing efforts, a history of what we've done so far and what's to come. Um and then we're going to dive into the concept development of the design and our uh two rounds of public engagement and some of the concurrent efforts that are going along with the north south uh BRT. Go to the next one. So just an overview of um the north south BRT route. Um it's going to be broken down into two phases and for this evening and for the efforts that we're undergoing uh currently we're going to focus on the first phase of phase one um which stretches on the northern end from Brook Hill and Aelia shopping center down through downtown across the river and over to um bridge and springline uh shopping centers across the border. into Chesterfield County. We're going to zoom in here to uh the first phase that is primarily within the city of Richmond with the exception of the end of line stations. Uh on the northern end, uh we cross over into Henriiko and on the southern end we cross over into Chesterfield. Uh the route stretches approximately 12 miles through the heart of the city crossing over the river with 16 station locations. Um 14 of those will be pairs of stations where the uh end of line stations will be a single station similar to the uh Willow Lawn station if you're familiar with our current uh east west oriented pulse line. Then we'll dive into um the history and the project schedule so far. Um this project builds on previous studies and projects that have identified a priority corridor. Uh this stretches back as far as uh 2017 pretty much when our first BRT line opened up. Um and where we are today is um working on phase one and the project purpose is to advance the conceptual design and to complete the federally uh required environmental review process. Um in this phase one process um we've gone through a conceptual design that has included developing the preferred locations of dedicated lanes and stations. That process concluded uh in fall of 2024 and uh the final preferred concept for phase one is wrapping up now. I pause for just a second. Um are we going to get a copy of these slides because I know I'm having trouble reading the dates and I can only imagine that some of the the our audience is as well. So are we going to get a copy so that we can post this online? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Sorry about that. >> That's okay. Um following um the completion of uh some of the phase one design process um project team will complete the required environmental review process the national environmental policy act or NEPA uh by summer of 2016. Full design of >> uh 2026. Years fly by. Um full design of phase one will kick off in 2026 and conclude in 2028 when the phase 1 corridor will move into construction. And construction will con um we're anticipating construction to be complete and for the north south BRT phase one to open in 2031. Right. And we'll dive into um how we made decisions for the conceptual design. Um our process took into account the planning efforts mentioned in the previous slide which factor demographics, the environment, uh city goals for multimodal connectivity, uh current transit ridership, employment opportunities, future development among a myriad of other factors. So to get that all going in the right direction for uh the city of Richmond uh we have some guiding design principles that we uh kept in mind as we move through these conceptual designs. Uh we wanted to minimize impacts to property uh the environment, historic resources, traffic and parking while we wanted to maximize uh transit ridership equity, access to key destinations, multimodal connections and operational efficiency. Then uh we'll dive into reviewing the public engagement efforts that have gone on so far and uh what's to come. Um from the beginning our focus has been twofold developing a realistic conceptual design and two communicating with the public and stakeholders. Uh we have taken and will continue to take community input into consideration as the north south BRT design uh process advances. Um, our engagement objectives were to inform and consult the public, providing the public and our stakeholder advisory committee with information about the project and the role of public feedback, all while inviting the public's opinion and feedback to help guide decision making. Um, we learned on our technical advisory committee to collaborate um with us. Uh we partnered with these technical stakeholders with representatives from the city of Richmond, RVA rapid transit, plan RVA, uh Henriiko and Chesterville counties and more. uh to weigh in on conceptual design decisions, leaning on their technical expertise and local knowledge and to consider public feedback on outlining changes to the north south BRT. >> Okay, to next one here. Um so our public engagement so far um we've completed two rounds. Uh, first round was to introduce the phase one corridor alignment, just a draft alignment to throw on the wall, see how it sticks, and get some public comments on it so that um, we could make some alterations and come back for our second round to showcase those updated conceptual designs that were informed by public feedback in our first round. So diving into um some details about the first round of public engagement. Um our first round included more than 100 attendees at meetings. We hosted as part of uh this first round of engagement. This coupled with our engagement at multiple pop-up events, contributed to more than 600 touch points with the community. We appreciate the time and effort that the community put into this process and calculated that nearly 150 hours were invested by community members in this effort. Uh the online survey had 189 participants giving us more than 1500 data points when uh this first phase of public engagement was complete. >> Okay. Um so some of the takeaways from this first round uh these data points were vital as we analyze public feedback to uncover key themes and establish community priorities such as pedestrian and bicycle safety. There was an emphasis on controlling and decreasing vehicle speeds and providing opportunities through the conceptual design to calm traffic. Um, another theme was uh station accessibility and connectivity uh with the east west pulse that we have today. Uh, including multiple recommendations to include an additional station at Broad Street to provide for easier connections to the east west pulse. Um, and then another theme uh that came up a lot was to preserve the existing uh preserve street trees along these corridors. Uh this led to a concerted effort by GRTC to factor in the replacement of street trees into the overall project goals. >> Um so covering a little bit more about the uh first round uh other community priorities uncovered through our analysis of round one engagement included the need to maintain heavily utilized on street parking along the corridor. uh preservation of community character, uh providing accommodations for all users, and uh the community also had somewhat mixed opinions on uh preferences for curbside versus uh median dedicated lane and station locations with some preferring these facilities being located in the median while others preferred the curb. So after that first round of public engagement, we went back and updated the conceptual design to reflect that feedback. Um see uh after the second round of engagement went through a conceptual design update process incorporating public feedback land use context additional analysis into traffic and parking impacts and preservation of community character. Uh some of those corridor design changes include a fully separated median running segment on Midlotheian Turnpike. Um curbside dedicated lanes and stations on the southern half of uh Chamberlain Avenue. Uh shared parking/bus lanes on Lee Street and Jackson Ward to maintain highly utilized on street parking. Um, we made some station changes as well, uh, including, uh, moving the northern end of line from Aelia Avenue around to, uh, Brook Road, um, to align with some of the county's pedestrian improvements that were, uh, in the pipeline. Um the southern terminus was also relocated to uh better align with where uh development pressures were and where uh that single station could be uh of most use for riders to access uh destinations at the end of line. Um other design changes include new signals and vehicle movement uh prohibition at certain locations to increase safety and decrease congestion as well. So diving in a little bit more into the details of the second round of public engagement. Um we followed a similar structure for round two as we did with uh round one with pop-up events as in in uh in-person meetings and online surveys. Um we hosted 170 stakeholders and community members. Uh these plus our pop-up events led to more than 650 touch points with the community members resulting in more than 170 hours invested by the community which uh very grateful for. The online survey included an interactive map uh element that showcased various design features the community could click on to learn more about uh before answering a series of questions. Just over 300 people engaged with the survey leading to more than 6,000 data points for our round two engagement analysis. Uh some of the takeaways from the second round of public engagement um community again emphasized the need for station safety and accessibility with particular emphasis on creating safe environments to cross um to median stations. Uh there was also continued emphasis on replanting trees and preserving community character. So what's next for us? Um round three engagement is in the planning stages as we speak. Um we're currently completing the NEPA um requirement for uh federal funding. Uh we're coordinating with related projects along the corridor as well and moving uh the phase one corridor into preliminary engineering. Uh this project does not happen in a vacuum. Uh there is a lot going on in the city of Richmond and uh we also have a few other projects that are trying to uh keep in mind as we balance all the transportation needs of the city. Uh first off is our north south BRT transit oriented development study. It's a mouthful. Um it's a little bit different than the design effort going on that uh we just described in the previous few slides. Uh what the TOD study is is um an effort by us to recognize that yes with transit investment comes development pressures and there's really no getting