Housing Advisory Committee   6/16/2021

Here we are.

All right, so this is I'm calling to order the June 2021 housing advisory committee meeting of the city of Charlottesville.

Welcome all.

We have a somewhat truncated agenda today, and I'm also going to mess about with the order of battle.

But we'll start with the usual with the housekeeping and minutes and such.

Chair does note we appear to be one short of a voting quorum, but I will keep my eye on the body count.

You should have the minutes.

Before you, if you could review those, one edit.

Our priority is LD Perry was present.

He was just on the phone and not actively participating.

Well, I guess technically, we can't.

But we can acknowledge that we have reviewed them.

And if another body shows up, we'll circle back.

Let me, all right, hold on a second.

Hold on.

Nobody came in.

Yeah, we're still one short.

So we'll put a pause and put in there and call it bringing, approving the minutes officially.

But if anybody's got any complaints to squawk about on the minutes, make them now and we'll make notes.

That being said, we can move on.

So rather than move to the city update, I'd like to move to the meat of the meeting today, which is the affordable housing overlay discussion with Sunshine because his because his calendar is as twisted up as the rest of ours and he can't stay late.

So

Thanks, Phil.

And just to be 100% clear, this is a really is a joint effort between Dan and myself.

And I'm going to share my screen momentarily.

But I do want to kind of give a little bit of background first, which is to say that I know we are all hearing in different ways and forms the various consternation around the current future land use map that the consultants have put out there.

and their critiques from multiple perspectives on whether it effectively shows the future of the city as we all want it to be.

And Dan and I have sat in on a number of meetings, whether it's on the low-income housing advocate side, on various neighborhoods or other sort of citizen bodies, and kind of heard different concerns.

And Dan and I generated,

a concept that we've been floating around for the last couple of weeks as sort of an alternative framework for thinking about the future land use map.

And we've done various versions of this discussion at some neighborhood groups, to some members of CLIC, to some existing city council members, some future potential city council members,

Just kind of sharing the idea to see whether people have concerns.

I think it's effective or helpful.

So it seemed appropriate in this context since we're talking about the intersection of the future land use map and affordable housing to talk about it at the HAC as well.

So with that as a preamble, I'm gonna share my screen and give me a moment.

Can everyone see that all right?

So what I'm going to do before I get into any sort of visuals, i.e.

maps, I'm going to actually read this piece.

And this is something that we've been slowly working on over the last couple of weeks.

But I want to kind of state it out there and then we'll jump into the visuals.

So this just in the first four points here are kind of just setups.

So the proposal acknowledges the reality that growth and change is inevitable in Charlottesville.

It is not within our ability to control this reality, but what is partially under control is the character and purpose of this growth.

The proposal also acknowledges that existing neighborhoods are always experiencing change, if not in physical form, then in dramatically increasing home values, which results in the changing trajectory of who can live there over time.

The proposal is a framework only at this point.

The framework still requires important detailing,

We're trying to establish common ground and common agreement that can be used as a purposeful foundation for more nuanced discussions when the time is right.

This proposal also recognizes that good land use and appropriate zoning are necessary ingredients to achieving a city vision with housing that everyone can afford, but that on their own, they are insufficient without the other necessary ingredients, adequate funding, rapid approval process, and other critical policy tools.

So with that said, here's the basic framework.

Initially, the proposal protects historically Black and low income neighborhoods by creating a new low intensity residential land use category as a base land use for these specific neighborhoods.

Essentially, this would keep existing densities in place for those neighborhoods that are experiencing heavy gentrification pressures.

Second, all other residential portions of the city would have a base land use of general residential, maybe as currently defined as the consultants have it or some version thereof.

Recognizing that the city growth has been accommodated on the backs of lower income neighborhoods for generations, this would shift growth patterns to higher income areas.

In effect, all residential areas of the city would have a base land use of either low intensity residential or general residential.

And then under the principles of all kinds of housing for all kinds of people in all kinds of places and density with purpose, higher intensity land uses would be allowable if and only if affordable housing is part of higher intensity development.

As a layer on top of the base land uses, the proposal recommends that medium intensity residential

be a buy right use in all parts of the city, but again, if and only if affordable housing is part of a proposed development.

This recommendation privileges affordable housing and guides density with purpose in all parts of the city.

As a further layer, the proposal recommends that high intensity residential as a buy right land use in specific scale and context appropriate parts of the city, but again, if and only if affordable housing is part of a proposed development.

One of the most important set of details that will need to be worked on is the terms of the affordability.

This proposal doesn't tackle these details yet.

