Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

it.

all set ready to go evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city of richmond planning commission madam secretary would you give the electronics note

This meeting is being recorded and held in person in the fifth floor conference room of City Hall. While staff and a quorum of planning commissioners are attending the meeting in person, members of the public may choose to participate in the meeting virtually. All written comments that were received by email prior to 12 p.m. today have been provided to the planning commissioners in advance of the meeting. During the public comment period, speakers will be asked to limit their comments to three minutes for an individual or five minutes of representing a group.

Thank you very much. For purposes of establishing a quorum, please call the roll.

Mr. Poole?

Here.

Ms. Greenfield? Here. Ms. Ebert? Here. We'll come back to Mr. Pinnock. Ms. Robertson? Ms. Rowe? Here. Mr. White?

Here.

Mr. McKenzie?

Come back to Mr. Pinnock as well.

Do that after the minutes or before?

We'll do that now.

Mr. Pinnock has made a request to attend Virtually, is there a motion to consider that?

I'm ahead of the motion. Mr. Commissioner Pennant, could you please tell the commission where you will be participating from and a general reason as to why?

Yes, I'm doing required traveling and I'm participating from New Hampshire. In a basement.

Is there a motion to allow Mr. Pinnock? A motion? Do I second? Any discussion? All in favor of allowing Mr. Pinnock to attend virtually, please call the roll.

Mr. Poole? Aye. Ms. Greenfield? Aye. Ms. Hever? Aye. Ms. Knight? Aye. Mr. Pennick? Aye. Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Rowe? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Okay, motion passes. And Commissioner Pennick, you are now allowed to participate virtually.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we have one set of minutes from July 21, 2026. Is there a motion to approve?

Second.

Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of the minutes from July 21, 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole. Aye. Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Eberg. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Mr. Pinnock.

Aye.

Aye. Mr. White.

Aye.

That motion passes and those minutes will be free. Hello, welcome.

Nancy, do you have a director's report? No. All right. Are there continuances of relations to consider?

There is. We do have one. So it's item two, it's for ordinance 2026-093. This is to authorize the special use of the property known as 3317 Rear Monument Avenue for the purpose of up to four single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. And this is a request from the applicant to continue to the September 1st meeting.

Do I hear a motion to continue item number two, 3317 Rear Monument Avenue to September 1st, 2026. All right.

And said mask a question on absolute. This is not the first time this items being multiple. Yeah, what do we have a. Is this being continued at the applicant's request or disaster?

This is an ongoing. Attempt on the part of the applicant to satisfy concerns of the neighborhood and there are discussions going on about size of the project, location of project, those sorts of things. Any other questions or comments? We're voting on continuing item number 23317, Rear Monument Avenue. September 1, 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole. Aye. Ms. Greenfield.

Aye.

Ms. Ebert. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Mr. Pennick.

Aye.

Ms. Gritton. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. McKenzie. Aye. Welcome. Motion passes and you all will see that item again in September.

So the consent agenda.

For the consent agenda, we have item three. This is UDC 2026-10, the final location character and extent review of proposed street, sidewalk, and stormwater improvements to a section of Hay Road between Hull Street and Walmsley Boulevard. This is a request for it to be referred to the August 13th, 2026 Urban Design Committee meeting. Amy Nunez, Item for UDC 2026 dash 11 the final location character and extent review for proposed shared use path from terminal place across Lee street and terminating at our thrash boulevard a request to be referred to the August 13 QDC meeting. And item number five, UDC 2026-12, the final location character and extent review of a proposed stormwater sediment catchment pond in Bryan Park located nearest the existing azalea pond. And this is also a request for it to be referred to the August 13th urban design.

Are there any questions from the commission with respect to the consent agenda? Hearing none, I'll open public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak on any of the items on the consent agenda. I'm online.

I am seeing no one online.

Oh, one second.

We do have one person that just raised their hand. It went away.

Oh, okay. And I'll bring it back to the commission to close public hearing and ask if there is a motion on the consent agenda. And as I understand it, it's all three to be referred to the UDC for August 13th, 2026. Any discussion? I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of the consent agenda for the shifting of these three matters to the UDC for their August 13th, 2026 meeting. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole. Aye. Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Mr. Fennec.

Aye.

Hi, Mr. Rowe. Hi. Mr. White.

Hi.

And Mr. McKenzie. Hi. Motion passed, and you all will see those items again.

Could you please present the regular agenda?

We've got one item on the regular agenda today. This is item 6, UDC 202607. This is the Location, Character, and Extent Review of Proposed Street and Transportation Infrastructure Improvements in Chaco Valley. including Oliver Hill Way, North 18th Street, Venable Street, Mosby Street, and Lee Street. And we will be joined by Mr. Rooks to provide a presentation.

Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that it's my obligation to recuse from this matter. And you need to give a modified explanation. There are some, I have a conflict with some... property that may be part of this proposal.

You might put that a part of the record. And if you would choose, you can be excused. All right. Thank you. Sorry to lose you.

Does he have to come back?

No, ma'am.

I don't have to give myself some pizza. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Roach, please proceed.

Good evening. Ray Roach, Urban Design Committee Secretary Planner.

As Sharina so eloquently introduced, this is a final application for the Chaco Valley Streets project

The scope of review tonight is in general location character stick and does the project meet the goals of the master plan. Items of a specific nature that are designed by professionals such as engineers or architects are not considered general so just general kind of high level is the things that are you are supposed to approve tonight related to this project not on the screen because there wasn't Patrick Baur, Space, you can do specific recommendations, you can make recommendations on specific specifics, but there are other recommendations. Patrick Baur, And just a reminder, especially for the public, and then you guys already know staffs role here is to advise the planning Commission as a professional. Patrick Baur, fitness basically that is what this presentation is, and that is what the staff report is the staff recommendation. Our job is also to answer questions, as you all know, as you go through the process of reviewing it tonight and hearing everything. If you have a question, we're here to answer. But we are also here to assist in trying to find some clarity as you hear everything tonight and help synthesize everything you hear to an action at the end of the meeting. We're here to help with that. The reason I say all of that is that this project is a little bit large, a little bit complex, maybe a little bit more complex than what we usually hear. consists of a wide section of the city. So it is a really great project to work on. So the question is, does it meet the master plan? And what the master plan actually says on this project is just to complete Shotgun Streets. It just refers to it as Shotgun Streets as the name. It doesn't give any actual details, no specifics. So that means that all the rest of the goals of the master plan come into play. There's a whole bunch of them, maybe 200 or so. But staff just kind of zeroed in on a couple of them. There are the overarching goals, the vision goals of the master plan. There are eight. And specific for your consideration tonight is Richmond prioritizes the movement of people over the movement of vehicles. And walking, biking, and transit options are the most convenient and used forms of transportation. This is actually the same sentence in the master plan. It just made sense for me to break it up. And there are additional references in the master plan related to transportation, site design, public art, identification signage, and sustainability that are detailed for the record and staff report. If you are interested, staff can go into those. And I'm briefly going to give you the project details so you know what we're actually talking about. This is the general location of the project. Again, it's a fairly large project. It's located just over there on the other side of 95 in the Chaco Valley. It is north of Broad Street. It takes place pretty much the whole Chaco Valley on Oliver Hill Way and 18th Street, so Broad Street all the way out to about roughly Jail. There are a couple traffic circles right there in the center, and it extends on Venable Street to Mosby Street at the entrance of the Historic District there on Venable. and onward to Mosby and the Lee Street Viaduct. This is a rendering provided by the applicant, the kind of project in its whole, its entirety. I'll zoom in a little bit later so you can see the details. But the gist here is that the project, throughout the entire project area, is doing very significant improvements to streetscape, including landscaping, including street trees, including sidewalks. We're adding and connecting sidewalks out there significantly better than what is out there now. Bike lanes are provided on almost all of the streets within the project area. That may be a bike lane that's actually on street or a shared use path, but bike facilities are provided very significant improvement investment in that.

There's a little bit of a 3D view.

Hold on a second. of the project area. You can see down at the bottom is the Broad Street, and north of that is the project area. You can see some of the development that is already out there, most of the historic fabric out there. And you can see the Lee Street Bridge there to the north. This project goes under the bridge. It does not touch the bridge and the extension over into the neighborhood. And you are stuck with my beautiful drawing here of kind of trying to represent what is actually going on here. Like I said, there are street improvements throughout all of these red lines. There are four proposed new traffic circles. We'll move in here in case we do get into discussion so we can refer to them a little bit easier. I am referring to what I'm calling the main traffic circle there at number one. The most important here to also point out is that the project proposes an additional off-ramp to the off-ramp to 95 on the Oliver Hill. Right now, the off-ramp is situated so that you exit 95, you hit Oliver Hill, you go south, and you hit Broad Street. And if you want to go to Churchill or Mosby, you have to go down to Broad Street and then go on to wherever you're going to go. One of the main purposes of this project is to take a lot of that traffic and build a second kind of stem off of that off-ramp and shoot them up into, I shouldn't say shoot them up, The traffics will slow traffic significantly. Peddleville Street on into Mosby and Churchill. So here's plan view. Right there in the center is what I'm calling the main traffic circle, the off-ramps as well. There's also going to be some building space created when those traffic circles are installed. In this rendering to the left, this broad street, To the right is the leased-room viaduct, and on the bottom right is the Mechanics Will Turn Pike Mosby. I think, yes. So this project area abuts the Chaco Institute project, touches and interfaces with the Chaco Institute. This project consists of a lot of the gateways to the Chaco Institute area. This project doesn't necessarily include work of those gateways.

the applicant is uh in touch with that and first okay uh yes mr rooks if i might i just want to clarify that you actually say the shako project the shako institute is the element that's with inside main street station which has some um wayfinding requests as well, but the Chaco project is the bigger piece that's located north of Oliver Hill Way.

Understood. Thank you for the clarity. Yeah. Name changed a few times since I started the project, I think, in the applicant. Yes, so this interfaces with the Chaco project, which is part of the Chaco Institute. It's a part of a They are in contact with that applicant team. The applicant team is in contact with the project team at the Shotgun. Another thing I wanted to make sure that y'all were aware of what's going on in the larger neighborhood. There's a lot of development throughout the Shotgun Valley. Right now, it's all warehouses, industrial uses. It's not particularly high density or anything particularly interesting. We have seen a lot of applications and a lot of interest from developers on finalization through this area, flipping a lot of these properties from industrial low density use to multifamily uses. We have a lot of applications in now for construction. We have some construction starting and I can see perhaps in maybe the next five years, probably a good flip of all of the parcels in this area. It's not many parcels. It's relatively easy to do. Yes, ma'am.

When you say... Conversion or flipping? Are you talking about scraping the sites and new construction?

So far, that's what we've seen. Most of the structures out here are fairly small and not really anything to be reused. They're small warehouses, it seems. So we've seen demolition and construction on the multi-story, multi-family, a lot of these instances. So that's what's going on in the immediate area of this. We do have the MLK Junior Middle School adjacent to the project area as well of the traffic circle on Lee and Legend. And at the very bottom of this image, we have the Mosby redevelopment. I think relatively recently, y'all saw some plans for a conceptual CUP review for that project. This project abuts, again, that project. They don't interfere with each other, and they also have been in contact with each other. Make sure everything works well together. So this is the actual proposal, part of the big project. This is the intersection of Broad Street and Rodrigo Way. Right now, you're probably all familiar with this intersection, especially if you got here from south on the highway. This is a really busy intersection. It's an older intersection, doesn't necessarily meet current city standards for safety and such. This project proposes significant improvement to this intersection, improvement for vehicles, but also especially for pedestrian bikes. There is a proposed bike lane all along Oliver Hill, extends down to here and through Rob Street onto the other side towards 17th Street Market. On this plan, the bike lane goes left and right. There's also significant sidewalk improvement and significant landscape improvement. This is a major gateway into the city, so we want it to look nice, and the proposal here has some significant aesthetic improvements this is the proposal for the main traffic circles on the left here on the dotted line is the off ramp for 95 you can see the new leg of that going into the traffic circle onto the second traffic circle and on a bedable into a mosey area you can see also significant amount of green space that is created through this project Essentially, what is happening here is that this is currently a parcel with an industrial use on it. The city, I believe, intends to use eminent domain on that parcel to get the parcel, the full extent of the parcel. That parcel here is roughly the size of a city block. Out there in the city, it's 300 feet by 300 feet. And this proposal provides a bunch of green space in addition to that circle. This is a traffic circle that enters the historic district. Staff doesn't have too terribly much concern on this one. This is a great opportunity to create a gateway as well to the historic district through art and signage. And there's also an opportunity to create space for the adjacent businesses to do perhaps outdoor seating or something like that. The applicant is aware along with that and will reach out to those businesses to see if they're interested in anything like that. That will be separate from this application. And this is the traffic circle adjacent to the school coming off of Lee Street and into Mosby. And this will turn by Mosby Redevelopment here at the bottom. This is a roughly one lane traffic circle, except for traffic as you're coming from Mechanicsville Turnpike and turning onto Lee Street Viaduct, moving downtown. There is two lanes. Those are separated. I'll come back to that. And there's also included, we started with the shared use path and back infrastructure. As I said, there was a previous conceptual approval back in 2019. There were several conditions provided by the Claims Commission back then. A majority of these conditions were standard conditions that we used to use back then. They were very specific and they talk about a lot of things that we just do out of normal habit now. So we don't use the same fashion. Almost all of these are just met again by normal. Trying to provide plans of interest out of here is the requirement for landscape plan and lighting plan. All the plans I just showed you are the landscape plan, so they haven't provided the lighting. A condition specific to this project was to maintain existing sidewalks and paths along Venable and 18th Street. Those have been maintained. Sidewalks and paths have been maintained throughout the entire area. And probably most important out of this list is to provide a study on the purpose and design of the residual land created by the roundabouts. And that was primarily geared toward that extra space on the main roundabout that I mentioned previously. And the UDC recommendation is that this application is denied. And there's a specific reason. It's not for the purpose of the whole application. The majority of this, 99%, it's fantastic. It just couldn't be separated from some concerns. The UDC provided the following narrative. They provided this from their meeting, so this is their words. Denial is based on the plan prioritizing vehicle traffic for the pedestrian needs. This is primarily related to traffic circle adjacent to the school, which I'll show in just a second, is also based on the, quote, absence of human scale placemaking at a primary entrance to the city. This is, again, the entrance, the main circle with all of that extra green space and the negative impacts on future urban development. Essentially, this project is removing this parcel that could be otherwise used as development and creating a Don't want to say it's a hole because it's a green space, but it's not a fully activated space in the middle of this urban fabric. And it's not a lot of urban fabric down there. You know, it's severely constrained by the valley. So we have concerns, the CDC had concerns. If you do create this hole, what will that do to revitalization and the adequacy of neighborhoods? So the recommendation of denial is not just this is a horrible project, don't let it go forward. It is not that. It is to allow the applicant to revise the layout of the primary traffic circle. You determine the use of the residual land surrounding the circle. You may remember the conceptual approval had the condition to figure out what the extra land is going to be used for. UDC contends that the way it's currently set up, the way it's all designed and everything's spaced out, It would be very difficult to make that land actually activated and usable. Hence the recommendation. Also to reassess the pedestrian safety related to traffic movements from the Lee Street Viaduct Circle. Again, this is the circle beside the school. I think I have a map. Yes, I have a map. I'll explain exactly what that's about. Just to take another look at that. And in the meeting, we've heard feedback from BIPOC, RVA and Historic Richmond. They said some things that planning staff was not aware of when we wrote the staff report and it sounded relatively appropriate for this project. They're relatively simple, small things that the applicant can consider moving forward to see if they need to be changed to upgrade the project. UDC added that as a condition to consider what was said by those two public entities. And I do believe both of them have provided a letter with some further details and also evaluate whether staff comments can be addressed at this stage of the project or in the future. So this is the layout of the primary circle. As I said, the extra green space is going to be difficult to activate. I have to say here, it is also extremely difficult to find another solution to this in an engineering sense. engineering team worked very hard, very long. We looked at many different options for how to deal with the traffic here off of the interstate off-ramp. And this is the solution that came up with because there's a significant grade here. There's significant other constraints. It is difficult to find a different solution. But the recommendation is our job is not necessarily to consider the specifics of engineers. We're not equipped to do that. So we want them to take another look to see if there's a different way to work this out to make the space more usable. That doesn't necessarily mean completely change the plans, although maybe that is the solution, if we can increase the usability of the space rather than optimize it. That is what UDC is saying. Also here, there is some stormwater infrastructure, a pond, and some grade changes on the bottom left and bottom right. So more or less, kind of the top section here is the most useful space. And then the pedestrian improvements at the circle beside the school. You can look at this as basically eight different sections where you have to cross the road. Right now, again, I said out there, existing conditions are not good. This is an improvement. But currently the proposal is that on that extra lane, Right here beside the school, there is a pedestrian beacon. So that's the one where you hit the button and the red light happens and traffic stops. That's only controlling one of the eight crossings here. So we're recommending that the applicant reconsider some additional pedestrian safety. That could be an additional pedestrian beacon, but we didn't want to adhere it. We wanted them to take a look at it. We feel like relatively small changes can be facilitated here. So if approved, these are the recommended conditions. If the Planning Commission feels it's appropriate to approve this tonight against the UDC's recognition of denial, there are recommended conditions. That includes updates to the Delegate Safety on the Circuitside School that I just mentioned. It also asks the applicant to consider a gateway to the historic district addition of art, addition of future gateway signage. It's a gateway to the city. There should be some welcome to the city. Signage is the fog here. Chaco project entry points and signage and some other small design considerations. Staff in the UDC felt like these are relatively small enough to be taken care of by staff with some of the guidance provided by the UDC. And the applicant has already been in touch with us to work on a lot of this. So it's all, if you do approve it, We think it can happen after you're approved. And the UDC, as I said, added two conditions based on the feedback from the meeting related to what was given by Mike Walgarbier and historic Richmond. The recommendation here is that the applicant consider these recommendations. And I wanted to make sure that these conditions were approved because even if the commission deems it appropriate tonight to deny, these are still important. And we do feel like the applicant will work with the planning staff and the rest of the city staff to figure this stuff out. We just want it to be on record. So if you guys know that this has been thought of, he would deem it appropriate to deny tonight. And when I say deny, the impetus there is the applicant go back and work and come back with changes. In summary, UDC recommends the location, character, and extent of this project does not meet the goals of the master plan. as currently designed. I'm happy to take questions.

