After consulting state statutes, step number two is to check the rules of the body. If the rules of the body say that you count votes of “those present” then you treat abstentions one way. However, if the rules of the body say that you count the votes of those “present and voting, ” then you treat abstentions a different way. And if the rules of the body are silent on the subject, then the general rule of thumb (and default rule) is that you count all votes that are “present and voting. ” Accordingly, under the “present and voting” system, you would NOT count abstention votes on the motion. Members who abstain are counted for purposes of determining quorum (they are “present”), but you treat the abstention votes on the motion as if they did not exist (they are not “voting”). On the other hand, if the rules of the body specifically say that you count votes of those “present” then you DO count abstention votes both in establishing the quorum and on the motion. In this event, the abstention votes act just like “no” votes.
How does this work in practice?
Here are a few examples.
Assume that a five-member city council is voting on a motion that requires a simple majority vote to pass, and assume further that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Accordingly, the default rule kicks in and we count all votes of members that are “present and voting. ” If the vote on the motion is 3-2, the motion passes. If the motion is 2-2 with one abstention, the motion fails.
Assume a five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and further assume that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Again, the default rule applies.
If the vote is 3-2, the motion fails for lack of a two-thirds majority. If the vote is 4-1, the motion passes with a clear two-thirds majority. A vote of three “yes, ” one “no” and one “abstain” also results in passage of the motion. Once again, the abstention is counted only for the purpose of determining quorum, but on the actual vote on the motion, it is as if the abstention vote never existed — so an effective 3-1 vote is clearly a two-thirds majority vote.
Now, change the scenario slightly. Assume the same five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, but now assume that the body DOES have a specific rule requiring a two-thirds vote of members “present. ” Under this specific rule, we must count the members present not only for quorum but also for the motion. In this scenario, any abstention has the same force and effect as if it were a “no” vote. Accordingly, if the votes were three “yes, ” one “no” and one “abstain, ” then the motion fails. The abstention in this case is treated like a “no” vote and effective vote of 3-2 is not enough to pass two-thirds majority muster.
7 Appeal. If the chair makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded, and after debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the chair is deemed reversed.
Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of saying, “return to the agenda. ” If a member believes that the body has drifted from the agreed-upon agenda, such a call may be made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers that the agenda has not been followed, the chair simply reminds the body to return to the agenda item properly before them. If the chair fails to do so, the chair’s determination may be appealed.
Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a motion, the maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn, although the chair may ask the person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion, and any other member may make the motion if properly recognized.
Special Notes About Public Input
The rules outlined above will help make meetings very public- friendly. But in addition, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special rules that apply to each agenda item:
Rule One: T ell the public what the body will be doing.
Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is doing it.
Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the public what the body did.
Courtesy and Decorum
The rules of order are meant to create an atmosphere where the members of the body and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. At the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to maintain common courtesy and decorum. Unless the setting is very informal, it is always best for only one person at a time to have the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to be first recognized by the chair before proceeding to speak.
The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude.
Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open. In the interest of time, the chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body.
Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? The general rule is “no. ” There are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be interrupted for the following reasons:
Privilege. The proper interruption would be, “point of privilege. ” The chair would then ask the interrupter to “state your point. ” Appropriate points of privilege relate to anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person’s ability to hear.
Order. The proper interruption would be, “point of order. ” Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to “state your point. ” Appropriate points of order relate to anything that would not be considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For example, if the chair moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate without allowing that discussion or debate.
1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 658-8200 | Fax (916) 658-8240
www.cacities.org
T o order additional copies of this publication, call (916) 658-8200. $10
© 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.
Printed on recycled paper.
Tab 14
Readings on
Understanding
Municipal Financing
Understanding the Basics of
Municipal Revenues in California:
Cities, Counties and Special Districts
2016 Update
2 Table of Contents
Overview............................................................................ 2 City Revenues In California ................................................ 4 County Revenues In California .......................................... 5 Special District Revenues In California .............................. 6 The Players: The State Legislature, Local
Governments And The Voters ............................................ 7 Taxes .................................................................................. 8 Property Taxes ................................................................. 10 Sales And Use Taxes ......................................................... 12 Service Charges, Assessments, And Fees ......................... 15 Revenues From Other Government Agencies .................. 17 Rent For Use Of Public Property ...................................... 18 Fines, Forfeitures And Penalties ....................................... 18 Other Revenues ............................................................... 19 Acknowledgements ......................................................... 20
3 OVERVIEW
Each one of California's 39 million residents lives within the boundaries of one of the state's 58 counties. Nearly 33 million people also live in one of California’s 482 cities.i Californians are also served by 2,156 independent special districts.
Counties, cities and special districts provide a vast array of municipal services to residents and businesses. These services include public safety (police, fire and emergency services), parks and recreation, roads, flood protection, sewers, water, electricity, refuse disposal, recycling and other utilities. Counties have an additional role as a provider for many state-mandated services, such as foster care, public health care, jails, criminal justice and elections.ii
These municipal local governments rely on a variety of revenues to pay for the services and facilities they provide. The amount and composition of revenues:
• D iffer between cities, counties and special districts largely because of differences in responsibilities; and
• V ary among cities, among counties and among special districts depending in part on differences in governance responsibilities.
There is a complex web of legal rules for collecting and using the variety of revenues available to municipal governments in California.
These rules derive from the state constitution, state statute and court cases further interpreting those laws.
This guide provides an overview of the sources of county, city and special district revenues in California. It is an introduction to a complex topic. You can find further information in the resources listed on the last page.
How To Use This
Information
These materials are not
technical or legal advice.
You should consult
technical experts, attorneys
and/or relevant regulatory
authorities for up-to-date
information and advice on
specific situations.
4 CITY REVENUES IN CALIFORNIA
Incorporated cities (including those that refer to themselves as “towns”) are responsible for a broad array of essential frontline services tailored to the needs of their communities. These include:
• L aw enforcement and crime prevention,
• F ire suppression and prevention, natural disaster planning and response, emergency medical response and transport,
• L and use planning and zoning, building safety,
• L ocal parks and open spaces, recreation,
• W ater supply, treatment and delivery,
• S ewage collection, treatment and disposal,
• S torm water collection and drainage,
• S olid waste collection, recycling and disposal,
• L ocal streets, sidewalks, bikeways, street lighting and traffic controls, and • P ublic transit.
Cities that are responsible for providing all or most of these functions are called “full service” - the services can be provided in-house or contracted through a private entity or another public agency. In other cities, some of these functions are the financial responsibility of other local agencies such as the county or special districts. For example, in about thirty percent of California cities, a special district provides and funds fire services. In sixty percent, library services are provided and funded by another public agency such as the county or a special district.
The mix of service responsibilities and local choice regarding service levels affects the amount and composition of revenues of each city.
5 COUNTY REVENUES IN CALIFORNIA
California counties are responsible for three general areas of municipal services: 1) delegated state and federal programs, 2) countywide public services and 3) essential frontline services for residents not receiving those services from a city or special district, often in unincorporated areas (outside city boundaries).
In unincorporated areas, counties provide the essential frontline services that cities provide that are not provided by a special district.
These can include police protection (through a county sheriff), roads, planning and building safety.
Counties also provide public services to all county residents, whether they live in or outside of cities. These countywide functions include:
• P ublic assistance (notably welfare programs and aid to the indigent),
• P ublic health services (including mental health and drug/alcohol services),
• L ocal elections,
• L ocal corrections, detention and probation facilities and programs (including juvenile detention), and
• P roperty tax collection and allocation for all local agencies, including school districts.
Funding from the federal and state government, primarily for health and human services, is the largest source of county revenues. Property taxes and sales and use taxes are the primary funding sources for many county services that do not have a dedicated state or federal funding source.
General and Functional
Revenues
Municipal revenues may be
viewed as falling into two
broad categories: general
revenues and functional
revenues.
General revenues can be
used for any legitimate public
purpose. General purpose
taxes, especially property and
sales taxes, account for most
general city revenues
statewide.
Functional revenues are
restricted by law to a
particular use. These include
funds derived from fees or
rates that the local agency
charges for public services,
including municipal utilities
such as water, sewer, and
garbage collection, airports,
marinas, harbors and water
ports. Functional revenues
also include most state or
federal grants as they are
usually restricted for particular
programs.
6 SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES
IN CALIFORNIA
Most special districts provide one or a few municipal services to a particular geographic area. These include both enterprise and non- enterprise services. Enterprise services are funded primarily through charging a fee for service. For example, water and irrigation districts charge utility rates and fees from consumers of those services. Non- enterprise services generally do not lend themselves to fees and are primarily funded by property taxes, with relatively small amounts of fee and state and federal grant revenue. Library and fire protection services are examples of non-enterprise services.
Other districts are multifunction, providing a number of municipal services. Community services districts (CSDs) can provide as many as 32 different types of services, approximating the scope of some cities. Multifunction districts have both enterprise and non-enterprise elements and may, like cities or counties, use an array of different revenue sources.
Types of Special Districts
• Air Quality Management /
Air Pollution Districts
• Airport Districts
• Cemetery Districts
• Community Services Districts
• Flood/Drainage Districts
• Fire Districts
• Harbor Districts
• Healthcare Districts
• Irrigation Districts
• Library Districts
• Memorial Districts
• Municipal / Resort
Improvement Districts
• Open Space Districts
• Parks and Recreation Districts
• Police Protection /
Ambulance Districts
• Public Utility Districts
• Reclamation Districts
• Resource Conservation
Districts
• Sanitary Districts
• Waste Management Districts
• Water Districts
7 THE STATE LEGISLATURE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
THE VOTERS
The options available to local officials in governing, managing their finances and raising revenues to provide services needed by their communities are limited. Voters have placed restrictions as well as protections in the state constitution. The state’s voters and the California Legislature have acted in various ways, to support and provide, and to limit and withdraw financial powers and resources from cities, counties and special districts.
Some of the most significant limitations on the local revenue-raising include:
• Property taxes may not be increased except with a two-thirds vote to fund a general obligation bond.
• The allocation of local property tax among a county, and cities, special districts and school districts within each county is controlled by the Legislature. • Voter approval is required prior to enacting, increasing or extending any type of local tax. • Assessments to pay for public facilities that benefit real property require property owner approval.
• Fees for the use of local agency facilities and for services may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing those facilities and services.
• Fees for services such as water, sewer and trash collection are subject to property owner majority protest.
The Legislature has enacted many complicated changes in state and local revenues over the past 30 years. Voters have approved state constitutional protections limiting many of these actions at times followed by even more complicated maneuvers by the Legislature in efforts to solve the financial troubles and interests of the state budget.
Reacting to actions of the Legislature and the deterioration of local control of fiscal matters, local government interests placed on the ballot, and voters approved, Proposition 1A in 2004 and Proposition 22 in 2010. Together, these measures prohibit the state from:
• Enacting most local government mandates without fully funding their costs. The definition of state mandate includes a transfer of responsibility or funding of a program for which the state previously had full or partial responsibility.
• R educing the local portion of the sales and use tax rate or altering its method of allocation, except to comply with federal law or an interstate compact. • Reducing the combined share of property tax revenues going to the county as well as cities and special districts in a county.
• Borrowing, delaying or taking motor vehicle fuel tax allocations, gasoline sales tax allocations, or public transportation account funds.
8 TAXES
According to the California Constitution, every local agency charge is a “tax,” unless it falls into a list of specified exceptions:iii
• User fees for a specific benefit, privilege, service or product provided to the payor. Items include: fees for parks and recreation classes, some utilities, public records copying fees, DUI emergency response fees, emergency medical and ambulance transport service fees. • Regulatory fees for reasonable regulatory costs of issuing licenses and permits, and performing inspections and enforcement such as health and safety permits, building permits, police background checks, pet licenses, bicycle licenses and permits for regulated commercial activities.
• Rental fees imposed for entrance to or use of government property. These include: facility room rentals, equipment rentals, park, museum and zoo entrance fees, golf greens fees, on and off-street parking and tolls.
• Fines or penalties such as parking fines, code enforcement fees and penalties, late payment fees, interest charges and other charges for violation of the law. • A charge imposed as a condition of property development such as building permit fees, construction and grading permits, development impact fees and fees for California Environmental Quality Act requirements.
• Benefit assessments and property related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D (Proposition 218) such as a lighting and landscape assessment and fees for property related services such as many retail water and sewer fees. iv
In contrast to an assessment or a fee, a tax need not be levied in proportion to specific benefit to a person or property. Tax revenues are an important source of funding for both county and city services and for many special districts. In addition to local taxes, counties rely significantly on tax dollars allocated from the state and federal governments.
TAX- General TAX- Parcel or Special
(earmarked)
G.O. BOND
(w/tax) Fee / fine / rent
City / County Majority voter
approval Two-thirds voter approval Two-thirds voter
approval
Majority of the
governing
board*
Special
District n/a Two-thirds voter approval Two-thirds voter approval
Majority of the
governing
board*
K-14 School n/a Two-thirds voter approval
(parcel tax)
55% voter
approval**
Majority of the
governing
board*
State
For any law that will increase the taxes of any
taxpayer, two-thirds of each house of the Legislature
- or approval of majority of statewide voters.
Statewide
majority voter
approval
Majority of each
house
* Additional procedures apply for property related fees. ** Per Proposition 39 (2000), maximum tax rate limits and other conditions apply for a 55% threshold school bond or threshold is two-thirds.
9 Counties and cities may impose a variety of taxes. Taxes fall into one of two categories: general or special.
A general tax is imposed to raise general-purpose revenues. Counties and cities may use revenues from a general tax for any lawful public purpose. A majority of voters must approve the decision to impose, increase or extend a general tax. A general tax may only be submitted for voter approval at an election for city council or board of supervisors unless a unanimous vote of the governing board declares an emergency.
A special tax is a tax imposed for a specific purpose. For example, a city may increase the sales and use tax by adding a special use tax for public safety, the acquisition of open space or transportation projects.
All taxes imposed by special districts are considered special taxes.
Since the tax is for a specific purpose, the revenues may only be used for that purpose. Two-thirds of voters must agree to enact, increase or extend a special tax.
General Tax Special Tax
Use of
Revenues
Unrestricted Specific purpose
Governing
Body
Approval
• Counties and general
law cities: two-thirds
• Charter cities: majority
• Transactions and use
taxes: two-thirds
• Special districts may
not adopt general
taxes.
Majority
Voter
Approval
Majority Two-thirds
Other
Rules
A general tax election
must be consolidated with
a regularly scheduled
general election of
members of the
governing body, unless
an emergency is declared
by unanimous vote
(among those present) of
the governing body.
Special tax funds must
be deposited in a
separate account. The
taxing agency must
publish an annual report
including: 1) the tax rate;
2) the amounts of
revenues collected and
expended; and 3) the
status of any project
funded by the special
tax.
County Property Tax
Administration
County Assessor.
The assessor sets values
on property and produces
an annual property tax
assessment roll.
County Auditor-Controller.
The auditor-controller
receives the assessed values
from the assessor and
calculates the amount of
property tax due.
County Treasurer-Tax
Collector. The treasurer-tax
collector administers the
billing, collection, and
reporting of property tax
revenues levied annually
throughout California for not
only the county, but also
cities, schools and special
districts.
10 PROPERTY TAXES
All counties and cities in California receive property tax revenues.
Many special districts do too. For all counties and most cities and non-enterprise special districts, property taxes are the largest source of discretionary revenues.
How Property Taxes Are Calculated in California
The property tax is imposed on “real property” (land and permanently attached improvements such as buildings) and tangible personal property (movable property such as boats, aircraft and business equipment).
The maximum tax rate permitted on real property for general purposes is one percent of the property's assessed value plus voter approved rates to fund indebtedness (general obligation bonds, requiring two- thirds voter approval).
The tax rate is applied to the assessed value (AV) of the property.
The assessed value of real property is the “full cash value” of the property in 1975-76 or at change of ownership, whichever is more recent, adjusted annually by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not to exceed an annual increase of two percent. The value of new construction is additional. If a property changes hands, then the assessed value becomes the full cash value upon change in ownership.
If a property’s market value falls below its factored base year value, it may be temporarily reassessed to its lower actual value but in future years may be reassessed at the lesser of its actual value or its factored base year value. This can result in increases of more than two percent as a property’s actual value returns to its earlier value, as when the housing market rebounds from a slump.
Property Tax Revenue Distribution
Counties allocate property taxes to the county as well as cities, special districts and school districts within the county according to state law. Allocations among local agencies vary from place to place due to differences in the service responsibilities among agencies serving different areas and differences in the tax rates enacted by those agencies prior to Proposition 13 in 1978. Full-service cities generally receive higher shares than those that do not provide the complete range of municipal services. For example, in a city where fire services are provided by a special district, the city will get a lower share, with a portion of the property tax revenues going instead to the special district.
11 Property tax revenues among local governments are, of course, also dramatically affected by differences in the assessed value of properties among jurisdictions. A ten percent share in a community of average property values will result in less revenue than in a similar size wealthy bedroom community, or a community that also has a sizable business/industrial area.
Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fee
In addition to their regular apportionment of property taxes, cities and counties receive property tax revenues in lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF). In 2004, the Legislature permanently reduced the VLF rate from two percent to 0.65 percent and compensated cities and counties for their revenue loss with a like amount of property taxes, dollar-for-dollar.
Each agency’s property tax in lieu of VLF allocation increases annually in proportion to the growth in gross assessed valuation in that city or county.
What is “ERAF?”
The property tax revenues
received by school districts
in each county include
amounts from the county
“Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund”
(ERAF) created by the
California Legislature in
1991 as a way to reduce
state general fund spending
on schools. These funds
receive some property tax
that was previously
allocated to counties, cities
and special districts.
Since 2004, California’s
Constitution has prohibited
the Legislature from
increasing the amount of
property tax shifted from
counties, cities and special
districts to ERAF or similar
schemes. The state
Constitution requires a two-
thirds vote of the Legislature
to change the allocation of
property tax among the
county, cities and special
districts within a county.
12 SALES AND USE TAXES
Consumers are familiar with the experience of going to a store, buying something and having an amount added for sales tax.
Services are generally exempt from the sales tax as well as certain items, like most groceries and medicine. The sales tax is assessed as a percentage of the amount purchased.
The “base” statewide sales tax rate of 7.25 percent includes amounts to:
• T he state general fund (3.9375 percent),v
• C ounty realignment programs (state health/ welfare and corrections / law enforcement programs shifted from the state, 1.5625 percent),
• S upplemental local law enforcement grants (0.50 percent),vi • T ransportation programs in the county where the transaction occurs (0.25 percent), and
• T he city where the transaction occurs (1.00 percent).vii If the transaction occurs in an unincorporated area, the 1.00 percent amount goes to the county.
Cities, counties and countywide transportation agencies may impose sales tax rates to be added on to the “base” statewide sales and use tax rate. The add-on rates are actually “transactions and use taxes” and are allocated to the jurisdiction where the taxed product is received or registered (as in the case of a motor vehicle purchase). Over 120 cities have enacted transaction and use taxes of up to one percent, most commonly with majority voter approval for general purposes. Many counties and county transportation agencies have enacted rates, most commonly with two-thirds vote for specific purposes. Under current state law, the maximum combination of transactions and use tax rates in any location may not exceed two percent.
viii
State Sales and Use
Tax Administration
The State Board of
Equalization collects local
sales and use tax revenues
from the retailer and sends
revenue from local rates and
allocations back to cities and
counties. In addition to
administering the sales and
use tax system, the State
Board of Equalization collects
and allocates other state
taxes including fuel, tobacco
and alcohol taxes.
The “Use Tax” Part of
the Sales and Use Tax
California’s sales tax has a
relative called the “use tax.”
While the sales tax is
imposed on the seller, the use
tax is imposed on the
purchaser and at the same
rate as the sales tax. The
most common example of use
tax is for the purchase of
goods from an out-of-state
retailer for use in California.
Out-of-state retailers doing
business in California are
required to report to the State
Board of Equalization the
jurisdiction to which sold
items are delivered. If the
retailer has a physical
presence (nexus) in
California, they must collect
use tax when goods are
delivered to purchasers in this
state. If the seller does not
collect and remit the use tax,
the purchaser is legally
obligated to report and pay.
13 Business License Tax (BLT)
Most cities and a few counties have enacted business license taxes. Business license tax rates are set individually by each city and county most commonly based on gross receipts (overall business revenue) or levied at a flat rate, but may be based on the quantity of goods produced, number of employees, number of vehicles, square footage of the business or some combination of factors.
If a business operates in more than one city, a city may only tax that portion of the business’s activities conducted within the city. In most cases, business license taxes are not imposed for regulatory purposes (as the term “license” might imply) but to raise revenues for general municipal purposes (i.e. a tax). If imposed as a fee to pay for the cost of regulating the business, the fee may not exceed the reasonable cost of regulating the business. (See “regulatory fees.”) Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) or Hotel Bed Tax
Most cities and some counties impose a transient occupancy tax or hotel bed tax on persons staying thirty days or less in hotels, motels and similar lodgings, including mobile homes. A county may impose a transient occupancy taxes only in the county area outside city limits. Typically, the lodging provider collects the tax from guests and turns the funds over to the county or city.
Transient occupancy taxes are imposed by most cities and counties and range from three and a half percent to 15 percent. For cities with a transient occupancy tax, it provides seven percent of general revenues on average, and as much as 17 percent in some cities. Any increase or extension of a local tax requires voter approval.
Utility User Tax (UUT)
Many cities impose utility user taxes on the consumption of utility services, including (but not limited to) electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone (including mobile phone and long distance), sanitation and cable television. Counties may levy utility user taxes in county area outside city limits. Any increase or extension of a local tax requires voter approval.
Utility companies usually collect utility user's taxes from their customers as part of their regular billing procedures and remit the funds collected to the city or county which imposed the tax.
Over 150 cities and a few counties levy utility user rates varying from one to 11 percent. For those jurisdictions with utility user taxes, it provides an average of 15 percent of general revenue and often as much as 22 percent.
Parcel Tax
A parcel tax is a special tax on a parcel – or unit – of real property. Unlike the property tax, a parcel tax may not be based on the value of property. Instead, parcel taxes are generally based on a flat per-parcel rate.
A parcel tax may be enacted, increased or extended by a city, county, special district or school district only with two-thirds voter approval, even for general purposes.
Documentary Transfer Taxes and Property Transfer Taxes
A documentary transfer tax is a tax imposed on the transfer of interests in real estate. Counties tax at a rate of 55 cents per $500 of the property’s value. Cities may impose the tax at up to one half of that amount, which is credited to the payment of the county tax. The Constitution allows charter cities ix to
14 enact a property transfer tax, with voter approval, on the value of real estate that is sold. In these cases, the entire county documentary transfer tax rate goes to the county. All cities and counties in California have documentary transfer taxes or property transfer taxes.
Other Taxes
A city or county may impose other types of taxes within the limitations of and if not prohibited by state law. These include: admissions taxes, parking taxes, construction/development taxes, local vehicle registration taxes.
15 SERVICE CHARGES, ASSESSMENTS AND FEES
Utility Rates
Utility rates are fees for utility services charged to users who pay for special district, county or city provided water, sewer, electric or other utility services. Utility rates cover some or all of the cost of providing the service, which may include operations, maintenance, overhead, capital improvements and debt service.
Utility rates for water, sewer services and certain other utilities belong to a special category of fees called a “property-related fees.” A local government must follow certain specific procedures to impose, extend or increase a property-related fee.
To impose a property-related fee, the agency must first hold a public hearing. At the hearing, a majority of affected property owners can prevent the fee’s adoption by filing written protests. If a majority of affected property owners do not protest the fee and the fees pays for sewer, water or refuse collection, then an election is not required and the governing body may approve the fee.
Other property-related fees require approval, either of two-thirds of the electorate residing in the affected area or of a majority of the owners of the property who would pay the fee.
Benefit Assessments
Assessments are charges by cities, counties or special districts on real property to pay for public facilities or services within an area which benefit either real property or businesses. A common type of assessment is one used to pay for landscaping and lighting in a neighborhood. The amount of the assessment must reflect the special benefit to the property that results from the improvements.
Assessments on property are typically collected through the owner’s annual property tax bill.
A local government must follow certain specific procedures to impose benefit assessments. When a local agency considers an assessment, a majority of property owners may defeat the assessment in a public hearing procedure. If the proposed assessment is not defeated in a public hearing procedure, then a majority of the property owners subject to the charge must approve the assessment by a mailed ballot. The property owners’ votes are weighted according to how much their property will be charged.
User Fees
A city, county or special district may impose fees, charges and rates for services and facilities it provides. Examples include fees for checking plans for new construction or for recreation classes. The amount of a fee may not exceed the cost of providing the service or granting a benefit or privilege. This cost may include overhead, capital improvements and debt service.
Regulatory Fees
Regulatory fees pay for the cost of issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections and audits and the administrative enforcement of these activities. Examples include a fee to pay for the cost of processing pesticide license applications or a fee to inspect restaurants for health and safety compliance.
16 Development Impact Fees
Development impact fees are imposed on new construction (like new houses, apartments, shopping centers or industrial plants). They pay for improvements and facilities required to serve new development and to reduce the impacts of new development on a community.
Development impact fees (also known as “AB 1600 fees” after legislation adopted that governs such fees) pay for community amenities such as streets, sewers, parks and schools. They may not be used for day-to-day operating expenses.
The ordinance or resolution establishing the fee must explain the connection between the development project and fee. For example, a library impact fee must be connected to the demand for library services created by the construction of the development project.
The amount of the fee must not exceed the cost of providing the service or improvement that the fee pays for.
Local Debt Financing Tools
Local governments borrow money to pay for land, facilities and equipment that may require more funding than current revenues provide. Not a revenue source, but a way to leverage the timing of revenues, debt financing methods are important tools in government finance. Local governments may issue bonds and other debt instruments to finance improvements and services. These loans are paid off through taxes, assessments or fees. A variety of debt financing tools are available:
• General Obligation Bonds. General
obligation bonds are essentially IOUs
issued by public entities to finance large
projects. General obligation bonds are
backed by property tax revenue, which is
used to repay the bond over a twenty- to
thirty-year period. Increasing the property
tax to repay the debt requires two-thirds
voter approval and may only be done to
acquire or improve real property.
• Lease-Purchase Agreements. In a lease-
purchase agreement, sometimes called
“certificates of participation,” the agency
leases an asset for a period of years with
the option to purchase the land or
improvement at the end of the lease. The
amount of the lease is equivalent to the
principal and interest that would be paid if
the transaction were financed as a loan.
• Benefit Assessment and Special Tax
Financing. Benefit assessment financing is
supported by benefit assessments on the
property to fund acquisition of property and
improvement of infrastructure and additional
facilities of benefit to the property that is
charged. Similarly special taxes, such as Mello-
Roos taxes, may be financed with bonds
to provide public improvements.
• Revenue Bonds. Revenue bonds are issued
to acquire, construct or expand public projects
for which fees, charges or admissions are
charged. Because the debt service is paid from
income generated by the facility or related
service, such debt is considered self-liquidating
and generally does not constitute debt of the
issuer, subject to constitutional debt limitations.
• Tax Allocation (Tax Increment). Tax
allocation bonds (sometimes referred to as tax-
increment financing) are issued by Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts or Community
Revitalization and Investment Authorities and
repaid from the growth in property tax revenue
(i.e., tax increment) and other designated
revenues over a certain period, largely as a
result of the funded projects in the area.