It is trying to create common agreement on the framework first.

When the time comes, these details will need to include questions around what is the minimum percentage of units in a development that are affordable, how deeply affordable are those units, and for how long those units stay affordable.

All those are critical questions that need to be answered.

This proposal does not address every concern of every neighborhood and never will.

What it does do is set forth a practical vision for growth with purpose, privileging affordable housing as a central tenant of the city's future.

So that's the descriptive part.

And now I wanna go through a couple of maps to kind of highlight.

So the map you're looking at now is the current draft future land use map the consultants have put out there.

There's nothing in here that's different from what they have shared previously.

You can see my highlight in red above here.

What we're proposing as the base land use is this instead.

So you have the new category of low intensity residential.

And for illustrative purposes, we've temporarily highlighted in this sort of peach color

those historically, some historically black and lower income neighborhoods.

This may not be the right boundaries that can be discussed, but as a placeholder, it's a kind of way of illustrating what we're trying to get at.

So essentially these areas would have a new low intensity land use, and that those areas would essentially be codified in their current density levels.

The remainder of the city would be general residential,

And so just to flip back and forth between the currently proposed map and this map, you can kind of see the differences.

So with this concept of a base land use, this is how the city would be constructed.

Now, the point around medium and high intensity is that under medium intensity, it would be allowable anywhere within the city.

But again, if and only if affordable housing is part of that development.

And then relatedly, high intensity residential.

And there right now we're showing high intensity residential only as has the consultants have proposed it.

There probably is still nuance to figure out where these scale and context appropriate areas are.

We're not taking a position on that quite yet.

But you can see in this context

If these were the areas where high intensity were decided upon, it would be allowable and allowable use by right use.

But again, if and only if affordable housing is provided.

That's the gist of it.

No, thank you, Sunshine.

Just a couple of

Quick comments.

Again, I don't want people to get too hung up on what's peach, what's not peach.

We just put that over the neighborhoods that we've heard a lot of concern from folks who've struggled to stay in their homes with gentrification pressure.

So that's the 10th and Page neighborhood, parts of Starr Hill, parts of Fifeville, parts of

the prospect Orange Dale neighborhood.

And then the other thing is that this is a trade off.

So it's it's lower density as a base density across the city from what the consultants proposed.

But a higher potential, if and only if there's affordable housing, and that that's in response to what what I heard at multiple neighborhood associations, that there seems to be a strong consensus that that we have to redress

historical exclusionary housing policy that has created two Charlottesvilles.

And so there seems to be a consensus among neighborhood associations that we need affordable housing pretty much everywhere, but that the proposal as presented that everyone knows recognizes it's a land use map, but not rezoning, but would probably only result in more housing, more density without necessarily more affordable housing.

And so what I heard-

So, this leaves and as Sunshine, and thank you for the presentation as you pointed out at the beginning, this is just a framework, but in concept it's got a certain elegance to it.

And it's, it's conveyable and I think it's, I mean,

It's straightforward in a lot of ways in how to operate.

Of course, the huge question that we're gonna have to amongst the many things, assuming something like this can grow some real legs is, all right, now let's define what affordable means.

So we're sort of back there.

And that quickly becomes a very sticky tangled issue because there isn't really a useful modern working

Accepted, and what are those concessions for affordable?

What does that mean too?

I would say a couple of things.

One is that, and I think you said this Phil, but that comes next.

But until and unless we get a land use map right,

We'll never have affordable housing in an equitable way in Charlottesville.

And so that some step like this, if not this particular step has to happen, or we can create all the programs we want, all the landlord assistance funds, all of the subsidies, but we're actually never going to, we're never gonna make it unless we do this, takes a step like this.

Yeah, thanks, Dan.

And just, I do appreciate it.

I think this is the direction we need to go.

I have one concern only with traditionally, let's say, the neighborhoods that were worried about gentrification by potentially, again, kind of limiting the density there.

So Chris, that's a really important point that I think all of the things, like we have to be absolutely cognizant of whatever choices and trade-offs we're moving forward on.

And you're absolutely right that by increasing some density allowance in some parts of the city and restricting it in others as a base zoning, there is a, it creates more disparity around the value of that effective land.

And that's a trade-off.

And the trade-off is that what this map does or what this version of the map does is it does restrict that, but it also reduces development pressure on those neighborhoods by the fact that they can't be, without the inclusion of affordable housing, it can't be redeveloped in patterns that we've been seeing for the last number of years.

And it was an attempt to sort of take what we heard from the various neighborhoods and put a framework around it.

I'm not sure that I personally agree with it, right?

