Richmond subcommittee hears public support and affordability concerns as staff and HCD prepare revised Cultural Heritage Stewardship Plan draft

The Richmond City Cultural Heritage Stewardship Plan (CHSP) subcommittee on Sept. 19 heard public comments urging adoption for cultural and educational reasons, while city housing officials and developers warned that some plan provisions could increase costs for rehabilitation and slow affordable-housing production.

The meeting centered on balancing preservation goals with the city’s affordable-housing priorities. Merrick Malone, director of Housing and Community Development, told the subcommittee his department is “charged with the production and preservation of affordable housing” and warned that provisions creating additional regulatory burdens could be “antithetical” to the city’s housing goals. “Money goes where it’s treated best,” Malone said, arguing that added cost, delay and inspection requirements could deter investment in affordable housing.

The comments came after several residents and stakeholders described different perspectives on the CHSP. Nancy Lambert, a former advisory-committee member, urged adoption as a cultural guideline tied to Richmond 300 and said the plan “isn’t pro developer. It’s not pro resident. It’s just pro Richmond.” Greta Harris, president of the Better Housing Coalition, said preservation requirements have sometimes delayed or added expense to affordable projects, noting an archaeological dig in Jackson Ward that “delayed us six months. It cost over $50,000.”

Developer and property owner Charles McFarland said additional overlays and view-shed or Section 106–style requirements would raise costs and push development away. “The taxing policy currently implemented and currently in place in the City of Richmond is gating,” McFarland said, describing an example in which an historic structure was assessed at about $469 per square foot and taxed at roughly $5.63 per square foot annually—figures he said exceeded replacement costs and discouraged reuse.

The subcommittee and city staff reviewed a redlined draft of the CHSP and a memo from Malone’s department. Staff reported receiving HCD comments this week and meeting with HCD to reconcile language. Director Vanc (staff) said she had circulated a redlined version of the document and that staff and HCD had identified roughly a dozen additional clarifying edits to be incorporated.

Substantive edits discussed included: narrowing and clarifying the definition of “viewshed” to specified public vantage points; adding Housing and Community Development as a primary implementer on tax- and assessment-related analyses; changing prescriptive language about reinstating or revising tax-abatement programs to language that calls for analysis and evaluation of real-estate tax assessment and abatement policies; and clarifying that proposed “cultural heritage districts” can be used as branding/awareness tools without automatically imposing property-level regulatory burdens unless property owners opt in.

City staff and HCD also discussed how overlay districts and local Old and Historic (O&H) districts are initiated. City planning staff member Ms. Chen explained that for National Register nominations the city—acting as a certified local government—comments on nominations but does not itself nominate districts, and that local historic districts must come from the community or property owners and involve processes that allow property-owner input.

The subcommittee agreed on a near-term process: staff will produce an updated redline and a clean version reflecting the discussion between planning staff and HCD. Committee members asked staff to produce a version that highlights substantive unresolved issues rather than formatting edits. Participants discussed timing — staff said they could prepare revised materials “by the end of next week” and referenced a target date in the week ahead — and agreed to a follow-up meeting to continue refinements.

No formal vote was taken. The meeting record shows the subcommittee’s work remains deliberative: staff will circulate revised material incorporating HCD’s response and the subcommittee will reconvene to identify any remaining substantive disagreements before sending a recommendation to the Planning Commission.

The public commenters at this meeting represented a range of views: endorsing the plan as a civic-education and cultural-recognition tool; warning the plan could unintentionally drive up costs for preservation projects and rentals; and urging clearer limits on expanding regulatory districts. The CHSP subcommittee’s next steps center on resolving language that HCD and planning staff agree needs clarification and on ensuring the plan’s preservation measures do not conflict with the city’s affordable-housing objectives.

Ending: Staff committed to supply a revised redline and clean copy of the CHSP that incorporates Housing and Community Development comments; the subcommittee scheduled a follow-up meeting to review that version and continue revisions before any recommendation is sent to the Planning Commission.