City planner outlines 2024 biannual real estate strategies plan; council seeks assessor briefing and asks about affordability and flood risk

Sharon Ebert, deputy chief administrative officer for the planning and economic development portfolio, presented the City of Richmond’s 2024 biannual real estate strategies plan and a list of surplus parcels the office is proposing for disposition.

Ebert said the Office of Real Estate Strategies, which relocated to the Department of General Services effective July 1, administers surplus property disposition and must submit a biannual plan to council under city code. She said the 2024 submission updates parcels that were on an earlier 2022 list that was not approved by council and therefore remain under consideration.

The administration presented a list describing two primary categories: smaller residential parcels suitable for affordable housing and larger parcels better suited for multifamily rental or for‑sale residential development (possible mixed commercial components). Staff reported the plan includes 28 parcels totaling roughly 55 acres. Ebert said many parcels clustered in council districts 3 and 6 and that some Whitcomb Court–adjacent parcels are brownfields that prospective developers have indicated they would remediate using brownfield tax credits or other mechanisms.

Ebert described the surplus‑disposition methods available under city code — request for proposals, auction, unsolicited offer consideration, leasing and direct conveyance — and said staff typically recommend the procurement method based on parcel size, market interest and the policy objective for the site. She said the city’s plan proposes issuing one or more RFPs later in the spring for affordable housing opportunities.

Parks staff informed the administration after the October submission that they intended to use at least one parcel on Sussex Street for neighborhood open space; Ebert said she would recommend an amendment to remove that parcel from the surplus list. She also said the administration would include a separate parcel at 8301 Chippenham Road (Chippenham Road) in an amendment after Parks indicated interest in that site for a neighborhood park.

Council members asked several technical and policy questions. Councilwoman Gibson noted that the assessed values listed in the plan appeared low and asked how the values were determined; Ebert said the figures in the presentation reflect the assessor’s latest tax assessments and recommended council invite the assessor’s office to explain valuation methodology. Gibson also asked what tools the city can require of developers to secure affordability; Ebert said covenants, development agreements, reverter or clawback clauses and income restrictions are commonly included in sale and development agreements and can specify AMI tiers and time periods for affordability.

Gibson asked about parcels that were previously in FEMA floodways or floodplains; Ebert said revised FEMA maps have reclassified several parcels as buildable but noted that where lots remain in floodplains developers would have to meet building permit requirements, such as elevating habitable spaces above base flood elevations and ensure stormwater does not adversely affect neighboring properties.

Council members requested follow‑up materials and process clarifications: they asked staff to provide a briefing from the assessor’s office on the assessed values used in the plan, and to share any standardized community benefit or affordable‑housing templates (used in prior RFPs) that could accompany future conveyances. Ebert said staff will prepare an amended resolution removing the Sussex Street parcel, adding the Chippenham Road parcel, and returning the plan for council action at the next scheduled opportunity.

No formal vote on the biannual plan occurred at the presentation; staff asked council for direction and said the administration will return with an amended resolution and supplemental materials requested by council.