But it is an attempt to address the significant gentrification concerns that we've heard again and again and again from longtime residents of low-income neighborhoods.

Now I also will remind you that these neighborhoods will still have an affordable housing overlay so you can still develop it to a higher intensity and density provided that what comes in is affordable and that's also what we've heard and I can't say that I've been on every conversation in every neighborhood but it's also what we heard that in the lower income neighborhoods people are

okay with increasing intensity as long as it's to serve folks who work.

We have 28 total participants here.

Yes, it is.

I just want to echo my concerns with Chris.

I 100% understand and recognize the historical segregation that has occurred in the city, the legacy of Vinegar Hill, all of that.

But I am too concerned with limiting the potential of wealth in those neighborhoods.

That is a big concern for me because the wealth gap is growing and home ownership is at the level where it was in the 1960s.

And I'm afraid that this is going to further hinder that growth in those particular areas.

And I wonder what other alternatives that we have looked at or Sunshine and Dan have looked at to alleviate this.

I don't necessarily believe that

we have to limit wealth as a trade-off.

So I think that some more creative ideal thinking maybe and enlarging the group in which who are participating and the brainstorming to come up with other ideas, because wealth building is vital in the African-American community and low wealth areas.

And I would not want that to be a trade-off.

If I could piggyback on that, the question that follows from that is, depending on what this looks like, assuming that there is a model like this that moves forward, what do we know about the likelihood and what this does to values based on the current

State of Research, if we're going to, I mean, there's one school of thought I think you'd argue is like, look, if you keep it a low density residential area, those places, you know, tend to enclave the, you know, there's some clavature there and they tend to become valuable because they are what they are, they're low density residential areas.

But it has, is there a, do we know anything about research and modeling elsewhere?

Bill, well, I know one thing and I think you are aware of it as well.

Considering the industries in which we work and a lot of times in African American neighborhoods, the appraisals of values of homes, we're already fighting that battle.

They already come in low.

So in adding this, this could be another barrier.

I just have concerns about limiting wealth potential.

and further increasing the wealth gap in these neighborhoods.

Yeah, well, I agree with you.

I guess what I'm asking is, do we know exactly what we're trading based on, I mean, have there been environments where this has been tried, where this has been done, or some segment of it has been done that we can look at?

And do we know enough about the mechanics of what happens over there?

or are we engaged in speculation, somewhat informed speculation, but what do we know?

Because before we start trading off in this sort of casual way, entire neighborhoods and pieces of the city, this might be, this might in fact involve a net increase relatively quickly.

It might not.

It might be as exactly as your fears and concerns are.

It might not.

What do we know about what others have done?

Do we have anything that we can sink our teeth into there or are we just still trying to figure out what it is we think we want here?

Well, I would say a couple of things.

One is to address Lisa's first question or what are the alternatives?

I mean, I think the most obvious alternative is to just make that also general residential and not differentiate between

the low-income communities and the rest of the community or the rest of the residential neighborhoods.

Just make the base density general residential everywhere.

I think what we'd want to do is go back to the neighborhoods and see, this idea has not been

particularly well vetted or talked about among property owners in 10th and Page, long time residents of Fifeville, Orange Dale.

And so I think the first thing is to ask the question.

I think the second thing is to do a little bit of research.

And Phil, I'm not sure that there are too many models exist and they would have to be projections.

And I think that's the kind of thing that we would want to involve

the consultants or involve Anita Morrison to actually kind of figure out what this would in fact do to values.

Cause you're right.

What this would mean is that these would be the only remaining lowest density neighborhoods in the city.

So it actually might invite speculation where people that is where you can build, that is the place where you're kind of guaranteed that it's going to be mostly

single-family detached homes.

So I think you're right.

I think a lot more research needs to be done.

And again, as Lisa, I think the biggest flip to switch, the biggest switch to flip would be to simply set the base zoning equally across the city.

I'm not saying that we need to abandon it.

I think the outcome is that we do further research.

I hear you, I'm with you.

A couple of thoughts and I don't have any clear answers, but these are just reflections, which is fundamentally, though I say differently.

I completely agree that this idea is literally less than two weeks old.

We're still in the process of putting it out there to get feedback, to get input.

And ultimately, if this is a direction that collectively feels like it has momentum and is worth exploring, it's not going to be Dan and I and the hack doing that evaluation, doing that analysis.

That's going to be for the consultants to do, because that's what they're hired to do.

and it would be handed over to them and that the outreach around that to those neighborhoods would be necessarily in their hands as well.

So that's just one thing to reflect on.