Questions, Mr. Rook.

I have a question. But I believe based on the audience, the answer is yes. Is the applicant prepared to speak to the eight conditions that the UDC is recommending the Planning Commission consider should we move this forward?

At least so. Mr. Pinnock has his hand raised.

Yes, thank you Mister. Mister works, I was a little confused because it was noted in our packet as location character and extent I think you introduced to this final location character and extent and then I've also heard general location character and extent does that mean this project will not come back before this body should it be approved.

That is correct. This is the last bite of the apple its final approval yes.

okay and then so my follow-up question is on some of the details that i think you mentioned would be excuse me would be delegated to staff such as sidewalk design public art way finding signs etc did i understand that correctly that that would would be or could be delegated to staff that is correct yes okay Thank you. And I think you said the applicant is here to answer additional questions. Yes. Thank you.

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how we have so much feedback. I don't want to say negative or positive, but we have so much feedback on the project and even more from UDC that we think that we're here now for a final. Can you walk me through that? Are we on time constraints? Is it something that we're money that we need?

Are you feeling like there is feedback and the feedback should have been resolved perhaps before coming here? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I do feel that way. That's what you're asking. We do commonly take a lot of applications with significant feedback. And sometimes it's up to you. You guys have the enviable position to kind of work through a lot of it. The applicant, and I'll let the applicant speak more to this, but I know they have done a lot of outreach to these organizations and people providing comments, and they have changed their plans in relation to a lot of the comments. But I'll let the applicant speak maybe more to that.

I'm not sure what staff this question is for, but I'm trying to tune. So should this be approved tonight? We do not see it again. What are the next steps?

Traditionally, this is the last review. So it does not automatically go on to the final location character step review. So a lot of it's locked in. Y'all's review is general. So small things can change. That might be a move a few feet or something like that. But they'll go on through their design phase to finish that out. once they're finished they'll bring it back to me as staff and i'll make sure the two plans pretty much uh match in that general sense um there may be more steps in there that the applicant can detail but this isn't going to council next or back to the udc or the only way it would go to council is if it were so especially if it were denied tonight uh the applicant could appeal it to council or if it were approved tonight, probably a neighborhood person, neighborhood organization could appeal it. The council and council would have the final say, but not automatically. Let me just pipe up on that.

Sorry, there's no third-party appeal, right? But council, it didn't even have approval. But we're planning commissions to approve. Council can take it up itself if they want to.

Thank you. Any other questions?

I have a number.

All right. Could we go back to your slides where you made? Going back.

Go back to. You listed three items. That were the criteria for the. Recommendation from UDC to deny yes. There you go.

So all three of those would be a violation of the master plan, correct? Yes. And your final conclusion is that in its current form, it does not meet the master plan. So if we were to approve this, we would have to say that we're approving things that are not in accordance with the master plan.

You can say how you think it could be in accordance to the master plan in different ways than the staff took.

To go back to the consideration, you made mention of the conceptual approval. That was in 2019. Yes. Different master plan.

Yes, I neglected to say that.

Completely different criteria. So the concept conditions, would not be apropos to the current master plan.

But it also made reference to the fact that virtually all of those had been met.

I never saw anything in the current plan that talked about the evaluation of tree enhancement and the protection of neighborhoods or the archeological protections that are required under the current master plan. Am I wrong about that?

The applicant may have spoken to me about the tree enhancement.

Because one of the things in the 19 conditions was to demonstrate, which I would mean to say that it would be some sort of written document that there was consideration of street tree enhancing technology, and it's very specific about what kind of report you would get. I haven't seen that, but I'm not sure it's 100% fair to say that almost all of them have been met. And to provide a study on the purpose and design of the residual land created by the roundabout, was that under Exhibit A? Yes. What all that did was talk about one, of the circles. They did not talk about any of the others.

All right. Can I ask a clarifying question following on one of yours? So just so I'm crystal clear, the three pieces of the master plan that the UDC cited in their recommendation for denial is for the current master plan, not the master plan that was in effect in 2019. Correct. Thank you.

Thank you. would you say that consideration of archeological effects and also the protection of neighborhoods is in the current master plan? Yes. I take it the UDC considered those as well?

Yes, this has gone through a section 106 review. And one of the reasons it took so long from 2019. So they consider the consideration of the 106 as taking a look at especially the archeological

Didn't the 106 request further evaluations?

I'll have to let the applicant speak to that.

It's a very large document. I guess what I was getting at is you said that basically you thought the UDC thought 99% of this plan was good. I'm not going to quibble with you. There's lots of it that's good. I'm not so sure if the UDC thought all 99% was good. Would you concede that?

Those are the words I said in the meeting as my staff presentation. Maybe 98.

All right. But the distinction that Ms. Knight was asking about, and that is this being a final and the fact that it won't come back to us, but if we were to approve it with the recommended UDC conditions, we don't know what we'd be approving, do we?

I did provide detail in the staff report on what staff would be looking for for those conditions.

I promise. I've read your staff report. I believe. And my point being, if you want them to, if you go to those conditions, the recommended conditions, you're asking them to adjust the design of the intersection at Lee and Mosby.

We don't know what that would be. We don't know if they'd agree to that. I think the gateway and historic things are things that staff could handle very easily.

The Public Art Commission could handle their recommendations, I think, very easily. Future gateway signage, I think they could handle very easily. But the design of the access aisle south of the main circle, We wouldn't know what that means until that's done. So how are we going to know what this plan represents when we give it final approval without that information?

It would be entirely reasonable for you to change those by staffs to bring back later, or you can give guidance to staff tonight on what you would want staff to do.

May we bring this back and not make it a final? I believe you can condition it. If it's a final, you leave the recommendations up to the applicant and the staff, and the commission's not considering what's being redone. Is there a way for us to follow the recommendations of the UDC and ask the applicant to address those issues without giving a final?

Might ask my fellow staff members to apply too, but I believe that we can probably condition it so that small piece would have to come back. But if there was large portions that y'all wanted to see or it's not appropriate tonight, y'all feel for approval, we are recommending that you go ahead and figure it out so that it can be fully vetted and brought back. Good night.

Thank you, Chair. First, speaking on the 99%, because that does bother me in understanding where we are and where we're going. Because I see from UDC, eight points. And I think to say 99 or 98 unequivocally is a farce by what we're seeing. And so I think I agree with the chair in saying, I don't know. We have key stakeholders in the area giving the feedback that they're giving. How we've come to the conclusion from 2019 to 2026 that this is still relevant and applicable and how we haven't taken the time to amend it to make sure that it still fits in this master plan and it's current and it works because it doesn't seem that way. I think we're trying to at a square peg into, what's the phrase? I don't do those well.

I may have miscommunicated. My intention was not to say that this is almost there with the 99% communication. It's that there's a lot of good in here that's relatively small stuff, and that the big picture part of the main traffic circle is what's keeping it up. The trees are fantastic. The sidewalk improvement, fantastic. And the bike improvements, especially with the comments from our partners at BikeWalkRBA and such, will be very good improvement. I was not trying to say that we're almost there.

Going back to the question that As Knight mentioned to you, and that is the fact that there's been significant input from other groups that have been negative, that would be Historic Richmond Partnership for Smarter Growth, Churchill, Union Hill, Neighborhood Associations. I think there's a couple more I don't remember.

So,

don't think they would agree with you in saying that these are minor things that need to be done, given what they've written to us in very detailed format. I think they all would agree that this plan contains a great deal of wonderful things for that area, for the streets, for the pedestrians, for the bike riders. Bike RVA is actually one of the supporters of this plan. But my point being, I don't want to make light of how you're communicating to us, but there's a lot that's still questionable about what this final plan will look like. Do you concur with that?

Can I make a request? Sure. If I heard correctly, some of the things that have been suggested in these eight conditions have conversations already occurring with the applicant. Maybe we could bring the applicant up to get into more detail, but I also see Burt's waiting too.

I just want to make sure the commission has asked Mr. Rooks all the questions that they want.

I think Mr. Pinnock may have one. He's online. Crazy Cassandra.

Yes, thank you. Sorry. Just one follow-up question, and maybe Mr. Rooks can answer it. If not, maybe the applicant can. What is the next step? Because when I attended the UDC meeting where this was presented and voted on, it seemed like one of the significant next steps was right-of-way acquisition. Is that correct?

I'll let the applicant speak to that.

They'll be able to get to that.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

I think this question may be for the applicant, but just in case. So early on, you talked about the engineering that they looked at resulting in that very large traffic circle. Right now, when you're coming off that exit, you have to go all the way out to Broad and take a left, a left, a left to come back. Is that alleviated just by making those streets two-way and allowing for traffic to flow more naturally?

I cannot speak to the traffic part of that.

Any other questions? I just have one clarifying question. There are two recommendations of denial, one from staff and one from the UDC. So both our professional staff and our subcommittee in the agency that advises us on these issues have both recommended denial.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you. Thank you. Now the applicant. Carol. Welcome. I'll just remind you, one speaker at a time. Sure. Thank you.

Just want to be able to hear you and ask you questions, because I know that there's some more questions. I'm sure there are a lot. So that's why we're here. Good evening.

Wait one second. I want to make sure everyone online is able to follow along. I'm so sorry.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, Chair Poole, Vice Chair Greenfield, and members of the Planning Commissions. I'm M. Khaira, Department of Public Works, with me, consultants Owen Perry from RK&K, and Chris Bailey from VHB. First, thank you for the opportunity to allow us to present the Sharpe Valley State Improvement Project for the final location, breadth, and extent approval. This is a major multimodal transportation improvement in the East End, and especially in the historic Chaco area. And we want to make everything right. This is also an over $50 million project, with about $48 million of other funding sources, federal, state, and regional. So it's quite a big deal to us. This is a major gateway to the city of Richmond. We know and we treat it like that. The project is at about 70% planned stage. The 30% when at concept stage, now it's at 70%. It's not 100%. And bringing to this point, it is a product of the teamwork and product for a lot of other organizations everyone contributed to it. So everyone tried to make it better and we included that much good in this project. I have to say in 2019, Planning Commission approved this project for conception for location corrected and extent. They approved the major elements for the project that may impair properties. Sure, that's exactly what we need, that major elements and future property impacts. And that gave us a direction and a framework, where do you want us to go? And we took that direction and framework to bring it to 70%. That's what you're going to see today. So we are going with the direction that Planning Commission set back in 2019, and we are happy to explain. In that eight conditions provided to us back in 2019, we met all eight conditions, and we will explain to you. And then in final UDC, when we discussed last month with the UDC, the staff recommended six conditions. Then UDC added two on the top. And on the six conditions that staff added, we are okay with it. We are addressing the technical goals, but there are some conditions, like three conditions that you mentioned, Mr. Poole, Chair Poole, that city gateways, public art, Sharpeau wayfinding signs, And fourth one, I would say green space. Mr. Lowe mentioned that the green space is not the highest and best way to work. All these four initiatives and projects, our project is a transportation project. And these are additive things. They are incidental, are on top of it. This is a major gateway to the city of Richmond. And all these four initiatives are very important to us and for East End and for the Chaco, and we will take it seriously. But at the same time, however, these are separate projects, gateways, citywide gateway, public art, wayfinding signage through Chaco. Chaco has four different elements, heritage site, museum site, Lunkinsdale, Chaco Institute. All these four make the Chaco historical. So they are working separately on those. And I would say that, yes, we will be happy to include it. Say brands should amend to include those. We'd love to include. We will include from 70% to 100%. Two years we will have that time. But these initiatives, projects, needs to be developed by a light department who is knowledgeable on gateway science, art, and the way of finding, and green space. We love to work with the planning department to come and develop and include. And for the condition says on the UDC condition, that's why we said, yes, we are in agreement with that. And other three conditions we're gonna explain. Other two UDC condition on top of it. I have to say that this is the most sensitive historic area of the city of Richmond. And we are committed. to preserve and promote Chaco's historic character. And that's what we did. We're going to explain why it took from 2019 to today. We're going to explain why. And that's where someone asked that historic contact. Yes, we are happy to. But at the same time, I have to say thank you to Historic Richmond for their continuous input since 2018 before even conceptual review. since 2018 to improve this project. Yes, we did receive about five letters from historic Richmond because they are one of the important consulting parties as section 106 requirement point of view, NEPA requirement view. And they responded to each and every time. Even before conceptual review, we responded to all five letters from historic Richmond and made a number of changes. We eliminated a roundabout at 17th Oliver Hill and Broad Street. That was historically impactful. Yes, we did eliminate that roundabout. We eliminated impacts on Union Hill with that Venable and Mosby roundabout. We removed it.

Thank you for the input.

We also removed Lee Street and Mosby roundabout. They were an impact to historical property in Mosby. We removed it. They also asked us to eliminate impact on the development property. We reduced as much as we could, and we will explain to you what. At the end, I would say that we did as much as pedestrian safety improvement throughout the project. What we could not do, we stayed at difference, is they wanted to have more roundabout eliminated. Sorry, we could not. They wanted to have all light of impact on the Oliver Hill way east side to move. They did not want to have I-95 off-ramp traffic to City of Richmond. That's a fact we cannot deny. Traffic will come. We need to mitigate and make sure that we adjust it. That's what we can do, but we cannot close the fact that that ramp is going to stay. of the United States. We also got input from Partnership for Smarter Growth. Thank you very much. Ongoing, continuous basis to the Sharpeau Coalition. Thank you to them also, and WIPOC, RBA. They all did a great job, gave us input, and we did as much as we can, could, with our design parameters, and some we could not. Like I said that we not only doing, we also got about 10 other endorsement, lateral support for national, state, and local level. They are premium organizations like NAPTO, Department of Health, that AAA, and call it there like VCU Health, VCU Children's Hospital, and Bike Walk RBA. sports backers. They've given us a lot of support and endorsement. So we appreciate them out so that they look into each one their own perspective. And we, at this time, like I said, 70% planned stays. We're gonna share the details with you. What will that provide that the four initiatives, like I said, the Good Way, Public Art and others We're going to install electric and water connection on each and other areas. And all locations will be ready to take the project once it's approved by UDC Planning Commission at a separate initiative project. It will come back to UDC Planning Commission, but not this project, but other initiatives. And when you give them, they bring it to us. We will include part of our projects in the next two years From 70% to 100%, it's going to take two years. Why? I'm going to let you know why. Because we want to move to right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. In our transportation terminology, we are in design phase. Project needs to move into right-of-way phase. Then third one is construction phase. In the right-of-way phase, we have to have... this started as soon as we can, because funding was provided back in 2016, 10-year-old, and those are federal funds. We are at risk if we don't move the project forward soon. I'm not saying today, but soon. We'd like to see today. Soon that is going to right-of-way phase. We already have given us a notice that if it's not, then transportation board may de-allocate funds making statement that is not advancing to the next phase. So at this time, I'd like to request final CPC approval from any commission requestfully that for major elements that you approved back in 2019, that we already detailed to 70% design. And now we have more detailed property impacts. We will be happy to share with you. this in the same baseline, which we all agree to and we are bringing back. So that's what we would like to see today. I respectfully disagree with the UDC's recommendation. The three recommendations you saw earlier that it's saying that it's not in line with the master plan. I'm reading this report, this UDC report to Planning Commission. For the master plan point of view, vision and goal. It says, product meets in most areas accessible transportation. And goal of prioritizing people over vehicle. That it says. And it also says, greatly enhancing pedestrian facility and streetscape quality, providing additional bike lanes, traffic calming. It says on this because they recognize this is a part of the master plan. And it is fulfilling that. Also said, transportation design. The product meets. Richmond 300 transportation design goal of two-way street conversion, utilizing complete street, vision zero goals, enhancing bike and within the nodes, enhancing sidewalk quality. They're all a part of it. It's in each and every place. Site design, it meets. Sustainability, it meets. Public art, we are going to meet after separate project. So where are we have differences? From UDC. UDC, when they got this report from Mr. Ropes, You got the support from those. They are based on the master plan. And I believe that we did as much as we could. But let us explain the project a little bit further for environmental, for traffic operations, for pedestrian operations, and environmental point of view, and why it took about five to six years. Let us have Owen started with it. And I agree, one person will speak at a time. But between three of us, we're going to step in, step out, if you can allow us, please.