17 REVENUES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Counties, cities and many special districts also receive revenues from the state and federal government. For example, over half of county revenues statewide come from state and federal sources. This reflects the role of counties in implementing state policy and programs for health and human services.
Gas Tax or Highway Users Tax
The state imposes per gallon tax on gasoline of 27.8 cents as of July 1, 2016. These funds are apportioned to cities and counties, primarily on the basis of their populations. Local gas tax revenues must be spent on research, planning, construction, improvement and maintenance of public streets, highways and mass transit. The federal government’s 18.4 cents per gallon rate pays primarily for federal highways with some local grants.
Motor Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
The Motor Vehicle License Fee is a state imposed and collected tax on ownership of a registered vehicle. Counties receive vehicle license fee revenues to fund certain health, social service and public safety programs that were realigned to counties in 1991 and 2011.
State Public Safety Sales Tax
Proposition 172, a ballot measure approved in 1993, imposed a one-half percent state sales tax to be used for local public safety activities. The state distributes Proposition 172 revenues to each county based on its proportionate share of statewide taxable sales. Many cities receive a share of those funds based on losses to the state’s ERAF property tax diversions.
State Mandate Reimbursement
The state constitution requires the Legislature to reimburse local governments for their costs to implement a state-mandated new program or higher level of service in an existing program. The Constitution requires the Legislature to suspend most state mandates in any year in which full funding is not provided for that mandate. The Commission on State Mandates determines the level of reimbursement in response to a claim for reimbursement filed by a local agency. The process typically takes several years during which time, local governments must spend money to comply with the mandate.
Federal and State Grants and Aid
The federal and state governments provide a wide variety of funds to counties, and a more limited set to cities and special districts. Federal and state grants comprise a large proportion of county revenues because of the many programs and responsibilities counties carry out on behalf of the federal and state governments. These funds are almost entirely restricted to specified uses. Examples include certain health, mental health, social and child welfare services.
18 Categorical grants support a defined program area. Categorical grants typically go to local agencies that either meet predetermined funding criteria or compete for project funding through an application process.
Block grants provide funding to a broad functional area. For example, federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds support local housing and economic development activities.
RENT FOR USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Rents, Royalties and Concessions
Another way cities and counties and some special districts pay for public services is to charge rent for use of the public’s property. An example is royalties from natural resources taken from land the public owns. Others include selling advertisements in publications or on buses, as well as, receiving a percentage of net profits from concessionaires operating on public property.
Franchise Fees
Franchise fees are a form of rent for use of public streets and roadways. Examples of businesses that pay franchise fees include trash collectors, cable television companies, electric utilities and oil and natural gas pipeline companies. Federal and state law limits the amount of some franchise fees (for example, video and cable television franchise fees). Franchise fees for provision of video services (like television programming) are limited and administered by the state.
FINES, FORFEITURES AND PENALTIES
Violations of the law often result in a fine of some kind. Fines, forfeitures and penalties may be imposed for many reasons. Typical examples include traffic violations, court fines, penalties and interest on late or unpaid taxes.
• State law determines the distribution of fines and bail forfeitures imposed by the state.
• State law apportions revenues for parking violations and surcharges between issuing agencies and the counties.
• A city or county may impose fines, forfeitures and penalties for civil violation of local ordinances.
• Bail for local code violations
charged criminally is established
by the local courts with input from the city or county.
Maintenance of Effort
Requirements (MOE)
When cities and counties
receive funding for programs
from the state or federal
government, such funding
may come with strings
attached. A common
condition is that the city or
county commit to a certain
level of funding. This
commitment is called
“maintenance of effort.”
Local agencies also receive
reimbursement for revenue
lost as a result of some tax
exemptions and reductions.
An example includes the
homeowners’ property tax
exemption, which eliminates
the property tax on a small
portion of the assessed
valuation of owner- occupied
residential property.
19 OTHER REVENUES
There are other local government revenues, comparatively minor in amounts. These include interest earned on investments, sales of surplus property and gifts. 20 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to Michael Coleman whose expertise contributed to the 2016 update of this publication. Michael Coleman is a leading expert on California local government revenues, spending and financing. He is the creator of CaliforniaCityFinance.com, the California Local Government Finance Almanac, an online resource of data, analyses and articles on California municipal finance and budgeting.
The Institute also appreciates the contributions from the staff of the California Special Districts Association, the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities for their contributions and suggestions to this revised document.
21 ENDNOTES
i California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/ ii Cal. Const. art. XI, § 1(a). See also Cal. Gov’t Code § 23002 (“The several existing counties of the State and such other counties as are hereafter organized are legal subdivisions of the State.”). People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, 5 Cal. 3d 480, 491, 96 Cal. Rptr. 557 (1971)
iii Cal. Const. art XIIIC, section 1(e)
iv A complete discussion of this list of seven exceptions can be found in the Proposition 26 Implementation Guide published by the League of California Cities.
v Proposition 30 imposed an additional state general fund sales tax of 0.25 percent from 2013 through 2016, for a total base rate of
7.5% during that time.
vi See “State Public Safety Sales Tax” under “Revenues From Other Government Agencies.” vii In some cities, by historic agreement, the city collects less than 1.00 percent, with the difference allocated to the county. For example, in San Mateo county each city receives 0.95% of transaction within its jurisdiction and 0.05% goes to the county general fund. For a full list of local sales tax rates see Table 23A of the California State Board of Equalization Annual Report. http://www.boe.ca.gov/annual/table23a.htm
viii Except in the counties of Los Angeles, Alameda and Contra Costa where the maximum is 2.5 percent. Revenue and Tax Code §7251 et seq.
ix For more information on Charter Cities see www.cacities.org/chartercities
Resources for Further Information
Coleman, Michael. California Municipal Revenue Sources Handbook, League of California Cities 2014.
Multari, Michael, Michael Coleman, Kenneth Hampian, Bill Statler. Guide to Local Government Finance in California, Solano Press Books, 2012.
California Legislative Analyst’s Office. www.lao.ca.gov “California Local Government Finance Almanac: Data, Statistics, Analyses on California City, County and Special District Finance.” www.californiacityfinance.com “Financial Management for Elected Officials.” Institute for Local Government. www.ca-ilg.org/post/financialmanagement
“Learn About Cities.” League of California Cities. www.cacities.org/Resources/Learn-About-Cities “What Do Counties Do?” California State Association of Counties. www.csac.counties.org/californias-counties
“What are Special Districts and What Do They do?” California Special Districts Association. www.csda.net/special-districts/
Notes
__________________
__________________
______________ _________________________________________
ABOUT THE INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The Institute for Local Government (ILG) is the nonprofit 501(c)(3) research and education affiliate of the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association. Its mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities.
For more information and to access the Institute’s resources, visit www.ca-ilg.org.
© 2016 Institute for Local Government. All rights reserved.
www.ca-ilg.org
1400 K Street, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tab 15
Adopted FY 2022-2023
Operating Budget & 5-
Year Capital
Improvement Plan
1 City of Richmond
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Proposed Operating &
CIP Budget
Shasa Curl, City Manager
Delmy Cuellar, Director of
Finance
June 21, 2022
Overview
▪ Proposed FY 2022-23 General Fund Balanced
Budget
▪ General Fund Revenue Assumptions &
Estimates
▪ General Fund Expenditure Assumptions &
Estimates
▪ Proposed Operating Transfers Out
▪ Adjustments Made to Balance the Budget
▪ General Fund Reserve Level
▪ Non-General Fund
▪ Capital Improvement Budget
▪ Fiscal Headwinds
▪ Next Steps & Questions
Proposed FY 2022-23
General Fund Balanced Budget
3 GENERAL FUND May 3, 2022 June 7, 2022 June 21, 2022 TOTAL REVENUE 206,360,370 206,483,393 206,632,248
TOTAL EXPENSE 206,332,516 201,969,824 206,632,248
Net (-Gap)/+Surplus 27,854 4,513,569 0.00
General Fund Revenue Assumptions to Date
Revenue Category Assumptions
PROPERTY TAXES Assessed Value (AV) Growth based on (1) most properties increasing by State posted CPI (usually 2% max), (2) plus, for the properties that sold in 2021, the new value minus the previous value, and (3) the value of the Chevron Refinery. Staff usually assumes the Chevron refinery will stay the same - 0% AV growth for that component.
SALES & USE TAX 4% growth per the consultant; Vehicle License Fee Backfill Swap tied to AV growth, same as Secured Property Taxes.
UTILITY USERS TAX (UUT) Analysis in part provided by consultant. Growth rates applied to individual revenue streams with the UUT category - cable and Telecom historically have been going down due to industry changes. Settlement amount is set and due to go away after FY24-25. Cap amount paid by Chevron is based on Energy Services CPI for the Bay Area which through the posted rates through February is extremely high.
OTHER TAXES Each revenue stream within Other Taxes changes year-to-year based on independent influences; both garbage fees are up by 4% based on historical changes; Hotel Tax up 5% based on rebounding industry; Transfer Tax budgeted amount based on formula in Guiding Fiscal Policy that mandates we use the mean since implementation of the voter approved tiered structure; gas and electricity franchise changes stem from using same growth factor as UUT.
LICENSES, PERMITS & FEES Main item is Business Tax and are using growth factor of 2% as a conservative CPI. Still new revenue stream so we still do not know what the full year amount will be.
FINES & FORFEITURES Parking citations flat and Muni Court Fines with 1.4% growth USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY Flat - zero growth
CHARGES FOR SERVICES Most items entered by corresponding departments based on their estimated level of service and total corresponds to 4.3% growth OTHER REVENUE Very unpredictable. Usually very little budgeted here, but items get added as received.
RENTAL INCOME Rental Income is determined based on the Council approved agreements and/or fees established through the Master Fee Schedule INTERGOV STATE TAXES Motor Vehicle Fees increase based on YTD actuals in FY21-22 INTERGOV OTHER GRANT Only grants with award letters are budgeted PROCEED FROM SALE PROPERTY Pending budget, based on historic trend OPERATING TRANSFERS IN Based on Analysis of the Pension Tax Override fund, estimated AV growth, minus scheduled uses. Left over funds are transferred to the General Fund 4 General Fund Revenue Estimates
5*Current Year (CY)
REVENUES FY 2022-2023
REVISED BUDGET
FY 2022-2023
PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGE
PROPERTY TAXES 45,233,561 46,056,962 1.80%
SALES & USE TAX 51,993,736 55,282,200 6.30%
UTILITY USERS TAX 46,522,663 49,963,589 7.40%
OTHER TAXES 20,953,343 21,638,449 3.30%
LICENSES, PRMITS&FEES 10,354,335 11,129,402 7.50%
FINES & FORFEITURES 468,897 475,275 1.40%
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY 236,079 236,079 0.00%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 3,424,459 3,571,292 4.30%
OTHER REVENUE 1,473,927 187,500 -87.30%
RENTAL INCOME 747,268 874,506 17.00%
INTERGOV STATE TAXES 90,000 125,000 38.90%
INTERGOV STATE GRANT 187,878 175,000 -6.90%
INTERGOV OTHER GRANT 153,569 253,569 65.10%
PROC FR SLE PROP 100,000 100,000 0.00%
LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS 36,400 - -100.00%
OPER XFERS IN 10,204,224 16,563,424 62.30%
TOTAL REVENUE 192,180,338 206,632,248 7.50%
General Fund Expenditure Assumptions to Date
Expenditures Category Assumptions/Descriptions
SALARIES AND WAGES IAFF, RFMA, RPMA, RPOA negotiations pending, Executive, Local 21 and Local 1021 5 percent COLA as of 1/1/2023, other pays based on existing MOUs and current enrollments.
PAYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT Healthcare cost at current rates as of FY2022, OPEB per current Actuarial report, Retirement rates per current CalPERS rates. Worker's Comp rate 1 % increase in each category PROFESSIONAL & ADMIN Baseline budget, with one-time appropriations removed, City Attorney Legal Services Contract $1.5 million OTHER OPERATING Baseline budget with one-time appropriations removed.
UTILITIES Baseline budget
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS Baseline Budget based on historical actuals PROVISN FOR INS LOSS Insurance Premiums
COST POOL (Vehicle Replacement) Fleet Services provided list with Priority 1 items COST POOL (General Liability) 5% increase from current year budget COST POOL (Cost Allocation Plan - Admin Charges) 5% increase from current year budget COST POOL (Civic Center Debt Allocation) Charge derived from the debt service, cash balance, and square footage used by divisions ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY As needed
DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE Debt Service Schedule, maintained by Treasury A87 COST PLAN REIMBS Based on COST POOL (Cost Allocation Plan - Admin Charges) GRANT EXPENDITURES Based on the awarded grants
OPER XFERS OUT Recurring and onetime subsidies to non-GF programs. 6*International Association of Fire Firefighters (IAFF), Richmond Fire Management Association (RFMA), Richmond Police Management Association (RPMA), Richmond Police Officers Association (RPOA) General Fund Expenditure Estimates
7 EXPENDITURES FY 2021-2022
REVISED BUDGET
FY 2022-2023
PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGE
SALARIES AND WAGES 75,822,428 78,761,868 3.9%
PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 62,143,352 66,929,804 7.7%
PROF & ADMIN 16,248,412 16,977,138 4.5%
OTHER OPERATING 7,225,103 8,720,902 20.7%
UTILITIES 5,010,518 5,399,957 7.8%
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 2,555,148 2,731,448 6.9%
PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 27,673 25,725 -7.0%
COST POOL 14,455,436 15,277,766 5.7%
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,416,551 2,422,136 71.0%
DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 1,065,359 1,037,009 -2.7%
A87 COST PLAN REIMBS -3,516,104 -3,531,610 0.4%
GRANT EXPENDITURES 82,500 2,500 -97.0%
OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 12,801,419 11,877,605 -7.2%
TOTAL EXPENSE 195,337,796 206,632,248 5.8%
Proposed FY 22-23 General Fund Operating Transfers Out
8 Operating Transfers Out FY 2022-2023 Proposed Budget
Debt Service 1,744,390
Hilltop Lighting and Landscaping District 229,115
Marina Bay Lighting and Landscaping District 462,436
Employment and Training 743,201
Information Technology Equipment Replacement 100,000
Department of Children and Youth 3,936,896
Richmond Housing Authority 1,261,082
Pension Fund 100,485
Reimagining Public Safety - Unhoused Intervention 1,320,000 Reimagining Public Safety - Youthworks 1,980,000
Total 11,877,605
Adjustments Made to the Balanced Budget
9 Proposed Budget Savings/Revenue Adjustments Proposed Appropriations Current Estimated Surplus 4,513,570 COLA/Class & Comp 7,385,608 Vacancy Saving Factor - 6% 8,339,184 Inflation Factor - 5%* 1,410,215 Increase Transfer In from PTOR 148,800 City Attorney Legal Services 1,500,000 Other Savings 824,269 Point Molate Expenses 1,000,000
Additional Paving Index Investment 1,000,000
Housing First 425,000
Public Bank 750,000
Reparations, Equity, and Inclusion – Year One 250,000
Literacy Fair 5,000
Short-term Emergency Housing Interventions 100,000
New City-Wide Appropriations Request Not Included
City-Wide Positions Request Not Included
Total Available 13,825,823 Total Appropriations 13,825,823 *https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/consumerpriceindex_sanfrancisco.htm Proposed FY 2022-2023 Non-General Fund Budget
Fund Type Proposed FY 2022-2023
Other Operations 27,075,053
Special Revenue 39,674,849
Capital Improvement 37,256,854
Debt Service 21,612,086
Enterprise 70,579,794
Internal Service 25,169,925
Housing 5,458,047
Richmond Housing Authority 4,880,044
Total 231,706,650
10 Proposed FY 2022-2023
Capital Improvement Proposed Budget
Fund Number Fund Name Proposed FY 2022-2023
1002 Gas Tax 2,815,755
1019 RMRA-SB1 2,395,337
1054 Engineering Grants 14,509,778
2001 General Capital 3,061,487
2002 Measure J 3,786,947
1004 Asset Seizure 20,000
1006 Outside Grants 8,662,839
2113 Fire Impact Fee 89,383
2110 Park Impact Fee 15,000
2111 Traffic Impact Fee 263,639
2116 Open Space Impact Fee 373,264
2117 Library Impact Fee 469,295
2120 Wastewater Impact Fee 794,130
Total Capital Project Funds $37,256,854
11 Fiscal Headwinds
Classification & Compensation Study and Vacancy Saving
COLA/Class &
Comp Study $7.4
million
Estimated Vacancy
Saving $8.3 million
(Approx. 6%)
12 *CalPERS
$367 million
**OPEB
$102 million
13 Fiscal Headwinds
Unfunded Liabilities
*Per CalPERS Annual Valuation Report for FY 2022-2023
**Per Van Iwaarden (consultant) Estimated Actuarially Determined Contribution for FY 2022-2023 Analysis 14 Fiscal Headwinds
Underfunding of Risk Reserve
$3,047,073
$4,668,140
FY 2022-23 Budget
FY 2022-23 Budget
Paving Condition Index points 60
Paving Condition Index Points 51
Year 1
PCI - 60 Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
PCI - 51
15 Fiscal Headwinds
Deteriorating Infrastructure – Paving Condition Index
Next Steps
16 FY 2021-2022 Year-End Clean Up
(September 2022)
FY 2022-2023 First Quarter
Update (October 2022)
THANK YOU
&
QUESTIONS?
17 Tab 16
State Audit Corrective
Action Plan
City of Richmond
2022 State Auditor Recommendations and Corrective Action Plan Topic Description Responsible for
Implementation
Time Frame Corrective Action Plan
Budget Strategy
1 Review/Update Fund
Balance Reserve
Policy
To help ensure that Richmond maintains appropriate reserves for times of fiscal uncertainty, City staff should, by June 2023, review Richmond's reserve policy to determine whether a higher reserve target is appropriate. As part of the review, staff should consider all the factors the Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) recommends for setting a reserve target. Once that review is complete, City staff should present proposals to the City Council for modifying the City's policy.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
6/30/2023 Schedule City Council review/consideration of updated General Fund reserve policy in March 2023 for implementation in the Fisacl Year (FY) 2023-2024 Budget, for adoption by June 2023.
2 Identify Contingent
Long-term Budget
Balancing Options
To decrease the risk that Richmond will deplete its reserves, City staff should, by June 2023, present to the City Council a list of proposed budget actions that would help ensure balanced budgets and eliminate projected deficits.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
6/30/2023 Present contingent, long-term budget balancing options with the FY 2023-2024 proposed budget, by June 2023.
3 Expand 5 Year
Financial Projection
Model with Risk
Scenarios
Richmond should include multiple scenarios in its financial projections, including scenarios with potential additional risks, such as economic downturns or recessions, and how the City would continue to fund its operations under those circumstances.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
On Going Present expanded 5-year financial projection with the FY 2023-2024 Proposed Budget, by June 2023.
4 Review/Update
Pension Funding
Policy
To ensure that Richmond is able to fund its retirement-related costs, City staff should, by June 2023, propose to the City Council a specific policy regarding funding of its pension trust fund for this purpose.
Staff should report to the City Council on estimated long-term savings from increasing its direct payments to CalPERS compared to investing the same amounts in its pension trust fund. Staff members should use this information to inform their recommendations related to funding targets for the pension trust fund and should consider recommending that the Council increase the City's payments directly to CalPERS.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
6/30/2023 Schedule City Council review/consideration of updated Pension funding policy in March 2023 for implementation in the FY 2023- 2024 Budget, for adoption by June 2023.
5 Review/Update
OPEB Funding Policy
To improve the City's ability to pay other post-employment benefits, Richmond should, by June 2023 and annually thereafter, implement a policy identifying funds, such as surpluses or one-time revenues that should be contributed to the OPEB trust fund. Staff should conduct an annual analysis to determine whether any funds available to the City are applicable under the City's policy and should present a proposal to the City Council to apply those funds to the trust fund.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
6/30/2023 Schedule City Council review/consideration of updated OPEB funding policy in March 2023 for implementation in the FY 2023- 2024 Budget, for adoption by June 2023.
6 Update Workforce/
Position Analysis
To mitigate the costs of increasing salaries, the City should perform a workforce analysis by June 2024.
Based on the results of the analysis, the City Council should consider eliminating vacant positions that it deems no longer necessary. Additionally, the City should assess its need for each vacant position before it seeks to fill the positions and eliminate any positions that it does not need.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City M
anager
6/30/2024 The City is issuing a Request for Proposal for a profe ssional firm to conduct a formal workforce analysis. While the City evaluates the professional firms that replied to the Request for Proposal, the City will do an annual analysis of funded positions proposed by departments during the annual budget process, starting with the FY 2023-24 bud
get, by June 2023.
Housing Authority
7 Complete Housing
Authority Recovery
Agreement Actions
To ensure compliance with federal requirements, Richmond should dedicate the resources necessary to provide records needed for an independent auditor to complete all outstanding single audits of the housing authority within the next fiscal year. To comply with existing legal obligations, Richmond should make available sufficient resources to enable the Housing authority to resolve all past due requirements of the recovery agreement and to meet the remaining deadlines in a timely manner by January 2024.
Nannette Beacham,
Executive Director
Richmond Housing
Authority &
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
1/1/2024 Identify and assign resources to complete Housing Autho rity Single Audit backlog by June 30, 2023. Identify and assign resources to complete Housing Authority Recovery Agreement actions by January 2024.
8 Execute Housing
Authority/ City
Administation
Agreement
To define Richmond's responsibility related to the housing authority, Richmond should immediately enter into a written agreement with the housing authority defining each entity's financial responsibilities and draft plans to resolve past tax liabilities and prevent unnecessary new liabilities.
Nannette Beacham,
Executive Director
Richmond Housing
Authority &
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
2/28/2023 Draft and Schedule City Council consideration of Housi ng Authority Administration Agreement by February 2023.
Operations
9 Review/Update
Contract Compliance
Documentation
Process
To ensure that Richmond is receiving the best value when entering into contracts, City staff should immediately begin documenting that they are following the contracting requirements in the City's municipal code and contracting policies for all contracts.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
6/30/2023 Draft and implement Contract Compliance Documentation processes by June 2023.
10 Review/Update
Contract Compliance
Checklist
To reduce potential errors and omissions by City staff members when contracting for goods and services, by January 2023 Richmond should require its finance department to create a comprehensive checklist of required documentation for contract files that other departments must follow when conducting procurements.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
6/30/2023 Draft and implement Contract Compliance Checklist by J une 2023. 11 Review/Update Fee
Schedule Policy
To ensure that City fees appropriately cover the cost of providing services, by June 2023, Richmond should determine a cost-effective frequency for updating its fee schedule to reflect all allowable costs, including adjusting fees for inflation as appropriate. Richmond should then revise its municipal code as necessary.
Nickie Mastay,
Deputy City Manager
6/30/2023 Review and update the Fee Schedule policy for City Cou ncil consideration and update of Municipal Code as needed by June 2023.
Attachment 1 ‐ Corrective Action Plan
Tab 17
Budget Calendar
FY2022-23 BUDGET CALENDAR (Draft)
City of Richmond ▪ Finance Department ▪ 450 Civic Center Plaza ▪ Richmond, CA 94804 ▪ Phone: 510-412-2077
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT / STAFF
ACTION / ACTIVITY
DATE
Finance Department/
All Departments
FY2022-23 Budget kick off meeting
December 9, 2021
Finance Department/
All Departments FY2022-23 budget input training
December 9
All Departments Signed personnel list and org charts due to Finance Department December 22, 2021 All Departments FY2022-23 Budget Input Window December 9, 2021, to January 10, 2022
Finance Department/City
Manager/All Departments
Budget Hearings
City Manager, Finance Director, and Budget Unit hold
internal budget hearings with departments to review
proposed FY2022-23 Operating & Capital Improvement
Budgets
February 14 to
February 28
Finance Department/City
Manager Community Budget Meetings
March -16, 24, 31
RNCC- April 11
Finance Department /City
Manager/City Council
City Council Presentation: Department of Internal Services (Finance, HR, IT) April 19th
Finance Department/
City Manager/City Council
City Council Presentation: City Attorney, City Clerk, & City Manager, Economic Development April 26
Finance department/City
Manager/ Union Leaders Union Budget Meeting April 28
Finance Department/
City Manager/City Council
City Council Presentation: City Council, Mayor, Public Works/ Draft Budget Update
May 3
Finance Department/
City Manager/City Council
City Council Presentation: Community Services & Community Development
May 17
Finance Department/
City Manager/City Council City Council Presentation: Public Safety (Police, Fire) May 24 Finance Department/
City Manager/City Council Revised Draft Budget June 7
FY2022-23 BUDGET CALENDAR (Draft)
City of Richmond ▪ Finance Department ▪ 450 Civic Center Plaza ▪ Richmond, CA 94804 ▪ Phone: 510-412-2077
Finance Department/
City Manager/City Council
Council to adopt 2022-23 Operating Budget, FY2023- to
FY2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan, and GANN Limit By June 28 Finance Department Adopted FY2022-23 budget available in MUNIS July 1 Finance Department Submit Adopted Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets to GFOA & CSMFO Budget Award Programs September 28
FY2023-24 (BUDGET DEVELOPMENT) INTERNAL BUDGET CALENDAR City of Richmond ▪ Finance Department ▪ 450 Civic Center Plaza ▪ Richmond, CA 94804 ▪ Phone: 510-412-2077
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT / STAFF
ACTION / ACTIVITY
DATE
Finance Department Review and Carry-Forward Purchase Orders August 30, 2022 Finance Department Year-End Fund Analysis September 29, 2022 All City Departments Quarterly Finance Meeting with Individual Departments October 2022
Finance Department
Quarterly Report to City Council November, 2022
Finance Department Mid-Year Budget Message to Departments December 16, 2022 Finance Department FY2021-22 Audit Presentation January, 2023 All City Departments Deadline to enter Mid-year adjustments to Finance via online form January 13, 2023
Finance Department
FY2023-24 Budget kick off meeting/ input training January 26, 2023 All City Departments Quarterly Finance Meeting with Individual Departments January 2023
All Departments FY2023-24 Budget Input Window
January 30, 2023,
through February 17,
2023
Port Port Audit TBD
RHA RHA Audits TBD
Finance Department City’s annual Audit/ACFR to City Council January/February 2023
Public Works City Council Meeting January 17, 2023
Police and Fire City Council Meeting January 24, 2023
Internal Services, City Manager
Office, Economic Development, City
Attorney, City Clerk, City Council,
Mayor
City Council Meeting February 7, 2023
Community Development,
Community Services City Council Meeting February 21, 2023 Draft
FY2023-24 (BUDGET DEVELOPMENT) INTERNAL BUDGET CALENDAR City of Richmond ▪ Finance Department ▪ 450 Civic Center Plaza ▪ Richmond, CA 94804 ▪ Phone: 510-412-2077
Finance Department/
All Departments Mid-Year FY2022-23 February 28, 2023
City Manager Office Budget Hearings for Operating & CIP Budgets March 1 through March 17, 2023
Finance Department/City
Manager/Union Representatives Union Meetings
March/April 2023
Finance Department/City Manager Community Budget Meetings March/April 2023 All City Departments Quarterly Finance Meeting with Individual Departments April 2023 Finance Department/City
Manager/City Council Hold Study Session on First Draft Budget May 2, 2023
City Manager Office Department Budget Presentations to City Council May, 2023 Finance Department/City
Manager/City Council
City Council review and direction on Budget Checklist
and changes to proposed budget
May/June 2023
Finance Department/City
Manager/City Council
Council to adopt 2023-24 Operating Budget, FY2024
to FY2027-28 Capital Improvement Plan, and GANN
Limit
June 2023
Finance Department Adopted FY2023-24 budget available in MUNIS July 1, 2023
Tab 18
Guiding Fiscal
Policy
Proposed Budget Policies
April 20, 2021
Sponsor: Council member Claudia Jimenez and Eduardo Martinez Guiding Fiscal Policies
I. Guiding Budgeting Policies
A. Budget development by the City Manager will be guided by a long-term financial plan developed in consultation with City Council, the Mayor and other key stakeholders and adopted by City Council.