The other is that to your question, Phil, and you point out this to us, Lisa, which is that I think we're in an area where no other cities have really tried to do what we're trying to do.

So we don't, there is not data to use, historical data we can reflect on.

This is, we are in a time and a space where I think we are trying to be innovative.

And yes, we can try to project, but inevitably it will be projection based and with the best information that we have, but it's not gonna be tried and true.

And then the last comment I'll make is that,

Well, maybe two comments.

And I see that Nancy wants to make a comment here shortly as well.

One is that I'm not sure, like given the larger environment of our sort of our real estate economy, I'm not sure there is a perfect solution that both protects the neighborhoods and allows for the increase in wealth.

Maybe there is, but it's not immediately obvious to me what that is other than

pairing whatever effort we do or whatever structure we put together on the land use and the zoning, then you pair that with initiatives like partnerships with Habitat or community land trusts or other measures where you start to embed opportunities that go beyond what land use and zoning can do.

Because land use and zoning, as I mentioned in the beginning, are one piece of the tool set

but that land use and zoning can't solve everything.

That has to be in parallel with other efforts.

So we're not going to solve everything with land use and the zoning map, but we obviously need to make sure as best we possibly can that we are setting ourselves up for success and setting those neighborhoods up for success.

And absolutely this continues to need to be vetted and thought through.

And our hope is that we create enough momentum

through this conversation, through other conversations we've had that the consultants grab onto it and start to evaluate it and help us kind of go through that evaluation process.

Hi there.

I'm Nancy Shaver and I'm relatively new to Charlottesville.

Okay.

But I'm not new to this process.

And

So I've got a couple of comments I'd like to throw out.

And one is one that I've got a fair amount of experience with, but probably never jumps to the top of people's minds.

As we're looking at this, and it is a low level plan, it is not intended, as you all know, to be tactical, that

Charlottesville will no doubt feel the effects of sea level rise.

And what I mean by that is the migration of people from areas that are threatened to this area.

And that's something I've spent a fair amount of time on.

And I did suggest that that consideration be added.

And I would suggest that it gets added to all of the thinking.

The second question I have

This is a problem for every, quite frankly, every area in this country, the gap and the problem of affordable housing.

So I would strongly suggest that, and I know a couple of instances of innovative ways of approaching it, but I think it's worthwhile to do two things.

One, to look at other models, which I am sure exist,

and the second thing would be the consultants who formed the first draft of this certainly didn't do it out of thin air.

So I would think it would be valuable to understand what models they were using, what the history is around it.

Thanks, Nancy.

And before you jump in, Chris, I just want to reflect on that for a moment, which is to say that the idea that Dan and I are putting forth is based in part on the consultant's work.

And I know that the consultant's work is partially based on some recent efforts in cities like Minneapolis and Portland to look at methods and ways of

dismantling historically exclusionary zoning through large swaths of cities.

And then the other thing I would share is that the other model that is recent and relatively new, like literally a year old or so, is from Cambridge, where they developed a new innovative model called 100% affordable housing overlay, which essentially overlays all their existing zoning

and prioritizes affordable housing through it.

And so what we are proposing is sort of a mashup of the Cambridge affordable housing overlay, the efforts of other cities like Minneapolis and Portland.

And then also one other layer, which is a year ago, we would not be having this conversation because the

Over this last year, as a city, we have been added within the state of Virginia to be allowed to do to develop an affordable housing plan that includes some level of inclusionary zoning, which is and so what we're proposing is sort of a mashup of affordable housing overlay, plus a little bit of an inclusionary zoning, ie if you go to higher intensities than affordable housing has to be part of it.

So it there are some there is some background to how we got to got to where we are now.

But no doubt, we absolutely want the consultants to put their best research and thoughts into this as well and see if there are other things to explore.

Yeah, and thanks for that.

And I brought my original observation up just again, because I, you know, we've heard a lot from, I think, our Black colleagues and the community members about wealth creation and obviously want to ensure that.

I would agree, and I think, Dan and Sunshine, you mentioned this, and obviously the Futureland News Map is not

The one thing that's going to, again, make sure we have affordable housing.

It's necessary, but again, not sufficient.

And that, you know, we have an affordable housing plan that was approved with a lot of tools in the toolkit that we can utilize and maybe again ensure that we are targeting those tools, let's say, at some of these neighborhoods to blunt the potential kind of

you might say wealth creation concerns that again Lisa also brought up and I think Lisa maybe I'm not to put words in your mouth but that's what we're talking about is and to Sunshine's here is how do we use these different tools that maybe have not been utilized in a way before together to again

reduce the potential for dampening that wealth creation or whatnot.