What I would suggest is at this point, if there are any questions from members of the commission for you, we should probably address those now, and then also reserve the right to ask you any final questions once we hear your full presentation.

I have like four slides to speak on this, if you will allow me to. Thank you.

I appreciate you being here. You kind of weaved in and out of some of the things I want to ask you from the comments that you've given. You mentioned federal funds and the potential for being on notice for the Commonwealth. I'm assuming the Transportation Board to possibly take those back if you don't move forward. Am I correct that there's also smart scale funding that you could be in jeopardy of losing if this doesn't move forward in a timely fashion?

Vice Chair Greenfield, very correct. And I said federal funds. All smart scale funds are federal funds. I apologize.

I thought smart was state, and then there was federal. I thought there was two pots of, I don't know, transportation funding.

The way it is that when we call federal funds smart scale, smart scale gets 80% of the federal funds, and state has to, by charter, state code, plug in 20% in order to get 80%. So once you have that $1, put it in, everything is federalized, even state funds.

But it's still fair to say, because of that, there are some state dollars flowing into this.

On top of it, that's a separate part we call revenue-sharing program funds. So there are smart-scale funds, $31.5 million, then $1.7 million revenue-sharing funds. Revenue-sharing funds, state funds only. They are flexible, but not federal funds like smart-scale, that $31.5 million are. That is the funding mechanism. I would be happy to explain one of the slide. If I could answer anything else on that.

I appreciate that because I know we have a long way to go in presentation and a lot more comments, but I think the potential of losing any dollars could be really detrimental because then otherwise the city is going to have to find other ways to make the project of the significance move forward. I appreciate you touching on that funding piece. I've read the letters of those in opposition, those in support. And it's interesting to see some of the comments about how we're, you know, a key complaint seems to be that the project prioritizes cars instead of people. But then we see other organizations saying we applaud the fact that you're putting in pedestrian and bike safety. How would you respond to this concern of putting cars over people?

This traffic calming feature, what you see is not for the vehicle to fly through what you see today. Right now, if you come on Oliver Hill, who can tell me that it's a very pedestrian-friendly? Who can tell me it's a bike-friendly? Will this product not take care of it? Anyone going over 25 miles per hour in roundabout cannot drive through it because there's geometric constraints. You cannot drive in roundabout more than 90 miles per hour. That is traffic calming. It gives you one lane... I'm going in your eyes. Sorry for that. This will be an area he will be addressing that. He's a national level expert in transportation that I don't want to speak. So please, if you can give me, but regarding that $31.5 million of federal smart scale fund, are there a risk? Yes, if we're not moving forward to the next phase of the project soon. So we need to keep that in mind. If the project, if the funding moves away, this project is canceled, It's not only that we lost the funding and the project is gone. We have to reimburse $4 million we spent as of today back to federal government that this project is not moving forward. You gave me $4 million back. You spent our money. That kind of risk.

Thank you. What exactly is covered under the grant or what is required by the grant?

The grant of smart scale?

Any of the federal funds.

When we applied for, in 2016, the Smart Scale Week, HB2, it used to be called HB2, but now it's called Smart Scale. This was the first year of Smart Scale or HB2. And we've given them plan of development. What you see is pretty much same, except one change based on historic Richmond. We eliminated the roundabout at Oliver Hill, 17 and Broad Street. That was too impactful to historic area. Other than that, everything remains the same, what we put that project request in, and we received $28 million. Most any project can see back in 2016, because this value based on the safety, operation, accessibility, connectivity, economic development, there are criteria for small scale. Each one gets a score, land use, and was that highest for and we got $28 million higher more than we ever received before.

So that is the requirement that you deliver the project that you applied with in 2016.

But they think that they see all kind of him safety improvement connectivity improvement economic improvement development and all this.

Okay, so is Is that the requirement that you make economic improvements, pedestrian improvements, vehicular improvements, or is it that you deliver what you propose?

Deliver what you propose because we told them these are the basic, they evaluated, they scored on that criteria. It's their score, not ours.

So the score that you achieved that allowed you to receive the funding was based on that project side. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Carroll, this is location, character, and extent. This board, this commission's only jurisdiction is for location, character, and extent. Funding is not a part of that consideration. Am I right?

Very likely, because I don't want to say that you're making a decision based on that, but at the same time, I don't want to say that the decision that, like Mr. Oak has said, that general location and corrective extent does not include any kind of engineering design. Absolutely. It doesn't include the financing. Any plan that's prepared by a professional engineer and done by a certified architect is not there for you. So I think within the... Planning Commission's authority of general MCE, we'd love to have that. And that's why we're here today. Allow us to, once you see that major elements, those are major elements are part of your approval and impact that will create is part of Planning Commission because I cannot buy one single square foot of right-of-way without your clearance. That's under your control. And once you do it today, I can proceed to right-of-way phase. That's what is important.

When Mr. Rokes made his presentation, he made a statement that I wrote down. And what he said was that the main thrust of this entire project is moving traffic. Do you disagree with that?

Disagree with his own statement right here. It says that on page number four of CPC report, you may like to see that, project needs in most area the equitable transportation role of prioritizing people. or with the greatly enhancing production facilities. So you believe Mr. Rooks misspoke? No, I'd say UDC may have misspoke, but not Mr. Rooks. I'm just telling you what Mr. Rooks said. I am not going to dispute with that because that's not my area. I'm only going to say what the fact is in front of me in the report producer. At the same time, what UDC is saying is in contradiction of what their own staff said.

Do you agree that part of this problem with respect to what was proposed in 2016 and 2019, part of the problem is that we're now dealing with an entirely different master plan?

And yes, but we still have to meet that old master plan too because we have eight conditions and we did meet. What you have to meet now is the conditions of the current match.

And we are. And both staffs have said you don't.

I would disagree with that, respectfully, because that's where the different opinion is. To me, it's going to explain why the people is always weaker. That's what we prioritize. And that it might have that design elements that we are taking care of with this project. They're important for this gateway. Yes, we disagree. And that's why we're coming to planning commission that as a team together, can we work to see what else we did not do it, your point of view, because you are the ultimate authority, not UDC, and that's where we like to put our taste.

That's why we're glad to hear from you. Please, thank you very much. If you want to go ahead, which of these?

Oh, sorry, I have a couple questions, but maybe fleshed out during the presentations, I'll save a few. There's just one I want to pull in the parade by Vice Chair Greenfield. Can you give some clarity to what soon means in regards to funding possibly going away? And can you clarify if the city has received any type of notice or are we using professional judgment based off of prior projects?

Very good question. First of all, the soon mean that... Hold on.

This is a... Oh, two minutes. I'm just printing one paper.

This came from BDOT's dashboard. And that dashboard shows for the schedule we have in the past. Because smart scale funding say that within four years, you reach to certain stage from design to write-over acquisition. But they understood this is a historic area. We could not go by without to complete section one of six. That involves so many archaeological phase one, phase two. We're going to go to phase three also with this project. Have anyone else, any other project, call any other project shop, done that much of section one of six in that area? Has done the archaeological survey, cultural survey? None. This will be that thick because They know federal government was involved altogether. ACP from Washington, D.C. was involved. We notified to them. The Parking Historic Authority, they were involved throughout. Anytime you send a document to the DHR, to Federal Highway, 30 to 60 days waiting period before they act on it. So they realized that it is time-consuming to get Section 106, so they cannot put us in four years. You get to write away. And I cannot get to right away until I get close to NEPA approval. And right now, we are close to NEPA approval because memorandum of agreement, MOA, is signed by Department of Historical Sources, Federal Highway, that city of Richmond, and VDOT, four of us. It's signed when? 2025 July. So they understand. So they said, can you move further now? And it says in here, Can you do this utility authorization, right-of-way utility authorization by month of August? Maximum, we may give you September. That will be, we will see as a progress. So, and then, second part of your question, this is an email, and it's a public document under FOIA. Anyone can have it. It says, the product has significantly exceeded expectation time frame. for project development and continues to experience project development challenges, impeding progress towards construction, because we're not getting towards construction. Depending upon the outcomes of the pending decisions and consideration before the Planning Commission and City Council, DDOT is prepared to make a recommendation to Transportation Board regarding the continued advancement of this project, including potential deallocation and repayment of expanded funds, we encourage the city to progress the project forward without additional delay. And to me, not soon could be, not today. If you give me today, this is exactly what we want. But I just tell you that their deadline is, let's see by September how far you go. That's how it is. It's not a part of this. We just got it today, but we will be happy to forward the email to Secretary of Transport.

Could you make sure the Secretary has that for the record? Thank you. Ms. Rowe?

So you referred to the application that was submitted in 2016, the project that was approved then. What kind of design process, review process, what went into the project that was submitted? in terms of working with Historic Richmond Foundation or the planning department? What went into that original project design?

Let me tell you that those kind of projects had a very, very detailed kind of project development stages. And in this one, we created a steering committee. That steering committee had to steer the project looking into, and who were the participants? Only Public Works was one, but just every 12 were There is Partnership of Smarter Growth, All It Historic Regiment, Chaco Business Association, Chaco Neighborhood Association, Delegate McQueen for the slave player point of view, Councilwoman Robertson, yourself, and Council President Newell, school board, both, 6th and 7th, all they were part of steering committee. And we had ongoing steering committee before even Coming to conceptual review, what they want, how they want, do you agree? And then on top of it, we have technical committees. Technical committees are built of departments. They are planning, you gave us input, economic development, digitality department, park and recreation, they all come together to develop a project. And then we have outside of steering committee and technical committee, we have consulting parties, all section 106. There are about 12 or 13 agencies or groups They need to review each and everything what we are proposing on environmental point of view. And that happened prior to? Prior to even MOA signing on July last year, 2025. They must have it. So we don't understand this project got delayed, not go from design to right of way in four years because we could not cut the corner. And it took us five years to get to the MOA.

So I would also offer that the reason that this proposed project has gone through the number of 106 reviews that it has is the unique character of this part of the city, which you referred to. So I'm just going to pontificate at this point, so I'll hand it back to you.

I was going to mention that Yes, what are you asking? One thing I wanted to mention more is we're going to cover part of the presentation. It's public input on top of technical steering or other consulting party. In public hearing in November 2025, they told us this project meets 93% safety improvement goal. This project meets 87% said that it meets connectivity goal. 85% said it meets access goal and total project goal is about 90%. They said that meets the way we presented to them. To me, it's a huge. Therefore, not majority. 85, 87, 90, 993. We need to look into all this.

Parts of this project area, though, are so have been seeing no investment in so long that literally you could just go sweep the street and that would be an improvement. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily the right improvements or that pedestrians and bikes are being considered over vehicles. It can be an improvement and improve things for those users, but it doesn't mean that they are being prioritized. So those things can be true at the same time.

We will prove that why we say people are prioritized. Let's take it from if you are okay for us to present it, sir.

Welcome.

I'm with RK&K engineers. Working with the city on this project for a number of years. Glad to hear you. You've been on this show? Okay.

Either that or you can take the keyboard if you'd like.

No, it's all right. I will drive and talk all that well. So as Mr. Cara said, we're here today I'm requesting final approval from you for location character and extent. We need this to proceed to right-of-way phase, and we also need to just avoid any more delays or VDOT. You've already heard about the funding issue there. Go ahead. To tell you what we've done since 2019 and why it's taken us a little bit of time to get back to you guys, We did phase one archeological surveys. They were studied and, and DHR requested us to go to phase two, which is actually digging trenches. And we had plenty of those down next to Oliver Hill way in the VCU parking lot in that area. And, um, and so that, that a phase two work went from 2020 to 2022. We have reports, um, that have been approved for that. Um, Then we had consulting parties meeting to discuss the effects that we were having on the area. That was in 2023. DHR concurred with us in 2024 with our report and the archeology and historical work we had done. We had advisory council on historic preservation approval in 2025. And as Mr. Kera said, Also, we had in 2025 our public hearing as a requirement from NEPA and from VDI. Project goals, they've been the same since this project was since inception. Improved safe access for all users, including regardless of age or ability. Improved circulation and connectivity. We're going to show you the connectivity we're making to the neighborhoods. Environmental sustainability through different transportation options, which is transit, bicyclists, and we'll show you some of the key things that we're doing there. support additional economic development opportunities in the area. So while we're taking that one parcel, we're also been respectful and have met with many stakeholders in the area that have developments either coming or they're developing land right now and support all the different uses of the roadway, whether it be bikes, walking, or all the modes of of the transportation grid in the area. I'm not going to repeat, raise an overview of the project, but I will highlight a few areas. We've got cycle tracks. We have on Oliver Hill Way, we're going to convert all the streets. We have shared use paths that are shown in orange there. We have two-way cycle tracks that are shown in yellow, and we're converting all these streets that are one-way to two-way streets to provide some traffic calming and just make them safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. If you go to the next slide, this is what we envision Oliver Hillway would look like after our project versus what it looks like today. It looks like a speedway. We hope this would provide traffic calming and shorten pedestrian crossings with a median so you can get across one direction of traffic and then cross the other direction of traffic. Mr. Carroll also mentioned that we had our public hearing back in November of 2025, and you can see this is pretty, this isn't the kind of response we usually get to have this overwhelming like, people liking the project. So this is not something we get every day when we have a public hearing and we think there's considerable support for the project based on the feedback we've gotten to date.

Go ahead.

Um, in 2019, eight conditions. Um, I think Mr. Kira pretty much covered that we have addressed. We feel like we have addressed all of those. I think it's in the staff report. Um, and then we had questions and comments from staff at the, on the final UDC meeting, uh, 2026 last month. Um, and as it's been reported that, um, The two issues that we hear the most about are the location of the main roundabout and the Lee Street roundabout that we're going to explain in a few minutes. Also conditions were public art, gateway to Richmond, signage, Chaco wayfinding signage, Chaco Institute signage, and gateway to Union Hill Historic District. And as Mr. Kera said earlier, We feel like those could be either handled with staff and either inserted into this project or we would make areas for those other amenities to be added at a later date under different projects. Go ahead. From your conceptual meeting and from our conceptual meeting with you in 2019, the eight conditions We feel like we've addressed them all. The project plans include parking areas, landscaping, lighting. We have lighting plans, landscaping plans. Materials for sidewalks are identified. Structural soils are going to be included for trees. Tree locations have been provided in our landscape plans. Sidewalks will be maintained, existing, plus new connections to new sidewalks. And then number eight was you asked us to provide a study, or at least to begin a study, on the design of what could be in the residual land created by the roundabouts. If you go to the next slide. PDR produced this conceptual schematic in like 2019, I believe. And it was just a vision of what could maybe be in the area of that main roundabout. It's nothing, nothing's been agreed to or considered about with final decisions, but it was just a, a visionary kind of thing of what this area could be if we sort of improve the residual land, landscaped it, whether it becomes open areas or what its purpose is. But we plan on working with staff on identifying exactly what those residual areas might become, and that's part of our plan moving forward.

Chris Daly.