B. If a department is projected to overspend by 1 percent of their total annual budget based on year-to-date performance as of the quarterly report, then the City should take corrective action to balance the budget.
C. The City will, to the extent possible, avoid using non-recurring revenues to fund ongoing programs or services. Non-recurring revenues are the portion of the government’s revenues that are not predictable to any degree and cannot be reasonably expected to continue year to year. Non-recurring revenue can also include settlements that are one time payment.
D. Recurring revenues are the portion of the government’s revenues that can reasonably be expected to continue year to year, with some degree of predictability. Some revenue sources may have both non-recurring and recurring components. The goal of the City will be to provide transparency as to what portion of the revenue stream is reasonably expected to be collected each year.
E. The City will establish a baseline estimate of what portion of the Documentary Transfer Tax is considered recurring by calculating the mean monthly amount collected since the increase to the rate was approved by voters in 2018. The average amount of tax collected from this source will be recalculated in June and January every year to incorporate new data and the new average will be adopted as the baseline amount budgeted each year.
Any excess tax collected through this source—amounts collected above the baseline—may be considered non-recurring revenue in that year and the City Council will prioritize how these funds are spent. The Council will prioritize and consider using recurring revenue to address recurring expenditures before non-recurring revenue sources are used to fund recurring expenditures.
F. Capital asset acquisitions will not be treated as recurring expenditures.
G. If the City anticipates a General Fund deficit, new unrestricted funds must be considered first to support ongoing programs and close the deficit before funding new ones.
H. The use of unencumbered prior-year balances in all funds as well as other non-recurring revenues shall be scrutinized and carefully limited to be used primarily for non-recurring expenditures. Non-recurring expenditures are defined as those that have a clearly recognized termination date connected to the completion of the identified purpose of the expenditure, even if the expenditure crosses multiple fiscal years.
I. The City Council must approve any changes to position control irrespective of the impact to the City’s operating budget.
II. Special Funds
A. Special fund administrators must regularly evaluate and manage the balances within the fund to ensure that they are spent timely to achieve the fund’s intent.
B. Each enterprise fund shall reflect the true cost of operation, including direct and indirect costs of services provided by the General Fund.
C. Enterprise funds are a subset of special funds that should derive most of their revenues from charges, user fees and interest. Functions that are funded using enterprise funds should strive to be 100 percent self-supporting through annual reviews of their fee structures, charges for services, and other operating revenues and expenditures.
D. It shall be the goal of all special funds to fully reimburse the General Fund for all direct expenditures and related costs provided to support their programs. Related cost reimbursements shall be calculated using the most current Cost Allocation Plan rate, unless otherwise restricted by an ordinance or policy that has been approved by the City Council. In the event that a special fund does not fully reimburse the General Fund, any remaining subsidy shall be reported annually through the budget process.
III. Reserve Policies
A. The City’s goal shall be to achieve 15 percent of its operating General Fund expenditures as a minimum reserve policy. The City must balance the need for adequate reserves with its responsibility to provide services to the residents of Richmond.
In years when the City forecasts that total General Fund revenues will be less than the current year’s revenues, or anytime significant service reductions, such as layoffs or furloughs, are contemplated due to adverse financial conditions, use of the General Fund reserve must be considered to maintain existing services. Use of General Fund reserves must be authorized by City Council resolution explaining the need for use.
B. Prior-year funds and surpluses will revert to their original funding sources with the exception of cost-recovery funds that will be permitted to maintain a reserve balance of 10 percent of the actual expenditures from the previous fiscal year. Those funds reverting to the General Fund will be allocated to the unassigned fund balance.
C. In fiscal years where it becomes necessary for the City to use monies in the Reserve Fund such that the Reserve Fund balance drops below the fifteen percent level, the City will initiate action in the subsequent year to replenish the Reserve Fund to the level of fifteen percent of General Fund expenditures. If use of Reserve Fund monies is less than one percent of General Fund receipts, the City shall attempt to replenish the fifteen percent balance in the subsequent fiscal year. If use of Reserve Fund monies is more than one percent of General Fund revenue, the City shall attempt to replenish the fifteen percent balance by one percent per year over a period of years as necessary to restore the Reserve Fund balance to the level of fifteen percent of General Fund expenditures.
D. Risk Management Internal Service Fund reserves should be maintained at a level that adequately cover the City’s self-insurance indemnity risk exposure to City property, liability, health benefits and workers compensation obligations.
E. Reserve policies for equipment replacement internal service funds (e.g., Police CAD, Police RMS and Equipment Replacement) will be incorporate into the annual budget based on projected remaining useful lives of underlying assets (based on years and usage) and, to the extent that such funds include operating costs, will also include a goal to achieve a planned operating reserve of not less than 10 percent of operating and maintenance costs. The goal of achieving a 10 percent reserve, however, will not supersede the budgetary needs of providing city services and workforce needs.
F. Special fund administrators for the Port, Marina and KCRT enterprise funds are encouraged to establish a reserve policy for their funds where permitted and appropriate. These policies should set a target minimum reserve level that accounts for the unique characteristics and risks to the fund. The policies should also establish the appropriate uses of the reserves and set a timeframe both for meeting reserve targets if they have not yet been achieved and for replenishing reserves should they fall below the target minimum level.
IV. Encumbrances
A. Once funds have been encumbered, they cannot be expended for anything other than what was authorized under the original encumbering authority, which could include a purchase order, contract, authority for expenditure, or travel authority. This policy does not prohibit the use of change order capacity which would allow purchase orders to be amended as long as the purpose of the encumbrance has not changed from what was originally authorized.
City departments may disencumber and re-encumber funds within the same fiscal year.
B. City departments may not increase a prior-year encumbrance, but they may disencumber one. Notwithstanding this Policy, prior-year encumbrances for capital projects may be increased if there is more money left on the contract. Only the City Council may reprogram prior-year disencumbered funds. At the end of a fiscal year, all unencumbered funds will revert to their respective originating funding source or, if the originating source is the General fund, to the unassigned fund balance.
C. If funds are not disencumbered, they will continue to be regarded as obligated balances, thereby reducing the available unobligated account balances. Consequently, the timely disencumbrance of funds is necessary to reflect an accurate and updated status on the availability of funds. As a rule, any encumbered funds that remain unspent for a period longer than one fiscal year shall be reverted. An exception to this policy applies to encumbrances for commodities procurements, which include supplies or equipment. These encumbered funds shall revert if they remain unspent for a period longer than three years.
The City Manager is authorized to implement this Policy and to ensure funds are disencumbered at the appropriate time.
V. Fund Balances/Accounting
A. The General Fund is the only fund in the City permitted to have a positive unassigned fund balance. Fund balances in any other fund outside of the General Fund should be earmarked monies either as restricted, committed, or assigned based upon the authority under which such categorizations have been given by Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
B. New and expanded unrestricted revenue sources should be first applied to support existing obligations prior to funding new programs.
C. Unrestricted General Fund revenue streams shall not be designated as restricted or special funds. This in no way precludes the City from making appropriations from unrestricted revenues to achieve specific policy goals either as part of the budget process or during the fiscal year.
D. Other than in the General Fund, unspent General Fund monies that were assigned to a specific purpose that are no longer applicable should not be reported as assigned fund balance, but rather, should be included in the unassigned fund balance of the General Fund by reporting those amounts as due to the General Fund. Fund balances will include amounts designated as “due to the General Fund” and “due from the General Fund” in budget reports accounting for the flow of funds.
VI. Fiscal Sustainability Planning
A. Service level or work force reductions based solely on anticipated or current budget deficits cannot be adopted by City Council until all other sources of funds including reserves and other fund balances have been considered to cover budget gaps.
B. Multi-year General Fund operating cost projections, which forecast revenues and expenditures, shall be prepared and updated each year, or as necessary, to identify and evaluate the financial condition of the City over a four year period, at a minimum. This forecast shall be reported to the City Council as part of the annual budget development process. Projections shall be developed using available data, historical trends, and an evaluation of anticipated future impacts to revenues and expenditures. Departments shall prepare a forecast for each major special fund and special fund facing structural imbalance that they administer and present it with their annual budget request.
C. When initiating multi-year projects or adding new items to the budget with future-year expenditure requirements, the City shall consider its ability to continue to pay these future year expenses.
D. The City will pursue federal, state, and private grants but will carefully analyze the need for, and availability of, required financial support of these programs beyond grant funding. City Council will determine whether grant funding supplants or augments current funding for programs. Any such financial support must be reported at the time that the City considers accepting the grant. Financial support includes, but is not limited to, an obligation for a current or ongoing City match and a need to maintain a service level following the termination of the grant.
E. The City will continuously seek new revenues and pursue a diverse revenue base in order to limit the impact to the City from short-term fluctuations in any one revenue source. The City must consider taxes that are not regressive.
VII. Debt Management
A. Short-term debt in the form of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes will be considered as a viable option to support ongoing operations.
B. Long-term debt will not be used to support ongoing operations.
C. Capital leases may be used as a mid-term borrowing arrangement for fleet, equipment, and technology uses to the extent that the imputed interest rate in any such capital lease is competitive with existing long-term borrowing rates, considers potential maintenance cost savings for assets under the capital lease, and that such costs are incorporated into the long- range financial forecast.
D. Long-term borrowing (three years or more) for capital facilities will be considered as an appropriate method of financial facilities that benefit more than one generation of users and to the extent that existing reserves or other one-time resources are not available.
E. The City will no longer be permitted to use interest rate swaps when issuing debt.
F. The City’s finance department present value analysis must identify the economic effect of any proposed refunding and shall periodically evaluate potential savings to the City from financing outstanding debt (Refundings). Savings will be analyzed on a present value basis with the goal of achieving a Present Value Savings of three percent of the refunded par amount for any one refunding transaction. The Finance Director may recommend a refunding that has economic benefit, but does not meet the Present Value Savings Goal of three percent; however, the Director must present to the Mayor and City Council the reasons for advocating for the refunding explaining the benefits and the costs.
G. The use of variable interest rate debt instruments should be analyzed as part of a strategy that benefits from the out-performance of the variable rate market to fixed rate debt, and to determine the appropriate level of risk exposure for the City to accept.
VIII. Private Developments
Private development of residential, commercial and/or industrial properties shall pay all contractual obligations for capital or other improvements that are necessary to serve the development and should not be subsidized by public funds except in cases where there is a direct financial benefit to the City that is at least fiscally proportional to the subsidy being offered to the developer. Should a development not move forward, in addition to any other contractual requirements owed to the City, the developer must reimburse the City for the amount of the subsidy provided to the developer.
IX. Capital and Technology Projects
A. Objectives and Project Prioritization
1. A minimum five-year capital improvement plan will be developed as part of the budget process to identify capital projects based on a system of prioritization and considering funding resources that are available.
2. City Council will determine how capital projects are prioritized.
3. The City shall identify projects for funding on an annual basis through a systemic and transparent process that is consistent with the City’s annual budget development process and that reflects the prioritization criteria detailed in Project Prioritization Criteria as detailed in number 4.
4. Project Prioritization Criteria – projects should meet one of the standards under each subheading and the criteria apply not only to projects in the 5-year capital plan, but also for projects applied for through the grant process.
a. Resilience and Sustainability
1) Project improves the health of the community and natural environment through sustainable designs with improved water resources and regional air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emission that contributes to climate change, open space and land for preservation, habitat protection and biological diversity, and enhanced urban runoff management.
2) Project facilitates multiple transportation options (including walkability, bicycles, and public transportation) and reduces the need for auto-dependency.
3) Project promotes infill development, where appropriate.
4) Project incorporates design that meets or exceeds recognized Federal and State standards in the field of energy efficiency, such as State of California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, or LEED building standards.
5) Project results in greener neighborhoods and reduces or avoids the potential public exposure to pollutants, contamination and other hazards to public health and environment.
b. Impact to City Operations, Asset Condition, Annual Recurring Costs and Asset Longevity
1) Project is necessary to meet the basic level of service needs.
2) Project avoids potential infrastructure failure.
3) Project minimizes maintenance needs by improving infrastructure and/or reducing future costs.
4) Project delay would create significant future costs, or negative community impacts.
c. Equitable Community Investment and Economic Sustainability
1) Project contributes toward economic development and
revitalization efforts.
2) Project will benefit underserved communities including those with low- income households, low community engagement, limited or no access to the internet, and low mobility or access to transportation systems.
3) Project benefits communities that have the highest population served per acre.
d. Project Readiness
1) Project is ready to enter the phase corresponding to the funding requested (e.g., a design-build project with a completed environmental document will rank higher than a design-build project without a complete environmental document).
2) Project shall be ranked based upon the delivery method. Projects that can be delivered most expeditiously shall be preferred.
e. Funding Availability
1) Projects that have higher leveraging of City funds against external funds (grant funds or cost sharing from outside entities) will receive greater priority.
2) Project rank is increased based on assessment of the amount of funding needed to complete the current project phase and the entire project.
f. Multiple Category Benefit and Bundling Opportunities
1) Project reduces construction costs and community disruption by potentially bundling with adjacent projects.
2) Project provides for partnering or bundling opportunities with other local, state, or federal agencies (e.g., leverages shared resources).
3) Completion of the project sooner may provide significant financial benefits.
5. Cost Estimates
a. Cost estimating is an iterative process that should be done at significant milestones during the development of capital and technology improvement projects. Cost estimating should develop a greater degree of detail and accuracy at each milestone and provide a major budgetary control mechanism on every project.
b. For purposes of initial scoping, preliminary cost estimates may be based on industry standards or existing practices.
c. Once a project has been funded, cost estimates should be prepared after each applicable phase, such as space planning, preliminary design, conceptual design, final design (just prior to bid initiation), and on change orders during construction or implementation.
d. Cost estimates should be as complete as possible based on the information available at milestones and should address such areas as CEQA or NEPA compliance, land acquisition, grant funding requirements, design, construction, furniture, fixtures and equipment, software and hardware, contingency funding, costs associated with staffing,
maintenance and other additional incremental costs that may be incurred once the project is complete.
6. Funding requirements
a. Total requested funding should identify the total amount needed to complete the project, potential sources of funding including any applicable restrictions, options for phased implementation, and a timeline with milestones and the corresponding funding needed to accomplish each milestone.
b. The funding requirement should include the estimated amount needed to fund ongoing maintenance, programming, and operating needs of the project.
Tab 19
General Plan 2030
richmond general plan 2030
City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department | 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, California 94804 Phone: 510-620-6706 | Fax: 510-620-6858 | www.ci.richmond.ca.us/planning
CERTIFICATION
The Richmond General Plan 2030 was adopted by the Richmond City Council on April 25, 2012.
This document certifies, pursuant to California State Government Code Section 65350, that the text of this General Plan meets all guidelines set forth by Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
Signed this 25 day of May 2012
Richard H. Mitchell
Director of Planning and Building Services
Introduction
“Richmond has one of the most desirable
and precious locations left in California with
great potential for growth and greatness.”
-Community Member, May 2007
SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 3
Introduction
Significant changes have occurred since Richmond’s
General Plan was last updated in 1994. The con-
cepts of sustainability, smart growth, transit-oriented development and New Urbanism have emerged as
guiding principles for the design and development
of modern communities. Throughout the country,
urban communities are being rediscovered for the
intimacy and convenience of their traditional neigh-
borhoods and main streets.
Since 1994, Richmond has experienced substantial
growth and revitalization. New residential commu-
nities have been established in the Hilltop, Marina
Bay and Brickyard Cove areas. Landmark structures
such as the Civic Center, Richmond Plunge and
Ford Assembly Building have been rehabilitated
as “green” buildings. The BART/Amtrak inter-
modal station is complete and in operation, and
Macdonald Avenue is transitioning into an elegant
urban boulevard. Given Richmond’s traditionally
designed neighborhoods and access to public trans-
portation, the City continues to experience growth.
Similarly, Richmond’s industries continue to mod-
ernize and evolve in response to increased regula-
tion and shifts in the economy. Many businesses are
making significant investments in existing facilities
and new technology companies have established
research, engineering and production facilities in
Richmond.
This General Plan provides a policy framework to
help the City maximize key opportunities and direct
resources to improve its quality of life and cultivate a dynamic economy.
The following sections of this introduction:
•
Describe Richmond’
s regional context and plan-
ning areas;
• Pro
vide a snapshot of Richmond’s assets;
• Describe Richmond’
s approach to shaping long-
range planning;
• Define the General P
lan’s role and content;
• Describe the General P
lan’s implementation strat-
egy;
• Review the r
egulatory mechanisms that guide
implementation efforts;
• Define legal requir
ements for monitoring, updat-
ing and amending the General Plan; and
• Review the G
eneral Plan development process.
Ethnic and cultural diversity, and community pride are a few of Richmond’s many strengths.
4 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
Introduction
Regional Context
The City of Richmond is located in the nine-county
San Francisco Bay Area in West Contra Costa
County. Major nearby Bay Area cities and employ-
ment centers include: the City of Oakland, 9 miles
to the south; the City of San Francisco, 17 miles
west; and the City of San Jose, 50 miles south.
Richmond’s land mass forms a promontory that
stretches into the San Francisco and San Pablo
bays. This shoreline defines a significant portion
of the City’s borders to the north, west and south.
Neighboring San Francisco and Marin County pro-
vide attractive backdrops from Richmond across the
Bay. The cities of El Cerrito, San Pablo and Pinole
as well as unincorporated areas of Contra Costa
County border Richmond to the north and east; and
the Berkeley Hills, San Pablo and Sobrante ridges
frame the eastern edge of the City.
I-880
I-280
CA-101
CA-101
CA-101
CA-4
CA-24
I-580
CA-37
I-80
CA-101
CA-29
I-680
SOLANO
COUNTY
NAPA
COUNTY
SONOMA
COUNTY
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
MARIN
COUNTY
Berkeley
Oakland
Vallejo
Martinez
Concord
Walnut Creek
Dublin
Fremont
San Jose
Sunnyvale
Daly City
San Rafael
Hayward
Richmond
San Francisco
San Pablo Bay
Paci/f_ic Ocean
San Francisco Bay
Suisun Bay
Grizzly Bay
N
0 5 10 MILES
Figure 1: Regional Context
SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 5
Introduction
Richmond’s Planning Areas
For the purposes of this General Plan, the City is
organized into the following five planning areas:
• Central Richmond – Central Richmond refers
to D
owntown Richmond and the neighbor-
hoods of Shields-Reid, Richmond T riangle, Forest
Park, Atchison Village, Santa Fe, Coronado, City
Center, Belding Woods, North & East, Richmond
Heights, Metro Richmore Village, Pullman,
Cortez/Stege, Park Plaza, Laurel Park, East Shore,
Panhandle Annex and Richmond Annex.
•
Hilltop – H
illtop includes the Hilltop Mall,
regional open space such as the Point Pinole
Regional Shoreline and the neighborhoods
of Parchester Village, Hilltop Village, Hilltop
Bayview, Hilltop green and Fairmede/Hilltop.
•
El S
obrante Valley – The El Sobrante Valley
includes regional open space such as the Wildcat
Canyon Regional Park and the neighborhoods of
Hasford Heights, Greenridge Heights, May Valley,
El Sobrante Hills, Greenbriar, Carriage Hill
North, Countryside and Carriage Hills South.
•
Southern S
horeline – The southern shoreline
covers industrial areas located south of Interstate
580, the University of California Field Station,
regional open space such as the Miller/Knox
Regional Shoreline, the port and the neighbor-
hoods of Point Richmond, Marina Bay and
Southwest Annex.
•
West Richmond Par
kway – The area west of
the Richmond Parkway includes the San Pablo
Peninsula and industrial areas west of Garrard
Boulevard.
80 580
Central
Richmond
Hilltop
El Sobrante
Valley
Southern
Shoreline
West Richmond
Parkway
Figure 2: Richmond’s Planning Areas
6 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
Introduction
City of Richmond Profile
Physical Characteristics
Total Area: 55.9 square miles
Latitude & Longitude: 37 .93 degrees north, 122.34 degrees west Shoreline: 32 miles
Highest Point: 1,156 feet
Lowest Point: Sea level
Elevation: 50 feet
Source: City of Richmond
Population Trends
1980 1990 2000 2010
Total Population 74, 676 86,700 99,216 103,701
Period Growth 16.1% 14.4% 4.5%
Source: 1980-2010 Census
Population Characteristics
Population Percent of Total
One Race 97 ,888 94.4%
- White 32,590 31.4%
- Black or African American 27 ,542 26.6%
- American Indian 662 0.6%
- Asian 13,984 13.5%
- Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 537 0.5%
- Some Other Race 22,573 21.8%
Two or More Races 5,813 5.6%
Hispanic or Latino 40,921 39.5%
White not Hispanic or Latino 1 7,769 17 .1%
Source: 2010 Census (Table ID: DP-1, Dataset: 2010 Demographic Profile SF) Growth Projections
2000 2010 2020 2030
% Change
(2000-
2030)
Population 99,216 105,000 118,700 132,600 33.6%
Households 34,625 36,940 41,930 47,320 36.7%
Jobs 39,250 40,660 54,000 64,120 63.4%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009 Age Composition
Median Age: 34.8
Preschool (under 5): 7.4%
School Age (5-24): 27. 5%
Adults (25-44): 29.7%
Middle Age (45-64): 25.2%
Senior (65+): 10.2%
Source: 2010 Census (Table ID: DP-1, Dataset: 2010 Demographic Profile SF) SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 7
Introduction
Richmond’s Assets
Surrounded by the natural beauty of the East Bay
hills and a 32-mile shoreline, Richmond is one of
a few Bay Area cities that boast over 6,300 acres of
parks and open space including local, regional, state
and national resources, greenways and trails.
The ethnic and cultural diversity of Richmond
residents is a major asset as no single ethnic group
comprises a majority. Large percentages of the popu-
lation are of African American, Latin American,
European and Asian descent, with Native American
and Pacific Islander heritages also represented.
Approximately one third of the community is for-
eign born, with 45% of residents speaking a lan-
guage other than English at home.
The City’s unique places and features reflect early
settlement patterns and the diverse cultures of the
people who have made Richmond their home.
Richmond has many locally significant historic
assets, as well as state and nationally recognized
landmarks, sites and districts. As home to the Rosie
the Riveter/World War II Home Front National
Historical Park, Richmond retains one of the largest
collections of World War II-era industrial and com-
munity-related sites and structures in the country.
Cultural expression flourishes with an impressive
collection of public art, resident artists and long-
standing arts institutions that enable residents of all ages to experience acclaimed arts and cultural offer-
ings.
Richmond residents take pride in working together,
both celebrating their past and moving forward in
a bold way to improve livability, stimulate the local
economy and enhance and protect the physical envi-
ronment.
Richmond is surrounded by 32 miles of panoramic shoreline.
The ethnic and cultural diversity of Richmond residents is a major community asset and source of pride.
Richmond’s Rosie the Riveter Memorial attracts visitors from across the region and beyond.
8 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
Introduction
Richmond will promote policies to restore its tradi-
tional compact neighborhoods—mixed-use, walk-
able and transit-oriented communities that allow
neighbors to comfortably access schools, parks and
community facilities, as well as goods and services.
Neighborhoods, commercial centers and public
spaces are envisioned as visually pleasing places
where people want to live and work. The City will
champion land use patterns and urban designs
which nurture basic human needs such as comfort,
safety, community connection and identity.
Community Values and Principles
A number of values and principles drive the inclusive
city framework. In order to meet aspirations for the
community, Richmond values and promotes:
•
Economic Dev
elopment Opportunities – for
everyone to participate in the City economy with
access to a variety of quality jobs;
• Safe Housing and N
eighborhoods – with a
range of housing types and price levels to accom-
modate diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and
lifestyle choices;
•
Education – full access to quality education
choices;
• Access and Mobility
– viable, multi-modal and
interconnected public transit and active transpor-
tation systems.
•
Community Facilities and Gathering S
paces –
well-maintained and usable parks, recreation cen-
ters and open space;
•
Cultural Meaning
– spaces and places to create
and display social and cultural traditions and sym-
bols that have meaning for all residents;
•
Sustainability – for a clean, healthy and safe
environment for all community members;
• Functional Envir
onments – environments that
meet the unique physical needs of all people and
make places and programs accessible to the widest
possible audience;
•
Context-Sensitivity – development and activities
that ar
e in harmony with the surrounding com-
munity fabric;
• Equitable Impacts – urban planning that responsi-
bly mitigates social and human impacts; and
• Human Rights – pr
omoting peace and equity with
a strong commitment to the well-being of the poor,
vulnerable and marginalized;
•
Human Relations
– fostering mutual under-
standing, promoting inclusiveness, inter-group
relations, communication and a culture of mutual
respect.
In addition, the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-
Efficient Communities
2 serve as inspiration for
Richmond’s General Plan goals, policies and
implementing actions. The City of Richmond has
also adopted the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
3 as guiding principles, assuring that all deci-
sions are based on justice, equity and nondiscrimina-
tion.
Inclusive City Planning Framework
Underlying Richmond’s General Plan is an inclusive
city framework intended to guide decision-making.
The framework is composed of values and principles
that are particularly important to the community.
Integral to this framework is the belief that in order
to create healthy cities it is vital to address the physi- cal, economic, cultural and social needs of people of
all physical abilities, social strata and income levels
1. Richmond aims to be an inclusive city where the
built environment is functional and accessible to all
residents, development impacts are shared equitably
and new development is sensitive to a diverse array
of social, cultural and environmental contexts.
Economic
Environment
Physical
Environment
Social
Environment
Cultural
Environment
INCLUSIVE
CITY
FRAMEWORK
Figure 3: Inclusive City Framework
SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 9
Introduction
The Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities are consistent with Richmond’s core val- ues and help shape Richmond’s urban environment. Highlights are provided below. • Communities should be c
omplete and integrated with housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities included as essential to the daily life of residents and located within walking dis - tance of each other .
• Major community activitie
s should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. • A community should c
ontain a diversity of housing types to enable residents from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. • Busines
ses should provide a range of job types for residents.
• The communit
y should have a variety of open spaces in the form of plazas, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. • Public space
s should be designed to encourage the presence of people throughout the day. • Each communit
y or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors that are protected.
• Stree
ts, pedestrian paths and bicycle paths should contribute to a system of connected and inte- grated routes to key destinations. Their design and location should discourage high-speed traffic and incorporate trees and lighting.