Anyways, I'll just say, I am concerned about, and process-wise, I like this, where this is going, but I also don't want to delay this six months as we've heard a call out for and study something new.

And then again, something else comes on and then we just keep on studying it.

And while, correct me if I'm wrong, the planning commission has been at this for how many years?

Depends how you count, years, many years.

Many years, right.

So I do, and Dan and Sunshine, maybe you can just enlighten us a little bit on this, but would you imagine this delaying things a long time?

Or we think this could be, again, I think the Planning Commission is supposed to be voting on this sooner rather than later, and that we could turn this around hopefully and have this change

So let me jump in.

And then I actually personally have to sign off as I, as was mentioned earlier, and I'll kind of Dan and Phil and others have to kind of shepherd this from there.

But my two cents there is that, you know, the, the way that this current map, I'm going to go back to it.

This current map is going to be discussed at the planning commission meeting on the 29th.

The Planning Commission, City Council, the consultants have received thousands of comments.

It has been a huge surge of commentary.

No matter what, those comments themselves are causing a kind of a reevaluation of the timeline.

The specific calling out for delaying six months in, you know, I agree with you, Chris, that time is not necessarily our friend in this particular case.

At the same time, you know, it seems pretty clear.

This is my this is my two cents from just what I've heard.

This is not it is not set in stone or anything.

But my two cents is that it seems pretty clear that regardless of whether our our proposal has momentum builds momentum or not,

There is still gonna be some major revision to this map based on all the commentary one way or the other.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems likely.

I don't know how much time that takes.

That's gonna be for the consultants and planning commission and others to kind of figure out.

I think what we're trying to do in this amount of time that we have between now and the 29th is to build, if people feel like there is merit, to build momentum for an alternative framework

that may not look exactly like this, our version of the map, but that informs whatever the next version of the map is.

And so that's why Dan and I have been kind of going out and connecting with folks to build momentum and build awareness of this idea so that it does inform that process moving forward.

How much time it takes for the planning commission, the consultants to come up with a new version of the map based on all the comments they've heard, including this.

You know, I don't know, but I do have to leave.

My apologies.

I'm going to stop sharing because it's off coming off of my screen, but it's on the drive.

So I think somebody else can share the map if necessary.

Wait a minute.

Before you jump off, I want to suspend this conversation since we have a quorum for the moment.

With the edit.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Any objection to approving them?

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Sunshine.

I should point out, Phil, that even if we were to take a vote, we have established quorum.

So even though we've lost quorum, we still could take a vote, although I don't necessarily think we're going to take a vote.

Right.

I would add just a couple of things to what Sunshine said in response to Chris's question.

One is that I do think a little bit of a slowdown is a little bit of an inevitable and given, and I hope it's not six months, I hope it's not even two months, but I've heard loudly and clearly from neighborhood associations that weren't as involved in this during COVID as those of us who are

everyday involved in housing policy that it kind of blindsided people.

And it's a fairly major change.

And so I do think some delay is inevitable, but again, I hope it's not very, very long.

The other things we've heard consistently is that people don't want density for density's sake.

That people really honestly feel like we have to proactively

and affirmatively further fair housing, so create affordable housing opportunities in every neighborhood, full stop.

I haven't heard a single person in any neighborhood association say that we ought not be furthering that, but when people, and whether people, how deeply people mean it in their heart or not, it's not for me to say, but that is what the spoken consensus is in this town.

But what people have said is no density for density's sake.

What they don't want is to sacrifice the character of their neighborhoods if what they result in is more expensive housing.

Just more of it.

And it doesn't actually soften the upward pressure on affordability and doesn't help the people that we want to help.

And then the last thing we've heard as we've started talking to neighborhood associations about this is that we want to be careful that there probably needs to be a little bit more gradation in the plan that people probably aren't

Totally excited about an overlay that overlays the whole thing.

So probably what will need to be developed are maybe a couple more colors or a little bit more fine tuning about where medium intensity is appropriate, where it's adjacent to walkable amenities, bus stops, et cetera.

and so I do think that to get the land use plan right, it is actually gonna take a little bit of time.

Dan, just real quick and not to monopolize the conversation.

Sorry, everybody, but I appreciate all those and agree with all that.

I was just gonna say I participate in, I'm on the board of my neighborhood association also and

I want to note that, well, I think they should be consulted.

They should not be able to hijack this whole process, you might say, and maybe that's a strong word, sorry, but that neighborhood associations don't reflect necessarily their neighborhoods.