Yeah, Chris Daly, VHB, Victor Hotel Bravo. I'm with the RK&K team. That's not the name of the company, just in case for the court reporter over there. So again, I don't want to reiterate. I know we've been talking about this project for quite a while here. I strongly hope that this project goes through. I'm a huge proponent, obviously not just because I'm a part of this project team, but because I like to walk and bike around the city. And I'd like to see this area of the city return to a functional part of the city. Because right now, I think we've got some friends in the back that might want to get up and talk about this. People who work, live, and play here. It's just not a fun place to walk or to bike. Coming off I-95, it's a racetrack. It's three lanes southbound. There's a great deal of crashes, high severity crashes, because of the great deal of speed and the fact that vehicles have been traditionally trying to turn left immediately on Clay and Marshall, an unsafe condition. We've all seen the pylons that get knocked down. It's not a fun place to wait for the bus on Oliver Hill Way when you've got lined traffic backed up from the Broad Street intersection with cars just consistently in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, a couple of feet where we wait for the bus, right? So I want to address a couple of the things that we heard or that you might hear later as far as whether or not roundabouts are considered urban. I want to push back against that. I want to push back strongly against this notion that somehow urban modern roundabouts are in any way vehicular centric and in any way make pedestrian bicycling safety any less safe. It's actually quite the opposite. And I do want to point out that Bike Walk RVA, they don't have any issue with roundabouts. They dispel that same antiquated notion that somehow Modern urban roundabouts are in any way less safe for our cyclists and our walkers, our rollers. It's quite the opposite. This project and our urban roundabouts, and I just want to point out, roundabouts are not foreign to Richmond. They're not foreign to other major cities across the world in Europe, South Africa, Australia, in other major urban environments in our own country, right? These are not suburban style roundabouts. You've heard that term used. These are urban, modern roundabouts. I'm going to keep saying it. Urban, modern roundabouts. Okay? What they do is they slow speed para-address this. You can't just have to do urban, modern roundabouts. They slow to less than 25 miles per hour. Okay? They also reduce crossing distances for our cyclists and walkers to a single lane at any given time. Much improved upon the existing conditions. They also... Promote better yielding conditions for pedestrians. This is also demonstrated in the research. These are improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. What they do is they slow the vehicles. They reduce the most severe type of crashes that occur, which are those right angle crashes that I mentioned that those are the ones that result in our fatalities. They also, as I mentioned, make yielding better for pedestrians. by reducing the crossing conditions and improving those yielding rates. So I just want to further iterate that they're also better for cyclists in the sense our design is, in the sense that they are promoting separate spaces for bicyclists, separate spaces for walkers, separate spaces for vehicles. We're talking about skinnier streets in our project that are going two-way, but they're skinnier streets, skinnier lanes, all in an effort to calm the traffic, slow speeds. I did want to also address your question about, you know, is this vehicular-centric and is it about pushing cars? You had a question about coming off the interstate and turning left at broad. Let's not confuse improving connectivity for all modes with somehow the idea is we're pushing cars faster through the roundabouts or through the system. Not at all. What that does is it allows for people to access their homes and their businesses in Mosby Court, in Church Hill, directly. So we're removing the high-speed vehicle movement that's coming down Oliver Hill. We're removing the left turns on Broad, which conflict not only with other vehicles, but also with our pedestrian movements. We're removing that left turn from Broad back onto 18th. So it is improving connectivity for all modes. And again, this was scored by VDOT and SmartScale. Two of the scoring criteria are specifically about safety, that this project's worked very well on, and multimodal look, making this a better place. That's what this project is doing. It's placemaking. It's improving safety. You can, I'm sorry, I keep talking. You can move. I did just want to point out that we do have urban modern roundabouts that do show that there is developable infill, so the one at 25th Street, and also that in and of themselves, they are serving as gateway treatments as they come off either 195 or 95 at Maury. So, and of course, we already talked about the continuous efforts working with Mr. Rokes and PDR and to further improve that gateway treatment with various measures. So again, just wanted to reiterate that in 2019, we talked about this conceptually, Planning Commission approved. We did not impose a single geometry at any one of these locations. We put a lot of thought and took a lot of public feedback, stakeholder feedback. You're just seeing, sorry, one back. You're just seeing four of the many, many iterations, design scenarios that we considered. different placements of the main roundabout here, how we tie in. Mr. Rooks actually did a very good job of explaining the engineering decisions. There was a lot of testing, evaluation, again, taking input from the advocacy groups, from public citizens, and all of the stakeholders. And this is where we landed, and this is what was conceptually approved back in 2019. Again, this is not about moving vehicles through this area. It's about restoring a sense of place and community. Again, this is where we ended up with the next slide, the preferred alternative. Okay. There is 1.9 acres. I think we talked about that already. There's ongoing efforts and a commitment with PDR to determine how those spaces get used. We're in agreement and we're cooperating to make sure that both projects, our project and the public beautification and aesthetics, the gateway treatments are also happening in concert. Okay. I'm just moving on. I just want to address some of the statements that we heard either at UDC or maybe in some of the letters that you mentioned, specifically about the Lee Street roundabout, pedestrian safety. There's this notion that somehow, again, it's pedestrian or it's vehicular centric. We're moving cars. It's a single lane round. You can go to the next slide. It's a single lane roundabout. OK, that's intentional. And it reflects a lot of input and refinement over the course of this project. Originally, we had scenarios where it was a two-lane roundabout or a hybrid one-lane with an additional circulating lane. This is the safest because it reduces that pedestrian exposure. At any given time, you're crossing a single lane with the exception of this crossing. So you're going from a crossing of 110 feet now, not fun, greatly exposed to vehicles, vehicles that are turning. We rely on vehicles to look to their right or to their left if they're making a left turn. and give pedestrians that right of way, even when they have a signal indication. In a roundabout, you're facing the pedestrian, and that pedestrian is crossing 12 to 16 feet. So it's vastly improved. Talked about the speed, slow speeds through this area, the deflection angle. The geometry requires vehicles to slow down. And the city is already doing great work on Mosby, slowing speeds through this area already. You've heard about other issues. You'll hear mention of this lane right here. I think Mr. Rokes mentioned is that one of the UDC conditions. This was done intentionally and it was refined based on all of the input that we've heard. Additional multimodal analysis, safety analyses. The idea is that we didn't want two lanes approaching the roundabout because that increases the pedestrian exposure. We're reducing it with a 15 foot pedestrian refuge. Nice and safe there for a pedestrian to make a two-stage crossing. We also have a pedestrian hybrid beacon. It was mentioned there. Ray told you all about how that works. So an additional measure that we included after receiving input. Furthermore, we've added a speed table. You've seen those around the city. In this case, it would probably be a raised pedestrian crossing to further slow vehicles. You might hear that this is somehow some high speed. No. This lane is also designed for those slow speeds. We have our high visible markings. We're separating our pedestrians. We're separating our bikes. And we're providing the most direct connectivity for our walkers and our bikers. If you want to go to the next slide. UDC final approval 2026. We had some conditions. Those have been discussed in great detail. I don't want to spend a lot of time other than to say that We are addressing these. The first one I think I've tried to address. That's the most important to me is the one about it being pedestrian oriented. This design is pedestrian oriented. It has been since day one. It was back under the old master plan. It is today. It continues to be ped bike focused. The rest of these are about the gateway and the concurrent efforts that we'd be doing with PDR to make sure that these are visually appealing and we're pulling all these elements to, again, make this a place again. You can go to the next slide. And then the next one were the minor details from Bike Walk RBA. We had a very good webinar last week where we talked through some of these issues. Bike Walk RBA gave another very strong letter of recommendation. They're not anti-Roundabout. They're pro-Roundabout and they're pro-project, this project. They have some minor details, some engineering things that we're happy to continue to talk through and further refine. And I can talk about these in further detail moving on. Okay, so for example, one of the comments from Bike Walk RVA was greater space for bikers waiting to access the Lee Street Viaduct at intersections. So we're talking about this crossing here. That's a good recommendation. And we'll continue to look at that. They're not saying it's a bad thing. They're just saying, hey, maybe can we provide a little bit more space for queuing? What they're talking about is cyclists and walkers that are on this dedicated space, dedicated and separate for the two modes. You've got a 10 foot sidewalk. You've got a 10 foot cycle track. And then you have further flare out where you can see that little island. So you've got between 20 and 25 feet there for the pedestrians and cyclists to queue before they make their movement across. And again, crossing smaller distances where they're better visible to the oncoming traffic and with the refuge and the PHB and the speed table in this controlled way. Okay, go to the next one, please. By the next one to a cycle track on mostly street talked about this during the webinar, this is where we might have a disagreement, we can continue to talk about this and explain why what our rationale was I mentioned it already it's about that connectivity. You know connecting candy creek the future fall line trail that would then come over the viaduct and protected lanes. The direct connection all along the Western separate facilities along the western side. That would continue then over to the Oliver Hillway corridor, the 17th Street corridor, down to the Capitol Trail. This is the most direct connection. That's why we put it on the western side, along with several other factors. Just the space, right? If we had dedicated buffered bike lanes on both sides, it takes up a little bit more space than having a cycle track on the one side. further conflicts with aprons, right? So we wanted to minimize those. We also took the public feedback in with respect to still desiring some parking, right? And this allows for parking to remain on the desired site. So all of those things factored in, we can continue to have those conversations with White Walk RBA and continue to talk through that and refine. Not a big deal. We're not anti-roundabout. And then finally, there was a question about making sure they're signing and marking. This is not a fun slide to look at. That's why you didn't see this in the public much. This is the engineering plan that shows all the engineering decisions as far as payment markings, signs. There'll be separate work on specific wayfinding. So just know that that's there. We're considering these engineering decisions.

Thank you. UDC final condition number eight,

And with respect to the comments received from historic Richmond, we have received five letters from them. Multimodal analysis and study has been updated throughout this process. Oliver Hill Way and Broad Street needs to align with each other. So I'm going to show you a a graphic that'll show you where we've trimmed down right away due to the comments we received from Historic Richmond. And you mentioned the connections to Capitol Trail and Cannon Creek, and that's part of our action plan as well. There was a comment that our... Go ahead to the next one. That our... Traffic conditions have not been updated since 2016 or 2019. Not true. We have stayed on top of the traffic conditions out there for every year, including through the COVID time. You can see the drop in traffic in 2020, 2021. That's sort of in the COVID years when people were traveling less. And now it's started to increase again a little bit. So our studies are up to date, contrary to the letters we received. Go ahead. And this shows the final condition of how we've lined up the street north and south of Broad. This is Oliver Hill Way, 17th Street. The through lane is as tight as we can get it and comes down and we taper into existing 17th Street. right as we get to whatever street that is. One other thing, it was stated that we've taken too much right-of-way and we've heard those comments throughout our studies and we've reduced, this is Oliver Hill way and how we've reduced the right-of-way needed for the traffic north of Broad Street We've reduced it from 30-something feet of right-of-way to 28 feet of right-of-way, and we're going to put the pedestrians in a pedestrian easement so we don't have to take that right-of-way away from the adjacent property owner. Go ahead. And this sort of looks like what Oliver Hillway should look like at the end. It's... You can see it lines with the Better Streets outlook. You can see the top drawing is all three lanes coming as it does today. The bottom typical section shows what two-way traffic would look like with medians, with pedestrians, and the cycle track is over here on the east side. And Chris mentioned connectivity. Go to the next slide, please. This is a drawing we sort of developed showing all the connections that this project provides. Cyclists, pedestrians to Lee Street, cyclists going north and south to Cannon Creek and Capitol Trail and all the facilities that I showed you previously, the two-way cycle tracks, the the shared use paths, all of that connectivity that we're trying to strive through the entire project area. Go ahead. Terry, you want to do this one? This is project funding. You asked the question earlier.

Go ahead. Thank you. Coming back again, what I discussed before the project funding. Design, right-of-way acquisition is about $9.9 million because we only spent design money for about $4 million. So first line, what you said, $4.3 million is quite spent. But $9.9 million for acquisition, utility relocation needs to start. That's where today we are asking for final CV approval. Then major part of the money, $35.4 million. These numbers are total $49.6 or $50 million based on 2025 estimated cost because when we present it to public hearing. In construction, when it goes to construction in 2029, cost will become 54 plus million dollars. So yes, that's a projective with inflation and other things, but this is a task. And the federal funding point of view, $33.3 million, but smart scale is 31.5 and $1.7 million, I've been sharing that already in six year program, but based on what we did doing it, we'd have given another $1.3 million this June for this project. We are total together will be about 40, 30, about 35 some million dollars from VDOT, revenue sharing and smart scale together. Then we have a $14 million city's adopted budget. Now almost last seven to eight year, every year, this project goes to city council with open public hearing and it's being funded every year for the requested money, $14 million. Then back in March, We went to Mayor. I really thank Mayor to take this project to CBTA regional CBTA authority. And he presented the project and got $14 million CBTA regional money for this project. So that's what you see next line item. So we have $35 million close to federal funds, revenue sharing, $14 million geo bond, and about $14 million of CBTA regional money. Based on that, we spent about 4 million as of today. And then, next slide please. For the schedule point of view, on the second bullet that plants are at 70% stage. And like it took us some time for conducting extensive historical environmental NEPA 106, all these reviews and for preserve and protect the history of Chaco Valley area. And then finally, DHR, worked with us with the consulting parties together to execute MOA on July 31st. Soon after then we went to public hearing because we could not go before that. The schedule is that based on this approval and others that we plan to conclude on NEPA document in the next few months because that's part of approval. It should not impact NEPA approval. City Planning Commission final approval. We are here today. Right-of-way acquisition will start soon after that, your approval, between fall 26 to fall 28. It will take about two years. At the same time, when we are doing it, we are also going to start relocating utilities. Just for information, because of the major gateway point of view, we are working with the utilities. When you see some of the, on Oliver Hill, where you come up 95, a lot of these overhead poles, wires, other things, you will see so congested. We are moving all these to keep Charco side of entrance beautiful and gateway. We are moving on the east side. Actually, it's on the west side. So all utility will be located on overhead, but not underground overhead on the east side. That's part of the utility relocation in the next two years. Then we plan to advertise construction of this project in end of 28. So there's a time it will be 100% planned completion. Today, 70%. Two years from now, 100%, we have room to work on a lot of these things, whether it's a PDR initiative for four areas we discussed, whether it's anything else, if you give us, hey, can you work with us and include part of 100%? We need approval from you for LCE today to proceed with acquisition right away and to major element and footprint of that what we are presenting. That's all we need today. Other things can be worked out minor. I like it. Mr. Lopes, 99% is good product. I still want to say that. But product will be completed 31 to 32. Next slide, please. We are not just bragging, but we did very hard work. Over 35 community activities and other things happened. Four city council ordinances went through public hearing in different, different stages and all got approved. All five public workshop and hearings happen on this project. UDC, CPC, previous, now, others. Public meetings happen on this one. Steering committee, technical committee, and consulting party. On top of it, every year budget has gone through it, approving this geo bond money. So those are the public hearing. Those are the public time to input. And we can brag that we've gone through it and we've done it. And there was coalition of sports Anyone can tell you who is the National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO. They are the ones who drive the whole United States urban design. They tell us what urban design is. And what they say right here, the Sherpa Valley project exemplifies forward-thinking urban design, aiming to transform highway-like street design from the interstate era to vibrant, safe, and accessible public space for all. This is one paragraph. If you want to read, please, it's part of your package. It's a two pages. All good thing. You will be surprised how good they wrote on this project. Next. I'm just picking some. Children's hospital. They just looked into plan. They said this is a roundabout as a design feature that they like to see. That slow down people. The young residents might be walking, biking, others, and all these things. So they are sponsoring and they are supporting, endorsing this project. On top of it, You see that RBA rapid transit is part of your packet. People like bike walk RBA, active towns, RBA, MB, Hoffman Science Association, VTA, VCU Health, Virginia Department. The national, regional, state, and local, everyone's saying that, yes, there's good stuff in there. In contradiction, someone is saying this is vehicle-oriented. I disagree with that because not as other people are saying. Please take their words. And thank you, Erdene. I appreciate you all giving us this much of time to explain. And we are here as long as you need.

Questions for Kara or either of the two gentlemen?

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

I was just curious. On the acquisition, how much acreage overall would you be acquiring?

It's different in different locations. That position is on Loving's property between Broad Street and Clay Street on the west side. That's a major. Once you go south of Broad.

And how much is that?

I have the details. I have a right of data sheet right here. Do you have it? Oh, yes.

I think I have it over here, too. Living's property, one parcel, we are taking 0.23 acres.

And another parcel, we are taking 0.2 acres. One is between Clay to Marshall. That's, I believe, it's 0.20. And another one is from Marshall to Broad. That's 0.23 acres. Commissioner Abbott. I can give you this spreadsheet that is art and we can send it to you so that you can see all the right of a data sheet, not only this one, but when you go south, there are seven parcels between Broad and Gray Street. All seven parcels, we're taking Sliver and going back like from a little bit more, about 25 feet close to Broad Street, about five feet at the end, close to Gray Street. But the main parcel, someone said it's undevelopable, not. On the south side, one of the UDC conditions was from one of the historic regiments that's under work. You will see that one of the slides we had, it shows. Can you go back? Can you go back? Right here. This is between Broad, 17th and Grace and Crane Street. If I tell you that 25 feet we are taking here and 5 feet here, what do you think about the remaining part of it? Giving the access from here, giving the access from the other side. It's the most valuable parcel with all the improvements for the bike and other things. Who's going to work without these improvements? No one. How many people have spent any money in that area from the last 30, 40 years? None. But this will bring back. I tell you the truth.