• The natur
al terrain, drainage and vegetation should be preserved with special emphasis within parks and open space.
• Community de
sign should help conserve resources and minimize waste. • Communities should pr
ovide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
• Stree
t orientation, placement of buildings and use of shading should contribute to the energy effi- ciency of the community.
The Ahwahnee Principles will help guide the City to create places that are walkable and pedestrian-friendly.
Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities
10 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
Introduction
In 2009, Richmond became one of the first cities in the United States to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as guiding principles.
Richmond embraces the principles of equality, inclusion, social plurism, and the recognition of human dignity. Below is a simplified version of the declaration. The full text of the declaration can be found on the United Nations website at www.un.org.
•
Every
one is free and equal despite differences in skin color , sex, religion, or language. • No one shall be subjected to t
orture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
• Every
one has the right to life, freedom and safety, the right to be treated equally by the law, the right to a fair public trial, the right to travel, the right to ask for asylum from political persecution, the right to belong to a country, the right to marry and have a family, the right to own property, the right to practice or not practice a religion, the right to free speech and assembly, the right to take part in government, the right to a fair wage and safe working environment, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to an education. •
Every
one must respect the social order that is necessary for these rights to be available and the rights of others, the community and public property.
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 11
Introduction
elements: Economic Development; Education and
Human Services; Community Health and Wellness;
Energy and Climate Change; Community Facilities
and Infrastructure; Parks and Recreation; National
Historical Park; Historical Resources; and Arts and
Culture.
Impact of Plan Adoption
This Richmond General Plan is the basis for land
use decisions in the city. The General Plan itself
is not a regulation, rather implementation of the
General Plan relies on regulatory tools such as the
zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, design
review, capital improvement program and a variety
of special purpose ordinances and programs that
are adopted and enacted in order to implement the
General Plan. As implementing actions are carried
out, ongoing collaboration with community organi-
zations, residents, property owners, businesses, insti- tutions and other stakeholders is essential.
The City’s zoning ordinance must be consistent with
the General Plan. Following adoption of Richmond’s
General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance will be updat-
ed to ensure consistency. During preparation and
public review of zoning ordinance amendments,
topics such as building height, densities and allow-
able uses may be discussed for specific areas.
As a general rule, a city’s Zoning Ordinance can
be more restrictive than a general plan, but cannot
allow a greater level or completely different type of
development than that described by the General
Plan.
General Plan Role, Content
and Implementation
The Richmond General Plan is analogous to the
City’s constitution. Because it is a general plan,
intended to guide, with periodic updates, the com-
munity’s long-range development, it contains broad-
based language. The General Plan’s goals and poli-
cies represent the City’s overall philosophy on public
and private development and provide a foundation
for public and private decision-making on related
issues.
General Plan’s Role
As a culmination of extensive public outreach,
Richmond’s General Plan expresses the community’s
comprehensive vision and broad goals for the future.
The Plan aims to do the following:
•
Present strategies and specific implementing
actions to achiev
e the community’s vision and
long-term goals;
• Establish a basis for determining whether specific
development proposals and public pr
ojects align
with the community’s vision and long-term goals;
• Empow
er City departments, other public agencies
and private developers to design projects that will
enhance community character, and sustain and
improve quality of life in accordance with particu-
lar values and principles defined in the General
Plan;
•
Pro
vide the basis for developing more detailed
plans and implementing programs such as
the Zoning Ordinance, specific plans, capital
improvement plans, facilities plans and commu-
nity needs assessments; and
Guide public agencies that work with the City, such
as school districts, regional boards or state agen-
cies, as well as private investors as they contemplate
future actions in Richmond and its sphere of influ-
ence.
General Plan Content
State law requires every city and county to adopt
a general plan that includes the following seven
elements: Housing; Land Use; Circulation/
T raffic; Open Space; Noise; Public Safety; and
Conservation. With 15 elements, the Richmond
General Plan progresses dramatically beyond state-
mandated elements, addressing topics deemed
critical to fulfilling the community’s aspirations for
Richmond. These include the following optional
The General Plan guides the City in making decisions that will enhance community character and the quality of development. 12 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
Introduction
Implementing Actions
Richmond’s General Plan identifies a range of poli-
cies and implementing actions in order to achieve
broad goals voiced by the community. T ogether the
policies and implementing actions serve as strategic
directions for City staff and partners, highlight-
ing where time and resources should be primarily
focused. The policies mandate, encourage or allow
certain actions to be pursued throughout the dura-
tion of the General Plan, and the implementing
actions are the “how-to steps” that carry out the
policies.
Each General Plan implementing action is a proce-
dure, program or technique that necessitates City
action, either alone or in collaboration with other
organizations, state or federal agencies. Some of the
implementing actions are processes or procedures
that the City currently administers on a daily basis,
while others identify new programs or projects. Each
of Richmond’s General Plan Elements includes a
summary table of implementing actions as a tool
for implementation. The summary tables provide an
overview of policies and implementing actions and
link each action to lead responsible parties.
Funding and Timing
Changing market factors and implementation
logistics make it impossible to implement all of
the proposed improvements at once. Early resource
allocations will be directed toward actions that will
make the most tangible difference and spur private
investment. Specific phasing and funding plans will
be established for major capital improvements and
key larger-scale projects. The City will work toward
developing a sequencing of public and private
investment and desired timing for priority projects.
The City’s Five-Year Strategic Business Plan will align with this General Plan to establish the timing and
identify funding for implementing actions in this
General Plan.
Implementation Mechanisms
State law provides cities with a variety of regula-
tory mechanisms to implement their general plans.
The most important regulatory mechanisms and
their relationship to the Richmond General Plan are
described below.
Zoning Ordinance
The zoning ordinance and zoning map are parcel-
specific statements of how land may be used and
provide specific conditions that Richmond will
impose, consistent with the overall policy framework
of the General Plan and land use map. As part of
the zoning ordinance, State law also requires that
local jurisdictions regulate and control subdivision
activity through adoption and use of a subdivision
ordinance.
Capital Improvement Programs
State law requires the City Council to obtain lists
of all public works projects recommended for study,
design or construction during each ensuing year
from City officials, staff and special districts operat- ing within the City limits. The list of public works
projects is then organized into a coordinated pro-
gram called the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
The CIP must be reviewed by the City and incon-
sistent projects must be eliminated or modified to
conform to the General Plan.
Environmental Impact Review
State law requires that environmental review done
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) discuss any inconsistencies between a
proposed project and the jurisdiction’s general plan.
Projects are considered to have a significant adverse
effect on the environment if they are found to be
inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s general plan.
Redevelopment Plans
The City of Richmond has established a
Redevelopment Project Area which makes it pos-
sible to issue improvement bonds for projects within
the project area. Richmond’s Redevelopment Plan is
required to conform with the City’s General Plan.
The General Plan represents the first step in achieving the preferred future voiced by the community.
SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 13
Introduction
Monitoring, Evaluating and
Amending the General Plan
The General Plan is a living document that will
be reviewed and refined as conditions change, as
actions are accomplished and new actions are con-
sidered. The City of Richmond will measure suc-
cesses and challenges in General Plan implementa-
tion. Means of measuring progress will range from
state-required or recommended procedures such as
conducting annual reviews, updates and amend-
ments to conducting ongoing evaluations and set-
ting benchmarks. State-required procedures for
General Plan updates, review and amendments are
described below.
General Plan Updates, Review and
Amendments
Periodically, California cities must update their gen-
eral plans to conform to changes in state law and
other legal requirements, and to reflect changes in
land development patterns since the last general plan
was adopted. Although the state does not mandate
a specific timetable for general plan updates, many
jurisdictions decide to initiate the update process
approximately every 15 years or once the social,
economic or development contexts have changed
to such a degree that a comprehensive general plan
update is warranted. In order to ensure that general
plan documents remain relevant in the near-term,
general plans should be regularly reviewed and
amended as appropriate.
Annual Review Report
The Richmond General Plan is intended to be a
dynamic document that is regularly reviewed and
evaluated in response to changing conditions and
community needs. State government code encour-
ages cities to review their general plans annu-
ally. Annual reports can be prepared for review
by the City Council and Planning Commission,
and submittal to the State Office of Planning and
Research and the State Housing and Community
Development Office. This implementation progress
report is a vital part of keeping the planning process
open, transparent and responsive. It can also be a
vehicle for review and refinement of implementa-
tion priorities, deletion of completed actions and the
addition of new actions or policies. Specifically, the
annual review report serves to:
•
Pro
vide the City Council with an implementation
progress update;
• Examine the degree to which land use and other
planning decisions align with general plan goals,
policies and implementing actions;
•
Establish a basis for determining whether specific
development proposals and public pr
ojects align
with the community’s preferred future;
• Assess progress made in meeting the City
’s share
of regional housing needs; and
• Recommend any modifications necessary to
impr
ove implementation.
Amendments
A general plan is intended to be the vision for a
city’s development and changes are allowed only
when there is a clear public purpose. Where amend-
ments to a general plan are deemed necessary, State
law allows jurisdictions to amend an adopted general
plan up to four times per year. Proposed amend-
ments must be reviewed to ensure consistency with
other plan elements and the plan’s companion envi-
ronmental impact report.
Community members were engaged at critical milestones throughout the General Plan process.
14 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
Introduction
General Plan Development
The Richmond City Council formally launched the
General Plan development process in November
2005 in conjunction with the City’s centen-
nial celebration. An extensive existing conditions
analysis and community visioning process began in
February 2006. Individuals, organizations and agen-
cies throughout the community articulated their
hopes and expectations for Richmond’s future. This
General Plan is the culmination of research, techni-
cal studies and the invaluable insights of elected offi- cials, public agencies, educational institutions, non-
profit organizations, advocacy groups, businesses and
community members. The following is a description
of the four phases of the General Plan’s develop-
ment process, a synopsis of background documents
drafted in preparation for the General Plan and a
review of committees and various outreach forums
that were instrumental in crafting the General Plan.
Plan Development Phases
The General Plan Update was developed in four
phases: existing conditions analysis and vision-
ing; land use alternatives; plan development; and
plan adoption and environmental review. The City
Council and Planning Commission provided over-
all direction, with the assistance of a General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC) composed of citizen
representatives who worked closely with City staff
and the consultant team.
Phase 1: Existing Conditions and Visioning
The first phase included the existing conditions
analysis and community visioning. T o frame critical
issues and opportunities, as well as existing condi-
tions within the community, a series of ten Issues
and Opportunities Papers were prepared including:
land use and urban design; public infrastructure
facilities; natural hazards; community facilities; edu- cation; arts, culture and historic resources; zoning
ordinances and key specific plans; economic trends
and market analysis; noise; and community health
and wellness.
The visioning portion of Phase 1 involved more
than 1,000 community members and representa-
tives from nonprofit organizations, advocacy groups,
public agencies, businesses, educational institu-
tions and nearby local governments in a series of
meetings, workshops and outreach events. The
cumulative result was a heightened understanding
of critical issues in the City as seen from a wide vari- ety of viewpoints and the development of a Vision
Framework Report.
Phase 2: Land Use Alternatives
The second phase included development and analy-
sis of land use alternatives. Multiple change areas
were identified as potential areas for redevelopment,
infill development and/or activity centers across the
City. Three land use alternatives were developed for
each change area based on existing conditions analy-
ses, community input and staff and GPAC recom-
mendations.
Broadly, the land use alternatives reflect an array of
land use concepts aimed at strengthening the City
and enhancing its vibrancy, connectivity and sustain-
ability. The land use alternatives allow a greater mix
Table 1: Richmond General Plan Community Outreach
Meetings and Events Year Number Number of
Participants
General Plan Advisory Committee 2006-2009 22 Open to Public Round 1: Community Visioning Workshops 2006 10 325
Round 2: Land Use Options Workshops 2007 4 400
African-American Roundtable Workshop 2006-2007 1 250
Leadership Interviews 2006 20 20
Focus Groups 2006 8 53
Plan Van Outings 2006-2007 30 700
Community Group and Neighborhood Councils 2006-2007 14 150 City Council and Planning Commission 2006-2012 8 Open to Public SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 15
Introduction
of uses to support neighborhoods and to improve
public transit and walkability throughout the City.
At the same time, the land use alternatives maintain
a separation of uses in areas where protecting public
health and safety is of particular importance.
GPAC members stated their preferences for land
uses in each change area, with an aim towards bal-
ancing density, building intensity and land use to
address the City’s broader development goals. City
staff used input from GPAC and the broader com-
munity to generate a preferred Land Use Alternative
for study purposes in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
Phase 3: Goal & Policy Development
The third phase included development of the
General Plan goals, policies and implementing
actions. A series of facilitated discussions were held, and GPAC and community stakeholders refined the
vision statements for each element. These element-
specific vision statements set the stage for the goals, policies and implementing actions that comprise
each element.
Phase 4: Adoption and CEQA Review
As required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was prepared for the General Plan.
The EIR is a separate document that describes
environmental conditions in the City and assesses
potential impacts of future development, compares
impacts of land use alternatives and describes associ-
ated mitigation measures.
Related Background Documents
Leading up to the General Plan Update, a
number of key documents were developed to
inform the Plan. These include: ten Issues and
Opportunities Papers; a Public Input Summary;
the Vision Framework Report; an Analysis of Land
Use Options Report; and the Community-wide
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. These docu-
ments are available from the Planning and Building
Services Department upon request
Community Outreach
The General Plan update process included extensive
community engagement, feedback and review to
help make the final General Plan reflect the goals
and aspirations of the community. The following set
of groups, events and forums describe community
involvement for the development of the General
Plan.
General Plan Advisory Committee
In February 2006, members of the Richmond City
Council selected representatives to the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC). Over the course of
the General Plan process, the GPAC met 22 times
to incorporate community and City staff input into
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) played a key role in shaping the direction of the General Plan Update.
Community members were engaged at critical points in the General Plan process.
The General Plan incorporates input from Police and other City departments.
16 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
Introduction
resources and environment; business and economic
investment; institutional relations; government and
education; community services; faith-based, youth
and community organizations; affordable housing;
and real estate development. Advocates, experts and
leaders appropriate to each of the focus areas were
invited to participate. Participants were asked to
identify Richmond’s key assets, issues and oppor-
tunities within the context of the overall meeting
topic, focusing on how the General Plan could best
address challenges and potential improvements.
Website
Since inception of the project in February 2006, a
project website served as a one-stop clearinghouse
for information about the project. The website
included a document library with up-to-date
General Plan documents and resources as well as a
comment form to generate questions and sugges-
tions.
The General Plan website included a document library and calendar with up-to-date resources.
the development of an overarching community
vision, a range of land use alternatives and recom-
mendations for the preferred land use alternative, as
well as goals, policies and implementing actions for
each of the General Plan elements.
T echnical Advisory Committee
The T echnical Advisory Committee (TAC) was
comprised of the City Manager and the City’s
Management T eam including all City department
heads. The TAC provided technical review of mate-
rials, ensuring accurate and up-to-date information.
Workshops
The General Plan process included a series of public
workshops. Outreach for these meetings included
bilingual newsletters mailed to all Richmond postal
customers on two separate occasions, local newspa-
per coverage, announcements through churches and
leaflets distributed in neighborhoods by neighbor-
hood councils and via a mobile workshop called
the “Plan Van.” In total, more than 700 commu-
nity members participated in one or more of 14
workshops. The first round of workshops focused
on issues relevant to the General Plan, such as the
environment, transportation, affordable housing and
economic development. The second round of work-
shops centered on identifying land use options for
the City.
Focus Groups
T o better understand critical issues as seen from a
multitude of viewpoints, focus group discussions
were conducted on issues relevant to the General
Plan, such as the environment, housing, business
and public safety. More than 50 community leaders
and representatives from nonprofit organizations,
advocacy groups, public agencies, businesses, edu-
cational institutions and nearby local governments
participated in meetings during April 2006.
Focus group sessions were convened on the follow-
ing topics: transportation; public safety; natural
The City designed the Plan Van as a rolling workshop aimed at broadening interest and participation in the General Plan Update.
SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | 17
Introduction
Notes
1. Goltsman, Susan and Daniel Iacofano, eds. The
Inclusiv
e City: Design Solutions for Buildings,
Neighborhoods and Urban Spaces. Berkeley:
MIG Communications, 2007.
2. Calthorpe, Peter, M
ichael Corbett, Andres
Duany, Elizabeth Moule, Elizabeth Plater-
Zyberk and Stefanos Polyzoides. “Ahwahnee
Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities.”
Local Government Commission. http://www.
lgc.org/ahwahnee/principles.html.
3. “The Univ
ersal Declaration of Human Rights.”
United Nations Website. http://www.un.org/en/
documents/udhr/.
Cover Artwork
1. Left: “Bird’s Eye View” by John Wherle
2. Right: “Unique” b
y Andres Cisneros-Galindo,
Richmond Resident
18 | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
Introduction
This page is intentionally left blank.
SHAPING THE NEW 100 YEARS | IX
List of General Plan Amendments
The following is a list of amendments to the 2030
General Plan made by the Richmond City Council
subsequent to original adoption on April 25, 2012:
Table A: List of General Plan Amendments
Date Resolution No. Description
December 16, 2016 Resolution No. 105-16 Incorporating amendments related to the Richmond Bay Specific Plan January 24, 2017 Ordinance No. 1-17 N.S. Council adoption of Voter Initiative “Richmond Hills Initiative” February 20, 2018 Resolution No. 8-18 Incorporating Amendments related to Quarry Project December 18, 2018 Resolution No. 102-18 Incorporating amendments related to Change Area 12 September 8, 2020 Resolution No. 97-20 Incorporating Amendments related to Point Molate December 15, 2020 Resolution No. 143-20 Incorporating amendments related to the Country Club Village Project April 6, 2021 Resolution No. 37-21 Making Consistency amendments related to the Richmond Hills Initiative X | RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030
List of General Plan Amendments
This page is intentionally left blank.
Tab 20
Richmond Race and
Equity Initiative
(GARE)
Racial Equity Toolkit
An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity
TOOLKIT
RACIALEQUITYALLIANCE.ORG
AUTHORS
Julie Nelson, Director, Government Alliance on Race and Equity Lisa Brooks, University of Washington School of Social Work
COPYEDITING
Ebonye Gussine Wilkins, Haas Institute
LA YOUT/PRODUCTION
Ebonye Gussine Wilkins and Rachelle Galloway-Popotas,
Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society
CONTACT INFO
Julie Nelson
[email protected]
206-816-5104
This toolkit is published by the
Government Alliance on Race and Equity,
a national network of government working to
achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all.
GARE IS A JOINT PROJECT OF
RACIALEQUITYALLIANCE.ORG
UPDATED DEC 2016
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
3 The Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) is a national network of government working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all. Across the country, governmental jurisdictions are:
• making a commitment to achieving racial equity;
• focusing on the power and influence of their own institutions; and, • working in partnership with others.
When this occurs, significant leverage and expansion opportunities emerge, setting the stage for the achievement of racial equity in our communities.
GARE provides a multi-layered approach for maximum impact by:
• supporting jurisdictions that are at the forefront of work to achieve racial equity. A few jurisdictions have already done substantive work and are poised to be a model for others.
Supporting and providing best practices, tools and resources is helping to build and sustain current efforts and build a national movement for racial equity; • developing a “pathway for entry” into racial equity work for new jurisdictions from across the country. Many jurisdictions lack the leadership and/or infrastructure to address issues of racial inequity. Using the learnings and resources from jurisdictions at the forefront will create pathways for the increased engagement of more jurisdictions; and, • supporting and building local and regional collaborations that are broadly inclusive and focused on achieving racial equity. To eliminate racial inequities in our communities, devel- oping a “collective impact” approach firmly grounded in inclusion and equity is necessary.
Government can play a key role in collaborations for achieving racial equity, centering community, and leveraging institutional partnerships.
To find out more about GARE, visit www.racialequityalliance.org.
ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT
ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
4 I. What is a Racial Equity Tool?
Racial equity tools are designed to integrate explicit consideration of racial equity in decisions, including policies, practices, programs, and budgets. It is both a product and a process. Use of a racial equity tool can help to develop strategies and actions that reduce racial inequities and improve success for all groups.
Too often, policies and programs are developed and implemented without thoughtful con- sideration of racial equity. When racial equity is not explicitly brought into operations and decision-making, racial inequities are likely to be perpetuated. Racial equity tools provide a structure for institutionalizing the consideration of racial equity.
A racial equity tool:
• proactively seeks to eliminate racial inequities and advance equity; • identifies clear goals, objectives and measurable outcomes; • engages communit y in decision-making processes;
• identifies who will benefit or be burdened by a given decision, examines potential unin- tended consequences of a decision, and develops strategies to advance racial equity and mitigate unintended negative consequences; and,
• develops mechanisms for successful implementation and evaluation of impact.
Use of a racial equity tool is an important step to operationalizing equity. However, it is not sufficient by itself. We must have a much broader vision of the transformation of government in order to advance racial equity. To transform government, we must normalize conversations about race, operationalize new behaviors and policies, and organize to achieve racial equity.
For more information on the work of government to advance racial equity, check out GARE’s “Advancing Racial Equity and Transforming Government: A Resource Guide for Putting Ideas into Action” on our website. The Resource Guide provides a comprehensive and holistic ap- proach to advancing racial equity within government. In addition, an overview of key racial equity definitions is contained in Appendix A.
II. Why should government use this Racial Equity Tool?
From the inception of our country, government at the local, regional, state, and federal level has played a role in creating and maintaining racial inequity. A wide range of laws and policies were passed, including everything from who could vote, who could be a citizen, who could own property, who was property, where one could live, whose land was whose and more. With the Civil Rights movement, laws and policies were passed that helped to create positive changes, including making acts of discrimination illegal. However, despite progress in addressing explicit discrimination, racial inequities continue to be deep, pervasive, and persistent across the country. Racial inequities exist across all indicators for success, including in education, criminal justice, jobs, housing, public infrastructure, and health, regardless of region.
Many current inequities are sustained by historical legacies and structures and systems that repeat patterns of exclusion. Institutions and structures have continued to create and per- petuate inequities, despite the lack of explicit intention. Without intentional intervention, institutions and structures will continue to perpetuate racial inequities. Government has the ability to implement policy change at multiple levels and across multiple sectors to drive larger systemic change. Routine use of a racial equity tool explicitly integrates racial equity into gov- ernmental operations.
Local and regional governmental jurisdictions that are a part of the GARE are using a racial eq- uity tool. Some, such as the city of Seattle in Washington, Multnomah County in Oregon, and Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
5 the city of Madison in Wisconsin have been doing so for many years:
• The Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) is a citywide effort to end institution- alized racism and race-based disparities in City government. The Initiative was launched in 2004. RSJI includes training to all City employees, annual work plans, and change teams in every city department. RSJI first started using its Racial Equity Tool during the budget process in 2007. The following year, in recognition of the fact that the budget process was just the “tip of the ice berg, ” use of the tool was expanded to be used in policy and pro- gram decisions. In 2009, Seattle City Council included the use of the Racial Equity Tool in budget, program and policy decisions, including review of existing programs and policies, in a resolution (Resolution 31164) affirming the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative. In 2015, newly elected Mayor Ed Murray issued an Executive Order directing expanded use of the Racial Equity Tool, and requiring measurable outcomes and greater accountability.
See Appendix B for examples of how Seattle has used its Racial Equity Tool, including legisla- tion that offers protections for women who are breastfeeding and use of criminal background checks in employment decisions.
Multnomah County’s Equity and Empowerment Lens is used to improve planning, deci- sion-making, and resource allocation leading to more racially equitable policies and programs.
At its core, it is a set of principles, reflective questions, and processes that focuses at the indi- vidual, institutional, and systemic levels by:
• deconstructing what is not working around racial equity; • reconstructing and supporting what is working;
• shifting the way we make decisions and think about this work; and, • healing and transforming our structures, our environments, and ourselves.
Numerous Multnomah County departments have made commitments to utilizing the Lens, including a health department administrative policy and within strategic plans of specific de- partments. Tools within the Lens are used both to provide analysis and to train employers and partners on how Multnomah County conducts equity analysis.
Madison, Wisconsin is implementing a racial equity tool, including both a short version and a more in-depth analysis. See Appendix D for a list of the types of projects on which the city of Madison has used their racial equity tool.
For jurisdictions that are considering implementation of a racial equity tool, these jurisdictions examples are powerful. Other great examples of racial equity tools are from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Race Forward.
In recognition of the similar ways in which institutional and structural racism have evolved across the country, GARE has developed this Toolkit that captures the field of practice and commonalities across tools. We encourage jurisdictions to begin using our Racial Equity Tool. Based on experience, customization can take place if needed to ensure that it is most relevant to local conditions. Otherwise, there is too great of a likelihood that there will be a significant investment of time, and potentially money, in a lengthy process of customization without experience. It is through the implementation and the experience of learning that leaders and staff will gain experience with use of a tool. After a pilot project trying out this tool, jurisdictions will have a better understanding of how and why it might make sense to customize a tool.
For examples of completed racial equity analyses, check out Appendix B and Appendix D, which includes two examples from the city of Seattle, as well as a list of the topics on which the city of Madison has used their racial equity tool.
Please note: In this
Resource Guide, we
include some data
from reports that fo-
cused on whites and
African Americans,
but otherwise, pro-
vide data for all ra-
cial groups analyzed
in the research.
For consistency,
we refer to African
Americans and
Latinos, although in
some of the original
research, these
groups were referred
to as Blacks and
Hispanics.
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
6 III. Who should use a racial equity tool?
A racial equity tool can be used at multiple levels, and in fact, doing so, will increase effectiveness.
• Government staff: The routine use of a racial equity tool by staff provides the opportunity to integrate racial equity across the breadth, meaning all governmental functions, and depth, meaning across hier- archy. For example, policy analysts integrating racial equity into policy development and implementation, and budget analysts integrating racial equity into budget proposals at the earliest possible phase, increases the likelihood of impact. Employees are the ones who know their jobs best and will be best equipped to integrate racial equity into practice and routine operations.
• Elected officials: Elected officials have the opportunity to use a racial equity tool to set broad priorities, bringing consistency between values and practice. When our elected officials are integrating racial equity into their jobs, it will be reflected in the priorities of the jurisdiction, in direction provided to department directors, and in the questions asked of staff. By asking simple racial equity tool questions, such as “How does this decision help or hinder racial equity?” or “Who benefits from or is burdened by this decision?” on a routine basis, elected officials have the ability to put theory into action.
• Community based organizations: Community based organizations can ask questions of government about use of racial equity tool to ensure accountability. Elected officials and government staff should be easily able to describe the results of their use of a racial equity tool, and should make that information readily available to community members. In addi- tion, community based organizations can use a similar or aligned racial equity tool within their own organizations to also advance racial equity.
IV. When should you use a racial equity tool?
The earlier you use a racial equity tool, the better. When racial equity is left off the table and not addressed until the last minute, the use of a racial equity tool is less likely to be fruitful. Using a racial equity tool early means that individual decisions can be aligned with organizational racial equity goals and desired outcomes. Using a racial equity tool more than once means that equity is incorporated throughout all phases, from development to implementation and evaluation.
V. The Racial Equity Tool
The Racial Equity Tool is a simple set of questions:
1. Proposal: What is the policy, program, practice or budget decision under consideration? What are the desired results and outcomes?
