Think YOUR neighborhood is no longer harmed by Code Refresh? Look closer.

Code Refresh’s lot coverage increases (including lessened setbacks for ADUs) will, by right, allow 12,000 ACRES of Richmond's neighborhood yards to be concreted. (And don't get me started on sublots.)

Only if unbuilt lot percentages are MAINTAINED will Richmond not decimate our natural, critical tree and soil infrastructure where 90% of our city’s tree canopy resides. Look around at your neighborhood and picture the scenarios below if you think that just because duplexes were removed from your neighborhood, you're fine.

Draft 3’s "vegetation space requirements" disguise that today’s R-1 (Single-Family Residential) maximum lot coverage is capped strictly at 20% of the total lot area, leaving 80% for trees, and with lots not less than 20,000 square feet.

The reality, despite the "tree saving" you are being told, is that Draft 3’s RD-A allows 30% concrete (ADUs are by right), and only 30% of a lot for vegetation (versus today’s 80% being yard!!!).

90% of Richmond’s trees are located in residential yards.

Today’s lots have 35-foot front yard setbacks, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 100' minimum lot width, and a 10' rear yard setback. Code Refresh removes area to no minimum area per lot, and reduces setbacks to 20-foot front setbacks, 9-foot side setbacks, a 9’ rear setback, and lot widths reduced to (RD-A) 90', (RD-B) 50', and (RD-C) 30'! How is that saving trees?!?

Let's do math: Single-family residential neighborhoods are reported as ≈60% of the city's land ≈ 23,800 acres. Today's R-1 residential parcels dictate 80% of a lot must stay unbuilt (20% coverage cap).

Draft 3's RD-A says 30% of a lot must stay unbuilt (a 70% coverage cap!!!).
Swing in guaranteed open/vegetated share: 80% − 30% = 50 percentage points
23,800 acres × 50% ≈ ~12,000 acres of currently-protected yard space that could by right be converted to hardscape.

Do you think Code Refresh allowing 12,000 ACRES of soil to be concreted in Richmond will not have an impact on your health, heat island, flooding, and trees?

Is allowing 12,000 acres of trees and soil to be concreted helpful or hurtful for our City's health, resiliency, and sustainability?

Further, tree wells and newly planted trees can’t compare to what exists in Richmond’s yards. In year one, 15- 30% of urban trees typically die, and unwatered urban sites lose up to 90% of young trees. How many saplings in tree wells have you seen being watered by residents, Richmond? Only about 50-65% of new trees survive past the critical multi-year establishment phase.

Yet the Office of Sustainability is adding a "tree fund” for developers who feel trees are inconvenient. For over 20 years Yale, carbon offsets/Verra, Society for Conservation Biology and the world has known that 98% of tree funds don’t work! Yet NOW "sustainability professionals" want tree funds? Richmond must do better.

Think Code Refresh isn't hurting your neighborhoods' tree canopy, soil, and solar, in violation of Richmond 300? Look more closely.

These 500 square foot ADUs in Westwood are much smaller than what Code Refresh will allow by right. Code Refresh will allow almost three times this size! ADUs must be tightened to 500sf to ensure they provide affordable housing and must not be taller than adjacent heights, including in RD-C. On narrow 30-foot lots in RD-C, an accessory building can rise up to 20 feet (2 full stories) with only 3-foot side and rear setbacks. A 1,200 sq ft structure is larger than many existing historic starter homes in Richmond, effectively allowing a second full-scale detached residence on single-family lots under the label of an "accessory" structure.