And so the democratic processes that either select those leaders who are voicing and claiming to represent all those folks are not necessarily, again, representing their whole neighborhood association.

So I do hope

that were taking their inputs and observations into account, but how would you want to say, weighing, you know, what they actually represent appropriately.

So I think, so part of that, Chris, is I think it's important to articulate the big why.

I saw a shift when I spoke to members of my neighborhood association

when some of the things that we housers kind of understand in terms of the way things are, why things are the way they are, aren't necessarily obvious to other folks.

And so one of the things, I live in a historically exclusionist neighborhood in North downtown.

And one of the things that was really striking to me on the day that I purchased, the day that I sat down to close on my house as I looked at the deed, and there was a no blacks, no Jews,

deed restriction on when my house was first sold.

And I reflected back the moment, how is it that I'm able to move into this neighborhood?

Well, my father bought a house in an original Levittown that was backed by a large loan that was only available if the Levitt Company would make a certain percentage, in many cases, 100% of the properties whites only.

and my dad worked hard, he saved a lot of money and he had equity in his home so that when I went to move up and move into my neighborhood, he was able to make me a bridge loan because he had equity that was backed by an FHA loan that was only available to white people and I realized I would never have gotten into my neighborhood had I not had those structural opportunities and

And I think when people understand that, and this is why Charlottesville is laid out the way it is, that our zoning primarily followed the patterns that were already there, that were already calcified by policies like the FHA, exclusionary policies that produce deed restrictions neighborhood by neighborhood, lot by lot.

Then I think people are a little bit more open to it, but I think it's really important and incumbent upon us housers, public officials, members of the planning commission, to be able to address the big why, because that for me is the big why.

And Daniel, I agree with that.

I think neighborhood stations should be utilized to share information and educate neighborhoods.

I just don't think we need to assume that they are representative of their complete neighborhood and thus with their policy ideas or demands or changes necessarily, again, they should be weighed accordingly.

I've been quiet on this one because it's very much on my mind, but I am listening.

I do want to say before you start, Phil, I do want to say that I do appreciate Dan and Sunshine for taking the initiative to do this and also for being the first map that showed the original segregated areas, because that has been a concern for me because

If we always see that, then we're always reminded of where we are, where we have been, and how far we've come when we decide to make these development moves and decisions.

So I do appreciate that, Dan.

Great.

I appreciate the conversations you've been able to generate.

The timeline came up.

That specific number is closing in on five years since this process first began.

So likewise, I agree we don't delay it too much from there.

Some of the initial thoughts I have are, one, I'm just curious how inclusionary zoning will work in partnership with the Affordable Housing

That's just an open question for me.

I know the contract with the consultants has been amended, so they are working on an inclusionary zoning proposal that's going to coincide with the zoning map update with the goal of, you know, if we're going to do inclusionary zoning, and likewise, if we're going to do

So just curious again how that inclusionary zoning affordable housing will interact with each other and then

A concern that just popped to mind is if we're doing the affordable housing overlay across the entire city, I definitely see there being value to it at a minimum in some areas.

But the only question it needs, if you do it throughout the entire city, is whether, depending on how the overlay is structured, we're going to de facto

not actually change zoning in neighborhoods that have been segregated through racial covenants and redlining if it creates a system where de facto there's just very few developments that are going to qualify for higher density under the terms of the overlays.

I don't know if that's how it will be structured or if that's been the experience in Cambridge, but it's just something that came to mind to me because again, we know that when it comes to the deepest affordability, the only way to get there is through projects and have subsidy in partnership with nonprofits.

So you put your finger on a couple of really important points, Mike.

One is that the distinction between an overlay and inclusionary zoning in some ways can be looked at as a distinction without a difference.

A 100% overlay across the city is by nature inclusionary zoning.

You want more from the base zoning, you provide affordable housing, some proportion of it.

That's exactly what inclusionary zoning does.

Typically inclusionary zoning

works, it's triggered when there's a special use permit or in some places a rezoning, but this would actually trigger inclusionary zoning whenever the intensity of use is amplified or proposed above and beyond the

the base zoning.

Second question was about this actually codifying no change.

And I think that that has to do with getting this category of general residential, right?

I mean, right now, general residential is an up zoning from what we from R1.

It's a fairly minimal one.

and the definition is a little bit blurry.

I'm unclear whether it's three units or one unit that could be divided up into three or four.

I think a couple of things would need to happen for this to actually produce results is there has to be a big enough chasm.

There has to be a big enough delta between the base zoning.

So whatever general residential is defined at and what the next level of intensity medium or high intensity is to provide incentives to essentially

provide land price based incentives for increasing intensity or density and providing affordable housing.

