Richmond Land Use, Housing & Transportation Standing Committee Meeting - June 17, 2026
Richmond Land Use, Housing & Transportation Standing Committee Meeting - June 17, 2026
The Land Use, Housing and Transportation Standing Committee met on June 17, 2026, starting shortly after 2:15 PM. The meeting included public comments, approval of street naming ordinances, and two major presentations: an update on housing and business permitting timelines, and a plan to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) for surplus city-owned properties to create affordable housing.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Rich Saucer spoke about concerns with the process for approving large infrastructure projects, specifically the proposed $400 million North South Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. He argued that GRTC’s justification is skimpy, the service area has half the population normally needed, and population projections have been downgraded. He supports strong public transit but believes the money could be better invested.
- Thomas Courtney raised unresolved land use issues regarding the VMFA Grove Avenue Storage Facility, including pending zoning confirmation letters, landscaping deficiencies, and potential operational use before certificates of occupancy are issued. He asked the city to ensure the record is clear.
- Dr. Lisa Johnson spoke in support of naming the 1000 block of North Lombardy Street after Coach Howard D. Hopkins, citing his decades of mentorship and impact on Richmond students.
- Pierre Johnson also supported the Hopkins street naming, emphasizing his role at Maggie Walker High School.
- Reverend Wendy Bullock supported naming the 2800 block of Fendle Avenue after Reverend A. Lincoln James Jr., highlighting his 45+ years of ministry and community service.
Discussion Items
-
Continuances of Agenda Items 1 and 6
- The committee unanimously voted to continue Item 1 (Ordinance 2026-113) and Item 6 (Resolution 2026-R024) to the July 21, 2026, meeting for 30 days. No details were provided about the content of these items.
-
Ordinance 2026-125 – Chamberlain Avenue Paving Project
- Kenny Horek, Paving Division Program Manager, presented a project to resurface a portion of Chamberlain Avenue. It is a state-of-good-repair project, 100% reimbursable by VDOT. The committee approved forwarding it to the full council.
-
Presentation: Housing and Business Permitting Timelines
- Director of Planning and Development Review Kevin J. Fong presented data on permitting times. Key points:
- Average application processing time reduced from about a month in 2021 to near the 5-business-day goal by 2023, but crept up slightly in 2025 due to staffing turnover and complexity.
- Plan review for 99% of projects (under $1.5 million) meets a 10-business-day turnaround target; 2025 performance is much higher than 2022.
- The city issues ~18,000 building permits per year, generating nearly $11 million in building code fees in 2025.
- Goals include reducing legislative entitlement times (e.g., special use permits) through zoning code refresh, raising the threshold for site plan review from 3 to 6 dwelling units, and implementing a new software system by February 2027.
- Council members asked about support for small builders, partnership with the Office of Minority Business Development, and quality control of third-party reviewers. Director Fong noted improvements and acknowledged the need for better interagency coordination.
- Director of Planning and Development Review Kevin J. Fong presented data on permitting times. Key points:
-
Presentation: Surplus Property RFQ for Affordable Housing
- Director of Housing and Community Development Merrick Malone and Senior Project Development Manager Cindy Kong outlined a plan to issue a request for qualifications for two surplus properties: 2503 Q Street (former police precinct, 0.93 acres, Church Hill) and 4929 Chamberlain Avenue (former school, 0.973 acres, North Side).
- The goal is to transform vacant non-performing assets into affordable and mixed-income housing, while also generating revenue (sale or ground lease) to reinvest in future housing.
- The process will begin with RFQ in late July/early August 2026, followed by stakeholder engagement, then an RFP by end of 2026. Evaluation criteria include affordability, developer experience, design, financing, and community benefits.
- Council members discussed the need to consider unsolicited offers, community representation on evaluation panels, and coordination with other city agencies to address vacant properties held by authorities.
Key Outcomes
- Unanimous votes to continue Item 1 (Ordinance 2026-113) and Item 6 (Resolution 2026-R024) to July 21, 2026.
- Unanimous vote to forward Item 2 (Ordinance 2026-125, Chamberlain Avenue paving) to the full council with a recommendation to approve.
- Unanimous votes to forward Items 3, 4, and 5 (honorary street naming ordinances for Eugene and Vivian Mason, Coach Howard D. Hopkins, and Reverend A. Lincoln James Jr.) to the full council with a recommendation to approve.