2. Data: What’s the data? What does the data tell us?
3. Community engagement: How have communities been engaged? Are there opportunities to expand engagement?
4. Analysis and strategies: Who will benefit from or be burdened by your proposal? What are your strategies for advancing racial equity or mitigating unintended consequences?
5. Implementation: What is your plan for implementation?
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
7 6. Accountability and communication: How will you ensure accountability, communicate, and evaluate results?
The following sections provide a description of the overall questions. Once you are ready to jump into action, please check out the worksheet that can be found in Appendix C.
STEP #1
What is your proposal and the desired results and outcomes? While it might sound obvious, having a clear description of the policy, program, practice, or budget decision (for the sake of brevity, we refer to this as a “proposal” in the remainder of these steps) at hand is critical.
We should also be vigilant in our focus on impact.
The terminology for results and outcomes is informed by our relationship with Results Based Accountability™. This approach to measurement clearly delineates between community con- ditions / population accountability and performance accountability / outcomes. These levels share a common systematic approach to measurement. This approach emphasizes the impor- tance of beginning with a focus on the desired “end” condition. • Results are at the community level are the end conditions we are aiming to impact. Com- munity indicators are the means by which we can measure impact in the community.
Community indicators should be disaggregated by race.
• Outcomes are at the jurisdiction, department, or program level. Appropriate performance measures allow monitoring of the success of implementation of actions that have a rea- sonable chance of influencing indicators and contributing to results. Performance mea- sures respond to three different levels:
a. Quantity—how much did we do?
b. Quality—how well did we do it?
c. Is anyone better off?
We encourage you to be clear about the desired end conditions in the community and to emphasize those areas where you have the most direct influence. When you align community indicators, government strategies, and performance measures, you maximize the likelihood for impact. To ultimately impact community conditions, government must partner with other institutions and the community.
You should be able to answer the following questions:
1. Describe the policy, pr ogram, practice, or budget decision under consideration?
2. What are the intended results (in the community) and outcomes (within your organization)?
3. What does this proposal have an ability to impact?
• Children and youth
• Community engagemen t
• Contracting equity
• Criminal justice
• Economic development
• Education
• Environment
• Food access and af fordability
• Government practices
• Health
• Housing
• Human services
• Jobs
• Planning and development
• Transportation
• Utilities
• Workforce equity
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
8 STEP #2
What’s the data? What does the data tell us?
Measurement matters. When organizations are committed to racial equity, it is not just an as- piration, but there is a clear understanding of racial inequities, and strategies and actions are developed and implemented that align between community conditions, strategies, and actions.
Using data appropriately will allow you to assess whether you are achieving desired impacts.
Too often data might be available, but is not actually used to inform strategies and track results. The enormity of racial inequities can sometimes feel overwhelming. For us to have impact in the community, we must partner with others for cumulative impact. The work of government to advance racial equity is necessary, but not sufficient. Nevertheless, alignment and clarity will increase potential impact. We must use data at both levels; that is data that clearly states 1) community indicators and desired results, and 2) our specific program or poli- cy outcomes and performance measures.
Performance measures allow monitoring of the success of implementation of actions that have a reasonable chance of influencing indicators and contributing to results. As indicated in Step 1, performance measures respond to three different levels:
Quantity—how much did we do?
Quality—how well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
Although measuring whether anyone is actually better off as a result of a decision is highly de- sired, we also know there are inherent measurement challenges. You should assess and collect the best types of performance measures so that you are able to track your progress.
In analyzing data, you should think not only about quantitative data, but also qualitative data.
Remember that sometimes missing data can speak to the fact that certain communities, issues or inequities have historically been overlooked. Sometimes data sets treat communities as a monolithic group without respect to subpopulations with differing socioeconomic and cultur- al experience. Using this data could perpetuate historic inequities. Using the knowledge and expertise of a diverse set of voices, along with quantitative data is necessary (see Step #3).
You should be able to answer the following questions about data:
1. Will the proposal hav e impacts in specific geographic areas (neighborhoods, areas, or regions)? What are the racial demographics of those living in the area?
2. What does population level data tell you about existing racial inequities? What does it tell you about root causes or factors influencing racial inequities?
3. What performance level data do you have available for your proposal? This should include data associated with existing programs or policies.
4. Are there data gaps? What additional data would be helpful in analyzing the proposal? If so, how can you obtain better data?
Data Resources
Federal
• American FactFinder: The US Census Bureau’s main site for online access to population, housing, economic and geographic data. http:/ /factfinder.census.gov • US Census Quick Facts: http:/ /quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html • Center for Disease Control (CDC) http:/ /wonder.cdc.gov Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
9 State
• American FactFinder and the US Census website also have state data. http:/ /factfinder.census.gov
• Other sources o f data vary by state. Many states offer data through the Office of Financial Management. Other places to find data include specific departments and divisions.
Local
• American FactFinder and the US Census website also have local data. http:/ /factfinder.census.gov
• Many jurisdictions have lots of city and county data available. Other places to find data include specific departments and divisions, service providers, community partners, and research literature.
STEP #3
How have communities been engaged?
Are there opportunities to expand engagement?
It is not enough to consult data or literature to assume how a proposal might impact a com- munity. Involving communities impacted by a topic, engaging community throughout all phases of a project, and maintaining clear and transparent communication as the policy or program is implemented will help produce more racially equitable results.
It is especially critical to engage communities of color. Due to the historical reality of the role of government in creating and maintaining racial inequities, it is not surprising that commu- nities of color do not always have much trust in government. In addition, there is a likelihood that other barriers exist, such as language, perception of being welcome, and lack of public transportation, or childcare. For communities with limited English language skills, appropriate language materials and translation must be provided.
Government sometimes has legal requirements on the holding of public meetings. These are often structured as public hearings, with a limited time for each person to speak and little op- portunity for interaction. It is important to go beyond these minimum requirements by using community meetings, focus groups, and consultations with commissions, advisory boards, and community-based organizations. A few suggestions that are helpful:
• When you use smaller groups to feed into a larger process, be transparent about the recommendations and/or thoughts that come out of the small groups (e.g. Have a list of all the groups you met with and a summary of the recommendations from each. That way you have documentation of what came up in each one, and it is easier to demonstrate the process).
• When you use large group meetings, provide a mix of different ways for people to engage, such as the hand-held voting devices, written comments that you collect, small groups, etc. It is typical, both because of structure and process, for large group discussions to lead to the participation of fewer voices. Another approach is to use dyads where people “interview” each other, and then report on what their partner shared. Sometimes people are more comfortable sharing other people’s information. • Use trusted advocates/outreach and engagement liaisons to collect information from communities that you know are typically underrepresented in public processes. Again, sharing and reporting that information in a transparent way allows you to share it with Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
10 others. For communities that have concerns about documentation status and interaction with government in general, this can be a particularly useful strategy.
Here are a few examples of good resources for community engagement:
• The City o f Seattle Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement Guide • The City o f Portland’s Public Engagement Guide
You should be able to answer the following questions about community engagement and in- volving stakeholders:
1. Who are the most affected community members who are concerned with or have expe- rience related to this proposal? How have you involved these community members in the development of this proposal?
2. What has your engagement process told you about the burdens or benefits for different groups?
3. What has your engagement process told you about the factors that produce or perpetuate racial inequity related to this proposal?
STEP #4
Who benefits from or will be burdened by your proposal? What are your strategies for advancing racial equity or mitigating unintended consequenc- es?
Based on your data and stakeholder input, you should step back and assess your proposal and think about complementary strategies that will help to advance racial equity.
Governmental decisions are often complex and nuanced with both intended and unintend- ed impacts. For example, when cities and counties face the necessity of making budget cuts due to revenue shortfalls, the goal is to balance the budget and the unintended consequence is that people and communities suffer the consequences of cut programs. In a situation like this, it is important to explicitly consider the unintended consequences so that impacts can be mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
We often tend to view policies, programs, or practices in isolation. Because racial inequities are perpetuated through systems and structures, it is important to also think about comple- mentary approaches that will provide additional leverage to maximize the impact on racial inequity in the community. Expanding your proposal to integrate policy and program strate- gies and broad partnerships will help to increase the likelihood of community impact. Here are some examples:
• Many excellent programs have been developed or are being supported through health programs and social services. Good programs and services should continue to be support- ed, however, programs will never be sufficient to ultimately achieve racial equity in the community. If you are working on a program, think about policy and practice changes that can decrease the need for programs.
• Many jurisdictions have passed “Ban-the-Box” legislation, putting limitations on the use of criminal background checks in employment and/or housing decisions. While this is a policy that is designed to increase the likelihood of success for people coming out of in- carceration, it is not a singular solution to racial inequities in the criminal justice system.
To advance racial equity in the criminal justice system, we need comprehensive strategies that build upon good programs, policies, and partnerships.
You should be able to answer the following questions about strategies to advance racial equity:
1. Given what you have learned from the data and stakeholder involvement, how will the Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
11 proposal increase or decrease racial equity? Who would benefit from or be burdened by your proposal?
2. What are potential unintended consequences? What are the ways in which your proposal could be modified to enhance positive impacts or reduce negative impacts?
3. Are there complementary strategies that you can implement? What are ways in which existing partnerships could be strengthened to maximize impact in the community? How will you partner with stakeholders for long-term positive change?
4. Are the impacts aligned with the your community outcomes defined in Step #1? STEP #5
What is your plan for implementation?
Now that you know what the unintended consequences, benefits, and impacts of the proposal and have developed strategies to mitigate unintended consequences or expand impact, it is important to focus on thoughtful implementation.
You should be able to answer the following about implementation:
1. Describe your plan for implemen tation.
2. Is your plan:
• realistic?
• adequately funded?
• adequately resourced with personnel?;
• adequately resourced with mechanisms to ensure successful implementation and enforcement?
• adequately resourced to ensure on-going data collection, public reporting, and community engagement?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, what resources or actions are needed? STEP #6
How will you ensure accountability, communicate, and evaluate results? Just as data was critical in analyzing potential impacts of the program or policy, data will be important in seeing whether the program or policy has worked. Developing mechanisms for collecting data and evaluating progress will help measure whether racial equity is being ad- vanced.
Accountability entails putting processes, policies, and leadership in place to ensure that pro- gram plans, evaluation recommendations, and actions leading to the identification and elimi- nation of root causes of inequities are actually implemented.
How you communicate about your racial equity proposal is also important for your success.
Poor communication about race can trigger implicit bias or perpetuate stereotypes, often times unintentionally. Use a communications tool, such as the Center for Social Inclusion’s Talking About Race Right Toolkit to develop messages and a communications strategy.
Racial equity tools should be used on an ongoing basis. Using a racial equity tool at different phases of a project will allow now opportunities for advancing racial equity to be identified and implemented. Evaluating results means that you will be able to make any adjustments to maximize impact.
You should be able to answer the following questions about accountability and implementation:
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
12 1. How will impacts be documented and evaluated? Are you achieving the anticipated out- comes? Are you having impact in the community?
2. What are your messages and communication strategies that are will help advance racial equity?
3. How will you continue to partner and deepen relationships with communities to make sure your work to advance racial equity is working and sustainable for the long haul? VI. What if you don’t have enough time?
The reality of working in government is that there are often unanticipated priorities that are sometimes inserted on a fast track. While it is often tempting to say that there is insufficient time to do a full and complete application of a racial equity tool, it is important to acknowledge that even with a short time frame, asking a few questions relating to racial equity can have a meaningful impact. We suggest that the following questions should be answered for “quick turn around” decisions:
• What are the racial equity impacts of this particular decision? • Who will benefit from or be burdened by the particular decision? • Are there strategies to mitigate the unintended consequences? VII. How can you address barriers to successful
implementation?
You may have heard the phrase, “the system is perfectly designed to get the outcomes it does.” For us to get to racially equitable outcomes, we need to work at the institutional and struc- tural levels. As a part of institutions and systems, it is often a challenge to re-design systems, let alone our own individual jobs. One of the biggest challenges is often a skills gap. Use of a racial equity tool requires skill and competency, so it will be important for jurisdictions to provide training, mentoring, and support for managers and staff who are using the tool. GARE has a training curriculum that supports this Toolkit, as well as a “train-the-trainer” program to increase the capacity of racial equity advocates using the Toolkit.
Other barriers to implementation that some jurisdictions have experienced include:
• a lack of support from leadership;
• a tool being used in isolation;
• a lack of support for implementing changes; and,
• perfection (which can be the enemy of good).
Strategies for addressing these barriers include:
• building the capacity of racial equity teams. Training is not just to cultivate skills for indi- vidual employees, but is also to build the skill of teams to create support for group imple- mentation and to create a learning culture;
• systematizing the use of the Racial Equity Tool. If the Racial Equity Tool is integrated into routine operations, such as budget proposal forms or policy briefing forms, then manage- ment and staff will know that it is an important priority; • recognizing complexity. In most cases, public policy decisions are complex, and there are numerous pros, cons and trade-offs to be considered. When the Racial Equity Tool is used on an iterative basis, complex nuances can be addressed over time; and, Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
13 • maintaining accountability. Build the expectation that managers and directors routinely use the Racial Equity Tool into job descriptions or performance agreements.
Institutionalizing use of a racial equity tool provides the opportunity to develop thoughtful, realistic strategies and timelines that advance racial equity and help to build long-term com- mitment and momentum.
VIII. How does use of a racial equity tool fit with other racial equity strategies?
Using a racial equity tool is an important step to operationalizing equity. However, it is not sufficient by itself. We must have a much broader vision of the transformation of government in order to advance racial equity. To transform government, we must normalize conversations about race, operationalize new behaviors and policies, and organize to achieve racial equity.
GARE is seeing more and more jurisdictions that are making a commitment to achieving racial equity, by focusing on the power and influence of their own institutions, and working in part- nership across sectors and with the community to maximize impact. We urge you to join with others on this work. If you are interested in using a racial equity tool and/or joining local and regional government from across the country to advance racial equity, please let us know.
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
14 14
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
EquityAPPENDICES
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
15 15
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
EquityAPPENDIX A
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms
Bias
Prejudice toward one group and its
members relative to another group.
Community Indicator
The means by which we can mea-
sure socioeconomic conditions
in the community. All community
indicators should be disaggregated
by race, if possible.
Contracting Equity
Investments in contracting, consult-
ing, and procurement should ben-
efit the communities a jurisdiction
serves, proportionate to the jurisdic -
tions demographics.
Equity Result
The condition we aim to achieve in
the community.
Explicit Bias
Biases that people are aware of and
that operate consciously. They are
expressed directly.
Implicit Bias
Biases people are usually unaware
of and that operate at the subcon-
scious level. Implicit bias is usually
expressed indirectly.
Individual Racism
Pre-judgment, bias, or discrimination
based on race by an individual.
Institutional Racism
Policies, practices, and procedures
that work better for white people
than for people of color, often unin-
tentionally.
Performance Measure
Performance measures are at the
county, department, or program
level. Appropriate performance
measures allow monitoring of
the success of implementation
of actions that have a reasonable
chance of influencing indicators and
contributing to results. Performance
measures respond to three different
levels: 1) Quantity—how much did
we do?; 2) Quality—how well did we
do it?; and 3) Is anyone better off? A
mix of these types of performance
measures is contained within the
recommendations.
Racial Equity
Race can no longer be used to pre-
dict life outcomes and outcomes for
all groups are improved.
Racial Inequity
Race can be used to predict life
outcomes, e.g., disproportionality in
education (high school graduation
rates), jobs (unemployment rate),
criminal justice (arrest and incarcer -
ation rates), etc.
Structural Racism
A history and current reality of
institutional racism across all institu-
tions, combining to create a system
that negatively impacts communi-
ties of color.
Workforce Equity
The workforce of a jurisdiction
reflects the diversity of its residents,
including across the breadth (func-
tions and departments) and depth
(hierarchy) of government.
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
16 16
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
APPENDIX B
City of Seattle Racial Equity Toolkit
On the following pages you will find an excerpt of the racial equity tool used by the City of Seat - tle as an example of what such tools can look like in practice. As discussed in Section 3 of the Resource Guide, the Seattle City Council passed an ordinance in 2009 that directed all City de - partments to use the Racial Equity Toolkit, including in all budget proposals made to the Budget Office. This directive was reaffirmed by an executive order of Mayor Ed Murray in 2014.
The Racial Equity Tool is an analysis applied to City of Seattle’s policies, programs, and budget decisions. The City of Seattle has been applying the Racial Equity Toolkit for many years but as the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) becomes increasingly operationalized, the expectation and accountabilities relating to its use are increasing. In 2015, Mayor Murray required departments to carry out four uses of the toolkit annually. This will also become a part of performance measures for department heads.
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
17 17
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
APPENDIX B : CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
18 18
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
APPENDIX B : CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
19 19
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
APPENDIX B : CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
20 20
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
APPENDIX B : CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
21 21
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
APPENDIX B : CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
22 22
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
Step #1
What is your proposal and the desired results and outcomes?
1. Describe the policy, pr ogram, practice, or budget decision (for the sake of brevity, we refer to this as a “proposal” in the remainder of these steps)
2. What are the intended results (in the community) and outcomes (within your own organi- zation)?
3. What does this proposal have an ability to impact?
Children and youth Health
Community engagement Housing
Contrac ting equity Human servic es
Criminal justice Jobs
Economic dev elopment Parks and r ecreation
Education Planning / development
Environmen t Tr ansportation
Food access and af fordability Utilities
Governmen t practices Workf orce equity
Other _____________________
Step #2
What’s the data? What does the data tell us?
1. Will the proposal hav e impacts in specific geographic areas (neighborhoods, areas, or re- gions)? What are the racial demographics of those living in the area?
2. What does population level data, including quantitative and qualitative data, tell you about existing racial inequities? What does it tell you about root causes or factors influencing racial inequities?
3. What performance level data do you have available for your proposal? This should include data associated with existing programs or policies.
4. Are there data gaps? What additional data would be helpful in analyzing the proposal? If so, how can you obtain better data?
APPENDIX C
Racial Equity Tool Worksheet
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
23 23
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
APPENDIX C : RACIAL EQUITY TOOL WORKSHEET
Step #3
How have communities been engaged? Are there opportunities to expand engagement?
1. Who are the most affected community members who are concerned with or have expe- rience related to this proposal? How have you involved these community members in the development of this proposal?
2. What has your engagement process told you about the burdens or benefits for different groups?
3. What has your engagement process told you about the factors that produce or perpetuate racial inequity related to this proposal?
Step #4
What are your strategies for advancing racial equity?
1. Given what you have learned from research and stakeholder involvement, how will the pro- posal increase or decrease racial equity? Who would benefit from or be burdened by your proposal?
2. What are potential unintended consequences? What are the ways in which your proposal could be modified to enhance positive impacts or reduce negative impacts?
3. Are there complementary strategies that you can implement? What are ways in which ex- isting partnerships could be strengthened to maximize impact in the community? How will you partner with stakeholders for long-term positive change?
4. Are the impacts aligned with your community outcomes defined in Step #1? Step #5
What is your plan for implementation?
1. Describe your plan for implemen tation.
2. Is your plan:
Realistic?
Adequately funded?
Adequately resourced with personnel?
Adequately resources with mechanisms to ensure successful implementation and en- forcement?
Adequately resourced to ensure on-going data collection, public reporting, and com- munity engagement?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, what resources or actions are needed? Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
24 24
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
Step #6
How will you ensure accountability, communicate, and evaluate results?
1. How will impacts be documented and evaluated? Are you achieving the anticipated out- comes? Are you having impact in the community?
2. What are your messages and communication strategies that are will help advance racial equity?
3. How will you continue to partner and deepen relationships with communities to make sure your work to advance racial equity is working and sustainable for the long-haul? APPENDIX C : RACIAL EQUITY TOOL WORKSHEET
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
25 25
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
Agency/
Organization
Project Tool(s) Used Purpose & Outcomes
(if applicable)
Clerk’s Office 2015–2016 work
plan
Equity & Em-
powerment
Lens
(Mult. Co.)
Adopted new mission, vision, work
plan, and evaluation plan with racial
equity goals
Streets Division Analysis of neigh-
borhood trash
pickup
RESJI analysis
(comprehen-
sive)
Recommendations to adjust large item
pickup schedule based on neighbor-
hood & seasonal needs
Madison Out
of School Time
(MOST) Coalition
Strategic planning RESJI analysis
(fast-track)
Adopted strategic directions, including
target populations, informed by racial
equity analysis
Public Health
Madison & Dane
County
Dog breeding & li-
censing ordinance
RESJI analysis
(comprehen-
sive)
Accepted recommendation to table
initial legislation & develop better pol-
icy through more inclusive outreach;
updated policy adopted
Fire Department Planning for new
fire station
RESJI analysis
(comprehen-
sive)
Recommendations for advancing racial
equity and inclusive community en-
gagement; development scheduled for
2016–2017
Metro Transit Succession plan-
ning for manage-
ment hires
RESJI equi-
table hiring
checklist
First woman of color promoted to
Metro management position in over 20
years
Human Resources
Department
2015 & 2016 work
plans
RESJI analysis
(fast-track &
comprehen-
sive)
2015 plan reflects staff input; 2016 work
plan to include stakeholder input (est.
10/15)
Human Resources
Department
City hiring process RESJI analysis
(comprehen-
sive)
Human Resources 2015 racial equity
report: http:/ /racialequityalliance.
org/2015/08/14/the-city-of-madi-
sons-2015-human-resources-equity-
report-advancing-racial-equity-in-the-
city-workforce/
Economic Devel-
opment Division
Public Market
District project
RESJI analysis
(comprehen-
sive)
10 recommendations proposed to Local
Food Committee for incorporation into
larger plan
Public Health
Madison & Dane
County
Strategic planning RESJI analysis
(fast-track)
Incorporation of staff & stakeholder
input, racial equity priorities, to guide
goals & objectives (est. 11/15)
APPENDIX D
Applications of a Racial Equity Tool
in Madison, WI
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
26 26
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
Agency/
Organization
Project Tool(s) Used Purpose & Outcomes
(if applicable)
Planning, Commu-
nity & Econ. Devel.
Dept.
Judge Doyle
Square develop-
ment (public/pri-
vate, TIF-funded)
RESJI analysis
(fast-track);
ongoing con-
sultation
Highlight opportunities for advance-
ment of racial equity; identify potential
impacts & unintended consequences;
document public-private development
for lessons learned and best practices
Parks Division Planning for
accessible play-
ground
TBD Ensure full consideration of decisions
as informed by community stakehold-
ers, with a focus on communities of
color and traditionally marginalized
communities, including people with
disabilities.
Fire Department Updates to pro-
motional process-
es
TBD Offer fair and equitable opportunities
for advancement (specifically Appara-
tus Engineer promotions)
APPENDIX D : APPLICATIONS OF A RACIAL EQUITY TOOL IN MADISON, WI The Center for Social Inclusion’s mission is to catalyze grassroots community, government, and other institutions to dismantle structural racial inequity. We apply strategies and tools to transform our nation’s policies, practices, and institutional culture in order to ensure equitable outcomes for all. As a national policy strategy organization, CSI works with community advocates, government, local experts, and national leaders to build shared analysis, create policy strategies that engage and build multi-generational, multi-sectoral, and multi-racial alliances, and craft strong communication narratives on how to talk about race effectively in order to shift public discourse to one of equity.
CENTERFORSOCIALINCLUSION.ORG / 212.248.2785
© 2015 The Local & Regional Government Alliance on Race and Equity / Published September 2015 The Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at the University of California, Berkeley brings together researchers, community stakeholders, policymakers, and communicators to identify and challenge the barriers to an inclusive, just, and sustainable society and create transformative change. The Institute serves as a national hub of a vibrant network of researchers and community partners and takes a leadership role in translating, communicating, and facilitating research, policy, and strategic engagement. The Haas Institute advances research and policy related to marginalized people while essentially touching all who benefit from a truly diverse, fair, and inclusive society.
HAASINSTITUTE.BERKELEY.EDU / 510.642.3011
Government
Alliance on
Race and Equity
TOOLKIT
Racial Equity
Toolkit: An
Opportunity to
Operationalize
Equity
28 RACIALEQUITYALLIANCE.ORG
Tab 21
Health in All
Policies (HiAP)
HEAL TH IN ALL POLICIES
PROGRESS REPORT
2020
CALIFORNIA
RICHMOND
2 CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
HEAL TH IN ALL POLICIES
2020 Progress Report
Table of Contents
5 Executive Summary
6 HiAP Evaluation Key Findings
8 Overview of Health in All Policies
12 Methods & Goals of T his Report
13 Evolving Richmond: Inclusion & Health
20 Governance and Leadership
24 Economic Development & Education
30 Full Service & Safe Communities
36 Residential & Built Environment
42 Environmental Health & Justice
48 Quality Accessible Health Homes & Services
52 Richmond HiAP: Conclusions & Ne xt steps
55 References
Maps
13 Map 1. Homicides in Richmond, 2004-2007 vs. 2014-2017 14 Map 2. ZIP Codes & City Defined Neighborhoods in Richmond 15 Map 3. Life Expectancy Across Bay Area ZIP Codes, 2013 16 Map 4. Estimated Heart Disease ED Visits and Peak Traffic Travel Times to Summit Hospital 17 Map 5. Asthma Emergency Department Visits
18 Map 6. Low Birth Weight
19 Map 7. Poverty & Affordable Housing
19 Map 8. Poor Mental Health & Homicides
39 Map 9. Neighborhood Asset Map - Central Richmond
45 Map 10. Fenceline & Community Air Monitoring Sites
49 Map 11. Medically Under-served Areas in Contra Costa County Healthcare Districts Page
Page
3 Figures
8 Figure 1. Where HiAP Sits in Government
9 Figure 2. Richmond Health in All Policies Timeline
11 Figure 3. Community Assets That Can Reduce Stressors 15 Figure 4. Life expectancy in Richmond Zip Codes 2000 vs. 2013 20 Figure 5. Governance RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2013-2019 21 Figure 6. RCS Positive Perception of Confidence in Richmond Government by Race/Ethnicity 21 Figure 7. RCS Positive Perception of Openness and Acceptance in the Community of Diversity by Race/Ethnicity 24 Figure 8. Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level (2018) 25 Figure 9. Economic Development & Education RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2007-2019 25 Figure 10. RCS Positive Perception of Employment Opportunities by Race/Ethnicity 25 Figure 11. RCS Positive Perception of Employment Opportunities by income Level 26 Figure 12. RCS Positive Perception of Affordable Quality Child Care by Race/Ethnicity 27 Figure 13. RCS Positive Perception of City Sponsored Job Training Programs by Race/Ethnicity 27 Figure 14. Unemployment Rate for Population Over 16, 2011-2018 27 Figure 15. Median Household Income, 2011-2018
30 Figure 16. Full Service & Safe Communities RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2007-2019 31 Figure 17. RCS Positive Perception of Overall Feeling of Safety by Income Level 31 Figure 18. RCS Positive Perception of Crime Prevention by Race/Ethnicity 31 Figure 19. RCS Positive Perception of Police Services by Race/Ethnicity 32 Figure 20. City of Richmond Crime, 2007 - 2019
36 Figure 21. Residential & Built Environment RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2009-2019 37 Figure 22. RCS Positive Perception of Overall Built Environment by Race/Ethnicity 43 Figure 24. RCS Positive Perception of Overall Quality of the Natural Environment By Race/Ethnicity 43 Figure 23. Environmental & Health Justice RCS Indicators 43 Figure 25. RCS Positive Perception of Overall Quality of the Natural Environment by Income Level 44 Figure 26. Select CalEnviroscreen Indicators: City, State, County, and Iron Triangle neighborhood 45 Figure 27. All vs. Low Income Solar Installations, 2007 - 2017 48 Figure 28. RCS Positive Perception of Self-Rated Health by Race/Ethnicity 48 Figure 29. RCS Positive Perception of Self-Rated Health by Income Level 49 Figure 30. Quality Accessible Health, Homes, & Services RCS Indicators 49 Figure 31. RCS Positive Perception of Availability of Affordable Quality Healthcare by Race/Ethnicity 53 Figure 32. Future Actions for Furthering the Health Equity Goals of Richmond’s HiAP Ordinance PREPARED BY: PROFESSOR JASON CORBURN & RESEARCHERS @ THE UC BERKELEY , CENTER FOR GLOBAL HEAL THY CITIES. WWW.HEAL THYCITIES.BERKELEY .EDU Page
4 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Acknowledgments
Mayor Tom Butt
Vice Mayor Nathaniel Bates
City Council
Ben Choi
Demnius Johnson III
Eduardo Martinez
Jael Myrick
Melvin Willis
City Staff
Shasa Curl
Gabino Arredondo
Thomas Omolo
David Padilla
UC Berkeley
Jason Corburn
Marisa Ruiz Asari
Nicole Liner-Jigamian
Riya Desai
Brandon Chu
Amanda Fukutome
Photo Credits
Cover images: Pogo Park,
RYSE Youth Center, ONS,
Staying Power Project
Report images: City of
Richmond and Respective
Partner Organizations
Funding
Support Provided by The
Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation
Citation: Corburn, J.,
Fukutome, A., Asari, M. Health
in All Policies, Richmond CA:
2020 Progress Report. Center
for Global Healthy Cities, UC
Berkeley. www.healthycities.
berkeley.edu
5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Health equity is a priority for the City of
Richmond. Health equity means taking specific
actions to eliminate the social and physical
inequities that influence our opportunities be
healthy. Health equity also means ensuring
that all groups and communities have the
opportunities and resources to attain the
highest possible level of health. Health equity is
the motivating force behind the implementation
of Richmond’s Health in All Policies (HiAP)
Ordinance. This ordinance (R.M.C 9.15), adopted
in April 2014, put into law the commitment by
the City of Richmond to continually work toward
health equity for all its residents.