So I'm sorry, I didn't get the final number. How many acres? of land are we acquiring?

I think that I need to add all these things because they are by parcels. We go by parcels. I don't, I would be happy to provide part of that, but did you add at the end of this? If I have to say that, one parcel where we are taking total pay that on, where the roundabout is, that's a two acre parcel. Quick. And but once we do that, the remaining public right away, we're going to locate for 18th Street, Venable Street and other area and green space 1.9 acre will be a green space. And planning department planning commission can use for master plan point of view. What's the highest and best use? We're not saying creative green space. Some of the developers, they are next to it. They are interested. They say, can we go further this way? Sure. Same way from the on Oliver between Clay and Roundabout. This extra piece of, they may develop on that. But my point is that if city wants to do a green space, put art, put something, gateway sign, that 1.9 acre all together, do anything, where else you will find in 1.9 acre in downtown? Nowhere. Is it one city block? Yes. That's much of green space we are creating. I have to say that disagree with the, Mr. Ropes and planning department will say move the roundabout to create a better green space. Green space is outproduct or byproduct of roundabouts. It's not roundabout byproduct of green space. So let's not have green space drive this rather than roundabout drive the green space. Because roundabout is based on technical design, operation, impacts, looking at all these things. This is all we can do. But we cannot move that on both, we add more impact, we add operational things, because we need different kind of green space. We're not going to disagree with that. Questions?

Thank you, Mr. Poole. Thank you, Mr. Dakar. And thank you for the work that has been done so far. This is really a very important section of the city, and there's huge economic development opportunities in this area. and the work that you are presenting and having served as the council representative for part of this area, along with Dr. Newbill. I appreciate all of the changes that you've made through the process to get us to where we are at the present time. I just want to go back and re-emphasize to make sure that I'm clear as to exactly what you are disagreeing with as it relates to the disagreement that had come, the recommendation for denial as it relates to not meeting the master plan and the other second denial where you feel like that is not, you're not agreeing with. I wanna be specific about exactly what they are and why you are disagreeing with that, why you do not agree with that denial, and how your plan is showing differently than what the denial is saying.

The first one I would say that you need to start with is the location of two downfalls, because based on one of the recommendations were denied because green space is not that can be developed good. And if we can relocate these two roundabouts differently, redesign it. All they said is, can you re-evaluate, redesign to create a better green space? We disagree. We think that roundabout needs to come first, design first. Look at the grates in that area. It's a valley. We need to build based on certain engineering design that's outside of the view of this authority. But while looking into it, we try to do everything best that we can And, but we cannot move the roundabout. We look at the roundabout, we have to keep it, please. Because that's what 2019, when we presented to UDC, conceptually, you all approved it. And on that, 2018, we got analysis. Four different, he said, you saw four different scenarios here. He did a lot more. Did not work, did not work. And that's why we are here, that we are telling that throughout, that us, based on our technical engineering decision, proceed on that. That's one disagreement. The second one is the master plan. This is the most pedestrian-oriented plan you see, and bike-oriented, transit-oriented, and traffic calming. All these things are specifically mentioned in master plan for equitable transportation, site design, transportation design. It's right here. You might be surprised that we were given those, but at the same time, these are right here, written down. So UDC contradicting what the staff report is. It is pedestrian-oriented, bike-oriented. It's not vehicle-oriented. Yes, we have to take care of 95. Some people said that, don't worry about 95. We don't care if people don't come here. We are getting this money because we need to make sure that people, whether they're in the city, don't get killed, or on the ramp don't get killed. It's a 95, it's a limited access. It's a still person. We need to address that issue. There are more crashes in this area than sometimes you will be surprised in going north. So we are addressing all these things together, VDOT, and we disagree with this only. You may hear more and more and more on this one, but That's what we heard from last two, three, four years. And we told them it's not, it's not, it's not. And these are our reasons. And there are some, in appendix, there are a number of slides that shows how many crashes are there in a year. And I don't know whether you have that appendix here.

I can, yes. Give me one second.

I just wanted to show that it's a severity of it, but Chris mentioned it. We are just not going hypothetical. Perception, we cannot change the perception if someone doesn't want to change it. But reality, what we are telling is reality.

It's up to you.

I think you sent the whole, and that has appendix in the end.

Yeah, this is the appendix.

I have the whole appendix. I don't know why it's not on.

Oh, is it not on the?

That's okay. Can I have more questions, please? I would love to answer those.

I have one question.

In the past, when you and other city departments have come with the conceptual approval at 30%, frequently you've come at a conceptual approval at 70%. Would you do that?

You're asking that if we can do conceptual approval at 70%? You say you're at 70% now. That's a fine approval. That's why we are a fine approval because generally what we do, 30% conceptual, you set a stage, direction, and parameter for us. We bring back within that parameter 70%. We took care of everything. Now you allow us to buy the property, impact to the property. That's where we are today. And after that, then we need to go in acquisition. You cannot change after that. So 70% is the final design approval.

Either call it 60% or 70% Z. I just recall multiple times that we've done a conceptual approval at 60 or 70, and I'm asking, can we do that tonight?

Because we already had its conceptual approval. We cannot go back and again, another conceptual approval. I would suggest that

We've had more than one conceptual approval hearing on multiple projects.

But we will respectfully ask that can we please consider on final approval, tell us what your differences are, where your uncomfort level is so we can make you comfortable.

I think that the staff has already done that. But I just wanted to make sure because in the past we have done 60 or 70 conceptual approvals.

I'm hearing you say that not you, Mr. That we have in the past looked at final at 70% because there comes a time where we can't get beyond that 70% because we can't get the right of way. So we've got to get the final to get the right way. So this is an unusual to do final at 70%.

We always, all of our projects has come at 70%. You're going to see, I think Lamont is in, uh, meeting uh you are going through uh you just in consent agenda on hay road teachcape project you approved for going to udc i think that's a final approval am i right so that's about 70 percent and we want to start purchasing right away we do it all the time as long i've been here about 30 years i did 60 percent of final approval 60 to 70 percent and that's exactly what we are doing right now it's not because i do it because that's when you can start buying the right away. You cannot delay.

On all those projects that are going, the one you're talking about that's going on consent agenda, because there is no objection from the planning staff or the UDC. That's the key. That's the key.

I agree. For the differences, we are putting them around.

I'm just looking for a way to move this forward if you could accept a 70% conceptual approval. That's not going to allow me to go to the right-of-way opposition, no way.

Trying to find a way.

Any other questions? Is there anything, conditions you want to discuss with us, if you have something, but still give us final opinion? You have the conditions. We are meeting it, all of them. Original aid, new aid, All are being taken.

You're not meeting the staff recommendation for the major traffic circle. And you've said you can't do it, but you're not meeting that.

That's not a condition. If you see none of these, moving the major circle is not part of the condition. It is just an overall, another way to deny it, but they are not part of the condition.

They're not part of it. Staff recommends not approving this layout, allowing the applicant to find an alternative layout.

I don't know how clear that's going to be. Sure, but what should be part of the eight conditions? I see that here on the left page.

Sounds like it's sort of slicing between the approval given by UDC versus the staff recommendation. So you're saying for UDC recommended denial, but if approved, they want to meet eight conditions. You're saying those eight conditions are met. I think Mr. Chair is just specifically on the staff recommendation. And it's your stance that those, since it's not a part of the approval conditions and you can't meet it, sort of hands up.

No, before that, I have said that right in the master plan say that it should be denied because of this location. No way. It doesn't meet our plan composed with the master plan. So

If we are looking for master plan point of view, there's no question that in many instances, your plan comports with the master plan, but there are multiple ways in which it doesn't. Our own staff is telling the staff. We have defensive risk staffing. I understand you disagree with the staff. I'm just telling you what our professional staff from PDR recommends denial.

That's what's bothering me.

I also think, you know, to Chair Poole's comments about, or it was actually Vice Chair Greenfield about this being unique and we're trying to find a middle ground with 70% completion and bringing it back one more time for a final is that we're talking about a project that started in 2019 when it was first introduced. And then a whole new master plan has been put into place since then. Seven years you were saying, well, you guys did this seven years ago. I had to look around this room and say, seven years ago we did not do this. And that's not to say that it's not what should be done, but it's a whole different footprint that we're looking at. And when we have this commentary and this feedback, it's because we haven't seen this project in seven years. And to just say outright, let's do it. I think that's a very hard line for us to do. Given all the changes that have happened. Along those seven years.

Well, if you, I don't know how much, any change we can make on two-round work, but you gave us location corrective extent to major feature and lightweight impacts, so we can start with changing lightweight with our dashboard schedule and others. And then we still keep working with something else you want, but may not be changing a whole lot of acquisition.

All I can say is we've got a lot more to hear. And I'd like to hear other folks. And I'll reserve you some time at the end if you want to do a rebuttal.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Poole, if I might, just before you move on.

Mr. Pinnock? Yes. Can you hear me? I hear you fine. Okay. Thank you. This is a question for staff. The changes from 30 percent to 70 percent in terms of general character and location and extent, Are they significant? Because I think and Ms. Knight maybe made my point that this is a project that was approved under a different body with different members. And it seems to me kind of challenging to pull it back if that is indeed maybe what we're doing. from what was approved granted years ago, but nevertheless approved as a concept. Ray, can you speak to that?

Make sure I understand your question.

You're asking Like what the difference is from the 2019 application?

With regards to location, character, and extent, yes. Are there significant changes?

They're very similar, the conceptual approval and the current approval that we have now. What the Planning Commission approved in 2019 was a conceptual idea of what was being proposed, not the specific details. Here are kind of two questions tonight. A lot of the conditions and a lot of the other discussion is on the specific details. The specific details are what staff believes can be handled afterward with guidance from the Planning Commission. The approval, the narrow path to considering if you want to approve or deny that, the best way staff is recommending to do that is based on that condition from the 2019 saying there should be a study of the adjacent land to the main traffic circle. And staff's recommendation is that the use of that land, as it's proposed, not only is not necessarily what we want to see, but that it's probably impossible for the current layout to create a condition that makes that land usable. Therefore, the current layout needs to change. That's the will of the commission, and it finds that it's the case.

Does that make any sense? Well, it's Mr. Pinnock's question, but I think that what you're saying is that your recommendation is they need an alternative layout.

Yes. For that one location.

That seems to be the one that the staff, I'm differentiating between the UDC, which made different recommendations, and the PDR staff that are making recommendations the recommendation not approving the current layout of two of the proposed circles. Not one, two.

Correct? I think it'd be fair to say that the UDC went a step further in explaining their concerns about the design, but they were very specifically pointed on what the recommendations meant. Although it didn't necessarily refer to it in the words I had on the screen. They are specifically saying the layout of the main circle is the concern in relation to the land use, and then the pedestrian safety of the second circle beside the school on a small scale, like small changes could fix it. They had that concern as well, and that was the reason for their recommendation.

I agree. That's what UDC said, but the staff report says staff has concern about two circle locations, not one, two.

Is that not correct? It's two. We have the main circle and the little circle adjacent to that and then a circle beside the school.

That needs to be adjusted as well.

Is there a, so staff denial

with those two, what is it that staff wants to see?

Of the main circle reconsideration of the layout of that main circle, I can't figure out a way to fix that because I'm not an engineer. So we do have to lean on what the engineers come back with. But what we're... What is it that you're against?

You don't know how to fix it, but you know what you're against.

That very plainly, the extra land is too small, too much grade to actually be used in an active way. It would just be, I'm not going to say long, but trees and grass. It wouldn't actually be an activated space.

Can you show that again? I can. I got it. So are you asking for it to be a larger space for active use?

Yes. And active use could be park or it could be development. It could be attached to one of the adjacent developments.

Can you point that land out that you want to be used for park or something else?

So probably this section would be the most usable with the current layout. What street are they? This is 18th. That way is north. This way is downtown.

Can I ask Ms. Oliver to point with her mouse?

I'm sorry. Thank you. Again, I can't engineer, but without looking at the engineering, it would be best to move the circle closer to this corner and then perhaps bring this road down and let development occur here or relocate here.

Can I address that just from the engineer's perspective? Give me one sec. Poor Mr. Benson is going to have a heart attack.

Chris is probably going to speak on my behalf. Good evening, everyone. I'm Bobby Benson, Director of Public Works. I've been here for the past 10 years. I'm almost embarrassed that we're at this point with regards to this project. This is a project that's been on our books now for over a decade. Trying to design this project based upon one set of guidelines, which our engineers met, and they met with staff, and we met with the previous directors of planning and the deputy directors of planning and those members of the planning commission. We've been meeting with these individuals over the past several years and all the while designing a project, a $50 million project. Going out, receiving funds for this project, funds that are contingent on time. As Mr. McKenzie indicated, what's the time period? I don't know, but I know it's not indefinite. So we stand here before you all today with a geometrically designed project that can't just be shifted over. It can't be moved over because we want to put a sign here because we have people coming off of a highway going 55 miles per hour and we're slowing them down to 25 so that they don't hit pedestrians or someone walking their dog or someone walking their bike. We can't just shift it over to the right so that we can create a little bit more green space because that green space could get somebody hit and killed if a car comes flying off of the ramp. So what we have done here is have designed to the best of these individuals' ability to be able to provide us with a project that is not just traffic-centric like we have today, which is a backlog of cars on 95, where people going from South Richmond cutting through downtown Richmond to go to Hanover County to come to MCV. We're slowing them down with this. We're providing people with sidewalks that we currently don't have, pedestrian ADA ramps that we currently don't have, and slowing down traffic that we currently don't do in an area of the city that is dead. This area of the city is a concrete wasteland. And what we're in the process of doing is doing our best to design. Now, I understand what PDR was indicating with regards to some of the changes that they want to see with regards to UDC as well. But when we went for the dollars for this project, went for the dollars for this project based upon transportation, not based upon how things look. We can always add to how things look in order to make things better. We have portions of the CIP project where we can do that. Yes, sir.

You know how much I love you. I love you to death. I love you to death. But you have been in the meetings with the PDR. Yes, sir. And you haven't been able to come to a conclusion that gets our professional staff that advises us. Right. We did. And I can just leave that over and over again.

And you still disagree. We did not disagree on the last meeting that I had with our staff. would you care to join in on that conversation? I mean, because we're right here.

So we have been meeting over the last several years on this project. And I think, you know, to Bobby's point, to Mr. Vinson's point, we have reached agreement between departments. I think, you know, unfortunately, what you don't see here is a three-dimensional view of of this land that looks really flat. It's not. We all know there's an elevation change between Oliver Hill Way and 18th Street. And I would have to agree, and the engineers spoke about this this evening, there's been numerous design ideas about how to slow traffic down, how to make it safe for pedestrians and bicyclists as they're trying to come off the highway ramp and then be able to have two-way streets. I look at this project that there's more positives than negatives. Is it perfect? No. But we are getting two lanes on Oliver Hill Way and two lanes on 18th Street. We are getting safe bicyclist paths. We are getting better sidewalks. We are getting trees. We are getting median so people have a place to have refuge if unfortunately the light changes and you're not having to cross 60, 70 feet of traffic lanes. So if you look at the project in the general concept of is this a major improvement to what we have today is definitely a major improvement to what we have today. There's no doubt about that in my mind. Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect, but again, If you could see this in a three-dimensional way, that these roundabouts are not flat. And I don't remember what the elevational change is between it, but it's a hill there.

16 degrees top-down center.

Yeah, okay. So that's what I'm saying. It's easy to look at it and say, oh, no, it's still top, but I know that it's not because I live in Chaco Bottom. And so this is a major improvement to being able to bike there safely and for pedestrians to walk safely across the streets. And for people who live in this neighborhood to get to point A to point B without having to do some circulous kind of route to get over to Venerable Street or other parts of Union Hill. So for that, we are supporting the project.

And let me also say in addition, as the project department, right, I think there's a key word going on around that. PDR is denying it. No, we are not denying it. We are making a recommendation. However, as planners, we don't look at just the development in space. We consider so many other factors. But if there's any physical constraints that will not allow you to make that recommendation, we are not saying we are so hard on that and as such, it should be denied. It is just recommendations that if we had an alternative, this is what we would prefer. The land is dynamic, so many other factors going around. So I don't want a keyword to go out that a PDR is denying it, but I guess make a recommendation that we feel will work in place, but if there are constraints that will not allow you to meet our recommendations, I don't think we'll be against that.

Mr. Matthews, I need to ask you a question. Sure. Your staff representative, Mr. Rooks, your staff report that's come from UDC to the CDC based on Mr. Ropes' representation that PDR staff recommends not approving the current layout.