around that. So we want to take this opportunity to work with uh stakeholders and the public at large to guide what that um transit oriented development looks like. uh so that the city and the residents have a stake in uh guiding transit oriented development. Uh the stations that we've selected to provide uh small area plans that can be sort of conceptual designs as to what this transit oriented development looks like. Um, we've selected the stations at Brooker Road, Brooklyn Park Avenue, School Street, Broadock, Outside Plaza, and Eric Road. And, uh, you guys are interested in a little bit more public engagement on that. Um, if you don't have enough, if you haven't had enough tonight, um, at 6:00 at Main Street Station, we do have another opportunity for public engagement for the TOD study specifically. Um, I encourage you to take pulse after today's meeting. Uh, we also are working on the downtown transfer station. Uh you might be familiar with what we have currently uh between 8th and 7th Street which is the open uh surface transit station uh with all the shelters out there. Um we are looking to provide a uh permanent location for a transfer station that uh provides a lot more amenities to make uh a transit station be comfortable and uh safe to utilize. Um relocating the current downtown transfer station to the permanent location is a goal of this project. It also creates a mixeduse development opportunity to provide revenue to GRTC and uh we're planning to release a report in May 2024. And that concludes everything I've got for you. >> You going to release a report or you already did? >> You said May 2025. Yep. Nope. Um, we released a report in 2024. Um, and there is more to come. Yes. Oh, my bad. >> Thanks so much for the presentation. Um, a lot of what you've described as capital that are being done by GRTC and and presumably a lot of those capital sources have been identified, secured. We now have a regional transportation authority. You drive a lot of capital investment off that. But could you speak a little bit to fairbox revenue and that situation? What you've seen with the pulse quarter that currently exists since it began operation in 2018? And would it be a fair assumption on my part to assume that you're going to need some density to support new corridors that have high frequency transit such as what you're now currently proposing to construct. And so there's going to need to be some alignment between zoning regulation and those investments to make sure that we have the fairs to support that ongoing high frequency operation. So fair revenue, I'll start with that. Um, currently we're free. Um, and looking to keep that as long as we can. um working with uh local stakeholders and uh partners to keep the funding necessary for fair free to continue as as long as we can. Um I'm also seeing Joe Dillard coming on up team here. >> How you doing, Chairman Greenfield? You called my name. Um guy's a technical expert. He knows this whole project. I didn't want to get up while he was presenting and dance behind him. So >> where are your question? Okay. Uh so right now we have a fair box fairbox revenue and projections. In the past we're talking about 5.6 to $8 million that we collect uh based on state funding and different programs. We were able to get grants and partnerships with the city of Richmond through support of our board. I think Councilwoman Robinson serves on our board. She did a lot of driving the change for having a regional aspect of answering that. Uh right now you're going to see in the TOD studies and things that we have in the future. GRTC referred to this term as TAP transit access partnerships. So we're looking to keep fair free forever and we're trying to look for different partners and things of that magnitude so that we don't have discussions with bringing fairs back. Technically right now based on the merit system and what we have in state code through DRBT ridership drives what we're supported by from the state. So because we have 12 million riders on average over year and our growth has expanded so much, we're actually getting more money from the state at that level. So we're not hopefully thinking of expanding our route basing it on fair revenue. So of course we have capital projects uh the balloon elephant in the room the project the 12 miles of the phase one and I thought I saw me here to park. We've already shared we're talking about 300 300 plus million dollars but as you already mentioned we talk about high capacity transit. If you see the pulse outside it, you would consider it a bus. But in our funding structure at the federal level, high-capacity transit is comparable to light rail or your heavy rail system. So that's why it's a little bit more. But in our totality of having that discussion, we're not assuming it based on the fair revenue being able to support operation or capital. In operation, we're talking about 8 to9 million. We're hopeful to go to the state legislature and try to do some type of advocacy where we can help with operational cost of expanding the route, especially in phase one. Future projects we haven't addressed yet. I don't know if you want to talk about the zoning part of it, but I definitely wanted to get up and talk about the pair detail. Thank you. >> No problem. Really appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> No, good Damian. And then uh Charlie. >> Okay. Yeah. Um so can you talk a little bit about the decision? From what I understand, part of the, you know, stroke process was to figure out, you know, which bridge to cross and and where to land in Southside and with the route that was shown to come across which are the fifth street bridge, I guess, right? And then uh >> come across the uh Manchester Bridge at uh Ninth Street. >> Okay. Yeah. Nine, right? Nine. That's what that says. Um and then so now you So basically what results is one station at Commerce and then one at 16th. What? So, why why that? And rather than going across um the other bridge there to the right, the Mayo Bridge, and then having another stop that's a little bit farther northeast into Manchester where there's the heart of so much of that um residential development. Um we do have a report available on uh some of the early earlier uh studies that were conducted to uh figure out the preferred corridor. Uh there is a few options as you mentioned to use a multitude of different bridges to uh cross the river. Uh in this instance um with the Mayo Island Bridge, there is the um VOTE project in the pipeline to replace that bridge and we really didn't want to intend with uh those efforts. Um and we um stuck with the Manchester Bridge in this scenario. As far as uh some of the analysis that went into uh solidifying that uh my memory is failing me as to those details in that in that uh first uh corridor study >> and guys being very generous in that comment because we have been working closely with the city and Dona and they very they stressed Mayo bridge of priority and not to compete with CBTA funds etc. That's also why we landed on the Manchester. So my question if you can answer this because I don't know what metric you use but do you measure percentage of utilization of the the buses you know they have so many seats or whatever and you know how many people use them percentage wise to what's available. >> So far as like uh writership projections go um and Frank feel free to tag in here. He's our uh this is Frank Adarqua, our uh director of planning and scheduling. Um just pulling in the whole crew here. >> Yes, sir. >> Um >> so correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe we have wrership projections in our current study. Is that correct? >> We haven't got into that state yet. Yeah. Um but sorry if you can repeat your question for me real quick. So I was just wondering if if you measure this what percentage of utilization of the uh of the pulse buses is there I mean the number of seats in there and number >> the existing pulse or what's uh any projections for the number >> existing and and if you have projected that'd be great too. So for this for this study we haven't done writership prediction yet but in in in terms of existing writership the RTC has gone over it's pre-COVID numbers so there's high utilization on the uh system I believe as fiscal year 25 we had recorded over 12 million >> over what >> 12 million >> yeah annually >> so try to break that down to >> sorry go ahead so to try to break that down to we have extended our buses to have Arctics, right? So now you're talking about ridership, right? And I'm just talking about the pulse. When you started the pulse and when everyone was talking about let's get the pulse going, you were projecting maybe 4,4500 riders. We exceeded that in GRTC. The pulse has more riders per day than the light rail in. So when you see the pulse now and you see an accordion because the ridership has exceeded the expectation when it first went out. We don't have the projections of what this would do. But if you're asking about current utilization, it superseds the >> Yeah, I'm not asking so much about the the gross utilization. What percentage of of available seats does that represent? >> So, however you measure, they had to they had to buy bigger buses because >> 40. So, we had a 40 foot bus and now it's a 60. So, we >> we exceeded the capacity of our 40 foot buses, especially if you're uh picking it up uh downtown here at uh at the peak hours uh PM hours especially. Uh you'll you'll have instances where bus arrives, it's full stuff to the gills. You got to wait for the next bus. Uh it is >> I've experienced that for the record. And it's uh led to us uh as Joe has mentioned uh upgrading some of our buses that are running the pulse line to 60 foot articulated buses just to try and meet that uh capacity. >> Frank, how many does a 40 foot bus hold compared to a 60 foot? >> Um you're looking at 40 footer um seatwise probably 35 to 37 people. But see there's and I was trying to if if we can take a step back um to Joe's question we have what we call um um uh racial capacity um if you uh if you have 35 seats on a bus right once you have that um every single person in a in a in a seat that is not considered full because for a local bus system you have what we call these your GR GRTC um we have a standard where you know you have a 1.2% um load. So it means that for that seats to be filled up you have you can have 20 more extra people to kind