Richmond’s HiAP Ordinance recognizes that
health is not just something that occurs at a
doctor’s office or in a hospital, but rather health
can be found in the everyday decisions made
in almost every city department and can be
found in existing policies, such as the General
Plan and 5 Year Strategic Business Plan. This
report reviews progress toward health equity
in Richmond by highlighting data and actions
associated with the HiAP Ordinance. When
the Ordinance was passed, an accompanying
Strategy Document, developed in partnership
with multiple city departments, community
based organizations and other health and
social justice experts, was issued to guide the
implementation of HiAP . This report offers data
to inform progress toward that strategic vision.
Richmond, California, was one of the first cities
in the US to adopt HiAP . This precedent setting
initiative is being watched by other cities, states
and countries around the world. Richmond
continues to be an innovator and leader when
it comes to ways municipal government can
reverse structural inequities and improve
population health. However, the HiAP Ordinance
also explicitly recognizes that local government
alone cannot achieve health equity. Residents
and community groups, among others, must
remain partners and co-leaders in this effort.
Richmond’s HiAP is not an end into itself, but
rather a collective call for on-going action and
attention to the practices, programs and policies
that can further health equity, racial and social
justice for Richmond’s residents.
6 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
HIAP EVALUATION KEY FINDINGS
While the Average Life
Expectancy in Richmond
is increasing, not all
communities are benefiting.
The City has supported new
trauma informed programs
for youth and vulnerable
populations, such as the
Kids First initiative & the West
County Family Justice Center.
The percentage of families
in poverty has remained
relatively stable, even as the
overall economy improved
(prior to COVID-19).
Transparent Richmond
a new open data system
was launched, www.
transparentrichmond.org.
Richmond’s Black
population is decreasing and
Latinx and API populations
are increasing.
The City had 325 new
solar installations (64 for
low-income households) in
2019, banned pesticide use
on city property & installed
50 community air
monitors in partnership
with Groundwork
Richmond.
Gun homicides and
assaults continue to
decline to all-time
lows, reaching 15 gun
homicides in 2019 -
down from 43 in 2007.
Overall, the percentage of Richmond
Community Survey respondents rating
their health as good or excellent
was similar to that of Americans and
Californians in 2019. However gaps
remained for low-income and non-
white respondents.
41% & 44% of Richmond’s
Black & Latinx populations,
respectively, reported good
or excellent health in 2019,
compared to 58% of white
respondents.
CHANGING RICHMOND
SAFETY & HEALTH
COMMUNITY SERVICES
7Key Findings
Since 2015, an increasing percent of
Richmond’s population is seeking
Emergency Department care at further
away hospitals, including Berkeley’s Alta
Bates which has plans to close by 2030.
Travel times by private vehicle are between
50-60 minutes to emergency rooms in
Berkeley and Oakland.
About 38% of residents rated their
Quality of Life in Richmond
as good or excellent in 2019,
compared to only 17% in 2007.
About 47% of Richmond residents
rated Richmond as a good or
excellent place to live in 2019,
compared to only 20% in 2007.
The RichmondBUILD job training
program continues to expand
and successfully places about
50 graduates each year in well-
paying construction-related jobs.
RichmondWORKS serves about
3000 individuals each year with
employment support & the CoBiz
and Food Hall projects near
BART are signs of new economic
development.
Affordable housing remains a challenge
for many Richmond residents, but the City
has helped facilitate the construction of new,
affordable housing through such programs
as the Housing Rehabilitation Program and
stabilized rents for some through the Rent
Control Ordinance
There are over 19,000
rent controlled housing
units in Richmond
and over 3,500 units of
affordable housing.
The closing of Doctors Medical
Center in 2015 has adversely
impacted Richmond residents
from accessing Emergency
Department care. Lifelong
Medical Center opened
William Jenkins clinic in 2019.
RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS
HEALTH CARE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING
8 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Richmond’s Health in All Policies (HiAP) ordinance
was passed in 2014 as an effort to address health
inequities in the Richmond community by
implementing elements of the 2030 General Plan.
While the ordinance has been in place for over five
years, many people are still unfamiliar with HiAP .
HiAP is an over-arching framework to guide city
policy, practices and partnerships that promote
health and well-being for all residents. “Health in All Policies” (HiAP) is another way of saying “Healthy
Public Policy” and refers to the practice of integrating health promotion into the day-to-day decisions,
policies and actions of the City of Richmond and its
partnerships with other governments, non-profits,
residents and the private-sector.
HiAP starts from the premise that your health
and well-being begin in neighborhoods, schools,
workplaces and playgrounds, not a doctors’ office.
While access to good quality, regular and affordable
health care is essential, too often this helps with
disease management rather than prevention. What
we know is that preventing disease, injury, stress,
disability and early death has to do with the factors
in our communities, like quality and affordable
housing, safe streets, good jobs, high performing
schools, age-friendly parks and recreation spaces,
cultural expression, clean air, and other social and
environmental conditions.
HiAP is a road map to help guide city departments
and partners on how to improve the conditions
in the community that support health. HiAP is not
a static concept or an end-point; HiAP is not one
approach or intervention; HiAP is not about changing
behaviors without also changing institutions.
The HiAP Strategy is shaped by a commitment to
recognize and address structural racism & the
resulting toxic stressors in Richmond. It aims to do
this through 6 intervention areas, each with specific
goals and indicators or progress attached to them.
The 6 intervention areas are: 1. Governance &
Leadership, 2. Residential & Built Environment,
3. Economic Development & Education, 4.
Environmental Health & Justice, 5. Full Service
& Safe Communities & 6. Quality & Accessible
Health Homes & Services.
Health Equity means intentionally promoting
opportunities for both vulnerable people and
places, which include, but are not limited to women,
racial or ethnic groups, low-income individuals
OVERVIEW OF HEAL TH IN ALL POLICIES
Figure 1. Where HiAP Sits in Government
General Plan
2030 + Health
& Wellness
Element
Richmond
Health Equity
Partnership
(RHEP) drafts
HiAP
UC Berkeley Partnership & Funder Support
Community input & articulation of priorities
City Depts. &
on-going data
collection
On-going
Community
Partnerships
HiAP
implementation
& budget
alignment
Health in
All Policies
Ordinance &
Strategy
9 2007-20092012
2014
The City launches CHWE
implementation and planning pilots in
the Iron Triangle and Belding Woods
neighborhoods at Cesar Chavez and
Peres Elementary Schools.
A CHWE for the General Plan is drafted at
the request of community stakeholders.
Community groups define issues through
such publications as Measuring What
Matters by the Pacific Institute.
Community Health and Wellness
Element (CHWE) Development
Pilot Implementation and Adoption
of CHWE for the General Plan
The City Council unanimously
adopts the HiAP Strategy as a
City Ordinance.
Implementation of HiAP
Ordinance and Strategy
2 3
4 5
6 1
HIAP TIMELINE
Cinco de Mayo Parade, 2018 Affordable Care Act Sign Ups GRID Alternatives solar installation The Richmond Health Equity
Partnership (RHEP) is formed.
Through stakeholder & community
meetings, the toxic stressors are
identified and the Strategy Document
is drafted.
Development of Health in All Policies
Health in All Policies Report
documented the successes and
challenges of HiAP in its first year
and developed recommendation
for the ongoing implementation of
HiAP in each of its six focus areas.
First Health in All Policies Report
2015
2013
2nd Health in All Policies
Evaluation report tracks program
and policy progress as well as
indicators of community and
population health and well-being.
HiAP Progress Report
2020
Figure 2. Richmond Health in All Policies Timeline
Overview of HiAP
Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Economic Development
& Education
Full Service & Safe
Communities
Environmental Health & Justice
Quality Accessible Health, Homes, & Services
Governance & Leadership
Residential & Built Environment
The location, quality,
affordability and
accessibility of culturally-
appropriate services
contribute to our health and
well-being. Feeling safe in
our community can reduce
stress & its adverse health
impacts.
Access to quality & affordable health care is
essential to treat disease and manage the severity
of illness. While the City does not provide health
care, it is a key partner with county, state, federal
& hospital providers to ensure all have access.
The physical environment where we
live can be peaceful & protective and
affordable, or it can expose us to harm,
such as mold, dilapidated parks &
unsafe intersections.
This is the day-to-day management decisions, within the City of Richmond, including but not limited to inclusiveness of different viewpoints and participants.
Governance influences health because it is about the distribution, exercise, and consequences of power.
Health in All Policies (HiAP) INTERVENTION AREAS
Our economic resources
and opportunities shape
our ability to make healthy
choices. Education is crucial
for being an informed citizen,
making healthy decisions &
gaining access to satisfying
employment.
The air we breathe, the food we have access to and
the quality of our natural environment all influence
our health. Yet, we know that people of color and
lower-income residents often have not had access
to these and other environmental benefits, as
compared to white people & the wealthy.
10 11Overview of HiAP
and families, individuals who are incarcerated and
those who have been incarcerated, individuals
with disabilities, individuals with mental health
conditions, children, youth and young adults, seniors,
immigrants and refugees, individuals who are limited-
English proficient (LEP), and lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ)
communities, or combinations of these populations
(CA Health and Safety Code Section 131019.5). Health
Equity is measured by the extent to which indicators of opportunities & outcomes for vulnerable people and
places are improving & the whether the gap between
already well-off groups & places and the vulnerable is declining.
HiAP aims to reduce and eliminate community
Toxic Stressors, which are the repeated exposures
to negative experiences and trauma in one’s life
that can act to ‘weather’ or wear-away at the body’s
biologic systems, stunting cognitive and physical
development and damaging the immune system.
Structural Racism is a key Toxic Stressor and refers
to the ways multiple institutions, from schools
to banks to police to employers to the media to
government agencies, routinely advantage white
people while producing cumulative & chronic
adverse outcomes for people of color. It is a system
of hierarchy and inequity, primarily characterized
by white supremacy –the preferential treatment,
privilege and power for white people at the expense
of Black, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native
American, Arab and other racially oppressed
people. Structural racism influences our health in a
number of ways, such as when discrimination denies
people of color access to home loans, affordable
housing, education, jobs, and services including
health care. Structural racism also influences health
when multiple systems including criminal justice,
schools, social services, banking and other systems
act to keep people of color in poverty and deny
them access to opportunities to be healthy. These
disadvantages can have a direct influence on health,
such as through homelessness and poverty, or
indirect, such as through the stress of living in an
unsafe neighborhood or being racially profiled.
Figure 3. Community Assets That Can Reduce Stressors
12 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
This report is the result of a mixed set of data and
analytic methods. We gathered the latest data from
the sources below for indicators of health and well-
being as defined in the HiAP Strategy Document,
including:
1. The American Community Survey (ACS), 5-year
estimates
2. CalEnviroscreen 3.0
3. California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)
4. City of Richmond Police Department
5. Transparent Richmond
6. Richmond Community Survey (RCS)
7. West Contra Costa Unified School District
Where possible, we compared the latest data for
Richmond as a whole to the County and State of
California. We also compared the latest data that
was available, such as the RCS 2019, to that of
previous years. We also interviewed dozens of city
employees, community organizations and some
residents to better understand specific programs
and policies and whether these actions were
influencing the determinants of health. Thus, this
report offers descriptive quantitative and qualitative
data and characterizes key HiAP interventions and
related health determinants.
We also followed the structure of previous HiAP
progress reports and that of the Strategy Document.
Thus, we focused on reporting progress made on
indicators already identified in previous reports
as meaningful for health equity. However, we also
identified new indicators, particularly by analyzing
RCS data, that might be used as metrics of health
equity moving forward. Where possible we aimed
to disaggregate data by neighborhood location,
population group (i.e., race/ethnicity), and income
or economic status (i.e., percent of people in
poverty).
In most cases, we report the RCS data based on the
percentage of people that responded “good” or
“excellent” to a particular question. It is important
to recognize that for most questions, the possible
responses were “excellent” , “good” , “fair” , or “poor” .
Thus, by excluding the “fair” responses, we might
be under-counting those that view a particular
issue favorably. Also, the RCS is, like all surveys,
a limited snapshot from those that responded.
We acknowledge from the outset of this report
that the RCS responses alone may not accurately
reflect the sentiments of all Richmond residents,
especially where we break down responses by race/
ethnicity and economic status. For neighborhood
data, we aimed to provide maps to spatially
characterize health assets or hazards across
the City of Richmond. The report also includes
short qualitative case studies that include more
background on select practices or policies that are
supporting HiAP goals.
In 2015, the City of Richmond and UC Berkeley
researchers published a preliminary evaluation
report summarizing the activities and outcomes
of the first year of HiAP . This evaluation identified
substantial progress in the coordination of city
programs, scope and integration of services, and
data & research through the lens of health. The
report also highlighted key opportunities and
challenges for HiAP , and laid the framework for
future HiAP efforts to better address structural
racism and toxic stressors in Richmond.
Challenges reported in the first HiAP Progress report
included the long-term nature of efforts to address
inequities in health, a lack of deep and meaningful
community engagement, weak policies that directly
address structural & systemic racism and limited
awareness among the public about HiAP .
1 A lack of
funding for HiAP was also recognized as a challenge.
The 2020 progress report also investigates whether
HiAP leaders within the City have addressed these
challenges.
METHODS & GOALS OF THIS REPORT
13Evolving Richmond: Inclusion & Health
While this report aims to use a mixed set of data
to report on progress toward health equity in
Richmond, we start with a broad overview of
existing conditions (as of February 2020, pre-
COVID-19). This overview includes the most
recent data we could access, but in some cases,
updated data were not available for all years
covered in the report. Despite these limits, we
have found some persistent trends, including the
following:
Richmond’s Black population continues
to decline, while the Latinx population
continues to increase.
Implication for health equity:
Our data from the Richmond Community Survey
between 2009-2019 may reflect the views of new
residents, not the same populations over time.
The percentage of families in poverty has
remained relatively stable, even as the
overall economy has increased and the
unemployment rate has decreased.
Implication for health equity:
Poverty remains one of the key determinants
of one’s life expectancy. However it’s important
to note that this measure reflects household
income, not wealth, which can include other
assets that a family has such as owning a home.
Gun homicides and gun assaults are at 20-
year lows and continue to decline.
Implication for health equity:
Coordinated efforts to reduce gun violence,
such as the Office of Neighborhood Safety,
Community Based Organizations interventions
and Community Policing are likely contributing
to improvements in perception of quality of life,
everyday stress, and neighborhood investments.
EVOLVING RICHMOND:
INCLUSION & HEAL TH
163
Homicides
in four years
2004-2007
73 Homicides
in four years
2014-2017
Map 1. Homicides in Richmond, 2004-2007 vs. 2014-2017
Source: City of Richmond Police Department
14 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
1. Point San Pablo
2. Yacht Harbor
3. Point Richmond
4. Atchison Village
5. Santa Fe
6. Marina Bay
7. Coronado
8. Iron Triangle
9. Shields-Reid
10. Richmore Village/
Metro Square
11. Cortez/Stege
12. Belding/Woods
13. North & East
14. Pullman
15. Park Plaza
16. Richmond Heights
17. Laurel Park
18. Eastshore
19. Parkview
20. Panhandle Annex
21. Southwest Annex
22. Richmond Annex
23. Parchester Village
24. Hilltop District
25. Hilltop Village
26. Fairmede/Hilltop
27. Hilltop Green
28. Quail Hill
29. Greenridge Heights
30. May Valley
31. El Sobrante Hills
32. Greenbriar
33. Carriage Hills North
34. Countryside
35. Carriage Hills South
Map 2. ZIP Codes & City Defined Neighborhoods in Richmond Source: City of Richmond Richmond Neighborhoods
94801
ZIP Code
94806
94805
94804
94803
15Evolving Richmond: Inclusion & Health
Map edits pending
Life Expectancy (Y ears)
70 - 72
72 - 75
75 - 78
78 - 81
81 - 84
84 - 87
78 79
79 81
78 2013
Source: Vital SignsMap 3. Life Expectancy Across Bay Area ZIP Codes, 2013 Life expectancy is increasing in
Richmond and across the Bay Area.
Implication for health equity:
This is a positive development and likely
reflects the dramatic impact of steep
declines in gun violence, including gun
homicides and overall improvements in
the quality of life in Richmond. While life
expectancy has increased for all across
the Bay Area, within Richmond, the Iron
Triangle neighborhood saw some of the
greatest gains in life expectancy over this
time. Despite these gains, inequities in
life expectancy across neighborhoods in
Richmond remain.
2 Figure 4. Life expectancy in Richmond Zip Codes 2000 vs. 2013 16 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Richmond residents are forced to travel
longer to receive emergency department
care (Map 4).
Implication for health equity:
In 2015, Doctors Medical Center (DMC) in San
Pablo closed. According to State of CA data,
more Richmond residents now visit farther away
hospitals for Emergency Department care, such
as Alta Bates in Berkeley. Map 5 below uses
State hospitalization data for heart disease to
show how many people from Richmond ZIP
Codes might need to visit the ER for a heart
attack and the travel time to the Summit
hospital Campus, which is the closest hospital
to Richmond that is capable of treating patients
under cardiac arrest. In our interviews with
Contra Costa EMS and health care providers in
the East Bay, we learned that more ambulances
are traveling from Richmond to Emergency
Departments in Oakland and Berkeley now that
Doctors Medical Center is closed.
Map 4. Estimated Heart Disease ED Visits and Peak Traffic Travel Times to Summit Hospital Kaiser Richmond
is the only
hospital serving
West County
residents within
an 8 mile radius
of Central
Richmond
KR
8mi radius
17Evolving Richmond: Inclusion & Health
Central and South Richmond neighborhoods
continue to experience high asthma
hospitalizations (Map 5).
Implication for health equity:
Asthma remains a key driver of disability, especially
for children of color, and this can impact families
since care givers may miss work when a child has an
asthma attack and face costly medical bills as a result of hospitalization. Air pollution and chronic stress
are two contributors to asthma, and access to and
affordability of medication and primary care are key
drivers of the severity of the illness.
The percentage of low birth weight babies has
historically been highest in South Richmond
neighborhoods (Map 6).
Implication for health equity:
Low birth weight babies are often an indicator of
maternal health and can put a newborn at risk of
developmental and health issues across their lifetime.
Reducing low birth weight babies in communities
of color means eliminating the stressors of poverty,
racism, few social supports, and uncertain post-
partum child care, while also ensuring regular pre-
natal care for pregnant women.
Map 5. Asthma Emergency Department Visits Source: CalEnviroscreen 3.0 3 18 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Map 6. Low Birth Weight Babies who weigh less than approximately five and a half pounds (2500 grams) at birth Source: CalEnviroscreen 3.0
Richmond’s affordable housing units continue to
be concentrated in the central and south areas,
which already tend to have the lowest income
residents (Map 7).
Implication for health equity:
While maintaining and building more affordable
housing is essential for health equity, concentrating
this housing in only a few areas can perpetuate racial
residential segregation. Segregated neighborhoods
have been shown to increase risk of low birth weight
and preterm birth for Black babies and is positively
associated with breast and lung cancers and poor
self-rated health within Black populations.
While gun homicides continue to decline, they
remain disproportionately concentrated in the
Iron Triangle and South Richmond neighborhoods
(Map 8).
Implication for health equity:
Exposure to gun homicide, either as a victim
or perpetrator, contributes to trauma and toxic
stress. When a young person is over-stressed and
traumatized they can interpret normal circumstances
as dangerous, experience damage to the parts of
the brain that controls impulses, and contributes
to greater rates of mental illness, including post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
19Evolving Richmond: Inclusion & Health
Major Roads
CoR Parks
All Parks
Affordable Housing Units
Private & Public
% Below federal poverty level
ACS 2011-2015
8.0 - 16.9
16.9 - 25.7
25.7 - 34.6
34.6 - 43.4
43.4 - 52.3
52.3 - 61.1
CoR
Parks
AllParks
Major Roads
Gun Homicides 2014-2017
% Poor mental health days
> 14 days in the past month
500 Cities
8.4 - 9.7
9.7 - 10.9
10.9 - 12.2
12.2 - 13.4
13.4 - 14.7
14.7 - 15.9
15.9 - 17.2
Map 7. Poverty &
Affordable Housing
Map 8. Poor Mental
Health & Homicides
20 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP
Richmond’s approach to Health in All Policies
(HiAP) is grounded in the notion that improving
the conditions for well-being requires
concerted government action and on-going,
meaningful, and transparent partnerships with
community groups and residents. Governance
includes the processes of decision-making
and implementation, not just rules and laws,
and who gets included and how transparent
and effective decisions are for certain groups.
Governance is also concerned with the
distribution, exercise, and consequences of
power.
HiAP also aims to support improved
communication and collaboration between
city departments that traditionally work
independently and between the city and
community groups, residents, the school
district and the private sector. HiAP has
encouraged city staff to re-conceptualize their
role as ‘community health clinicians’ in each
departmental decision and across all city
programs.
The Richmond Community Survey (RCS) offers
a glimpse into how well the City is doing with
regard to health equity-focused governance.
Figure 5 includes a select set of RCS questions
on Governance and Leadership in Richmond
between 2013-2019. The figure reports the
percent of all respondents answering each
question positively (good/excellent). Survey
responses showed a sharp decline in the overall
direction of Richmond and the quality of its
services in 2019. Richmond has improved since
2013 for ‘welcoming citizen involvement’ in
decision-making. We also note Black residents
have the least confidence (15% in 2019) in
Richmond’s government (Fig.6) but 49% have
a positive perception of the openness and
acceptance of community diversity (Fig.7).
1 Overview
Figure 5. Governance RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2013-2019 Percent rating good or excellent
21Governance and Leadership
Progress & Accomplishments that promote
health equity (select examples):
• The Interdepartmental HiAP team - the
City Manager’s Office has maintained monthly
convenings of representative from key city
departments to work on implementing the
goals of HiAP .
• Government Alliance on Race & Equity
(GARE) - this group of city staff are working
to address institutional racism within
government.
• Resolution 93-18 - this resolution supports
that a racial equity lens is used for all city
decision making.
• Equal Access Implementation - the City
Manager’s Office is supporting ongoing efforts
to promote language access across City
services.
• Richmond Open Data Dashboard - a new,
online information portal for sharing progress
on many of the HiAP-related initiatives
discussed here.
• Transformative Cities Initiative - in 2018,
recognized Richmond as one of three Utopias
in the US and the only one in California.
Richmond was one of 32 communities from
19 countries that was recognized for working
on radical solutions to our world’s systemic
economic, social and ecological crises.
Figure 5. Governance RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2013-2019 Percent rating good/excellent
Figure 6. RCS Positive Perception of Confidence in
Richmond Government by Race/Ethnicity
2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
15%14%
25%
31%
27%27%
22%
Confidence RE
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Figure 7. RCS Positive Perception of Openness and
Acceptance in the Community of Diversity by Race/
Ethnicity
2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
62%
36%
46%
47%
31%
49%
36%
55%
72%
Openness RE
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Percent rating good/excellent
Black Hispanic WhiteRace/Ethnicity
Black Hispanic WhiteRace/Ethnicity
Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Background
CASE STUDY
HiAP Interdepartmental Team
“The
Interdepartmental
group meets to
ensure all city staff
understand they
have a role to play
in promoting health
equity.”
- Gabino Arredondo, City
Manager’s Office
Emerging from the City of Richmond’s adoption of
the Health in All Policies Strategy and Ordinance in
2014, interdepartmental meetings were established to
promote active collaboration among city departments
in shaping health policy and aligning city services.
As stated in the ordinance, representatives from city
departments would be responsible for the following:
1. Selecting health and health equity indicators for
each department to track as a way of prioritizing
goals and measuring progress aligned with
existing City guiding documents (General Plan, 5
Year Strategic Business Plan, etc.)
2. Attending regularly scheduled
Interdepartmental Team meetings chaired by
the City Manager’s office
3. Reporting to the Interdepartmental Team on
progress and challenges from their respective
department
4. Working with their respective department to
integrate and track health equity indicators for
his or her department
5. Committing to attending ongoing health
equity training, such as health equity impact
assessments
6. Assisting with the writing of the Annual HiAP
Report and provide a report with the adoption
of the City budget
City staff launched a dashboard
to report on the implementation
of the Climate Action Plan.
Working group meetings allowed
HiAP Interdepartmental members
to share recommendations on
improving language access in
the City and provide feedback
on drafts of a Community
Engagement Toolkit.
HiAP interdepartmental meetings
aim to address health equity
in Richmond by providing a
space for City departments to
collaboratively address health
disparities in Richmond. HiAP
interdepartmental meetings seek
to promote integration between
departments, foster ongoing
communication, and align
resources as needed to increase
health equity in Richmond.