So again, I think one of the crucial parts is getting general residential right.

I'm with you, I think it should be some level above what would exist now.

But it can't be so high that everyone's going to choose general residential and not provide affordable housing.

So there has to be a pretty big delta

between that base density and the next zoning classifications.

And I'm not sure we have enough of them.

I'm not sure we have enough gradations.

I think some of the things I've heard from the neighborhood associations is that people are pretty spooked about this idea of up to 12 units per lot.

Now, obviously in the zoning, there are other zoning components

such as parking, such as setbacks, such as minimum square feet, et cetera, that make on almost every parcel in the city that will be general residential 12 units impossible.

But it may be that as we look at the map that there are more gradations so that in more appropriate places we can get those kinds of transects that start from areas of highest intensity and work their way down into lower intensity.

areas.

Yeah.

And I think, you know, I think more gradations I think do make sense.

I don't know if I'm sure the zoning map, once we get to that piece of it, we'll get into that more specifically because it really is a street by street thing in terms of what it's going to look like and mean.

And likewise, the zoning will obviously get into the other incentives like, you know, parking requirements, setbacks, et cetera.

Yeah, and I think, you know, from a planner's perspective, just overlaying the whole thing and keeping it simple on the land use map makes sense.

But I have heard from a lot of people that there's a lot of concern that if the land use map says 100% overlay to medium intensity, then there isn't an opportunity to direct growth into appropriate places so that the forum is what we want.

So, I mean, that's for you as a counselor to decide whether you wanted to take that leap or you wanted to spend a little bit more time on the front end.

created the gradations in the draft land use map.

Playing the role of timekeeper here, we're creeping up on one o'clock.

You've been at this discussion for about 50 minutes.

My question for the panel in general and somewhat directed towards Councilor Payne and the man of many vices,

Lyle would be two vices anyway.

That would be sort of next steps for this thing.

And are we looking at June 29th as our next turning point here?

And what do we want to do with what we have?

Well, I'm guessing that we can't meet or that there's probably no time for us to meet again between now and the planning commission meeting.

Well, we can probably squeeze something if the purpose is to put together a subcommittee to put together a tighten up this presentation for the planning commission.

I don't know if we can, I mean, we have theoretically time to notice and do the meeting.

The question is, do we have the bandwidth to do it?

And the answer to that is no, we don't.

Well, the question is to what end?

So I'm not against it.

I will find time to make time to be part of it.

One potential outcome of this meeting, again, because we have established a quorum, is if there is consensus among the group, not about the plan, but about the idea that the HAC wants the planning commission to take up the idea of a 100% affordable housing overlay

That may be enough.

So many things.

I think of the housing overlay as a zoning solution.

I think that we can talk about that in the comp plan, but that's really into the zoning.

Personally, I like it a lot.

I don't know that everyone on the planning commission will feel the same way.

As far as making large changes to the future land use map,

I expect there will be some changes.

I personally don't have a huge appetite for major changes to really push things back.

And I guess from my perspective, the idea seems to make sense to me in terms of an overlay and address.

A lot of concerns the community had while still moving forward with density increases and promoting affordability

You know, I think I would agree with Lyle that it seems to me like in terms of where the rubber meets the road, that's really the zoning map changes.

And that's practically what is actually going to matter.

You know, I'm open, couldn't speak for other counselors, obviously, and I guess next steps for us at a minimum are just passing this information along to both the city manager's office and the consultant team as well, as well as getting the

Consultants feedback of whether, given that their contract has already been amended to work on that inclusionary zoning piece in the zoning, once we get to actually updating the zoning map, whether they see that as being possible to roll in with what they're already doing with that inclusionary zoning proposal.

And I'm, you know, when it comes to land use map, I guess my thought is, you know,

I'm open to, you know, leaving a little bit of time to try to get a better product, but I'm very wary of a long delay and just the dynamic that that can introduce because we've already seen in this process.

We're pushing up on five years and I think it's just easy to delay and delay and not get any product.

Yeah.

I have some insight on a sort of procedure.

The Planning Commission work session on this topic this month, we'll be discussing this issue, but cannot recommend anything forward.

We can take a vote, but it won't be a proper public hearing.

When does this happen?

Sorry.

Okay, I so move what Dan said.

Second.

Mr. Chi, I just wanna, if you don't mind, I just wanna add something.

You know, the,

The Planning Commission meeting on 29th is for a couple of hours.

So they'll be going through the comments received from the public.