It is stated in their recommendations, though. If our recommendations would have, what do I call it, adverse impacts or more of a physical constraints. And I don't think PDR should say Because of the physical constraint, this part shouldn't come up. I don't want that to be a stigma on us. It's a recommendation that we are giving out. But if there's any physical constraints on site that will not allow us to meet that, I don't think we should be opposed to that. Ms. Robertson?

I think she may have had her hand up first, but I'll come after you.

So how do we get to the point then that this comes before the Planning Commission where Staff is saying, we're not recommending denial, but we're not recommending approval. We want these things. These things, which I assume have been discussed now since I was significantly younger, and are being told that cannot be achieved. physically on this site and have these other things be achieved, but it is still coming before the Planning Commission with this opposition between those two things.

We still have to do our due diligence and let you know that PDL took a very critical look at it, and this is our recommendation regardless.

I'm just, whatever is left of this meeting, the more words that are said, and especially the more words that are repeated that we've already heard, on my energy, we're not going to get to a better result.

This is not the first time that a paper has come to us with an opposition from PDC staff.

Yet, The director is supporting this. And I've brought this before and I was quickly told it's our vote. I know that. I know that. But it's quite disturbing. And I just need to say that I don't know who PDC is, if Ms. Ebert, isn't the director of their portfolio.

And you're telling me that based on everything about this project, you're in support and not saying denial.

Staff here is saying that, yet we have a portfolio. Who is who in the city of Richmond is making this decision that is bringing about this confusion from a report versus what? I think what it means... The whole team has been working together to achieve.

What it means in simplistic terms is it's the commission's decision to make.

I knew you said that, Mr. Poole, and I respect that.

My position has been consistently over the period of time that I've been on the planning commission is that I rarely, rarely vote against a recommendation of the state. Rarely. I have in the past, but I don't do it very often. So I think it's up to us as members to take the information that's provided to us and make our own decisions about it. When I make my argument one way or the other to explain what I will or will not, and I have made up my mind.

I guess the question I'm asking, Mr. Poole, is who is PBC? Is it one staff person's recommendation? Who is PDC that's making this denial recommendation?

I'm not sure what PDC is. Department of Planning. It's my understanding that Mr. Rooks represents the staff on this case, and it's his representation that that's the position of the PDR staff. That's what I understand. Mr.

Chair, just have a quick question before we move on. Yeah, I do want to move on. I just wanted to get clarity on the deputy director. Is there a material difference between recommending not approval and recommending denial? So recommending not approving and then recommending denial. It sounds like the same. It sounds like the same. But in this case, you're just basically saying the recommendation is not approved to not approve. But if it was approved, you'd be all right? Something like, yeah.

Something like that. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Robert, an old friend of mine who used to be on the Planning Commission in Henrico County used to always tell me, staff don't vote. That's the issue. It's this commission.

Mr. Poole, I agree with you 100%, but you also just said you do not see voting against what staff recommend. That's heavy. I understand it's our vote, but if our vote is heavily influenced by staff, no, they don't vote. They weigh very heavy. And when there is opposition, and who is perceived as staff that brings a recommendation to the commission, that's problematic. And that's an internal thing. That's not what this committee is dealing with. I agree.

I hear you 100%. But what I am saying is every vote I take at this commission is heavily influenced by the recommendation of the professional staff and always will be as long as I'm

I agree. And I agree with you. They don't vote.

I am. But if they weigh heavy, that's influence. You're in trouble by the point that you're making.

Why?

So I think what would really be a good thing to do here is to pause with the understanding that if Tara wants to have a rebuttal at the end of this, I'm happy to have you come back in. But I think it's time to hear from the rest of the folks. Oh, Bert, I'm sorry, Mr. Penna.

Yeah, no, I just wanted to apply that on the two items that staff has listed as concerns. I've heard a presentation from the applicant of either why they are the way they are or why they cannot be achieved. And so in my mind, for those two items that staff has noted, I'm satisfied. And if the staff did not agree with the applicant during this process, that is their prerogative and thus leading to their recommendation. But what I've heard is a justification as to why they are the way they are. And to your point, that is our job to then vote. All right, I'm out.

Yes, sir. I don't disagree with a word you said. And I will ask if we now open a public hearing. And we'll start with any member of the public, present or online, who wishes to speak in favor of this case. Yes, ma'am, come on forward. What I'll ask you to do when you come forward is to remember, first, your name. Second, if you're representing an organization, tell us what it is. If you're here on your own, you have three minutes. If you're here representing an organization, you have five minutes. Welcome.

Hello, my name is Jewel Trent, and I'm a part of an organization called Just See. And our community center is at 707 Mosby Street on the corner of Venable and Mosby. And I'm speaking for our group. We think the Chaco Valley Streets project that will add a roundabout at Venable and Mosby is needed. Our community center is a vital gathering place for me and my peers, but it has a major safety issue. Right now with pedestrian crossing, me and my peers are forced to dodge cars at times because of the current traffic situation. Another reason is the roundabout We'll create a frame to make drivers slow down so we can cross the street safer. It also adds beauty to a dull-looking area, which can change the behaviors of pedestrians and drivers. This project would also give us some connectivity to trails that we utilize when we have limited access to places to go. And lastly, the new sidewalks and streetlights are definitely needed to ensure kids have a safe place to walk. And we have taken surveys over the last year. I'm leaving for college next week and the plan is still not approved, even though it's needed. We know that a lot goes into making changes and decisions. We just want to make sure that our input is heard because even though we're young, our input matters. Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming. And I absolutely agree with you. Your voice does matter. Next person who wishes to speak in favor.

Yes. Yes, sir. I know your name.

Please come forward and for the record, state your name.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm Brantley Tyndall, Director of Bike Walk RVA. Saying that you're my organization's name so much this evening, but I appreciate how much we're talking about biking and walking safety. I've presented this or testified to this board a number of times over the past 15 years and In the old days, it wasn't so positive. Talking about bike and walking safety was much more about other kinds of ways to stop those kinds of improvements. I sent you a number of letters. I ultimately want to say that we support the project. We would love to see it move forward today. There's some desperation around the funding aspect of it, and I don't want that to be the ultimate thing that makes us choose to approve a project for bike and pedestrian safety and otherwise general traffic safety. But it's certainly an important one. It also doesn't mean that we can't decide uh to make some minor improvements so i i appreciate the comments from the applicant about open-mindedness to make some making some details um ironing out some details but i do want to say just start i mean the national association for city traffic officials full-throated supports roundabouts i think their inclusion in this project is great i want to see them use around the country around the city they're uh pretty much unparalleled from an infrastructure standpoint in terms of reducing vehicle speeds and increasing the efficiency of cars and all users going through an intersection. The fact that you don't have to stop is essential. I lived in Churchill and Union Hill for five years. Maybe the only person in the room who has biked up and down Venable and also the little road that goes up under the Lee Street Bridge on a regular basis because I worked at the fiscal plan, VCU fiscal plan on Oliver Hill when VCU sustainability was there. And I can say that the grade on Venable is actually one of the biggest concerns for bike riders. Having to stop at a red light going up Venable or having to stop at a red light going down Venable is one of the most complex things you have to do as a bike rider. And eliminating that, modifying that is actually an amazing benefit for this project. Two prior directors of BikeWalkRVA, my two predecessors, served on the advisory council of Richmond 300. And this is the exact kind of project that they were thinking about when they were advising the creation of that master plan. And it's essential to not lose this opportunity to create a huge part of the network in this part of town that doesn't have much. I do want to spend some time talking about some of the details because we've We've called a lot of people. I have a lot of friends in the room who have different opinions about this project than me, but it's been a very collaborative process. I want to understand what everyone understands or views about the project. And it seems like some of the sticking points, the slip lane, I think there's a case to be made for its circulation need to be able to move enough cars, but it's also right in front of the school. It's at an intersection that it will remove a very small part of a bike lane on Mosby now that was installed, I want to say, about five years ago. And... I think we're making a trade-off. We're taking a bike lane and adding car space in this one finite area. Is that the proper thing? I think this is the body to be able to determine if that's the right kind of design that we want. But broadly speaking, that roundabout is going to greatly improve the crossing experience for anybody using the intersection, which, as everyone agrees today, has a huge intersection to cross on foot today. It's a huge and hot intersection to be stopped at on a bike today. So I look forward to around about there in the future. There's some interesting designs. There's a cycle track instead of a bike lane on each side of the road. So there's not a cycle track and a shared use path. And there's not anything quite like that in the city. The details of how that gets designed are essential, and a bike rider who is new or new to town might not know intuitively how to use it, and depending on what part of town you're trying to go to. The majority of traffic today in that area uses the Lee Street Bridge to get into Churchill and then is going to head south through the two roundabouts towards Jefferson Park. The roundabout at Venable actually is complicated for that area. use because the bike lane and the path does not go straight, as you might say, south and north from the bridge down to Jefferson Park. We look forward to there being some additional signage, perhaps some roadway markings, perhaps some additional dedicated space for bike riders because this design is actually not going to serve the most people who are biking that today past that roundabout. The I think the applicant mentioned the potential for a speed table and or a raised crosswalk. I don't believe I've seen that in any of the designs, but NACDO specifically recommends that when using a slip lane as proposed by MLK. And I don't want this to be weighed heavily on the particular roundabout in question today, but in general, biking community and i've done a lot of calls and a lot of meetings with people would prefer to have a dedicated space within the roundabout as opposed to a shared use path or a cycle track that only hits one side of the roundabout and that's the case at both of the ones off the hill and the the rationale is if you are going northbound um and on the on mosby and you're not going to take the leisure bridge you're going to go towards little page or um nine mile road you have a really complex maneuver to have them engage. So I've got my time. But anyway, I hope you approve the project and we can take them.

Questions for Mr. Tindall? Thank you very much. Next person, and we speak in favor.

I have one person on line that raised their hand.

This gentleman's next, and then we'll go to the one on the line.

Dr.

I was gonna say good afternoon, but I think we are eating it now. Dr. Yeah, I think you're right. Dr. And so my name is Draymond Miller. I represent two organizations, Street Smarts Over Safety and Street Smarts Foundations. Dr. We work with youth in the city, all around Southside, Eastside, Northside, Chesapeake, and Henrico, all over. A lot of our students that we work with on the East End, they walk. to their places of employment during the summertime and during the school year. We partner with the city with the YES program and OCWB. And one of the students wanted to write a letter as one of our students who is wheelchair bound. So we wanted to just read the letter to get her words out. Okay. It says, hello, my name is Malika Whitaker. I am a wheelchair bound resident of the city. I am unable to make it because of the rain. Please approve the Chaco project. I use the sidewalks to get around. Lack of sidewalks make it hard for disabled people like myself to get around. We need lighting as well. It is very dangerous at times. The tree additions will also provide a relief to myself and others. The roundabouts always are needed because to provide what feels like a safety net. We need your help to make the neighborhood safer. This project does just that. Thank you, Malika Whitaker. Malika is not the only youth that we serve that walks through these areas. And by putting measures in place and being able to kind of control what we can in the neighborhoods where we especially know that our place of deserts where there's nothing there to give extra measures and make sure that only the population that can't defend uh themselves are not always in these meetings that you all are taking them in consideration and it's keeping them safe while they're moving around while they get into the internships that you all offer while they're going to opportunities while they're trying to make it to school it's very important for that population of young people thank you thank you well any questions for mr miller we have several online

We do have several online. I will mention the first person who raised their hand after I mentioned the online, a number of hands went up. So I actually am not sure if they are responding to your question about support or opposition. But Chad with RBA Rapid Transit, you had your hand up first and you should now be able to unmute your microphone and address the planning commission.

Thank you all. Good evening. To the chairs and the commissioners want to thank you for your time this evening. My name is Chad Sanders. I'm the executive director of our rapid transit and here tonight, obviously, to support the Chicago Valley streets project, excuse me, improvement project. Nearly every transit trip begins and ends with the wall. When we talk about Broad Street, Oliver Hill Way, Venable, and Mosby, we're talking about vital corridors for daily transit riders on the way to work, school, grocery store, and the pharmacy. We believe at RV Rapid Transit that this project is a direct step towards more people-centered development here in Richmond. Converting Oliver Hill Way to Two-Way Street, adding traffic calming roundabouts, also directly addresses the Vision Zero principle the city promised to uphold. From a development perspective, we're happy to see urban design that follows the footprint of riders and walkers. Retailers and housing thrives when people linger, not just when traffic speeds by. Adding wider sidewalks, protected street trees, and shaded streetscapes directly shields transit passengers from the intense summer heat that we just got through, as well as vehicle exhaust. When we make the environment more inviting for people on foot, we can unlock the true social and economic potential of our city. So therefore, I strongly urge the Planning Commission to approve this project this evening.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. Any questions for Mr. Sanders? Thank you so much. Is Kelsey Boyle number two?

Yeah. Ms. Kelsey Boyle, you should be able to unmute your microphone now and address the Planning Commission.

Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Hello.

Yes, we can hear you fine. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you all for your time. My name is Kelsey Boyle. I live near Battery Park, so in the third district. And I have a sister who lives in Churchill. And unfortunately, I rarely visit her. I mean, my bike is my primary form of transportation. And it's hard to get over there. you know, as the crow flies, it's super easy. And I do have the Cannon Creek Greenway. That's a beautiful trail. So I'm really excited for this opportunity to connect that gap. And I'll be able to ride over there to, yeah, like I said, visit my sister, go to restaurants. I have some friends over there as well. It's a common destination that sadly there's no way for me to get there. Honestly, the best route for me currently is instead of even going on Oliver Way and 18th Street, I'll just go along the railroad track, which I think really says something if the railroad track is actually a safer place for me than the street. So I hope that the standard can be raised. And yeah, I'm very excited for this opportunity. I hope that we can pass it and not get stuck behind some of the minor things that are coming up. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Boyle. Is Guy R. next?

Guy, you should be able to unmute your microphone now and address the Planning Commission.

Hello. Can everyone hear me all right? Yes. Hello. My name is Guy Roach. Some of you might know my name from working with GRTC, but I come to you this evening as just a resident of Chaco Bottoms. I want to speak out in support of this plan. I think just improving all of the pedestrian infrastructure in this area is a major win for the neighborhood. I think these roundabouts are a great tool in calming traffic in the area. It certainly shows that there is a lot of thought that went into really making the best pedestrian experience possible with each of these intersections meticulously designed. I want to speak out in support of those, but I do want to maybe put my GRTC hat on for just a second. There's a couple of bus stops within this project area, most notably bus stop 2432 on Mosby Street heading southbound. Wasn't quite sure what was decided upon as far as providing access to that bus stop or if that bus stop was relocated, if there had been any previous conversations with the planning department of GRTC about this. But that is the location of one of the two-way cycle tracks on that side of the street. And as it's designed out right now, it would prohibit any access to that bus stop for anyone in a mobility device or who might not be confident hopping up and down curbs, I'd ask to just reach out to GRTC to see what accommodations can be done. Otherwise, big supporter of this project and would love to see it push forward.

Questions for Mr. Roche? Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming. I'm going to let you take over deciding who's next.

Oh, yeah. Sarah Erickson, you should be able to unmute your microphone now and address the Planning Commission.

Yes, hi, my name is Sarah Erickson and I'm here to speak in favor of the project, but of the conditions for approval listed by the staff and further supported by the UDC should this plan not be denied today. So as a resident of Churchill for many years, I think that nearly all of the improvements to our streetscapes are so necessary and will benefit so many people. But some of the decisions and certain details do raise questions, I think, still about the ability to keep safety of all modes of transportation as the top priority. Questions remain that have been discussed today about whether a two-way cycle track is best placed on the west side of Mosby, crossing at the end of the Lee Street Viaduct. when high amounts of commuter traffic move through that side of said intersection of Lee and Mosby or that it's a good idea to have bicycle traffic move the wrong direction towards both bike and car traffic coming from the bridge until it makes that crossing. Questions remain about whether the disjointed crosswalks are best practice for youth walking across Mosby Street to the school or for pedestrians using mobility aids of any kind and whether there's enough signal communication for proper yielding to occur And a lower volume of users has been cited as a reason for why some of those conflicts are not as much of a problem. But since the city is growing, it's important to design infrastructure for the future, not just for current conditions of who is walking, biking, driving or using public transit, which is also why this project is so important. So I realize these designs are at 70% completion, but the prominence of some of the details that are currently a safety concern leads me to believe that continued guidance is required and that collaboration would produce the best result. This large of a redesign opportunity is a rare occurrence and will take more than a decade to orchestrate and it's important to do right the first time. So I think I trust the PDR staff to communicate professionally to make recommendations that consider the interests of all residents and to work with special interest groups to address a wide variety of concerns and need. So once again, I'd like to voice support for the project and for the conditions for approval that have been listed by the staff so that we can see the project progress, secure funding, but so that it can be done with consideration for all residents to travel through the city safely.

Thank you, Ms. Erickson.

Courtney Farr, you should be able to unmute your microphone and address the Planning Commission.