22 Progress Actions
Link to Health Equity
Section
The Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE) is
a national network of government cohorts working
to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities
for all. The City of Richmond began its collaboration
with GARE by participating in the 2016 GARE cohort.
Proposed actions include collaborating with the City
of Richmond’s Health in All Policies team, improving
access to healthy food in neighborhoods, increasing
effective use of data, and supporting community-led
initiatives and organizations.
4 The four goals of GARE include:
1. City employees understand and are committed to
achieving racial equity
2. Residents view Richmond as effective & inclusive
in engaging the community
3. The City is a racially equitable employer
and promotes racial equity in contracting &
procurement
4. Healthy life outcomes are increased and racial
disproportionalities eliminated.
Progress Actions
In January 2016, Richmond
joined the Government
Alliance on Race & Equity
(GARE) Cohort. A GARE team
made up of City staff was
established to understand
employee perceptions of
racial bias and integrate a
racial equity lens into City
services to foster a healthy
and inclusive community for
all. The GARE team has since
hosted community forums,
learning sessions, and anit-bias
trainings.
Racism is a key driver of poor health,
since it acts a form of stress that can
damage one’s immune system and
contribute to other poor health outcomes.
Racism isn’t just between individuals, but
is woven into institutional practices, such
as when real estate agencies and banks
deny people of color access to loans
and housing in certain neighborhoods.
Planning and land use decisions can also
be discriminatory, such as when they
allow polluting facilities to concentrate in
communities of color.
Background
CASE STUDY
Government Alliance
on Race and Equity (GARE)
“It’s inspirational
to groups who have
educated themselves
on this effort and
they’re happy to know
that the city has been
involved in a national
GARE network.”
- Trina Jackson, GARE Team
Leader
23 Link to Health Equity
24 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
& EDUCATION
Educational attainment and economic security
have significant impacts on both individual and
community wellness. The City’s investments in
these areas can support the well-being of youth,
families and individuals of all ages.
In 2018, 15% of Richmond’s population
were living below the poverty level. In some
neighborhoods, such as the Iron Triangle,
the poverty rate was as high as 26% (Fig. 8).
However, between 2013 and 2015 the percent
of RCS respondents rating Richmond as a good
or excellent place to work increased by 12% and
has since remained above 34%(Fig. 9). The RCS
also revealed that white respondents’ good or
excellent rating of employment opportunities
in Richmond in 2019 was 9% higher than that
of Latinx residents and 12% higher than Black
residents (Fig. 10).
Educational opportunities include early
childhood education, such as day-care,
primary through High School, college,
vocational training and adult education. The
RichmondBUILD program and the Richmond
Promise are two unique and transformative
programs in Richmond that offer young people
training for employment and support for college
respectively.
Progress & Accomplishments that pro-
mote health equity:
• High School graduation - rates have
increased slightly between 2010-2017 for
Latinx and Black youth in the West County
School District, but remain below rates for
other groups.
• Richmond Transit Village - Phase II opened
in 2017 near the Richmond BART station.
The project completely redesigned and
upgraded the access for pedestrians and
private vehicles to the BART station.
• Richmond’s credit rating - in 2019, the
City’s credit rating was raised to an “A-“
from “BBB+” , which lowers the cost of future
Overview
2 Figure 8. Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level (2018) Source: American
Community Survey (ACS)
2018, 5 year estimates
Contra Costa County
California
Richmond
Geography
Iron Triangle- Tract 3760
Iron Triangle- Tract 3770
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Geography
California Contra Costa County Iron Triangle- Tract
3760
Iron Triangle- Tract
3770
Richmond city,
California
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Below Poverty
Geography
California
Contra Costa County
Iron Triangle- Tract 3760
Iron Triangle- Tract 3770
Richmond city, California
California Contra Costa
County
Iron Triangle-
Tract 3760
Iron Triangle-
Tract 3770 Richmond
14% 15%
19%
26%
9%
25Economic Development & Education
borrowing and serves as an important
indicator regarding the overall
financial health of the City.
• YouthWORKS - a city program,
offers high school students academic
support and pre-employment training.
In 2018, 210 Youth received job and
career prep services & 175 received
jobs.
• RichmondWORKS – supported over
2,000 job seekers in 2018; 780 hired
with $16 average hourly wage.
• Minimum Wage - in January 2019,
implementation of $15 /hour
minimum wage.
• City-wide Workforce and Project
Stabilization Agreement – in 2018,
partnership with Contra Costa Building
Trades Council, stating that public
projects valued at $1M or greater must
hire 35% of workforce from Richmond.
• Richmond Business Hub – a 10,000
square foot ground floor commercial
space at the downtown Richmond
BART garage now houses a coffee
Figure 10. RCS Positive Perception of Employment
Opportunities by Race/Ethnicity
Figure 11. RCS Positive Perception of
Employment Opportunities by income Level
Percent rating good/excellent
Percent rating as good or excellent
Figure 9. Economic Development & Education RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2007-2019 Percent rating good/excellent
Black Hispanic WhiteRace/Ethnicity
50-99k100k+ <50kAnnual Income
26 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
shop, restaurant, and co-working space (CoBiz),
which is the anchor tenant in the Business Hub.
• SparkPoint partnership - the non-profit
SparkPoint & the City have partnered to provide
low income residents access to home loans and
fiscal management services.
• RichmondBUILD - continues to thrive and train
local youth (see case study). In 2018, they had 66
graduates.
• Richmond Promise - a city seed-funded
community scholarship and college success
initiative has served 1,400 Scholars and awarded
$5.3 million since 2016.
• Richmond Community Services Department
(CSD) mini-grant program - CSD supports
organizations that are Richmond-serving and
that partner with and/or consistently utilize
facilities managed by the Community Services
Departments.
• KIVA Richmond Entrepreneur Startup Fund
- a city partnership with KIVA that provided
up to $1,500 matching small business loans to
Richmond start-up businesses. Through the
KIVA platform, loans were provided to existing
businesses or people seeking to start a business.
No credit check was required and loans were
provided with 0% interest. Kiva also provided
financial literacy and KIVA workshops in both
English and Spanish.
• The City of Richmond’s Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF) - is a community-based program with the
goal of fostering local economic growth through
the creation and retention of employment
opportunities for Richmond residents and
complementing community and individual
development initiatives. Loan amounts range
from a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of
$100,000 and loan applications are reviewed by
the RLF Board.
• Pogo Park Products - launched in 2017, is a
social enterprise that creates handcrafted play
environments for children and also employs
people who live in the Iron Triangle community.
The business is a spin-off of Pogo Park, a non-
profit that was founded through a partnership
with the City of Richmond. Since 2007, Pogo
Park has hired more than 100 Iron Triangle
residents and invested over $16 million in the
community.
Figure 12. RCS Positive Perception of Affordable Quality Child Care by Race/Ethnicity 2013 2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent 40%
16%
27%
20%
14%
29%
21% 22%
22%
30%
Sheet 21
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Black
Hispanic
White
Race/Ethnicity
Percent rating good/excellent
27Economic Development & Education
Figure 13. RCS Positive Perception of City Sponsored Job Training Programs by Race/Ethnicity 2013 2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
37%
31%
21%
30%
20%
48%
18%
37%38%
19%
34%
15%
Job Training RE
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18Percent Unemployed
12.70 7.70
18.70 9.509.50
6.10 10.10
6.70 unemployment rate
Geography
California
Contra Costa County
Iron Triangle (Tract 3760)
Richmond City
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18Percent Unemployed
12.70 7.70
18.70 9.509.50
6.10 10.10
6.70 unemployment rate
Geography
California
Contra Costa County
Iron Triangle (Tract 3760)
Richmond City
Figure 15. Median Household Income, 2011-20182010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year
0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
Median Household Income (in dollars)
54,554
64,575
25,469
39,319
79,135
93,712
61,632
71,228
median household income
Geography
California
Contra Costa County
Iron Triangle (Tract 3760)
Richmond City2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year
0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
Median Household Income (in dollars)
54,554
64,575
25,469
39,319
79,135
93,712
61,632
71,228
median household income
Geography
California
Contra Costa County
Iron Triangle (Tract 3760)
Richmond City
Black
Hispanic
White
Race/Ethnicity
Contra Costa CountyCalifornia RichmondGeography Iron Triangle- Tract 3760 Figure 14. Unemployment Rate for Population Over 16, 2011-2018 Percent rating good/excellent
Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Background
“Besides covering costs I can’t
afford to pay out of pocket,
knowing that the Richmond
Promise Team is there for me
and will help me continually
navigate through the strange
world that is the college
campus really makes all the
difference.”5
- Richmond Promise Scholar
Launched in January 2016, the Richmond Promise
is a community-wide college success initiative in
Richmond, California. Through a college scholarship,
collaborative and effective partnerships, and
intentional programmatic interventions, the
Richmond Promise aims to ensure all students in
Richmond excel from high school to higher education,
attain a post secondary degree, thrive in the field of
their choice, and become a leader of positive change
in their community. The Richmond Promise is made
possible by the Chevron Corporation’s Environmental
and Community Investment Agreement with
the City of Richmond.
Richmond Promise Scholars receive up to
$1,500 each year for up to four years. The
scholarship is available for any student who
lives in Richmond and attends a not-for-profit
2-year or 4-year college, or Career
Technical Education Program.
“My biggest challenges in my first year in
college was that I felt I went in blindfolded.
I didn’t know anything about college because
I don’t know anyone who has been to college.
I couldn’t get advice from my parents
or relatives… I felt lost. ”
- Richmond Promise Scholar
Links to Health Equity
The Richmond Promise offers
college-bound students
resources to pay for higher
education and a supportive
network to help them succeed.
Educational attainment can
support health for first gen-
eration residents and their
families through access to
safe, well paying jobs. High-
er education has shown to
reduce the likelihood of early
death.
Progress Actions
Since 2016, 1,044 Richmond scholars
have received over $5 million in
scholarships. Seventy percent of
recipients are first generation college
students and 65% come from low
income households. Richmond
Promise Scholars attend high school
at 18 schools across the West Contra
Costa Unified School District. 1,097
Richmond Promise Scholars attend
98 Colleges & Universities across the
country. In 2017, Richmond Promise
gave out $1,476,329 in scholarships.
RICHMOND PROMISE
CASE STUDY
richmondpromise.org
28 Section
The RichmondBUILD Pre -Apprenticeship Cons truction
Skills & Solar Installation Training program started in 2007. It is a public/private partnership developed as a employment training & violence reduction strategy for
the City of Richmond, California. The 17-week training involves multiple skill building, from basic math to
construction to energy efficiency to human health and
nutrition. According to founding Director Sal Vaca, the program is “focused on developing people with talent,
to enhance their job skills, to be healthy and earn a
high-wage in construction, renewable energy, and
related fields. ”
By providing green-jobs training to the community
the program increases the supply of labor able
to contribute to green projects alongside
increasing the access to green technologies
within the community. The program delivers
wrap-around supports to participants, including
basic math and reading skills, computer
literacy, resume building, job interview skills
and others. The Healthy RichmondBUILD
Academy educates participants about healthy
lifestyles, health care and nutrition. Activities
for participants have included exercise classes,
cooking workshops, dental and vision exams and
health screenings.
6 Progress Actions
More than 1,000 Richmond resi-
dents have graduated from this
program, nearly all people of color,
with a third coming from low-in-
come households. A third have
history with law enforcement and
many read and write at or below
an 8th grade level. Sixty percent of
trainees are Black, 25 percent are
Hispanic and about 10 percent are
Southeast Asian. Most of them are
men; the agency averages about
15 percent female participation on
the project.
Interview
“Nothing stops a bullet like a
career” says Fred Lucero, Rich-
mondBUILD program manager,
in describing the purpose of
the RichmondBUILD program.
In the midst of a high homicide
rate and one of the highest
unemployment rates in the state
in 2007, RichmondBUILD was
developed by the City’s Employ-
ment and Training Department
to meet these challenges.
Link to Health
The RichmondBUILD program
offers educational training and a
pathway to a well-paying job in
the construction trade. Quality
education and stable employment
are known to reduce the likelihood
of being forced to accept dangerous
employment that can damage
health and contribute to the
economic resources that can buffer
stress and secure access to quality
health care.
Background
CASE STUDY
RICHMOND BUILD
29 30 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
FULL SERVICE & SAFE
COMMUNITIES
A Full Service and Safe Community includes
a community free of crime and violence, with
access to affordable and quality food, transpor-
tation, and open space, as well as other basic
services, such as banking, libraries, the arts, etc.
The location, quality, affordability, and accessibil-
ity of these facilities and services contribute to a
healthy & full-service neighborhood.
The Richmond Community Survey suggests that
between 2015-2019, residents were feeling safer
in their neighborhoods and rating their neighbors
as more open and accepting of people of diverse
backgrounds, compared to previous years. Since
2015, 73% or more of respondents rated feelings
of safety in their neighborhood as good or ex-
cellent, compared to 64% in 2007. In 2019, 56%
of respondents rated Richmond’s openness and
acceptance of people from diverse backgrounds
as good or excellent, a 19% increase since 2007.
(Fig. 16).
Overall feeling of safety continues to increase by
all income groups in Richmond, with almost 30%
in the lowest income group (<$50K annual in-
come) positively rating feelings of safety in 2019.
This was the highest percentage for this income
group since the survey began in 2007 (Fig. 17).
The perception of crime prevention has fluctuat-
ed, but 37% of Black residents and 33% of Latinx
residents reported positive perceptions of crime
prevention in 2019 (Fig. 18). Similarly, 52% of
Black residents and 48% of Latinx residents re-
ported positive perception of Richmond police in
2019 (Fig. 19). In 2019, Richmond had 15 gun ho-
micides, all but one of the victims were men, 47%
were Black, 30% were Latinx, and 59% occurred in
the Iron Triangle/South Richmond area
.7
Overview
3 Figure 16. Full Service & Safe Communities RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2007-2019 Percent rating good/excellent
31Full Service & Safe Communities
FULL SERVICE & SAFE
COMMUNITIES
Progress & Accomplishments that pro-
mote health equity:
• Office of Neighborhood Safety
(ONS) - a program within city government
that interrupted 16 potential shootings
and mediated 37 street-level conflicts in
2019. Since 2010, the ONS has mentored
127 Richmond residents as part of its
Peacemaker Fellowship.
• Department of Children and Youth -
community-led Kids First Initiative created
the Department of Children and Youth,
a new city agency focused on providing
funding to youth-serving organizations,
and a 15-member Oversight Board com-
prised of Richmond youth and adults.
• Reentry Success Center and Safe
Return
- supports people returning home
from prison and jail and continues to play
a crucial role helping reentry populations
secure services, from housing to employ-
ment to other health-related needs.
• Family Justice Center - plays a critical
role in supporting women and families
with safe and supportive services. Over
1,000 families were served in 2018.
• Stand Together Contra Costa - part-
nership between the city and county that
offers legal services and other supports
for immigrant families in Contra Costa
County.
• Richmond Ferry - was launched in
2019, and provides a direct link to down-
town San Francisco.
• Coordinated Outreach Referral En-
gagement program (CORE)
- a project
of the Richmond Police Department that
works to stabilize homeless individuals
living outside through consistent outreach
and helping them secure permanent
housing.
• Community Wi-Fi - a city-sponsored
program to provide free Wi-Fi to low-in-
come residents. The implementation
started in 2018 at three housing sites,
Friendship Manor, Triangle Court & Nevin
Plaza.
Figure 17. RCS Positive Perception of Overall Feeling of Safety by Income Level
50-99k100k+ <50kAnnual Income
Figure 18. RCS Positive Perception of Crime Prevention by Race/ Ethnicity
Black Hispanic WhiteRace/Ethnicity
2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent 43%
37%
38%
50%
31%
25%23%
33%
29%
Crime Prevention RE
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent
22%24%
25%
32%
14%
27%23%
Safety $
Income Category
50-100k
100k+
<50k
Figure 19. RCS Positive Perception of Police Services by Race/ Ethnicity
Black Hispanic WhiteRace/Ethnicity
2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
62%
40% 48%
67%
21%
55%
30%
52%
Police Services RE
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Percent rating good/excellentPercent rating good/excellentPercent rating good/excellent Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Source: City of Richmond Police Department
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year
0 50
100
150
200
250Offense Count
242
114
95118
82 75
75 70
186
6047
43 58
45 37
21 40 22
22 26 21
156
18 18
28 25
18 18
15 16 1513
Homicides
Type
All homicides
Gun homicides
Non-fatal firearm shootings
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year
0 50
100
150
200
250Offense Count
242
114
95118
82 75
75 70
186
6047
43 58
45 37
21 40 22
22 26 21
156
18 18
28 25
18 18
15 16 1513
Homicides
Type
All homicides
Gun homicides
Non-fatal firearm shootings
Figure 20. City of Richmond Crime, 2007 - 2019
32 Section
The Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) has made
reducing gun homicides its top priority since its
launch as a separate city program in 2009. The
program has helped achieve a 73% reduction in
gun violence in Richmond between 2007-2018.
The ONS employs a team of highly skilled street-
outreach workers – called Neighborhood Change
Agents (NCAs) that are from Richmond. The NCAs
perform daily street outreach to build trust with &
mentor young people who are often at the center of
community firearm hostilities. This daily engagement
includes ensuring young people attend and are safe
in school to accompanying young people to social
services. Each young person is invited to enroll in the Peacemaker Fellowship, which provides 18-months of
personalized,
high-touch support,
mentorship & transformational
opportunities. Since launching the Fellowship in
2009, there have been 5 cohorts of fellows, and 94%
of participating young men are alive, 83% have had
no gun injuries or hospitalizations and 77% have not
been suspected in firearm activity. In addition, almost all fellows have utilized the program to transform
their lives including remaining in school, finding
internships, enrolling in college, and supporting their families.
8 The ONS continues to contribute
to gun violence reduction and
healing from trauma for young
people in Richmond. In 2017 &
2018, there were no youth ages
17 & under that fell victim to
death by a firearm. According to
the ONS 2018 Annual Report, the
office served 158 individuals in
Richmond, with 57 gun violence
interruptions & 209 community
conflicts mediated.
The ONS is critical to Richmond’s
health equity work since they are often
the only organization that is willing
to directly engage individuals who
are most likely to either commit or
suffer from gun violence. Reducing
gun violence has saved the lives of
countless young people, reduced
trauma and stress for numerous
families, and contributed to an
increased sense of safety for residents
of all neighborhoods, incomes and
racial/ethnic groups in Richmond as
compared to six years ago.
CASE STUDY
OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
“Treating gun violence
as a public health issue
means healing the
traumas that young
people experience that
can cause a young
person to turn to a gun
when conflict arises”
- Sam Vaughn, ONS Director
Background
Link to Health Equity
Progress Actions
33 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Progress Actions
The City of Richmond supported
activism that pressured Contra Costa
Sheriff’s office to terminate its contract
with ICE to detain undocumented
immigrants in the West County
Detention Facility in Richmond,
eliminating the only Bay Area facility
that housed undocumented people.
Prior, Contra Costa County was making
an average of $3 million annually from
undocumented detainees in Richmond.
Contra Costa CARES program was also
launched in 2014 as a pilot program that
provides primary care for low-income
undocumented adults.
Link to Health Equity
Living with daily fear and threat of
displacement due to immigration
status can negatively impact the
health of individuals and families.
Immigrant families are particularly
vulnerable and may experience
barriers to accessing services
such as health care, education
and legal services. Toxic stress
due to stigmatization and threat
of deportation or separation is
common amongst undocumented
families and can be particularly
detrimental to children.
CASE STUDY
RICHMOND AS A SANCTUARY CITY
“I wasn’t sure coming
to this country where
it would be safe,
but Richmond has
welcomed my family
and seen us as human-
beings, not criminals”
- Immigrant resident of
Richmond
In 2014, an estimated 15,000-60,000 low-income
undocumented adults resided in Contra Costa County.
The City of Richmond has been an advocate of immigrant
rights and immigration reform, supporting local initiatives focused on providing resources for undocumented
immigrants including the pilot primary healthcare ‘CARES’ program, and efforts to terminate the Contra Costa
Sheriff’s office contract with ICE which until 2018 made the West County Detention Facility in Richmond the only Bay Area center housing undocumented detainees.
9 In response to the presidential election in 2016, Richmond passed Resolution No. 106-16, “reaffirming its commitment to support for our sanctuary policies; condemning
violence, hate crimes and hate speech against all
those targeted for their ethnicity, race, religion,
disability, gender, sex and/or sexual orientation;
and reemphasizing our commitment to combat
climate change” .
The City of Richmond supports Stand Together
Contra Costa, a county level program aimed at
supporting undocumented residents. The program
provides culturally competent, no-cost rapid
response support, legal defense services, and
immigrant rights education and training to support
families impacted by anti-immigrant policies and
practices affecting Contra Costa County residents.
The City of Richmond also provides free legal
services for undocumented immigrants on a first
come first serve basis at the public library.
Background
34 Section
Case Study
RYSE Youth Center provides direct support and
healing spaces for youth in Richmond, while lifting
up young people’s voices and priorities in citywide
decision making. The center currently offers
programming in the areas of Education and Justice;
Media, Arts and Culture; Community Health; and
Youth Organizing. Services and programs include
on-site counseling, case management, college access
support, a youth policy institute, and professional
development for video production, visual and
performing arts, and music. RYSE supports the
healthy development of young people through
a holistic approach that engages participants in
programs and services grounded in the principles of
youth leadership and social justice. The approach
taken at RYSE is grounded in trauma informed
care, and emphasizes the need for systems change
rather than shifts in individual behavior. RYSE
allows for multiple points of entry and engagement
for young people in a manner that feels like “one
program. ” RYSE provides programming at their site
and also meets youth where they are in schools,
the community and even in the hospital. RYSE is
a center, a home, a sanctuary and space to create,
heal, celebrate, learn and lead. RYSE also builds
beloved community and is a movement seeking
justice, love and joy.
Progress Actions
In 2016 RYSE launched a listening
campaign to better understand
the lived experience of trauma and
violence from young people in the
Richmond community, and to lift up
their voices in decision making across
the city.
RYSE is in the process of expanding
its current center into a 37,000
square foot campus that will provide
additional space for activities and
programs including recreation, arts
and media, counseling, a teaching
kitchen, and an innovation and
business center.
Link to Health
Equity
Youth are among those most
impacted by violence in Richmond,
yet are often overlooked in decision
making processes and the shaping
of services intended to benefit
young people. Programming at
RYSE is anchored in the belief
that young people have the lived
knowledge and expertise to
identify, prioritize, and direct the
programs, activities, and services
necessary to benefit their well
being.
CASE STUDY
RYSE YOUTH CENTER
“We know we can’t
run the city- it’s too
complex- but our
experience and our
voices should count,
especially because
we’re the most
affected.”10
-RYSE listening campaign
participant
Background
rysecenter.org
35 36 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
RESIDENTIAL & BUIL T
ENVIRONMENT
Where we live, the degree of racial residential
segregation and the qualities of our built envi-
ronments, together have a significant influence
on our health and well-being.
Housing is one key driver of residential envi-
ronmental health, since the cost, quality and
location of housing can influence our wealth,
exposure to toxins (such as mold and lead paint)
and access to services such as public transporta-
tion, schools, food stores, green space and other
amenities that can promote health.
The Bay Area regional housing crisis is influenc-
ing Richmond residents. The RCS suggests that
between 2015-19, residents remained concerned
about housing affordability and options (Fig. 21).
The closing of Las Deltas public housing in North
Richmond was a County decision that reduced
affordable housing and is impacting affordable
housing in Richmond. The Las Deltas community
is slated to receive 40 units of temporary hous-
ing with comprehensive services for homeless
people/families.
The RCS suggests that residents’ view of parks
and recreation centers continues to increase.
However, the overall perception of the built
environment as positive is only 33% for Black
residents, 28% for Latinx residents and 27% for
white residents.
Progress & Accomplishments that pro-
mote health equity:
• Affordable housing - In 2019, there were
289 units of new, affordable housing under
construction in Richmond. Another 150 units
were approved. The Richmond Housing Au-
thority is currently repositioning its afford-
able housing portfolio which will redevelop
Overview
4 Richmond BART &
Housing
Figure 21. Residential & Built Environment RCS Indicators, All Respondents 2009-2019Percent rating good/excellent
37Residential & Built Environment
over 300 affordable housing units.
• Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction, and Home-
owner Protection Ordinance - This Ordinance
created the City’s Rent Program, which limits
rent increases for most multi-family units. It also
established a Rent Board to review standards for
allowing individual rent increases.
• Hacienda Housing - It is anticipated that the
site will be redeveloped as an affordable hous-
ing complex. Adding over 100 affordable units to
Downtown Richmond.
• Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Plan - will link bicy-
cling and walking to the new Richmond Ferry, the
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge multi-use path, and
the Richmond Greenway. The ferry to San Fran-
cisco opened and served over 200,000 passengers
in 2019.
11 (see page 38).
• The San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Proj-
ect - a multi-modal access, safety and connection
along San Pablo Avenue. The project includes
safety projects, such as the installation of new
traffic signals, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, cross-
walks, and lighting improvements.
• Dirt World bike park— was established in Rich-
mond and it the first such park in the East Bay.
• Outdoor lighting restrictions - Chapter
15.04.604 of the 2016 Richmond Zoning Code lim-
its bright lighting that can adversely impact sleep,
while ensuring adequate light for safety.
• New bike lanes - the city continues to invest in
new bicycling lanes and a network that covers
the entire city and connects to regional trails and
the new bridge crossing. A bike lane over the
Richmond San Rafael Bridge opened in Novem-
ber 2019 and had over 12,000 riders in the first 30
days.
The Miraflores development project opened in 2018
with 79 affordable, solar-powered senior housing
units. Eventually, the project will also include 190
mostly market-rate condos. This was a collaboration
between the families that owned the properties,
the Community Housing Development Corporation,
Eden Housing, the City and others. Mira Flores is an
infill project constructed on a 14-acre brownfield site.
Importantly, the site is where the Oishi, Sakai and
Maida families owned and operated a nursery and
greenhouse for flower growing, a leading business
for Japanese immigrants. However, during WWII
racist laws incarcerated Japanese families, and many
lost their land and livelihoods. The project honors
the contributions Japanese Americans made to
Richmond and the specific site’s history by preserv-
ing some of the original structures. Workers from
RichmondBUILD were hired to help disassemble the
greenhouses.
The project is also health-promoting in a number of
ways. First, it improved 5.4-acres of greenbelt that
will connect to the Richmond Greenway and BART .
The project will plant 230 new trees & daylight Baxter
Creek. Miraflores is an important monument to Jap-
anese-American history and the city’s commitment
to green, inclusive, healthy housing and economic
development.
Black Hispanic WhiteRace/Ethnicity
Figure 22. RCS Positive Perception of Overall Built
Environment by Race/Ethnicity
2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
27%24%
40%
32%32%
33%
36%
Built Environment RE
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Miraflores Apartments - Valuing Housing,
Sustainability & Culture
Percent rating good/excellent
38 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Bike lanes & road upgrading
Pogo Park Elm Playlot roundabout
Pogo Park Elm Playlot roundabout & pedestrian walkway
Ferry to Bridge to Greenway
complete streets plan.