of stand in but um also just want to take a step back real quick. Um this polls or the BRT is a different concept compared to the local bus. So when you ask that question what percentage of seats available it's kind of difficult to answer that question directly because you are you are looking at two different con concepts from a from a popularity standpoint. The BRT system is our number one writers uh bus because of how it it runs cuz um during the peak period during peak um morning and afternoon periods it comes every 10 minutes compared to the other local buses that have some of them have headways of about 30 minutes 45 minutes. This is every 10 minute because the concept is >> a little bit behind on the agenda and I know that Marita has a question. It looks like Benny has another question. I had a quick one. I think writership is incredibly important but you know part of the reason I'm coming here is we're looking at as this group is discussing with the consultants and staff proposals of the zoning ordinance for densities associated with transit want to have a better idea of what GRTC's plans were. So just bear with us as we get through some of these questions. So Marita and then Benny mine is directly related to that. So um great I didn't know about the P the TOD studies until now. Um and so like how are they being funded? Who's running the process? Like who's part of it? And like what do you like what do you hope to to yield with the to studies? >> I don't I can pause real quickly and maybe this is a better question for to I want to tag on to that for staff because >> when the um Broad Street BRT was put in the city actually led a to working group I was a part of it Marica you maybe Jennifer very long time ago >> um to guide the overlay and the zoning that exists today. I know you said you have, you know, a working technical group with the city, but what is the coordination as the city is looking at a major zoning overhaul and then you're doing a TOD study? I mean, how kind of piggybacking on what you're asking? >> I guess I guess it's a little bit of a leading question because like GRTC doesn't control any of the land and it doesn't control any of the legislation that could enable any of the TOD in those areas. So like in some ways if it could just be like an interesting grad school project. Not to not to diminish it, but I'm just like >> people might think that it has more power than it actually may end up having. So I just want to know like what the intention is and how it's structured to create the plan. Yeah. >> So the second part of your question, yeah, we've been working with Marian's group um the city pretty much directly because the funding for that to project was awarded to GRTC and the city of Richmond to undertake that to uh by who? >> Sorry. >> From who? The state or the >> Yeah, the federal government. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. I think you wrote the grant application. Oh, that one. Do you have a question? >> I want to have comments. So, first of all, thank you for trying to bridge everything southside because I live on the south side even though I don't typically use a bus. I would probably take it because I did take the P ship that goes to Cheesecake Pack just to see I didn't have to drive and deal with traffic and it was pretty cool. I had a whole day didn't have anything else to do. I took the pulse on both hands went down to um project land and chilled out there for a while. So it was just a really nice thing and I didn't have to pay anything for that which really so thank you because when I lived in Baltimore with the light rail like you said the light rail was more dangerous to me. I feel like with the pulse, whatever guys, whatever safety features you put in place, even though it's in the center of Broad Street, it feels a lot safer than when I was going on the light rail cuz the light rail I felt like I was going to die and especially at night time, you know, and it feel like I don't know. That's just how I felt. I didn't really like the light rail. I didn't really like the buses because the crowds that were on the buses were kind of like sketchy. So, that's the only reason I like that. I rather I rather drive, but just the parking down in Baltimore in a harbor is just ridiculous. always got a ticket or got a boot on your car and all this crazy stuff. >> And the other thing I wanted to say about the fairs that were free um before the late um house rep um Kechin passed away. We had a conversation about things I was telling him we do riding a bus in the city. We didn't have money. So I really like the concept if you keep it stays free. So the people that really can't afford I did a lot of activities in school back in the day. these type of really thick piece of paper that went in as the we used to tear it in half and then feed it into the machine on one side so the restaurant could see that side the other side was blank just to get back and forth to where we had to go or we would sneak in the back door when the door open in the back when people would get off we would crawl in and come back and sit on the bus what we were doing and I was I was a a good student like so I'm just saying like I was doing things that I would not have done if I didn't need to get across the north side to some event or game or whatever I had to get, you know, get to. So, I love the whole fair if it's if it's able to be funded, whatever we can do as a community. I'm just talking about just the zoning council, but as a community, keep it free because I think that's a good concept. >> Transportation public. Yeah, it's cuts back on the environment with gas, less cars, a whole lot of good things that come from when people use public transportation. So, who knows? >> Thank you. >> We have any other questions? I have one quick one before you go. >> Sure. Um, you mentioned earlier that um, you it was an effort to preserve street trees, but then later on you said you were factoring in replacement. And if I could just leave you with any words, preserving the trees, something that's been very important that we've been hearing from this body, from the public as we look at zoning, and there's a very big difference between preserving and then factoring in replacement. And we're actually going to talk later today about tree canopy. And so I just again I know you said there's a a technical group the city is at the table but as this body the consultants and staff are looking at tree canopy provisions of this ordinance. I hope that you'll keep in mind not just the replacement but the preservation because I think that's really important. We're we're definitely hearing that as a body. >> Yeah. So one of the things we're doing as part of this study is a um is a complete um tree impact assessment. Um we've had uh consultant go out there to tag the trees to look at the health of the of the trees and all that right so as part of the project some of the trees are going to be packed but the numbers that we're putting back for those that's why is that number and and you can find our FAQ um little flyer online on the gr the gr JC website that has you know it kind of talks about um generally some of the basic questions that we have regarding the pro uh project and then the trees are in there. So you can find a lot of information on that. Yeah. So thank you for that. >> Anybody else have any questions? >> Thank you. This has been very informative. I appreciate your time. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Great. Got a slightly off schedule. Um, there any comments or questions from the group on the two presentations before I move over to our consultants? >> All right, Renee Berscene, I'm going to turn it over to you. And I failed to remind folks that when we're talking, please project and announce your name. I've already been asked by someone who's speaking. So, we could just remember as C advisory members to say who we are before we ask questions, that would be great. Rene, it's all you. >> All right. Thank you so much. Um, just confirm you're able to hear what I'm saying right now. >> You can. >> Yeah. Great. Uh, okay. Let me share my screen. I'll be with you in a sec. Um, all right. So, and you can see the presentation on the screen. >> Yes. >> Great. Okay. Um, so we just have a short presentation for you today which I think we can fit into the remaining time. Um, so we're going to be going uh Oops. going to be um going over the online comments, giving you a bit of a highle summary of them. We'll go into more detail next time. Um then uh having a continued discussion of the draft development standards that you've already received um particularly focusing on the transition standards uh and then we'll be presenting some additional uh draft development standards for discussion next time. Okay. So on the online comments initially here, so we shared I think last time a slightly older version of this with you. So this is the the final kind of summary of the online comments which as was said they closed on September 28th. So in the at the end we got 2,5 um comments on the map um plus 1686 replies to those comments. Um that includes comments that were uploaded from uh open from postits at the open house. um they're uploaded by staff afterwards. Um of those we have 620 unique commenters. Um that's uh the online comments. The openhouse comments were all um uploaded anonymously. Um top five neighborhoods that we got the most comments from were the Fan Ger Park, uh the Museum District, Oregon Hill, and North Barton Heights. Um the um there's about 25 neighborhoods that we got no comments from um particularly concentrated in the far south of the city. Um unfortunately um however it's a little bit better than the um previous update we gave you in September when there were there were 38 neighborhoods with no comments. Um and I would just say some of those neighborhoods probably have a very low population or or even have no population the way that um neighborhoods are they're defined in Richmond. So um uh we do have representation I would say for most of the city. It's it's a little bit weaker in the far south. Um but good representation from the north, west, east, and uh at least the near south on the map. Um in addition to the map comments, there were 427 comments in the draft documents. Those are the the documents that were up on conveyo, the draft um standards and uses and um and rules of interpretation. And um the sort