- No formal votes were taken on the presentations; they were informational only.
- The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 21, 2026, and will include a presentation on the partial tax exemption program’s five-year evaluation and the Department of Economic Development’s annual real estate report.
Meeting Transcript
Final Clerk, could you please read the Chamber of Emergency Announcements? Upon activation of the emergency on law signal, all persons should immediately exit the building. Please use the exits to the left or right front of the council chamber or the north or west stairwell outside of the rear doors of the chamber. Do not use elevators or escalators. After exiting the building, security will direct everyone down 9th Street to the fenced area located between Clay and Lee Streets. Able persons, citizens visually hearing a pair of visitors with exiting the building. Persons wishing to speak during the public comment period and or public hearings are generally allowed three minutes to speak. Persons apparent before the committee are not allowed to campaign for public office. Thank you so much. Well, it's just follow the agenda as is, but let's do the public comment period. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about anything not on today's agenda? Please approach the podium and state your name for the record. Rich Saucer, SOUSCR. Good afternoon, counselors. When last I was before you in February, I talked with you about several big infrastructure projects, smart-scale funding requests, et cetera. My concerns continue to be about the process for approving these. The city, especially DPW, brings forward a lot of discrete individual projects without providing context on how these impact the larger neighborhood, the city as a whole, transportation grid, et cetera. I know that certain council members have been pushing for more uh upfront detailed information, but so far I've seen little improvement. For instance, in February, I questioned why the city was going forward with a request for state funding for the North South Bus Rapid Transit Program when there had been no comprehensive briefing or approval from this committee or council. Fortunately, in April, you were provided a briefing. However, it was severely lacking in justification and missed the big picture information. As I had mentioned in February, GRTC's rationale for this 400 million dollar project has been skimpy. The immediate service area of the projected route has only half the population that would normally justify such a project. GRTC had said that upzoning under code refresh would significantly increase the population density. However, in a May briefing, GRTC got ready to prevent present a contractor study that said that development on the proposed route had been downgraded and population wouldn't be as much as projected. This was confirmed yesterday when Mr. Vonk said that the next draft of code refresh would have less upzoning for the Chamberlain Avenue corridor. In addition, GRTC in May said that their uh projections are probably a little high because they plan on continuing the Route One bus route to provide uh disability and elderly uh access to the existing routes. So it looks like the 400 million dollars could be better invested. I'm a supporter of strong public transit. I took the bus here today, but I think that we need to resist, we need to uh do better, and also in in February mentioned the uh fall line trail. I may have missed it, but I thought you had said that there was going to be a briefing from B D DPW to this committee. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Thomas Courtney. I live adjacent to the VMFA Grove Avenue Storage Facility, and I want to provide a brief update on several unresolved land use issues affecting the surrounding neighborhood. First, there are still pending zoning confirmation letter matters concerning the facility, including the proper zoning classification, the relationship between the approved plan of development, the certificate of zoning compliance, the certificate of occupancy, and the later site plan activity related to the artwork or VMFA Dream Wall installation. Second, I have submitted a 311 notice regarding landscaping and maintenance deficiencies at the facility, which may indicate that the site has not fully transitioned into compliant operational status. These conditions matter because landscaping, screening, access, and site conditions were part of the representations relied upon during the plan of development and board of zoning appeal process. Third, there have been recent observations and a 311 report concerning apparent operational use of the facility before a temporary or final certificate of occupancy or final zoning sign-off has been publicly confirmed. That includes individuals entering and exiting the facility in a manner consistent with office or storage operations and reports of loading or unloading activity not obviously tied to construction. I'm not asking this committee to make a determination today, but I am asking that the city ensure the record is clear and that no operational use proceeds ahead of any required CO, CZC, zoning final or other applicable administrative processes. Finally, I recently obtained information showing that the Department of General Services lease term for this warehouse facility appears to be materially shorter than the long-term institutional control premise discussed during zoning review by Mr. Davidson and Mr. Vonk and later addressed through the BZA proceedings. My understanding is prior approval discussions referenced long-term commonwealth institutional control as part of the justification for treating the facility as an institutional accessory use. The lease I now I have now seen appears to be a 10-year lease, which may not match that premise. That is one reason the pending ZCL request regarding institutional use remains necessary. 30 seconds.
openpublica.com