A Richmond Planning Subcommittee voted to return a revised draft of cultural heritage recommendations (linked to the Richmond 300 zoning effort) to the full Planning Commission after public comment and committee edits focusing on design overlays, demolition review, archaeological assessment funding and how the draft should inform — not "leverage" — federal Section 106 reviews.

The change moves a redlined draft back to Planning Commission with committee-requested edits so council can consider ordinance language later. Committee members and members of the public urged clearer limits on overlay authority, requirements that the city fund archaeological surveys, and addition of fiscal-impact language for any proposed design overlays.

Members of the public told the panel there is neighborhood interest in design overlays despite a city report that found little community support. "There is no community support for design overlays, or there's no community interested in design overlays. That's completely false," said Momen Khan, a resident of Oregon Hill, during the meeting's public-comment period. Barry O'Keefe of Maymont echoed concerns about overly prescriptive rules: "I would advocate against really tightly controlling controlling what the identity of a neighborhood is." Laura Taylor of Forest Hill told the committee, "I am very much in support of the design overlays," and said residents want stronger review of demolitions in contributory historic houses.

Planning staff described the draft code work as form-based and said overlay districts could be neighborhood-driven. "The draft that we have is form based in nature," a planning staff member told the committee, adding that overlays could require only limited form-based elements (for example, porch requirements or basic facade elements) rather than broad architectural mandates. Staff and the committee discussed multiple guardrails: recommending that staff not formally recommend an overlay unless a majority of property owners in the proposed area support it; requiring a fiscal-impact statement for proposed overlays; and limiting citywide demolition-review policies to designated resources shown on the official zoning map or to city-owned historic districts.

Committee members specifically instructed staff to revise the draft to: replace the word "leverage" with "inform" in the Section 106 language so the plan would be used to inform mitigation when a federal Section 106 review finds an adverse effect; add a clear statement that the city will conduct and fund archaeological assessments (while seeking grants to help defray costs); clarify that protections require council action or ordinance amendment to the official zoning map; and include fiscal impact and administrative-capacity analysis for proposed overlays.

After confirming the edits discussed during the meeting, a member moved to forward the revised document to the Planning Commission with those changes; the committee voice-voted in favor. The committee asked staff to check with the city attorney about public-noticing and scheduling so the item can be returned to Planning Commission on the appropriate advertised agenda.

The changes are procedural and policy clarifications rather than immediate law: committee members repeatedly emphasized that the draft plan is guidance and that any legal restrictions would require separate ordinance action by City Council and the Planning Commission process. Staff said drafts already posted included multiple redline corrections reflecting earlier comments and that the latest edits (Section 106 wording, fiscal-impact language, city-funded archaeological assessment, and view-shed definition keyed to public vantage points and the official zoning map) would be added before referral.

Next steps: staff will produce a revised redline incorporating the items the committee agreed on (including the language change for Section 106, fiscal-impact language for overlays, the city-funded archaeological assessment language and the view-shed/zoning-map clarifications) and will coordinate with the city attorney on public-notice timing so the full Planning Commission can take up the revised draft.

The meeting included public-comment speakers from multiple neighborhoods and several committee members; no formal ordinance or zoning change was enacted at the meeting — the action was to forward the revised draft to Planning Commission for further consideration.