of the top themes that we heard here and of course there were many many different comments in you know all different directions but just very high level some of the top themes that we heard um relevant to today's conversation earlier today um prioritizing options for affordable housing. A lot of interest in trying to look for ways to make housing more affordable looking for ways that zoning could incentivize or can create new options for affordable housing. Um considering infrastructure capacity when allowing increased density. there was some fear that you know with the kind of upzoning or the increasing increased density in some areas does Richmond's have the infrastructure to handle that um whether in terms of water or sewer or or transit or roads etc. Um so it's something that we'll consider um promoting more mixed use development in certain parts of the city to improve walkability. there was interest in in having that sort of mix of of uses and at least in certain neighborhoods in the city uh that make them more more vital and and interesting and and more walkable. Um and the last part here, these are two essentially contradictory comments, but looking at reevaluating or asking us to reevaluate zoning on mixed use corridors to ensure compatibility with surroundings. So, some people felt like some of the corridor uh zoning was too intense and the transition down to the surrounding areas would be uh too steep. Um that relates to the conversation we're just about to have today about transitions. So, we can at least with you guys address some more of that. We're certainly going to be re-evaluating some of those um those specific zonings. Uh and then on the other hand, we got people saying the opposite thing as well, saying that they that we should actually do more upzoning along Mixie's corridors to encourage transit oriented development and get more density there. Um so just a small sampling. Um over the next month, we're going to be working through all the comments in detail. Um so we're going to be reviewing and considering all of them uh individually and coming up with a revised draft of the maps, the standards, use provisions, and the rules of interpretation. So all those materials that people are commenting on, that's going to be released for the November open houses um week of November 17th. Um and after that there's going to be another online comment period similar to the last one which will allow people to you know give a second round of review to all those maps and uh draft documents um over the the following period. Um and I think as we said before, you know, that will ultimately produce a sort of formal public review draft which will also be subject to comment and review as well. So there's there's several more opportunities for input and and for people who wanted to give specific comments on the map, there will be a a similar uh mechanism for giving comment um in uh after the November open houses. Any questions or comments about this summary? >> Uh we'll do Charlie Wilson first and then Charlie Bendy's. >> Charlie Wilson. Um will there be uh the last time there was a draft released, the zoning advisory council was given um the first review of that and we provided our comments publicly and then the public had their overall review which just ended. Are we doing a similar cadence this time? >> Um I think because of the timing um we're not going to be able to go through all that with you guys. I think we went through it the first time because it hadn't been presented anywhere. So it was a very first draft. So you guys got to make an input on it and and what will be presented next time will be an evolution of what you've already commented on um with some revision based on public comment. Um I think what we'll give you um at the next Zach which will be just before the public meeting uh we can highlight some of the changes that we're making and sort of give you some some idea about what those changes will be and then I think um you know it'll be for you guys to comment um you know along with the public whether at those meetings or at the you know the following Zach or online. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Uh actually two two thoughts. One is I I happened to notice uh that some comments were going to the um planning commission and the requirement I think was to send them to the planning department. Did those kind of comments get included in this? Anybody know? >> I would direct that comment to staff. I don't know. >> Those those comments are the comments we have via email that I'm coating together. We have approximately 350 emails that have gone. So, those are all u those comments that came in through the Richmond 300 email box or came in directly to my email box or Kevin's email box. I'll be I'm working together in a PDF format. I can send to you all and organize so it's easy for you to look. >> But I want to ask they didn't go that way. They went to the to the planning commission. >> They if they were emailed to they were emailed to our land use staff that sends that distributes emails to the planning commission. She has forwarded it all to us to make sure it's included as a part of the >> Yeah, I don't know how many there were of that, but I saw some people send it to the planning commission not not the the uh address that was proposed because that would have I know gone to you but um or to you I don't know but >> yeah so I also forwarded so no matter where it went before then to Maryanne so we have a singular collection point um I know we asked people to use that particular address, but it went to Maryanne directly, me directly, a planning commissioner directly. It got included into that. >> Um, the other point is, frankly, I'm just appalled by the summary of the comments today. Don't mention the fact I know you got scores and scores of comments opposing um duplexes in established single family residential neighborhoods. That's not even mentioned here. via the emails that we've received. We've received many emails that have concerns about duplexes and accessory dwelling units, about infrastructure, about environmental concerns, and about more phased approach to resoning. Those were probably most common that came on the emails. I know that Rene is summarizing some of the comments directly on the maps. Um, >> yeah. So, I'm just giving you like the very very kind of top few. So yes, we got lots of comments on that, but we also got a lot of comments on other things. And as I said, there were thousands of comments total. >> So if I could follow up, Rene, and this is Elizabeth Greenfeld. If you mean the top view, do you mean that these outweighed the comments? And I mean, on your initial review, these outweighed the comments on duplexes and ADUs >> in in terms of numbers of comments? Yes. Um, in terms of, you know, significance? No, not necessarily. >> I I I mean numbers, not significance. Yeah. >> Was there an effort to >> and I apologize this is just a really short list. So I think what we're going to give you when we when we come back in in November once we've actually worked through all the comments is we can give you a little bit more detail on them. Um so we can give you a longer list of of themes for sure than this. This is really just like you know very high level. >> Sorry. Go ahead. in doing that though. Is there any effort being made to identify commenters not really being from Richmond being being you know activists from Arkansas or wherever >> or vice versa >> or vice versa. >> Um I don't think we're so we asked people to identify themselves um in the comments in the map um u you know did they always identify themselves correctly or or whatn not I'm not sure. Um, so I think ultimately there's not a way to really vet everybody's identity. Um, but I mean we're not doing this as a kind of survey. So this is not, you know, whoever gets the most comments and gets whatever they want, others don't. We're considering the comments. >> This is Elizabeth. I certainly understand your question because I' i've seen some come in that I know for a fact they're not residents, but I don't want to overlook the fact that some organizations that may be commenting may be commenting on behalf of city residents that they represent. So, but there have we know that there have been people abusing the system and putting in comments under false names and unfortunately that we can't control that. But when it comes to organizations, they may be speaking for a group of city residents that I don't want to overlook. I will say in addition to the online maps where we've gotten tons of comments, we have a a lot of emails coming from citizens and representing other groups that we'll be sharing with you as well and Kevin and I have been at a lot of community meetings, civic associations talking with people. So bringing in where we're hearing comments in person to validate some of the comments that we're seeing on them as well. So it's not just solely based on what these comments on the map as we work to amend the plan. I think we have a question from a member online. You muted Renee or Maryanne? >> Yes, you should be. Dr. Credle, I think you're you can go ahead and ask your question. >> Yes. Yes. Um I have two. The first one um Renee, the report mentioned that there were 25 neighborhoods without um that were not represented. My first question is um since there has been a increase in engagement, you mentioned that there was over 30 plus neighborhoods that were uh not represented now with about 25. So is there anything that's being done this time around to target those same neighborhoods that that are on that list? That's my first question for you. >> I mean, I think staff maybe can jump in on this as well. I think we've tried continuously through outreach efforts um you know pop-ups and so forth to target communities that were maybe less likely to u be engaged in the the online uh tools or in the public meetings. So we tried to reach out to people through events and and so forth to try and encourage them to to participate and to get their comment. Um I'm not sure if staff or others have anything else to add. had several roundt discussions that may not replicate >> the map with some of the communities that have been more difficult to engage with Southside and also attended popup conversations that we uh at different events to get some more input and more knowledge. Right now we're really um currently since we're working