All right, good afternoon or evening. How's everyone doing? My name is Courtney Farrar and I am a transit advocate that currently lives in the ninth district, but I go to church and used to live in the sixth district, specifically living right where we're speaking of, right near Mosby Street that we're speaking of right now. As someone who has had to walk from the transfer station to my house, which was past Fairfield Avenue, I do believe that these sidewalk improvements at the roundabout would be helpful because it is incredibly difficult to get across that street with no barrier in between you and the cars. And there's also not really a safe way to do it. It's almost impossible to do it. You're risking your life every time you come across it. The other issue that I saw that people were having with it was that it had a left turning lane going into the school. It currently has a left turning lane already going into the school. So if we could go ahead and push out those safety measures for that, the two lane roads would also help because I myself, as well as multiple other people that I know and that I used to advocate for, have almost been hit by a car that was trying to get around a GRTC bus because they couldn't wait 45 seconds for us to get off. and get across the street real quick. So I do believe that this will be great. Um, I do understand the concerns that people have. But as someone who walked it almost every night, sometimes we do need these improvements. And I thank you all for supporting this.

Thank you, Mr. Mr. Grace next.

Mr. Grice, you should be able to unmute your microphone and address the Planning Commission, and if you could clarify if you're speaking as an individual or on behalf of a group today.

Yes, good evening, everyone. My name is Spencer Grice. I'm here on behalf of the Chaco Partnership. We have been involved in the discussions of this plan for many, many years, along with historic Richmond and PSG. I think I'd like to recap a couple of things There's a lot to like about this plan. And I think when staff talks about that 99% is great, I think on paper, the idea that we are creating a better bike network, a better pedestrian network, I think that's all true. And I think that those things, if you look at it on balance, is a large part of this plan. I think that on paper, what this intervention does in this particular district is problematic. And so I want to focus on two things because people have talked a lot about the surplus Mosby and Lee and Mosby and Venable. I want to focus on Oliver Hill Way. And I want to say that changing Oliver Hill Way and 18th Street to two-way streets is a great win. The addition of bike facilities is a great win. But the part of what we focus on in the Chicago Partnership is development potential and the growth of Chaco Bottom. And so when I hear language about that it's a concrete wasteland, I think it's the wrong way to look at it. It is an area with huge potential. And with the Chaco project coming, I think it is important to understand what is the supporting development that's going to make that successful. So Oliver Hillway, we are concerned about taking a right-of-way taking a private land for the right-of-way that will impact the development potential of those lots. And I think someone said it in the meeting, and I think there was a graphic shown of trying to understand how these lots could be developed. What is their potential after this right-of-way is taken? And I think it's really important that DPW work with planning and work with someone and illustrate What that's going to look like and illustrate what the benefit and loss is on Oliver Hill Way to be able to continue to develop that private land. Because there's also flood issues down there, which impinges it on the other side. And no one's really illustrated that. I love that we've got the bike facilities on there. I think that a lot of Oliver Hill Way is right. Maybe taking some of the sidewalk off of the east side, which is wider than what's across broad, and giving some of that land back to the west side would alleviate some of that problem. But again, without some illustration, it's hard to understand what the impact is going to be. The bigger issue, I think, is the two turning circles coming off 95. This really, to our view, is the most impactful and the least compatible with an urban district. And I think there is the idea that this land is a bit fallow at the moment. So we will take it and we will create this giant, very suburban transition off of 95 coming up the hill to Lee Street Viaduct. And I think there must be a better solution that will regularize the grid, maybe find a different way to route people who want to go east off of 95 find a different structure that can allow Oliver Hillway to come through and to put some of that land back into the market that's viable for development. And I think this is critical for Chaco, that we don't have these giant areas that there's something very backwards about going in with a streetscape plan and then saying someone will come and figure out how to develop that. I think this should be a lockstep between planning and DPW to figure out what is the right solution that balances all these needs. And despite what people say about this not being a car-centric, those two circles are solving a car and auto problem, a throughput problem. And they may have bike with it, and they may have pedestrian with it, and those things may be better than they are today. But the result is I think a lot of land that becomes undevelopable and this sits at the gateway to the city. And so the master plan, yeah, the master plan, the Chaco small area plan, these hold the things that we value as a city. And I think that specifically those two pieces of infrastructure need to be rethought. And if there is a way for some path of, approval or deferral that would ask dpw to really rethink it and not to rearrange traffic circles but to rethink a solution that might integrate better into a city grid in a historic district that would be a win last thing i'd like to say is funding there's been a lot of talk about funding this comes up all the time that we are up against funding we are going to lose everything if we don't approve i would like someone on planning commission to really lean into What is our flexibility? What is our availability to change design and still be viable with our funding? Even MCAR said that they removed a giant traffic circle in the middle abroad. It did not lose funding. So what else is available to us to monitor?

You had more than five minutes. You're going to need to wrap up.

No, that's fine. I just would like someone to to find out what our limits are, what our guardrails are, because I think it's an open question and not very sensible about what is our flexibility for design as we move forward from the funding standpoint. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Christ. Next person.

I don't think that person was in favor.

I believe Mr. Thrice potentially is also in the public comment record. jason james you should be able to unmute your microphone and address the planning commission hello good evening uh you can hear me okay

Okay. My name is Jason James. I'm speaking as a citizen. I live in the north side, but bike in that area of the city quite a bit, especially to get to the Capitol Trail using the Cannon Creek Greenway, but also along Oliver Hill Way. And it is definitely not pedestrian or bike friendly at the moment, as are many of the areas around there going south. On Oliver Hill Way, as cars are merging off of the highway is a pretty terrifying experience. And even going across broad can be pretty harrowing at that area as well. I've been involved in advocating for things around these kinds of issues for about 15 years. And very early in my time, a seasoned advocate told me something I'm sure many of you have heard many times and maybe said, which is, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And I graded at that idea because I really would like things to be as perfect or close to perfect as possible. But I realize that, you know, that's very hard to achieve. So I'm echoing what some others have said that I really overall support and speaking in support of this project. I do think some details around bike and pedestrian safety need to be adjusted. And I hope that the applicants will work with people, other groups and individuals to make those improvements. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. James.

Next person.

Stephan Dupont, you should be able to unmute your microphone and address the Planning Commission.

Hello, everyone. My name is Stephan Dupont. I'm here representing RVA Rapid Transit, and I'm a resident of the FAM. I support this project and I think it helps us better reach the goals of complete streets and other goals to make our city more multimodal. And I hope to hear more in the future about steps that would be taken towards slowing vehicles and ensuring pedestrian and bike safety at the entrance to the roundabout on Oliver Hill way. I hope that the Planning Commission approves this project because as was said, it's not perfect, but it's way better than the existing condition. As far as my main concern, traffic is warned to slow down to 25 miles per hour at the I-95 off ramp, but I'm sure everyone in attendance has seen how this isn't how people drive on a ramp in practice. In this design, someone needs to make a decision to enter the roundabout in the middle of the curve of the ramp, and I worry about having the time to slow down approaching the roundabout and also make a decision to yield to another vehicle. or more significantly, a pedestrian or bicyclist. If this leg of the roundabout is absolutely necessary based on the traffic data, I hope that extensive work is done as far as the roundabout geometry, signage, and other geometric design aspects to slow down that traffic. I had a similar question about the slip lane at Mosby Street, so I was happy to hear about the pedestrian hybrid beacon and possible elevated walkway. Slip lanes encourage drivers to drive faster through an intersection, but as the gentleman with RK&K stated, this is a huge improvement to the existing crossing for pedestrians in terms of traffic calming and in terms of distance they need to cross. I understand people's concerns about the use of adjacent lots in some of these parcels, but frankly, I think the issue here with the use of this land is due to the fact that we allowed the interstate highways to carve up our cities, not this specific project that benefits multiple modes of transportation. Roundabouts can function in urban environments. You just have to look to places like Monument and Allen. And I think if we want more of this land to be able to be developed, that we should maybe invest more money into expanding our transit system. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. No one else in support?

I'm seeing no one else online currently with their hand raised up.

Ma'am, are you in support?

I am.

Please come forward. Thank you. Please give us your name and let us know if you're representing a group or yourself.

I'm going to echo the earlier comment. Good evening, because it is good evening. My name is Tammy Guido-McGee. I'm the executive director of the Guido Memorial Foundation. I'm a national traffic safety advocate, and most importantly, I'm Connor's mom. I want to talk about something that seems to really have been glossed over tonight, and that's human life. I wouldn't, if my son hadn't been killed, I wouldn't be standing here. I wouldn't know that traffic crashes are the number one killer of our teenagers. I would not know that 40,000 people a year lose their lives on our roadways. And I wouldn't know that roadway engineering includes proven designs like modern roundabouts, and they have the power to save lives. October 26, 2019, my only son, Connor, was killed in a 100% preventable crash. In 2022, a resident here in Chaco Bottom, Hazel, lost her life. And we all know about the six pedestrians who were killed in a three-week period here recently. Since Connor was killed, I have worked alongside transportation officials, law enforcement, public health professionals, and legislators. In the eight life-saving traffic laws that I have passed in the state of Virginia, I have learned something really important. None of this matters. We are talking about human life. And roadway designs matter. Driver behavior will... It will always matter how many of us see drivers running up and down the road, racing, smoking. You can smell it coming through your windows, weaving in and out of traffic, putting not only their lives at risk, but everyone else's. Driver behavior will always matter, but we cannot engineer perfect human behavior. We can't do it, but we can engineer roads that anticipate mistakes, that reduce speeds, that lessen crash severity. and ultimately save lives. That's what we're talking about here tonight, saving lives. Don't forget that. This project is about much more than roundabouts, moving green spaces, usable spaces, or maybe moving the roundabout around a little bit. It is about creating a transportation system that is safer for everyone who uses Chaco Valley, whether they are driving, walking, biking, or taking public transit. This project is designed to reduce serious crashes and prevent tragedies before they happen. It will improve one of the most dangerous areas as Broad Street is on the high injury network. It'll create protected bike lanes and safety connect neighborhoods. It'll expand sidewalks and improve pedestrian crossings. You guys have heard all this. It's going to add trees, shade, landscaping, green infrastructure. It's going to reconnect neighborhoods. We've heard all of this. But have we paid attention to the human life? Because this project may be 50, 60 million dollars. I can guarantee you my son was worth every bit of that. So please, before you leave here today, just one quick rip socket. Take time to think about this. Take time to think about a project. that is designed not to be perfect. There is only one perfect thing, and that's a good Lord above. What we have right here is the best we can get, and it will save lives. So do the right thing, guys, tonight. Please do the right thing and pass this project.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public who wish to speak in support? or go to opposition.

Any members of the public who wish to speak in opposition?

Come forward, give us your name and let us know who you represent, whether it's a group or yourself.

I do have a presentation. Hello. Welcome.

And you are with the Partnership for Smarter Growth, right? That is correct. Are you Richard?

I am Richard. I will tell you. Perfect.

I just want to make sure I have the right one.

I misrepresent you. I'm sharing it though.

I'm so sorry.

That's what you do, Beth, just to say next slide.

That's how it progresses.

Hi, everybody. My name is Richard Hankins. I'm the executive director of the Partnership for Smarter Growth. I also have been named dropped a lot tonight or our organization has. Unfortunately, we are here today to speak not just in opposition to the Chaco Valley Streets Improvement Project as proposed, but to ask the city to instead incorporate the best projects of the front, the best parts of the project of which we've heard much of and ask for not only a new plan, but a cheaper plan that aligns with the current plans and visions of the area. This project is almost seven years behind schedule. It is about, according to VDOT's dashboard, as of this year, it is about $55 million, not the $49 million that was given today. It's adding speedy slip lanes by school, and slip lanes are designed to add cars, and I wouldn't want my children to have to cross the street when there's a specific street lane there. It widens roads. You know, one thing that really hasn't been talked about is that You know, this is taking expensive right of way to widen roads along Oliver Hill Way to go from three lanes to five lanes. And our transportation, people who know a lot about this stuff really say that double right turn lanes of which these ads actually make things more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. And it's really weird that while we're adding bicycle infrastructure, which is good, we are also putting in engineering standards that we know are bad for those very same people. It also doesn't align with the multiple plans created in the last few years. Next slide. There's good and bad. We've been here. We all know this. The two-way conversion of Oliver Hillway and 18th Street, that's good. Some of the pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements are good. Some of the street taping is good. The shared use path is obviously good. But look, like fundamentally, this is a road widening. And that, you know, this is how you induce demand. And induce demand is a transportation concept, especially for motor vehicles. If you add more capacity, you don't solve congestion. You make it worse. If road widening worked, Northern Virginia would be a delightful place to drive. And it's not. And they have widened roads beyond belief. Anybody's driven through Prince William, Fairfax counties, Arlington, know that. The high-speed slip lane, as I mentioned, the expensive right-of-way taken from a walkable neighborhood. It's really confusing to me that we talk about this as a concrete wasteland, but we're asking to widen a road to add more concrete. I feel like that feels really, does not make much sense to me. And some of these roundabouts, roundabouts can be good if used well. Some of these roundabouts are comically large. And it just, this really feels like It's a bad project, fundamentally a road winding to help more move more cars in and out of the city instead of things for people inside the city. And it's disguised as a good one. Next slide. As it's been alluded to through the Urban Design Committee, the case for this project is a decade out of date. We were supposed to see 20% traffic growth Um, from the 2013 study, which founded this project, it's only been 3%. Again, we're over double budget. We're seven years behind schedule. And unfortunately data that we have been asking for, for 2018 from since 2018, I was not given to us until tonight. And that was the, uh, traffic studies. We've been asking for that. Uh, I was able to take a screenshot, um, and we're trying to add car capacity along Oliver Hill way. And in peak traffic hour, that traffic was actually shown in these very numbers to be a 23% reduction. It also feels like a sunk cost fallacy. It feels very ultimatum me here right now that it's, you know, we have to pass this or else. And it's very strange that the purpose of the committee is to look at what location character and extent. And it's very strange to me how much has been focused on the funding that doesn't make the project good or bad. Um, And speaking on the West Broad, speaking on the Broad Street safety, the high-injury street network is West Broad, East Broad on what's called V-Trans, which is the state's transportation dashboard, has shown that there are no needs for any sort of vehicular congestion mitigation. However, they have identified on that corridor, top one and top 5% needs for pedestrian and bike improvements. Next slide. none of these plans have called for a wider road. Richmond 300 had that very nebulous call. The Chaco Small Area Plan of 2024 did not call for this. Richmond Connects did not call for this. Chaco Project did not call for this. And, you know, it's very strange to widen a road along the Chaco Project. And my closing thought is that Highways have done a demonstrable harm to communities in Richmond back in the 50s in the era of urban renewal, and it's very strange to me to want to continue that. And so we are calling to drop this project and direct the city to create a new project with all of the good parts that we've mentioned tonight without having to do all the expensive road widening. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Hankins.

Any questions for Mr. Hankins?

Appreciate it.

Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Stuart Schwartz. I'm a resident of Churchill and have been asked by them to speak on behalf of the Churchill Association. I serve on their Life of Streets Committee. I'm also a 30-year veteran of smart growth organizations and reviewing land use and transportation plans. Been involved with the discussions with DPW about this project since 2018. Churchill Association, especially following review of the UDC's recommendation of denial in their comments, is opposed to the project as proposed. And I want to say at the outset, we support well-designed roundabouts. We support traffic safety. I myself have been hit by a Dodge Ram 1500 on a crosswalk in Alexandria, not here in Richmond, and lost two friends so far in the city of Richmond among those pedestrian deaths that we have seen over just the recent few years. We submitted detailed comments on Friday, but you also have the excellent comments from Historic Richmond, Partnership for Smart Growth, the Chaco partnership that you just heard. We agree with PSG. It's out of sync with Richmond 300, Richmond Connect, Chaco Small Air Plan. I also note the Urban Design Committee, it was flashed up earlier that they see this as a vehicle movement over pedestrian safety that does not have human scale placemaking and that impacts future development possibilities. Unfortunately, the students have left, but I really appreciate them being here. I also have frequent that area. I bike. You know, you don't want to do all the hills all the time in the heat. I'm across that Lee Street Viaduct all the time and on Mosby all the time. We certainly want them to be safer. But I want to draw the big picture first here before I go into some specific details. Yes, we are growing and cities worldwide are growing by putting walking, biking and transit first. not by facilitating faster movement of cars into our city that will choke us with traffic. And I'm reminded of all these one ways that were put in the same time probably the highways were put in about moving commuters in and out of the city faster. Yes, it's different because they're roundabouts and they can with properly designed common saw that traffic. But our package of solutions should be expanded transit into the suburbs, intercepting people before they get in the car. State, city, VCU and private employers prioritizing transit and bike walk commute benefits for their employees. George Malavasic, Performance parking policy charging market rates for all garages and variable rates for street parking conversion one way streets into two way which we have in this dedicated bus lanes protected bike lanes. George Malavasic, And more downtown housing more people living in the city it's worth noting that the large roundabout in the bottom is basically a city block could be 200 housing units in the future if we move that roundabout and design it differently. I don't see anything that slows the vehicles down until they get to that roundabout, so there's a potentially significant speed still coming off the highway at that point. This is based upon the 2013, initially, the 95-60 block overlap study. Concern was about cars on the 95, and there's a desire here to further facilitate movement of cars off the highway. The roundabouts up on the hill, if you even look at those, they're 140 feet across, not counting any of the bump outs and other infrastructure. There's something like 65 feet left with the apron and the drive area. You have to dig deeper in the documents, and you all can correct me, and I think the Planning Commission should ask these dimensions. It looks like the approaches can be anywhere from 17 to 20 feet wide, not like a city lane where you're 10 or 11 feet wide. They're 17, 20 feet wide entering the roundabout. The slip lane itself is 20.5 feet wide, which I think will encourage higher speeds. And the south side of the Lee Street roundabout is 34 feet wide because you're facilitating some right turns. You guys can correct me. I think the Planning Commission should ask. We also agree that this makes things less safe down in the valley. The double right-hand turn has been a huge concern. It's Broad Street itself and the crossings on Broad Street that needs significant safety improvements. Yes, we love the bike investments. We like the pedestrian safety commitment. That's all part of this as well. But a lot of this, and I think it's in the dimensions you see it, is about moving cars. I picture people coming off the highway with highway brain. I've felt it too coming off that ramp. And they're going to go roundabout one, roundabout two. There's not enough deflection, I don't think, coming off of that. And it's very close between those two roundabouts. So it will be tough for anyone going north-south through that area. There's a saying we have in my business, you were too early until you're too late. We've been raising these questions for a really long time. We're told, don't worry, we're going to address it. Yes, I think now we're being told we're too late. So I have questions I think that would be worth asking is, what was originally submitted in the SmartScale application? Was it a roundabout project? And has there been a concern that we can't go back on a project we submitted to SmartScale at that point? Have we ever asked for further amendments to the Smart Scale application? Could we have withdrawn and reapplied the application? We were told that there was another Smart Scale window, which we have now missed, where it could have done. I would ask how wide the approach lanes are, how wide the circle is, what the speeds will be in the roundabouts, and whether we are truly getting safety within these roundabouts as part.

Thank you.

Next person who's in opposition. Anyone online?

I am seeing no one online raising their hand.

Make sure. Anyone else want to speak in opposition? Close public hearing.

I said I'd offer you a rebuttal if you want one. I promise you we don't feel the absolute need for one, but I promised you one, so if you want to Final moment, you can have it. Otherwise, just go forward. Your call.

Do you want a two-minute rebuttal? Do you want a minute of peace? Again, I'm from Public Works.

I appreciate everyone's input and their opinion. and we look into a lot more details and we look into each and every location that is a width of the speed, width of the roundabout. They are the smallest what we could, we can. And second thing I would say that for the green space, that's a stop recommendation. I believe that you heard from Ms. Conner that how good this design has to be still designed. We go by certain standards, federal standard, state standard, and they make safe. And we are trying to make it safe for that, what we've shown you on the two roundabout prime, and that creates some green space, but not now. If we move and impact more properties, because we will have little more different green space, then we're gonna end. I think that's driving the whole project. green space? That's a question we need to ask. So my suggestion is this is a transportation project. Let's focus on transportation and outcome of that green space. Mr. Ormanger worked with us. He said, great, let me do it. And he did it. But new administration did not like his proposal. They said, no, we don't like it. Okay, let's come work together to do it again. And for the roundabout and some other safety concerns, do you want to speak?

I know we're trying to get out of your time. You heard some things by the last two gentlemen. He said comically large. I say what they said was comically just wrong and flat out wrong. You heard the word widening over and over again. It's just factually incorrect. We're reducing lane widths. We're reducing number of lanes. We're not increasing capacity. Unless by capacity you mean the way that we can get vehicles through the roundabout in a much more safe and effective manner, efficient manner, and disperse the traffic across the entire network, then you're right. Then we are improving capacity. Um, so just wrong all around widening, not doing it, um, circles around the first of all, the roundabouts and the roundabout diameters are of comparable size to the several roundabouts that the city has already constructed very successfully that are working extremely well. I showed several examples of them earlier. Has anybody gone to the 25th nine mile roundabout? Anybody not like walking in that 25th nine mile roundabout? It's good. That's how we designed ours. Similarly, the 2nd Street roundabout. You can see that that is an urban context, urban infill, easy to cross. It's a beautiful place. So just factually wrong. The highway argument, just factually wrong. This is a pedestrian and bike multimodal oriented project. I say it over and over again. I think in this ideal scenario, somehow we can move this roundabout and address the earlier gentleman's point over to Venable. That's why we're the engineers. We have determined that that just can't work. In a perfect world, sure. But we need that space for the deflection. We are getting that deflection. We're the ones doing the modeling to show that we're slowing the speeds through these roundabouts. I'm sorry. There's a lot more I'd like to say.

Finally, we're going to meet all UDC's state recommendations. We agree with that. No issues. For that reason, I think staff recommendation and UDC recommendation, we are disagreeing with staff recommendation, but we are not disagreeing with UDC recommendation. And UDC is the one proposing you, your subcommittee, rather than planning department. Planning department is just a staff like us. So my suggestion is that please consider final approval. If there are any conditions, I will be happy to look into that and add no footprint, major footprint, Feature approved. We can go forward. Other minor things within that, we can adjust. No problem. Thank you.

Chair Poole, there, Mr. Wagner did raise his hand at one point. I'm sorry, I could not hear. On behalf of DPW, not public comment. Yeah. If you would like him to speak as staff, he's raised his hand.

Yes.

Mr. Wagner, you're able to unmute your microphone and turn on your camera if you'd like.

Good evening folks. I'll be brief and also refrain from turning on my camera. My name is Daniel Wagner. I'm the City Transportation Planner working for the Department of Transportation and I am also AICP certified and am proud to work with the group of folks that put this project together and continue to work with the community to advance it. Just wanted to as part of the rebuttal that Mr. Poole graciously offered. Just correct the record. The Partnership for Smarter Growth presentation mentioned that this project was not called for in any major planning documents, including Richmond Connects. A major part of my job is helping the city implement Richmond Connects. That's why I was brought on board. And you'll find that, in fact, the Chaco Valley Streets Improvement Project, including descriptions of the roundabouts and the exact locations, is listed on page 120 of Richmond Connects. Richmond Connect is also very regularly referenced in Richmond 300, as is Vision Zero, which is the city's goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries on city streets. We are firmly in support of that commitment, and this project helps us advance those goals. And then finally, it also references our Better Streets Manual, which is a design guideline which will allow us to make these specific judgments as transportation experts, including planners and engineers that are assessing these types of projects. I greatly appreciate your time and also greatly appreciate everyone's input throughout this process.

Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Now I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission and ask. Are you telling me there's someone else?

No, I'm not. I'm sorry. There's something.

Just try it.

questions for staff. Should I ask them?

Absolutely.

I sincerely apologize everyone. I also really want to get home. I have a few questions for staff. I'm not sure who wants to answer them. So we're talking about adding a slip lane here and how safe that is. But we also this body just recommended closing one on Brooklyn Park after hearing from several people how dangerous that was. So can you square that for me?

Sure. First of all, what we're calling it is it's protected lane. And it, like the roundabout, is designed for those slow speeds. It's a minimized crossing width for the pedestrians. We have the PHB, which Saul Rudin described how those function. Those have been demonstrated to be highly effectual in yield rates for pedestrians. We also have a nice wide refuge there, 15-foot wide refuge for pedestrians to make a two-stage crossing So there's all this reference to slip lane. I also want to say that, again, that design was a safety design. Originally, it was a two-lane approach. We don't want the two-lane approach. Now we have two separate one-leg approaches. The reason being not only for at the roundabout itself in pedestrian safety, but also upstream on Mosby for those school kids that are crossing over to school from their homes on the east side at O Street, or I'm sorry, P Street and Q Street. In a two-single-lane roundabout, which I think is what has been suggested, there is a queue of traffic through those upstream pedestrian crossings that are uncontrolled today, meaning there are cars that would be queued and blocking the pedestrian crossing stream. With the two lanes that are more effectively approaching the roundabout with the refuge island, those queues do not extend. They're not expected to extend through those upstream crossings. So that design is intentional for the safety of pedestrians. You keep hearing allusions to slip lane and you can fly through it. It's actually incorrect. That's why, again, I explained that that's why we do the modeling to show what the safe speeds are through there. What are the speeds that can be achieved as you approach the roundabout, go through the roundabout, and exit the roundabout? And that includes that controlled lane. We call it controlled lane because we have a speed table. We have the PHB. You have another question?

Yes, I have two more questions. I think that these are for planning staff. Was there coordination between the Chaco area small plan as that was coming together and this plan?

I'm not sure who would answer that question. Hold on.

I think the staff members who worked on that plan are not here tonight, so I can't say specifically what was done in between that. That would have been an opportunity for the master plan to establish a location character extent detail on what this project could have been. And as we've been referring to the master plan the whole time, but for whatever reason, I can't speak.

The Chaco area small plan as well? Okay. I'm also wondering how many other pre-current master plan approved conceptual plans we have hanging out there that we are in danger of having them come back to us wanting some kind of final approval when they're as out of date as this conceptual approval is. So there's no real question there, just observation.

Thank you.

You're welcome. All right. I'm back to the commission, and I would ask if there's a motion on item number six.

Mr. Chair, ahead of the motion, I would like, for the record, just one clarification, just because this is quite a large plan. Following the UDC, I just want to get ahead of it before there's a motion to approve, deny, continue, I don't know. The UDC recommendation, If there were to be approval included that condition about enhanced pedestrian safety at the most be inventable roundabout during the applicant and maybe they can clarify or staff i'm looking through the documents. During their presentation, they showed a mock up that I believe may be them addressing that condition, however, that mock up is not included in this record. that's before you. So if that is something that they would like to be included as that example, it was the one that showed the speed table and the pedestrian hybrid beacon, and that is not in the file. So any action you would take would not include that unless you explicitly say that as well.

Dr. Caron is shaking his head.

I just wanted to make sure it wasn't included.

All right.

Does that include the UDC recommendation?

It's my understanding that the UDC recommendations have almost all been addressed. So I'm motioning approval as presented. That is how I understood the case from the DPW representatives that items one through six had already been addressed and partial items from seven and eight have. And there may be a disagreement on one on number eight. So... My motion is approved as presented.

I'll second the motion.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, can we just get some clarity on, is that the case? Yes, sir. No, no.

Do you want me to reshare what I'm referencing? I think so. Yeah, it happened really quickly. And so I just wanted to make sure, because I think that was them expressing that exact concern. So I wanted to end up in the record. This is bad. This is their response to the UTC is comments and this is what they're requesting now be included in the record for for the recommendation.

My mission.

We have a motion is second is there discussion.

I'll just to make my position on a lot of my questions were answered or Additional ones I had were answered throughout the lengthy presentations. I understand that there was some concern about the two traffic circles. And while I also, like Chairman Poole, do not like to go against planning staff, I am listening to the engineers and the traffic experts that are explaining to us you cannot just move traffic circles, that there's a lot of engineering that goes into that. And I, as a non-engineer, I respect that. But this is not that I take lightly going against planning staff, but I'm listening to representatives of DPW that manage our roads and our system and I'm comfortable with their recommendations and the amount of engagement that has occurred. And while it is not under our purview to address funding, we can't, I cannot overlook that we could be in jeopardy of losing that. And then none of this happens. And it's very clear that this is an area that's unsafe on top of being an eyesore, and I think these improvements are very much needed. So that is my reason for support.

Robchin?

I want to thank everyone for their contributions. I think what makes Richmond get to the place of getting the best that we can possibly get is the input that we get from as many people as we get. And the level of public hearings, the level of advisory boards that are set up for big decisions that are being made in the city is what adds strength and add additional dimensions to what we ultimately bring before us. I, appreciate the bodies, the citizens that we ask to be involved in this process and all of these processes to bring the level of expertise and the dedication that they make to bring expert comments and expert information to add to the success of what we're getting done. I have served on this planning commission on different occasions on their different leadership for several years. And I will say, you know, there is, as the young lady said, which I really admire, there is nothing perfect but God. And this community has had its share of disinvestments in huge ways. I'm grateful that the conceptual plan that we just approved for Mosby gives me a sense of comfort that as we look at opportunities that will spur additional economic growth and development in this section of the city that we've been wrestling with for a long time, just as we have with downtown and, I mean, the central business district. that we don't seem to quite, haven't quite gotten there yet, hopefully will. There is such a wonderful opportunity and such a sensitive and valued history in this neighborhood that has been disinvested in a huge way. And as much as I'm sure, knowing Mr. Cara and knowing the staff that we have, and their dedication and their willingness to continually go back to the table, back to the table, back to the table, and come back with additional options to be responsive to people's interests and concerns, I'm confident that they will continue to do that. The advisory board that we hired that was working with the staff you know, we still stand available to do that. And I would hope that with us moving tonight to support this, we can move to the next stage of actually putting things into operation and that all of the additional comments and recommendations that we've heard, I'm confident that Mr. Cairo, Mr. Bobby Vinson and others will be very sensitive to adjusting those to the greatest extent that they possibly can be. Thank you, Mr. Bill.

Any comments? Yeah, Mr. Chair. Admittedly, I was unsure where I was going to land on this project coming in, given the recommendations from UDC and staff. But as we heard tonight, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. And I think this is a good project. What we've seen tonight is addressing our either met or committing to the UDC's recommendations. We've seen a high level of engagement just across the board in this project. We've seen the team at multiple points be willing to bend and adjust and accommodate, and I believe that will be the case going forward. In regards to the PDR recommendation, and please correct me if I'm wrong, in this particular case, the recommendation sounds like It would be ideal if these things could be met. However, we understand the constraints and thus it is not a reason to stop this project from going forward. I second that. And with that, that gives me a great amount of ease, Mr. Chair. And I intend to support this going forward. Any other comments?

Yes, ma'am, please.

Just Yeah, as Commissioner McKenzie said, I also wasn't sure where I was going to land on this. Any improvement will improve this area. And I do think that these improvements long-term will bring up the whole area and hopefully will bring further investment in the area if we invest in it first. But as a planning commissioner, as a citizen, as a professional grantor, I have a lot of issues with the way this came before us. I have a lot of issues with how long it took between conceptual and final. 10 years. It's not the same project. It's not the same budget. It's not the same anything. I have so many issues with this. I'm going to need a whole trazodone to fall asleep tonight, but I will support this project, but I feel held hostage in a lot of ways. And I resent that.

I too have been puzzled as to how I'm going to end up on this. What I go back to is the three and a half years that was commissioned and 10,000 of citizens of the city of Richmond spent on the master plan. We had our professional staff tell us that at least three major conditions of the master plan are not met. And we have our professional staff choose your words. I read the English language pretty literally and the professional staff said they were opposed or wanted to deny and our commission that advises us on these issues said they urge denial. They put the additional conditions on the question as to whether or not we would approve this. I want to take their recommendation, and it's my plan to vote to deny. Any others? Please call the question. We're voting on approval of location, character, and extent. for Chaco Valley, including Oliver Hill Way, North 18th Street, Venable Street, Mosby Street, and Lee Street.

Mr. Poole? No. Ms. Greenfield?

Aye.

Ms. Hebert? Aye. Ms. Knight? Aye. Mr. Penick?

Aye.

Who said aye? Ms. Roberts? Aye. Ms. Rowe? Aye. No, it's gone. Mr. McKenzie? Aye. And that motion passes and that item is approved. Don't forget about it, though, because, like, the right-of-way acquisitions will likely come before you. So don't forget about the project.

Council, I have an update.

Well, you know how City Hall is. We'll see. I do have an update for you guys. Ms. Knight, I already know you're very lucky. The city council last met on July 27th. Seven special use permit ordinances were adopted. Several were continued and hanging out. Other things, the fire training burn tower has been adopted. The funding for that. Two land conveniences were adopted. This is not relevant. Well, it's relevant, but was not a paper before you guys, but ordinance 2026-166, who Ms. Robertson was a patron of, was incorporating that Oak Grove Hillside-Bellmead plan into the master plan, so that has finally moved along. And then also to end, there were 17 ordinances introduced and referred to the August 18th meeting. So if you were planning on being absent, please try to let me and Mr. Poole know as soon as possible. It would be very bad to not have a forum. And that's all I have.

Any other issues for the commission? Thank you so much for your time and attention. We're adjourned.