So I will recommend if you guys can compare something in the form of comment or response or endorsement and send it to them just in case there is no time

after they finish their deliberation for you guys to do the presentation.

All right, so revising the motion to request the Planning Commission that the PAC examine this issue, further make a presentation at the next meeting for that purpose and that we send over a summary of Sunshine's presentation with the cover for the work session.

That's the amended.

Michael, are you still a second on that?

I've noticed that that was my next question.

Yeah, it does have to do with next step for you guys.

It's been very interesting presentation.

Appreciate your allowing the public to dial in and listen.

I like the idea of an overlay that makes it clear how much the current use could change if

affordable housing is included, an inclusionary overlay.

But the idea of 100% seems to me like it's never gonna fly.

It will just trigger opposition all over the city.

So why not, as I think Dan was suggesting, basically have two maps, a base map where you can build

by Wright in much the way that Dan's map showed, and then an overlay map, which shows that in certain areas you can build up to these higher levels of density if you include affordable housing.

So I think that might be what you're talking about, but when you use the phrase 100% affordable housing overlay, it makes it sound like you could have a five-story building, multi-unit housing,

affordable housing on any lot in the city if somebody comes up with that proposal and maybe that is is what you mean but I think you know there are other things that you want to do in your city planning besides this issue and that has to do with putting things in locations where they're convenient

building in elements of predictability for other people who live in the area and start businesses in the area.

And you can do that if you have two versions of the map, one with affordable housing overlay and one with base conditions.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Any further discussion on the panel on the motion before us?

All in favor?

Aye, fingers in the air, whatever.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, so I guess we have next steps for that.

We may want to plan a little bit about, we've got essentially two weeks, a little over two weeks to sort of collect that, perhaps some sort of brief subcommittee meeting to solidify, but otherwise comments to Dan and Sunshine in the meantime.

All right.

If we could, I'd like to, at this point, move this aside.

I think we've had a very good discussion.

Thank you, Dan.

Thank you, Sunshine and absentia.

Thank you, the rest of you, for your input.

Chair, sorry, real quick.

Related to the previous topic, but not necessarily the future of the land use map.

LEAP is concerned regarding the comprehensive plan about the expansion of the Charlottesville gas into more hands than when considering the climate action plan and the climate goals the city has.

And so I just wanted the housing advisory committee to be aware that it's contradictory in that specific chapter, which is on facilities and services and goal 11.

and that LEAP has written and is concerned about and is hoping that the city in Charlottesville Gas will consider how to help transition households that have gas currently and to electrify them and take that into consideration in addition to

not offering or stop offering national gas connections in the near future because of the climate change goals we have.

So just wanted to make sure that the other members of the housing advisory committee are aware that that is happening and there's hopefully a change to see that or hopefully we'll see a change in the existing draft of the plan.

So

I can give you a little update on the NOFA, the Notice of Funding Availability.

We're trying to finalize up some language right now and

Looking to get some input and direction from the new deputy city manager that will be starting with us soon.

So as soon as we get some feedback on that we'll get that issued.

Also I'm sure Mr. Meyer has this in mind about the new housing person kind of the same update we're reevaluating the position.

and looking for Mr. Sanders, the new deputy city manager to also be involved in that process as to looking what that position is.

We've had some challenges getting someone in.

So we're looking at that.

And because housing is such an important issue to the city, we want to make sure we get the right person once and for all and stable and hope that helps you, Mr. Meyer.

So we keep you updated.

And I think Alex should probably give an update on the comprehensive plan stuff, even though you've all been talking about that.

Hopefully, yes.

Is there, Alex, any add-on?

I don't think, I think you guys pretty much covered everything comprehensively, you know.

Great.

Okay.

At this time, I'm going to hit pause for any public comment.

UVA has left the building.

I can give a little bit of an update for the county only because Dr. Peppy contacted me that she would not be able to attend the HAC meeting because their affordable housing policy

is going to the County Board of Supervisors tonight, I believe it's tonight.

Okay.

Any further public comment?

Raise your hand.

Okay, having seen none, any other business we want to discuss at this point?

Right, to summarize immediate comments on map to Dan and Sunshine, we look to have some sort of maybe a subcommittee meeting, maybe just a round robin of edits for the presentation for the 29th to be determined.

Any other discussion there?

Okay.

Anything else?

Yes, sir.

Anybody want to second that?

There's a motion on the floor.

Excellent.

Juan Diego is up too.

All right.

There's a motion to adjourn.

Any discussion?

We are out of here.

Thank you very much.

Very productive discussion.

Appreciate all your participation.

Thank you, Brenda.

Thank you, Aaron.

Thank you.