internally revising we're really just any engagement is more just to let people know that this is going on and educate people who aren't a part of the process. So continuing that as we do some of the engagement and as we go forward into our next phase, making sure we're continuing to work at where we find these holes. I'll say in terms of email responses, I feel like they might have filled in some of the gap in the fourth district that you might not see comments on the map. We've definitely received a lot of email comments. >> Okay. Um I I guess I guess a follow-up question would would then be is there um a list of neighborhoods that are that consistently are not responding? And I believe that we had a conversation about um finding ways to increase that engagement. Um perhaps there um connections even in the room that could help with that. Is that are we still uh doing that? Yes, I I think those roundt discussions have been focused a lot with the entities that the advisory council in one of the very first meetings suggested us to do some outreach on. So, we can follow up with that and provide you a comprehensive list of who we've talked to at those meetings as well. >> Sure. Okay. My last question would be um and just help me understand if we're saying that neighborhoods are not represented but then we have data that suggests that people have commented anonymously, how what's the correlation between neighborhoods that are not represented and the um anonymous comments? How how do we reconcile that in our data? I'm just curious. >> Yeah, sorry. I should have been a little bit more clear about the comments. So that the comments are when you see the comments in the map, you know, I've talked about which neighborhoods there are comments on. These comments could be left by anybody. So you could leave a comment on a different neighborhood. So this is really, you know, comments that are geographically specific on the map. So you know, I mean, typ typically people have the most to say about their own neighborhood, but um you could leave a comment wherever you want. So we didn't ask people um you know, where they're coming from. It was it was where you put your comment on on the map where you put that that sticker. or virtual sticker. >> Okay. And then even when it comes to the openhouse postits, is that the same correlation? Are people when people come to these events, do they have to um or are we asking them to share their their neighborhood or >> um correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know if we've surveyed people on where they're where they live at the openhouse events. when when they sign in on the sign-in sheet, there is a request for information on what neighborhoods and we know what neighborhoods meeting are, but when you're putting up a specific comment, it's not asked. >> Okay, >> go ahead. And so I I guess and then this is my last comment I believe, but I'm wondering if we're keep if if we're doing the same thing over and over and we're not getting the result. I I wonder is there a different way that we need to encode the data um in order to have that rep representation. I think I'm I'm concerned for those that maybe don't list their neighborhood or those who maybe are new to the city. they don't know their neighborhood and then they're commenting and then it's not being represented or it's not being it's not being curious um as to just ways that we could um found a better way if that makes sense. >> I think it's maybe not as much an issue with the data is that we have to keep on continually looking for new ways to engage with certain populations in our city to actually get more responsive. Ideally, as we expand this body, part of it is to you all are here to also help us engage with the community. We're bringing on some of members from some of the district where you see some gaps and where we're getting comments from as well. >> Um Charlie Wilson here. I had a I'm curious when we say neighborhoods um from a data perspective, are we using like the the city civic association neighborhood boundaries? Are we using like census? Like what defined a neighborhood? I'm just I'm curious because like some neighborhoods might not you might just be living somewhere and not think you're actually like a bonafide neighborhood. They might it's an interesting term and I just want to know from data perspectives. >> Yeah. So I think correct me but the the nomenclature about this but the city has has defined has has a sort of defined set of neighborhoods that it uses for kind of official purposes um that that covers the whole city. Um, and so yeah, it's true. Some of those are are, you know, they may not align with like what people commonly think of being in neighborhood boundaries, but this is sort of a, you know, official outline of neighborhoods and include some things that there some areas that really are non-pop populated that are like industrial areas or I think the the VA hospital complex might be technically considered its own neighborhood and some of the parks and the river and so forth. So, a few of those are are non-populated places. the city has a neighborhoods layer used for like comparison of data over time. I even asked where it came from to our GIS person. He said it's been like that for he's been working here. So when they use the mapping, they're using that city's neighborhoods layer. When people come to meetings, they're self- selecting where they identify. >> Yeah. So it's it's it's the gray outlines in this map. Um >> Oh, okay. >> A little bit hard to see, but >> very quick. This is Marita. Um, for everyone here, like the dark areas that you see are the areas that are the densest parts of the city generally speaking. So, it makes sense that that's more comments. So, that's more people, more comments, um, more buildings, more comments. And then the second piece is a question. Um, how long will the online comments be open? Like, are you looking to wrap up right before Christmas or do you not know yet? Marian, do you want to say what we're thinking so far? I think it may be still under discussion, but >> the week before Thanksgiving is when we're hoping to have the next version of the draft and recognizing it's during the holidays. No matter when we release anything, we are it's going to be a horrible time. But um going into January, looking at Kevin, whether we said end of January, mid January, >> sometime in January, I think at least we're going to need the month of October to get our arms around comments and just get a sense of like what will be coming in a second draft. And so I think in in November, we'll start to have some ideas about where that may be coalesing. Um, but yeah, there's there's not a great time, but it will go into January. I just don't have a specific date in January, but it needs to go into January. >> Okay, >> cool. >> Sorry, I just say one quick clarification just based on some public comment on the difficulties using um the commenting on your telephone. Is is there any I mean I know that anybody can email in um which I sure you all say every time you go to a meeting but is there any other means of commenting that you feel like might be helpful just to yeah if it's if it's hard to comment on the >> but you have like you you created webinars on like how to comment too right >> that's right yeah I mean there's a few different means I think you guys are aware of I mean in addition to the map There's also comments that can be made directly on the draft documents online and then as you said there's emailing and then there's also obviously attending the public meetings in person and um and leaving comments >> right no I was just getting to the we had a few comments in the public comment about >> yeah challenges >> yeah I understand the technical challenges of using the map it is it is a bit a little bit a little bit of a tough one to use um especially on a small screen >> like Jonathan with the code studio team has been in contact with the developers. So, when there's been some like little issues and people have notified us of those, they've been able to make changes to them. So, um I think we can continue to try to work to make it easier to use. I don't know if it'll ever be simple on a phone uh to use, but >> just a quick comment. This is Elizabeth. Can we just note that that's the developers of the online portal and not >> Yes. Not property developers. Yeah. Um yeah the uh the the program the program developers of of of the map website have been quite helpful working with us >> and the and the email address that people are to use is everywhere on the website. So if people have trouble they can always email. I guess it's the best thing. >> Great comments, questions, feedback. I appreciate it. Um does anybody else have any additional before we move into the next part of Rene's presentation? there. Keep going. >> Great. Okay, so next part here we're going to talk about um the transitions and screening standards which you guys have had for a while. Um thought this might be a contentious one. We certainly heard um back from members of the public from about things that are closely related to this as I was kind of touching on before. Um I guess first of all, any kind of questions of kind of clarification on these now that you've had a chance to look at them? Anything that you don't understand? any? >> No. Okay. And if not, I guess the next thing I was going to ask was, are there any districts missing that should be transitioned from or against? And I can flip over to this diagram here, this chart. Um, so this was in your draft here. This is essentially the kind of operative uh matrix here that shows which combinations of zones at least in the draft require a transition standard and what that standard is. And I've just highlighted under RA. We've already heard back a lot from members of the community that they they feel like there should be a transition uh when something more intensive comes up against an RA, particularly an RAA district, which is, you know, fairly low inensity attached buildings. Um, so, uh, we're when we circle back and make the next draft, we'll be likely adding a transition for that as well. Um, but any other comments about any of these other combinations or anything that you think is missing? >> It'll help us explain what we're looking at here on this this chart. So the when you when you look at R a um and MX I see a bunch of dashes. What does that mean? >> So the so on the when there's a dash it means there's no transition standard. >> So so the on on the left hand column there you see the subject properties. So that's the the development in question. If there's a new development it's happening right? Um, if that development abuts a zone in one of those other zones across the top, then you may be required to have a transition standard if it is in a com a combination that requires one. And there's three different transition standards in the draft that we shared. Um, so in some compos in some in some situations, there's no transition needed. If you have, I don't know, an industrial area that's up against another industrial area, it doesn't really matter. Uh and the same thing perhaps if you have a very intensive uh mixed use area up against another mixeduse area doesn't matter. Um but if you have a mixeduse development up against you know typically backing on to like a lower intensity residential neighborhood like an RD area um then we feel like there should be a transition where you step down. And just to to maybe jog your memory here that the transition standards that we shared the types A B and C um um here's what they are. So um uh type C is sort of the most complicated and that's usually where you have the most intensive new use coming up against this the smaller one. So if you have MX13 something like that against an RD neighborhood um there's a requirement to do multiple steps as you get further up the building. So a step back um um and a sec a second step back um at a certain height. And in addition to the actual stepping back, there's a there's a setback requirement um which may be greater than the normal setback. And then there's a a um landscape um uh screening standard as well. >> Um can I ask a question please? This Charlie men I'm sorry this is clear as mud to me. Let's just take RD, which is still single family detached, I think. >> Yeah, there's nothing listing here. >> Well, that's right. Yeah, I was confused at first, too. What I think it means is that if you're building a new RD, then you're not >> there's no transition required because because that's that's a low inensity type, right? >> You this other stuff adjacent to an RD, that's where these transition requirements come into play. So if you're if you're building a a building in MX13, which is could be up to 13 stories, you're required to and you're backing onto an RD neighborhood, you're required to follow transition style standard three C. >> Whereas if you're doing uh something else like a RX4 and you're back on to an RD, you follow transition standard A. >> So like look at look at the type A diagram that he does. So, if you're you're in an RD district and the property like right behind your house is RA, someone's going to it's an empty lot, let's say, and they're going to build a building. They have to follow that that the new building. Your house is the little grade out house. The new building on the right has to be have to follow those rules. So that means that within 15 ft from the back lot line they they can't build anything and there has to be the B type of transition screen and then they also have to follow all the other zoning rules of RA. >> Correct. And so one of the implications of this which I think I've mentioned before is that in some in some cases the maximum height of a building is determined by its lot depth. Yeah. >> Right. So realistically even though the map might say 13 stories uh maximum height in some cases you might not actually be able to get up to 13 stories in terms of like what dimension of building you can get at a certain height once you put in these stepbacks. Um, so we've tried to be and I think we need to be a little bit more careful with next round of mapping to be be really clear that um we don't mislead people where you know you might see a height on the map and actually you can't really achieve that because of the transition. Um um so um we'll go back and sort of fix some of those but generally speaking uh there may be situations yeah where you can't maximize the the zones potential because of the transition requirement. Um this is Charlie Wilson. The I feel like type C is going to end up being the most important from impacting the you know the case on a case by case basis the development that might occur. Type B and type A certainly important but it doesn't go to the lengths of addressing the envelope of a building with that. I'm wondering the two-step solution I guess if we're going to call it that. having two step backs anywhere in our previous discussions. Did we talk about there being just a one-step step back or where did you go? Uh what brought you to two steps versus having a no step type A and type B and then a two-step type C. I'm just curious. I don't know if I have an opinion necessarily. >> No, there's different approaches to it. And so it's not necessarily two steps. Depends on how how how tall your building is, right? So, if you're only building a five-story building, you're only going to only the first step will kick in kick in here. But if it's above five stories, um then the second step kicks in. And that's really it's about sort of, you know, preserving, you know, sky views and light and preventing and privacy and preventing, you know, overwhelming a, you know, you know, low-rise residential neighborhood in behind. Um, so it's, you know, in other cases, other things other places do different things. months there's like a like a a bulk plane um they call it where there's like an imaginary 45 degree plane or something like that that grows from the back property line and you kind of have to step your building to fit under that. Um we find usually it's a little bit of a confusing way to do it and it's a bit easier to kind of say just you have to do a step back at a certain height. Um and so that's where the the two step backs come from is again if you have a very tall building and you're against a you know low intensity area um we want to sort of you to keep that building at least the upper portions of that building away from the the low inensity neighborhood. The lower portions are can come a bit closer of course. >> And just to clarify, you can set your whole building back 15 ft and go up five stories if you want to or set your building back 30t and go all the way up past five stories. >> You don't have to step at all. You can just have your building be >> correct. Yeah. So if you have a huge lot and you just want to set it back, you know, or set it, you know, do a rear setback of 30 ft, then you don't have to do any stepping. >> I the just a comment on the stepbacks is it looks like really pretty on plan, but with like building code and like staircases and elevators, it makes it incredibly difficult to do and very expensive. So doing this has like major impacts especially if you're thinking about trying to have more affordable housing and like making lits pencil like they're they wouldn't be they wouldn't be able to do this. Um >> Damen, did you have a >> Yeah. Well, um, you know, just remember that this is only called for in situations of >> like kind of extreme differences between how one property is owned and the next property is owned, right? Um, so there there's lots and lots and lots of parcels that don't have that extreme transition from in zoning from one parcel to the next and and none of this applies. That's one thing to to remind to keep in mind. But one of my questions is about um MXU. Why does MXU not have any um required transitions when all the other >> Yeah, I mean we could put it in for consistency. It doesn't have required transitions because it doesn't actually abut any >> sensitive zones right now in terms of where it is on the map. >> So it's alwaysing other MX areas. >> Yeah, I assume that was why I would recommend still putting it in just couple because one for I think in the future there could be zone changes that do create that abuing. I mean, >> yeah, >> presumably that wouldn't be approved, but just to to avoid confusion, I think it might make sense to go ahead and put a couple C's in there and and move on, you know. >> Um, >> yeah. And my other comment about all this is um you know we've heard a couple of different times including one of the public speakers last week um or last month talk about uh solar access and um that's something that you know speaks speaks to to my heart as a um planner renewable energy um advocate. Um but yeah and for the most part I think those concerns are often overblown in that you know it's really only the only situation in which solar access is going to be compromised is if you have a parcel across the street from you to the south that is built at a much higher you know um height right because if we're talking north east west that's not how the sun works, right? And there's going to be some some degree of solar blockage to the east and west, but not one is going to have a significant effect on like the ability to generate electricity on your rooftop. But but when there is so but but is there any way to kind of factor not this isn't already too complicated but is there a way to factor in this solar access in a situation where a property is a development is occurring to the south of of other existing you know residences. uh that's going to create uh challenges for the ability of those existing residences to um have solar um on the roofs or is that just making this >> Well, I hear what you're saying. I think it's challenging to do because there's so many different variations, right? Like it's the the streets don't necessarily run on direct, you know, >> orthographic lines and there's also changes. I mean, you have different times of year in terms of sunlight and so forth. Um, I don't know, Colin, if you have any more thoughts about that. >> No, it's just it would be complicated to try and capture that nuance um in every situation. We're welcome to, if you have any ideas about this, we're welcome to >> me. I'm sorry. >> Did you? >> Well, yeah. I mean, I'm not sure exactly how it would work or where it would to go, but but something that says um additional setbacks are um required. And yeah, I'm going to finish the sentence and not be not sure if I actually believe it or not, but like something in which additional setbacks are required in the situation where there's a um height a building proposed above four stories, let's say. um to the south of existing um single family residences. >> I don't know where how exactly that would slide in, but but that would address that concern. >> Yeah, I mean I think there there's still there's other concerns other than sunlight. There's also, you know, like I said, there's privacy and there's kind of sky view and just kind of visual um you know, visual kind of transition. So um that there are other I have seen other places that say if you're on the north side of a street you have a different you know transition standard than if you're on the south side. It is just like I say it's tough because there's a lot of variance and Richmond has streets at you know all different angles. Um so I'm not sure. Um >> yeah Charlie Wilson here if it helps think about it. I'm if we're trying to simplify that question at all, I would imagine MX13 might be the one where it actually starts to matter ge geometrically from a shadow casting standpoint. I don't not sure MX8 geometrically. I don't know. It's hard to envision, right? But when you you take the rise and run and the pitch of the sun, etc. Things like that. >> Um I that's a big question and it's an important question, I would think. Uh but maybe if we're looking if we're trying to focus that question MX13 where it abuts other residential districts uh particularly those residential districts that are to the north of where MX13 is mapped um looking at the draft map it's funny it's actually almost by happen stance there aren't like Jackson Ward is a neighborhood where that might happen but otherwise a lot of the MX13 that abuts residential districts just very quickly looking at this. A lot of times the MX13 is mostly to the north of those residential districts just by happen stance. So anyway, we're just trying to help focus that because that's a big question and I know I know people bring it up. >> That's a good point. I mean, we're already we already have these red rectangles here suggesting that asking us if we think some additional transition requirements might be called for in in certain uh situations, right? And and I think in the spirit of this exercise of of acknowledging that transitions are needed in some cases your MX8, your MX13 where where the bottom of that uh of that rectangle we're looking at. I think there might be some kind of setback called for there for all these reasons which might also address some of that solar access concern that I mentioned. So taking that you know where MX8 comma 13 abuts our A and putting a letter there. >> Yeah. >> Any other comments? >> Moving on. >> Keep going Renee. >> Okay. Good. Okay. Um maybe I'll just ask one more time briefly about the the screening transition the screen sorry the frontage screens or site element screens. Um that's the other part of this. I'm not sure if anybody has any comments about any of these standards or we could we could sort of quickly try and take you through them if you like. >> I did this is Jennifer Mullen. I just had a quick question on so I see your on your typologies you have the transition screen >> types. >> Yeah, >> but in the chart it's just B without the types. I could be missing where >> or is the chart just the >> look at the bottom where it says B. >> Oh, okay. >> See, >> like do you see how it says screening area, right? Where does it say which screen? One, two, >> light or heavy except in the >> Oh, it says moderate and heavy um screens here, >> right? But the one or two >> Yeah, I'm just I'm just trying to tie in. So on >> page 11, it's light screen one, light screen two, heavy screen one, heavy screen two. You're just trying to figure out you're trying to figure out how you know if it's one or two versus light or heavy. >> You see moderate and heavy on the >> So, I'm sure I'm missing something, but >> flick back to uh slide 10 there, Renee. So, if you look at type A B, it says the transition screen and it says light. So, and then each one of those has has that. So type D as transition screen moderate and heavy and >> so you're saying like transition one or two depending on >> your it's your choice. >> So you have to choose. >> So if you want to put a fence or a wall up you can do screen one. If you don't want to put a wall or fence up you do screen two. Got it. I um a lot of times these transition areas might also be where there's power poles and other utilities above or below. And so like with the landscaping there might be like Dominion Energy might be like no you can't put a tree there. How could you or like the city might be like no you can't put a a tree there because there's something underground. >> Um how could you how do we account for those utility conflicts? And then these requirements. >> Um, so there there is a standard in there right now that says if there's overhead utilities, you can replace a uh canopy tree with two understory trees that don't grow as high. If there's overhead utilities, um, clearly if there's um, utilities in the ground, you wouldn't be able to put the trees in there. So you would get a waiver of some sort. or maybe you just have to come up with an alternative approach. Um, >> it needs to there should be something that's written there that says that so that there's no need to go to like BCA or planning commission just trees. >> Yeah, >> definely >> understood. >> Damian Damen and then Charlie. >> Yeah, I'm going to quickly put what I've been trying to say into a specific recommendation. I think that look at this rectangle of you know RA as as the abiding property and then looking at the potential subject properties I would recommend RX6 and A MX6 and A and MX8 13 and B that's giving a little bit of additional um transition when sixtory and above zoning abuts All right. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> We're definitely adding that. >> Um, this is Charlie Man just a dumb question, but I don't know. >> Um, >> no questions. >> Do do we have these kind of regulations now? >> Similar. >> Yes. >> Yes. Similar. >> It's a little hard to understand your current regulations. Um, you at least have the landscaping component. Um, and to a certain degree in some districts you have the the step back requirement. I know in to 13 there's a height step back requirement. >> So, so, so, so what are these uh different requirements, why are they an improvement over what we have in general? I don't mean the >> um well, you've got too many options right now. And I would suggest it's not um kind of comprehensive enough. >> The um >> Charlie Wilson the the standards that currently exist speak to the current zoning districts and we're retooling all of our zoning districts. So we need to update the standards to reflect the new like we're we're already in there I guess. So >> yeah, but aside from that, I mean it's different from is the screening requirement different for an equivalent zone zoning district under current under the current zoning ordinance. >> Maybe we could have staff jump in Kevin or Mary or Jennifer who knows the ordinance just as well. >> I think these are actually more than what is currently. So I would say I mean one there's probably more robustness to what's being proposed here than what we currently have. >> I would say secondly I think a goal was uh as this body has talked about right alternatives or flexibility is like right now you're kind of hemmed into like singular options and so I think here right there's two ways to screen and at the end of the day have the same effectiveness but like depending on the site one may work better than the other. So, it's it's being able to provide that option. But overall, I would say this is probably more than we currently have in our ordinance. And and it and it should be more because the new ordinance if if it's passed in some form similar to this would have more opportunities for denser infill development, right? So, under the current zoning, you can't build higher buildings in a lot of places. So there's not that concern about the impacts on the budding properties unless a more intensive transition and screening method is needed. >> I would just piggy back on that. I think Damen raises a valid point because as we've heard concern about increased density and we know on some level we will see increases somewhere because can't make a new land where um I think folks would appreciate having the option you know having the requirement that there's some sort of screening or buffer or appropriate transition between these potentially more intensive uses >> and I said yeah I mean it's no secret that I'm here as a person who supports densification generally right um Um, but I've heard public comments talking about specific neighborhoods and I've looked at the maps as the people are talking and I've seen the the concern, right? And about an extreme transition from of densities from one property to the other, right? And and I think that this can help to address some of those concerns >> satisfaction of of everyone. But I think that that's the intent. What did you say with your land use planning background? these these are appropriate conversations to have as we're >> well I mean I asked that we pull this topic out from last meeting and have more time to speak about it because I do think it's important and again speaks to some what I think are you know valid concerns that we've heard expressed >> now as to the once we get into the kind of details you know that's a bit above my um pay grade but but um seems to make sense >> we I think as always we definitely like invite you guys to mark up any of these drafts So, if you want to come back the next meeting with or before that and share us, you know, specific comments on these, we'd be happy to to to receive that from you as well. Um, yeah, you're right that we we were going to try and get to it last time and then we were running out of time, so I wanted to make sure we had a chance to talk about it. >> And I think we're running out of time with this one and I didn't mean to put you on the spot. It's just when someone says it's more robust, people say, "Oh, no, more regulation." But I think it's appropriate conversation to have if we're considering more intense uses or you know densities in certain areas of the city way to help transition and protect some of those community characters that we're hearing so much about. >> I mar this Marissa I I think it would be helpful and maybe it'd be better to do it with a pro with a project that's already been developed or some instead of like taking someone's land but like to diagram this on like a real parcel. um so that people can see like okay when you're talking about Chamberlain we're talking about RX4 that that abuts RDA and like this is how that could potentially develop just would help people understand or even like West Grey Street Association like hey we're getting rid of to1 it's going to be replaced with this other thing there's the screening this is what that would practically look like on this >> I think that's a good idea I think at the last public meeting we actually did have kind conceptual renderings of transitions, but they weren't this specific yet because we hadn't drafted these these actual types. So, I think when we go to the next public meeting, we can perhaps update those to um >> Well, I guess I guess what I mean is like kind of being specific and it gets tricky because this could be someone's property and they might get annoyed that you do it. So you might want to ask them, but like being specific of like a real place cuz when it's just conceptual like like a it looks it it doesn't feel like real. And this is Jennifer Melon too and it might be helpful just I mean I think piggybacking off of Charlie's comment you know like under B5 right now that's a fivetory building but the setback is much less than the 15t that the C buffer would provide. So I think maybe just a a quick summary too just so people can understand because I think your point is are we are we allowing more density and changing the standards which may be less than what we have now. Right. So I think that would be helpful to to have a little summary of that. >> And I know that you kind of paused this so we could have more conversation and and our presentations took the bulk of the meeting but I think those presentations were important. We have five minutes left. Maryanne, can we ensure that this will be primary on the next agenda and leave adequate time? And I think in between now and then it' be important to go back and mark this up have more to say about >> about the transition. Well, how about everything else? >> I'm saying we have more we have more. >> Well, so we have we've we have just we we're just presenting. We're not going to have a more discussion, but we just wanted to just give you a little bit of an overview of the the new drafts that are being shared with you today. So maybe in the last five minutes, Colin could do that. >> Birds, did you have a question? >> When it says placeholder on all of these, what does that mean? Is that just the image? >> Just the image. >> Okay, got it. Not the text. >> So you're basically talking about the signs. That's the That's what we didn't get to, right? So we're move everyone's also comfortable transition and screening because this is a big one. So >> we I'm happy to circle back to transition screening next time if there's more comments if you've had more if you need more time to digest it. So we can go back there. >> Great. Well, then >> Col, do you want to just give like a quick highlight of like >> just just quickly uh in your packet, you have um three more sections to look at that um we were hoping you would take away with you after this meeting and look at and review and um ideally if if you could provide written comments. If not, um we're going to set aside some time to discuss at our next meeting. So, it's um we're calling it landscaping, but really it's just it's walls and fence standards. So, how high can walls and fences be in a particular yard? Um we're calling it landscape design. So, that's really just the landscaping planting standards. Um, so when when we talk about planting a a canopy tree or shrub, um, we've got to have standards for what those should be or how big they should be when they get planted and when they, um, grow. Um, and then the big piece really is signs um that we wanted you to to look at and review. Uh, and then we also have outdoor lighting. um some kind of basic standards just to prevent um too much light on abudding properties as much as anything. Um so from um as a uh hold on so from a sign perspective um we've tried to we've not tried to to really change much with your current sign regulations. We've we've tried to add graphics um and just make them easier to use. Clearly, you have a number of zoning districts that exist today. Um, and in the proposed zoning, there's not as many districts. So, we're combining a number of districts. So, we clearly kind of have to make changes to certain districts in order to combine them. So, there's two key tables. So, two more matrix matrices for you guys to look at. The first one here that's up on your screen um is the the kind of different types of signs that are allowed by zoning district. Um so there's a variety of signs that are allowed today. Warning signs, canopy signs, projecting signs, wall signs. Um and they're organized by whether they go on a building or whether they're kind of standalone. So monument signs or bigger pylon signs. Then we have kind of special signs. So this matrix is telling you based on your zoning district and your use what signs uh what sign type you get access to. So if you're in uh an MX district uh you get a variety of signs. So you get a variety of building signs per the matrix. You get a variety of freestanding signs. Um you get a bracket sign and a monument sign but you don't get a big pylon sign for example. So there is individual tables for each sign type. So once you figure out what sign you want to build. So again, if you're in an MX district and you decide, hey, I want to build a wall sign, there's an individual page that you can go to uh using that cross reference that will tell you all the specific requirements for a wall sign. So there's there's one other table that uh you should look at. So right before that is um the table that allocates the amount of sign area you get for each district. And so this this is like we're we're trying not to change significantly based on your today's rules. So again I'll take the example of um the mixeduse district. So if you're in a mix MX district um of all your uh building and freestanding st sign signs combined you get two square feet per linear foot of building frontage. So how however much building frontage you have and that's a defined thing and that's measurable. That's how much sign area you get up to 200 square ft. So if you have um 100 square ft 100 ft of linear length of building frontage, that's how much you times that by two, you get 200 ft of sign area. And you can use that sign area for a variety of different signs, right? So it's kind of your choice. You can use it for awning signs, projecting signs, uh wall signs, and monument signs. Um, and you can you can put as many signs in for the most part as you want uh until you meet that amount of sign area. Um, so then if you go so then if you like I said earlier, if you decided that you would like to do a wall sign, uh, you would go to the wall sign page. Um, and that will tell you all the specific requirements for a wall sign. So there's a definition, there's general standards, there's the number of signs that you're allowed, uh there's the, you know, just making sure that you understand there is a permitted sign area. So there's a cross cross reference back plus then there's individual dimensions uh for that specific sign type. So if you go to a monument sign, again, there's specific rules for monument sign. So if you're in an MX district and you're allowed to do a monument sign, it can't be higher than 8 ft, for example. Um, and then there's a maximum area of 32 square feet. Yes. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, we're hitting time. And we do have two quick questions. Um, >> my quick question is building frontage. If your building's at a >> does your sign h if it's at a corner, you get both sides and does the sign have to be on the correlating side or can it can your aotment be transferred all to one side? >> Good question. Mhm. Um, you you would get more signage if you're on a corner lot. Can you transfer it? I don't know the answer to that one, but we will we'll figure that one out for you. >> Is it the length of the building on the street or the length of the lot line? >> The length of building >> along the street. >> Um, sure. I'll have lots of comments. I love signs. Um I think on the roof signs um they should right now there's additional provisions because those need to be a lot bigger to be seen from the roof. So just to think about that component also. >> And then uh really quick I do see the note um about internally or externally lit. Uh, in the context of downtown, I'm wondering if it might make sense to at least at least conditionally consider um permitting animated signage that you might see in, you know, a more active, you know, downtown um entertainment district, if you will. >> That's more than ours now. >> Yeah. >> So, we'll mark these up and then get them to you as the idea. >> Yeah. We'll reserve some time >> at the next meeting to discuss. >> Yeah, >> we're discussing this and the major changes to the zoning. >> Yeah, >> I think >> I'm looking at dinner >> presenting tree canopy next time as well. Sorry. >> And tree canopy >> and we will have some new members. So, exciting times. Um >> could we um is there any way to get this is Jennifer um to get information in advance so that we're >> prepared? Yeah, we if uh Colin, Renee, Maryanne, Kevin, the request is um any information that we can get in advance of next meeting so that we can come prepared because it sounds like between signs, tree canopy, and revisions to the maps, we're going to have a lot of u information to discuss and I have a feeling there'll be a lot of conversations. So, the more further in advance we can get those, the best. >> That's why we tried to share the development standards with you in advance so you have the chance to look at them. So for science, for example, for tree canopy, we're going to have to kind of present it and discuss it at that meeting. Um because we're just running out of time before the public meeting. Um um but yeah, we'll do we'll share what we can. If we can share a draft before the meeting, we will do that. >> Great. >> Any last questions before we adjourn? >> Okay. Um just a reminder that the next meeting of the um advisory council is November 12th, 4 PM here in the fifth floor conference room of city hall. Um if there's no other questions or comments, we'll go ahead and adjourn. Thank you everyone. having we want to consider having so much to cover.