Source: ferry2bridge2greenway.com
39 City Amenities
1. Richmond Civic Center
5. Nevin Avenue
Improvements
11. Metro Walk Phase II
Opportunity Site
10. Richmond Multi Modal
Transit Station
12. Co-Biz BART Garage
Retail Space
15. 12th & Macdonald
Mixed-Use Development
2. Farmer’s Market
24. St. Marks Church
25. Metro Walk Phase I
17. East Bay Center for the
Performing Arts
28. Richmond Public Library
26. Girls Inc.
14. West Contra Costa Unified
School District
23. Building Blocks for Kids
(BBK)
9. Unity Park
20. Harbour 8 Park
21. Senior Housing
27. Hacienda Housing
16. Lifelong Clinic
19. Lifelong Clinic under
construction
22. Kaiser Permanente
Richmond Medical
Center
3. Native American
Health Center
28. Library
26. Girls Inc.
14. West Contra Costa Unified
School District
23. Building Blocks for Kids
(BBK)
13. Rich-City Rides
Arts, Education, & Culture Health
Housing
Non Profit & Social Services
Parks & Greenspace
The Neighborhood Asset Map above (Map 9), provides
one example of how Richmond is aiming to develop
integrated, multi-service neighborhoods that can pro-
mote health equity. The area above is anchored by the
BART station (#10) in the center, Richmond Civic Center to the east (#1), Kaiser Medical Center to the west (#22) and the Greenway with its linear parks (#20 & #9) to the south. A set of other important destinations include
affordable and public housing, arts, education and
cultural spaces, other city amenities and non-profits
and social service providers. While the HiAP Ordinance isn’t responsible for these individual assets, HiAP acts as an overarching strategy to guide new development,
to link existing assets to one another through safe
corridors and other means, and to identify parcels and
land uses that can fill-in gaps in this area to promote more healthy opportunities for all Richmond’s resi-
dents.
Map 9. Neighborhood Asset Map - Central Richmond
Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Progress Actions
Since 2015, the program has acquired,
renovated, and sold 17 homes to first-
time home buyers. Richmond Communi-
ty Foundation (RCF) expects to be able
to fulfill the terms of the bond and repay
Mechanics Bank with the possibility of a
small additional return. There is evidence
that property values are slowly increasing
in areas where Richmond Housing Rent
Program (RHRP) has sold homes. Be-
tween 2016 and 2017, there were 1,046
single family units that enrolled to the
rent program. There was a total of 2,675
enrolled landlords; meaning 1,629 were
multi-unit developments making up 90%
of enrolled individual units.
14 Link to Health Equity
Housing and neighborhood
conditions are two key social
determinants of health:
they affect an individual and
community’s physical envi-
ronment, ability to manage
their health, and access to
economic and social op-
portunities. “Blighted areas
are associated with various
economic, social, and physi-
cal health disparities. Neigh-
borhood blight is a predictor
of premature mortality due
to diabetes, homicide, and
suicide.”
CASE STUDY
RICHMOND HOUSING RENOVATION
& RENT PROGRAMS
“These are folks that
thought that home
ownership was out of
their reach. But today
we are able to show
that it is not.”12
-- Jim Becker, President &
CEO, Richmond Community
Foundation
Through the Richmond Housing Renovation
Program, the City of Richmond funds the
Richmond Community Foundation to purchase,
renovate, and sell houses to first-time, low-
income home-buyers. RHRP has been successful
in demonstrating both cost savings and revenue
generation, making it an attractive model for
social impact investing. In addition to revenue
generation and cost savings, RCF tracks a
number of metrics to gauge success, including
local hiring and spending associated with home
renovations, property value trends over time in areas
where homes are renovated by the program, and home
improvement permit requests from neighborhoods
where the program renovates homes.
The Rent Program was established in January 2017
following approval of the Richmond Fair Rent, Just
Cause for Eviction, and Homeowner Protection
Ordinance by a majority of Richmond voters in
November 2016. The rent ordinance limits rent
increases on all multifamily properties to the change
in Consumer Price Index and protects renters from
eviction without just cause. Since its inception, the
Rent Program office has served a diverse group of
residents and community members, including tenants,
landlords, property managers, attorneys, realtors, and
process servers.
13 Background
40 Section
Founded by a Richmond resident in 2007, Pogo Park
is a community organization focused on transforming
lives and opportunities by working side by side with
neighborhood residents to create, program and
operate public spaces. The organization got its initial start as one of the first projects that emerged from
the City of Richmond’s Health Element of the General
Plan. This project was the renovation of the Elm
Playlot in Richmond’s Iron Triangle neighborhood.
The park was a common location for drug dealing,
was considered unsafe, and inaccessible to residents.
Through
a set of mixed engagement
strategies, including taking pictures, focus groups,
and participatory design, residents came up with a
new vision for Elm Playlot. The community vision
was to transform the small park into an anchor public
space in the middle of their neighborhood – the heart
of the community – and support that space to drive
broader community change efforts.
Progress Actions
In 2015, Pogo Park provided
staffing and play programming at
Harbour-8 Park to serve children
who live within walking distance of
this park. Pogo Park also submitted
a successful $6.2 million grant to
Caltrans to build the first leg of
the “Yellow Brick Road” (a project
to build safe streets in the Iron
Triangle for children to walk and
bike). As one of only 86 of 617
projects funded, the Yellow Brick
Road will connect Elm Playlot
directly to Harbour-8 Park, giving
local children a safe, clean and
green pathway to walk or bike to
and from the two parks.
Link to Health
Equity
Parks and public space can trans-
form neighborhoods and cata-
lyze healthy community building.
By creating safe spaces for com-
munity gathering, programming
for all ages, and providing jobs
for local residents, Pogo Park has
sparked an effort to preserve and
develop green spaces in Rich-
mond, and to center community
members in the planning, de-
sign, and management of public
spaces.
CASE STUDY
POGO PARK
“Elm Playlot and
Harbour 8 are safe,
culturally relevant
& always welcoming
of all people and
activities. They are true
healing spaces.”
- Resident of Richmond
Background
pogopark.org
41 42 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH
& JUSTICE
Environmental health & justice is the process
of protecting communities from the harmful
effects of contamiated air and water, noise and
other toxic pollutants. Richmond’s focus on
Environmental Health and Justice also includes
ensuring all people have access to the city’s
natural resources, like shoreline and green
space.
About 40% of Richmond respondents in the RCS
rated the overall quality of the natural envi-
ronment and the preservation of natural areas
as good or excellent, between 2015-2019. Yet,
there has been little change in perception of air
quality from 2011 through 2019, with 24-28% of
respondents rating it positively (Fig. 23).
Only 36% of Richmond’s Black population rates
the natural environment positively compared to
46% of the white population. Between 2013 and
2015, the positive perception of quality of the
natural environment increased by 17% and has
remained relatively stable through 2019 (Fig.
24).
The City and partners have made Environmen-
tal Health and Justice a commitment, which is
reflected in the following activities.
Progress & Accomplishments that pro-
mote health equity:
• 2,254 Solar permits approved since
2012, 988 since 2017 – 354 were installa-
tions for low income homes at no cost.
• Transformative Climate Communities
(TCC) grant of $140K to prepare resiliency
plan for Iron Triangle, Coronado, and Santa
Fe neighborhoods.
• Richmond’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) -
adopted in 2016, with specific components
aimed at environmental equity.
• Equal Access Charging Hubs (with EVgo)
- Richmond is the first city in Bay Area to
implement electric vehicle charging stations
that will be established in disadvantaged
neighborhoods.
• Increased Community Air Monitoring -
support for State policies, such as Assembly
Bills 1647, which enhanced fence-line and
community-level air monitoring at and near
refineries, and AB617, which established the
Community Air Protection Program.
• Inter-agency Refinery Task Force - par-
ticipation and leadership as part of city’s
broader efforts to improve the coordination
of refinery safety and compliance efforts,
Overview
5 43Environmental Health & Justice
and improve emergency response.
• Challenging the fossil fuel industry - Richmond
is party to a lawsuit seeking damages for the costs
to adapt to climate change.
• Food Census - the Mayor’s office completed an
evaluation of food availability and quality across
Richmond in 2018. Data were collected on store
interior and exterior; the acceptance of nutritional
assistance programs such as WIC and SNAP; the
quality, availability, and affordability of produce;
and the availability of other healthy foods.
• California Cap-and-Trade funds (SB 375) - used
to develop affordable senior housing & Baxter
Creek restoration as part of the Miraflores project.
• Groundwork Richmond - using a 2018 grant
from the California Air Resources Board has
deployed 50 air monitoring sensors throughout
Richmond through its “Air Rangers” project. This
project is part of the State of California AB617,
Community Air Protection Program, and includes
linking data to an emissions reduction plan.
• Community solar project - at the Port of Rich-
mond automobile processing facility, which
will provide energy cost savings to low-income
families through community solar. The project
Figure 23. Environmental & Health Justice RCS Indicators Figure 25. RCS Positive Perception of Overall Quality of the Natural Environment by Income Level
2013 2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent
39%
51%
34%
22%
30%
27%
45%45%46%
57%
Natural Environ $
Income Category
50-100k
100k+
<50k
Figure 24. RCS Positive Perception of Overall Quality of the Natural Environment By Race/Ethnicity
2013 2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
38%
46%
21%
39%
36%36%
24%
37% 39%
50%50%
Natural Environment RE
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
50-99k100k+ <50kAnnual IncomeBlack Hispanic WhiteRace/Ethnicity Percent Rating good/excellent
Percent rating good/excellent
Percent rating good/excellent
44 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Figure 26. Select CalEnviroscreen Indicators: City, State, County, and Iron Triangle neighborhood
is a collaboration between the City, GRID
Alternatives, and MCE.
• Solar on Multifamily Affordable Hous-
ing (SOMAH) program - provides solar
energy for multifamily affordable housing
in California. The City of Richmond is in
partnership with GRID Alternatives Bay
Area to bring this program to the city.
• Park Prescription Day - coordinated by
the Community Service Department, Con-
tra Costa Health Services and the National
Park Service. This is where healthcare pro-
viders, park agencies, community groups
and other program leaders organize
events and activities at JFK Park, encour-
aging participants to improve their health
and well-being by embracing the health
benefits of nature. Some activities include
health screenings, yoga, Walk with the
Doctor, bike rides/repairs, dance, instruc-
tion volleyball/soccer, and lunch.
• Solar One – completed in December 2017,
a Marin Clean Energy (MCE) solar power
plant feeding 10.5 MW of renewable solar
energy onto the grid. This project is now
supplying enough electricity for over 3,400
homes. The pollution-free energy elimi-
nated 3,234 metric tons of carbon dioxide
in one year and takes more than 680 fossil
fuel cars off the road annually. The solar
farm was created as part of a community
benefits agreement reached between the
City of Richmond and Chevron. Chevron
leased the former underutilized brown-
field site to MCE for 25 years. To build the
solar farm, MCE teamed with Richmond-
BUILD, the career-training program that
prepares local residents for construction
and renewable energy industries. Gradu-
ates of the program were among the 341
jobs supported by the construction of MCE
Solar One.
Source: CalEnviroscreen 3.0
45Environmental Health & Justice
Figure 27. All vs. Low Income Solar Installations, 2007 - 2017 Map 10. Fenceline & Community Air Monitoring Sites 15
North
Richmond
Atchison
Village
Point
Richmond
Air District Station Community Monitoring Station
Refinery Ground Level Monitor Meteorology
Source: BAAQMD
Source: Solar One MCE project completion 16
Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Progress Actions
One component of the CAP is an
Open Data Dashboard that moni-
tors progress towards CAP goals,
informs policy, and shares data
with the community. The Open
Data system is a way to increase
transparency, track data in real
time, and more efficiently maxi-
mize resources. The dashboard,
like the CAP , was developed with
input from stakeholders through
community meetings and online
feedback opportunities.
17 Link to Health Equity
Climate change is expected to
exacerbate health problems and
cumulative stress by impacting heat,
drought, fire and weather conditions
as well as access to basic services,
such as housing and health care.
The city anticipates that the most
vulnerable residents will be the most
impacted. The CAP was developed
to ensure the Richmond communi-
ty is prepared to address & adapt
to the impacts of climate change
and continue to build health equity
through the reduction of GHG emis-
sions.
CASE STUDY
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
“The Climate Action Plan
positions Richmond to
secure grant funding for
implementation strategies that
maximize local benefits and
build community resiliency.
It shows that we’ve done our
homework and that the City is
prepared to make investments
that achieve the most
benefits.”
- Mayor Tom Butt
Background
Richmond’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was
adopted in October 2016. The objective of the CAP
is to “serve as a road map for the city to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, create local jobs,
and prepare for the impacts of climate change
on public health, infrastructure, the economy,
ecosystems, and public spaces in the community. ”
The CAP builds on the goals and policies defined
in both the city’s general plan and the Health in
All Policies (HiAP) strategy, particularly through
its focus on health equity and climate justice. It
also emphasizes a commitment to community
engagement, outreach, and education.
The city hopes to achieve four overarching goals
through their climate action planning efforts, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, a healthy
and resilient community, a prosperous local economy,
and engaged community and educated youth. To
that end, the city has developed eight objectives
that support these goals, as well as the policies and
actions of the city’s general plan and HiAP strategy. The objectives are:
• Energy efficient buildings and facilities
• Increase use and generation of renewable energy
• Sustainable transportation and land use
• Zero waste
• Water conservation
• Green infrastructure
• Green business and industry
• Resiliency to climate change
Background
46 Section
Case Study
The Richmond Community Air Monitoring program was
initiated in 2013 in part as a response to the Chevron fire.
The program is co-sponsored by the City of Richmond,
but an independent third party installed and operates 3 community monitors and 5 fence line monitors around
the refinery. The equipment is state-of-the-art and there are no other air quality monitoring systems capturing
this much real-time data that we have found anywhere
else in California. The three community monitors in
Point Richmond, Atchison Village and North Richmond
sample a wider variety of chemicals than the fence line monitors. All the monitors, locations and pollutants they measure were selected during a year long consultation
process with community based organizations, the US
Environmental Protection Agency and the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The idea
is to provide real-time, public access to air pollution information
that can inform
emergency management and on-
going air quality control. Sonoma Technologies, the
contractor that operates the monitors, prepares monthly reports on the data. The air pollutants at the fence line monitors include: Benzene; Carbon Disulfide; Hydrogen
Sulfide; Ozone; Sulfur Dioxide; Toluene, and Xylene.
At the Community Monitors, additional chemicals
being measured include: 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane;
3-Methylpentane; Ammonia; Black Carbon; Ethyl-
benzene; N-Heptane; N-Hexane; N-Octane; PM2.5;
Trimethylbenzene. AB 617, which passed in 2017,
mandates that the state improve air quality in
disadvantaged communities like Richmond & includes
grants for improving community-based monitoring and
emissions reduction plans.
From January 2016-December 2017, the com-
munity monitoring stations detected chemicals
at least 7 times more often than the nearest fence
line monitor. In the case of hydrogen sulfide
detections in North Richmond, community moni-
tors detected the chemical 113 times more often.
Between 2016-17, community monitoring stations
detected at least one chemical in the air at a mea-
surable level at least 90% of the time. In Atchison
Village, one or more pollutants were present near-
ly 100% of the time.
On average, residents of Richmond breathe
about three chemicals at a time. However,
about 27% of the time, community monitors
detected four or more chemicals in the air
simultaneously—a toxic soup. The Atchison
Village monitors consistently show greater
detection of multiple pollutants and over a
2 year time period (2016-17) the community
monitor detected at least four or more chemicals
simultaneously more than 50% of the time.
The Atchison Village community monitor most
frequently detected black carbon, hydrogen
sulfide, and PM2.5. However, this analysis
does not mean the detected chemicals were at
concentrations deemed harmful.
CASE STUDY
COMMUNITY AIR MONITORING
Background
Pollution Exposure
Link to Health Equity
47 48 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
QUALITY ACCESSIBLE
HEAL TH HOMES & SERVICES
While most of the HiAP action areas focus on
improving our living, working, play and education
environments and the public decisions that influ-
ence these areas, the ordinance is also attentive
to the urgent needs for many to receive quality
and affordable health care & related services.
Richmond has one full service Hospital, Kaiser
Richmond, which primarily serves Kaiser mem-
bers. There are two County operated health
centers serving Richmond; the North Richmond
Center for Health and the West County Health
Center in San Pablo. LifeLong Medical Care also
has two locations in Richmond.
According to the State of California, Office of
Statewide Health Planning & Development,
Central and South Richmond are Medically Un-
der-served Areas (MUA) & Primary Care Health
Professional Shortage Areas (PCHPSAs) (Map 11)
meaning residents are not adequately served
by health care professionals and/or do not have
access to affordable care.
18 Richmond is also the
only Dental Health Professional Shortage Area
(DHPSA) in the County. Contra Costa Health
Services recognizes Richmond as a Mental Health
Professional Shortage Area (HPSA), meaning there
are too few practitioners based on the communi-
ty’s needs for service.
We found that in 2019, 41% of Richmond’s Black
respondents to the RCS self-rated their health
as good or excellent, while 44% of Latinx re-
spondents and 58% of white respondents rated
this positively during the same time period (Fig.
28). As we might expect, those with the highest
incomes were more likely to self rate their health
as positive (Fig. 29). For access to affordable food
and health services, there were no consistent
changes from 2007-2019, but during the same
time period, health care rated positively increased
by 11% and preventive health services increased
by 12% (Fig. 30).
Overview
6 Figure 29. RCS Positive Perception of Self-Rated Health by Income Level
Figure 28. RCS Positive Perception of Self-Rated Health by Race/Ethnicity
Percent rating good/excellent
Percent rating good/excellent
50-99k100k+ <50kAnnual IncomeBlack Hispanic WhiteRace/Ethnicity 49Quality Accessible Health Homes & Services
1 3
2 West Contra Costa
County Healthcare
District
Los Medanos
Community
Healthcare District
Concord/Pleasant Hill
Healthcare District
Medically under-
served areas
City Boundaries
1 2
3 Map 11. Medically Underserved Areas in Contra Costa County Healthcare Districts Source: Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 30. Quality Accessible Health, Homes, & Services RCS Indicators Figure 31. RCS Positive Perception of Availability of Affordable Quality Healthcare by Race/Ethnicity 2013 2015 2017 2019
Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
36%34%
32%32%
17%
33%
48%
23%
35%
Quality Health Care RE
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Black
Hispanic
White
Race/Ethnicity
Percent rating good/excellentPercent rating good/excellent Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Background
“Health care
affordability and
access is essential, but
the stigma associated
with mental health
care is maybe our
biggest challenge.”
- Resident of Richmond
Historically, Richmond was home to a variety
of medical institutions, but over time critical
facilities, including the only fully functioning
emergency room in the area, have closed, leaving
community clinics and hospitals with limited
services, or that are further away, to fill the gaps.
Historically, Richmond and surrounding residents
were served by Doctor’s Medical Center (DMC)
in San Pablo. DMC provided about 80 percent
of inpatient hospital care and 60 percent of
emergency-room capacity, as well as the only
certified cardiac and stroke center, in its West
Contra Costa service area of 250,000 people. In
2015, after over 60 years of operation, DMC closed its
doors. The hospital struggled financially since 2005
and over the course of the next ten years received some financial support through the passing of a series of
parcel tax measures.
Today, Kaiser Richmond is the only hospital in West
Contra Costa County. Located in downtown Richmond,
the facility is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week and
provides full hospital services including urgent care, a small emergency department, and a pharmacy. Despite
the presence of Kaiser and a variety of health clinics, gaps in healthcare service provision remain. Local
hospitals and clinics are not designated to support heart attacks or strokes, forcing patients to go to Vallejo,
Oakland, or Central Contra Costa County for those
services
Progress Actions
Richmond residents are concerned
about the potential closure of Alta
Bates Medical Center in Berkeley.
The facility will discontinue hospital
operations by 2030 due to seismic
upgrade requirements mandated by the
state, which Sutter Health, who owns
Alta Bates, says are not economically
feasible. Alta Bates is currently the
closest hospital to Richmond and the
only medical facility in the East Bay
to offer a fully-functioning emergency
room equipped to treat major injuries,
hearts attacks, and strokes.
Link to Health Equity
Compared to the rest of
Contra Costa County, local
residents, particularly low-
income people of color, have
higher child hospitalization
rates due to asthma and are
disproportionately impacted by
cancer, heart disease, stroke, and
diabetes-related death. These
critical health risks make access
to healthcare services essential
for the health and well-being of
Richmond residents.
CASE STUDY
HEALTH CARE IN RICHMOND
50 Section
Case Study
As of June 15, 2020, Richmond had 470 positive
cases, the third highest number of cases per 100,000
residents across Contra Costa County. All of Contra
Costa County had 44 deaths attributed to COVID-19,
as of June 15, 2020; 57% of deaths were people over
age 81 years; 25% of total deaths were Latinx, 5% were
Black & 67% were white. Contra Costa County did not
release location data for those who have contracted
or died from COVID-19, so it is not currently possible
to tell if certain neighborhoods or areas in Richmond
were disproportionately burdened. In Contra Costa
County, 23 homeless people were confirmed with
COVID-19 as of June 15, 2020, with no reported deaths.
The Richmond Rapid Response Fund (R3F) was
established to meet the immediate and ongoing
needs of the community during the COVID-19
pandemic and beyond. Key Partners include the
City of Richmond, The RYSE Center, EdFund West,
Richmond Promise, and Building Blocks for Kids. The
fund will: 1. Provide direct financial disbursement to
residents, 2. Expand financial assistance and support
for business and community-based organizations & 3.
Facilitate community needs assessment and ongoing
infrastructure support.
19 Progress Actions
The City of Richmond mobilized
to support its residents when the
County issued its Shelter-in-Place
order on March 16, 2020. The West
Contra Costa COVID Community Care
Coalition was created with over 90
cross-sector stakeholders including
community partners and non-profits,
the City, the West Contra Costa
Unified School District, the County,
local and regional coalitions, and
funders.
Link to Health
Equity
The closing of schools and
businesses had an immediate
economic impact on Richmond’s
families. West Contra Costa Unified
School District organized food
distribution to families at Richmond
High and other schools, and offered
three meals a day to anyone under
18. The City issued an order on April
27th, prohibiting evictions and rent
increases, The R3F fund (below)
is focused on food, education,
housing, homelessness, economic
security, and healing.
CASE STUDY
COVID-19 RESPONSE
“R3F reflects a collective
commitment to leading with
love in times of immense
crises and inequity. We are
committed to ensuring those
most impacted by COVID-19
are at the center of driving
the strategies and direction
of these resources.”20
-R3F Core Launch partner
Background
51 52 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
RICHMOND HIAP:
CONCLUSIONS & NEXT STEPS
This report has highlighted some of the progress
toward Health Equity that Richmond’s HiAP Ordi-
nance and Strategy has helped support. We are not
associating all progress or challenges to the HiAP ,
but rather emphasize that HiAP acts as an import-
ant and constant presence in city decision-making
and partnership building. We found that HiAP is
supporting progress toward health equity, that
the city has only so much influence on popula-
tion health (the county, region, state and federal
governments, as well as private sector, also have a
significant influence), and that the most influential
projects and initiatives involve partnerships be-
tween the city, community organizations, residents
and service providers. Also, many of the drivers of
health inequities in Richmond have been in-place
for decades or longer, and a policy such as HiAP
implemented for six years is not going to entirely
reverse deeply entrenched institutions and struc-
tures.
In order to continue progress toward health equity,
improve community awareness and benefits from
HiAP , and to expand the scope and depth of im-
pacts on population health, we suggest that the
city explore the following:
1. Staff and give budget support to Interdepart-
mental HiAP working group, incorporate GARE
insights, and ensure regular communication to
community on progress.
2. Enforce, resource & promote equity and
inclusion ordinances and strategies to ensure
people of color, immigrants, formerly incarcer-
ated/justice impacted, LGBTQ+ and persons
with disabilities benefit from existing and new
initiatives.
3. Enhance Transparent Richmond data portal
to include select RCS data, disaggregated by
neighborhood, race/ethnicity and income level,
as well as health outcome data.
4. Promote quality economic opportunities for
people of color, including employment train-
ing, summer jobs, small business lending &
city-hiring. Work to ensure Black residents are
benefiting from employment training programs
and opportunities.
5. Continue to invest in young people, including
the Kids First and Richmond Promise pro-
grams, and work to guarantee free child care
for all youth, 0-18 years old. Ensure Black res-
idents are benefiting from pre-natal and early
childcare programs.
6. Support the Department of Children & Youth by
investing budget & decision-making power in
youth.
7. Enhance community safety by increasing
investment in trauma-informed, public health
approaches to violence reduction and healing,
such as the Office of Neighborhood Safety and
partnerships with CBOs.
8. Continue to explore ways to improve blighted
property, develop vacant parcels & permit
more affordable housing, and commit to end
homelessness.
9. Take a more aggressive stance on reducing
air pollution, improving & connecting green
spaces, & calming streets to make them safe for
pedestrians and cyclists.
10. Develop equitable and inclusive emergency
response plans to support the most vulnerable
populations in the case of a fire, earthquake,
disease outbreak or other crisis.
53Conclusion & Next Steps
Figure 32. Future Actions for Furthering the Health Equity Goals of Richmond’s HiAP Ordinance Action Description Connection to health equity Department/ Organization
Develop
ongoing training &
practice guide for
city staff and public
outreach/ commu-
nication of HiAP &
Health Equity work
- Training program
with all staff, in-
cluding assessment
& -evaluation tools
schedule/plan for
delivering training &
receiving feedback
- Public communica-
tion & engagement
plan, including but
not limited to web &
social media based
Knowledge of the determinants of
health including “Undoing Structural
Racism,” and how to connect new
knowledge to everyday action is cru-
cial for making HiAP part of systematic
change in the City. Engaging and com-
municating with the public, in numer -
ous languages and forums, is essential
for integrating local knowledge into
HiAP goals and implementation.
City Manager’s
Office. Inter-depart-
mental HiAP Team
Seek new partner -
ships with clinical
training programs
in San Francisco Bay
Area
- Partnership estab-
lished
-# of Richmond
residents enrolled in
training/mentorship
program
The goal is to recruit minority health
care workers to clinics and care facil-
ities in Richmond. These clinicians
should also be part of a mentoring and
youth training program that might be
linked to school-based clinic in the
WCCUSD.
Employment &
training
WCCUSD
CCHS
School site provid-
ers
Connect neigh-
borhoods that lack
healthy food outlets
to areas with such
stores.
- Analysis of current
transit options for
food retailers
- Develop a strategic
plan for improvement
Work with regional transit to provide
access via improvements to public
transit routes, bike routes, and pedes-
trian amenities.
Engineering
Planning
Protect neighbor -
hoods from gentri-
fication that leads
to displacement of
residents.
- Counseling Ser -
vice Referrals for
Foreclosures, Land-
lord-Tenant Disputes,
Unlawful Evictions,
and Housing Discrim-
ination
Involuntary displacement occurs when
residents are pushed to move outside
an area due to a sharp increase in
housing or median rent prices in areas
where household income declines or
remains flat. Displacement indicates
a lack of affordable housing or the
increased use of deteriorated housing,
which can have serious health impli-
cations
Housing & Commu-
nity Development
Department
GOVERNANCEED & ECONFULL SERVICE & SAFE
54 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Action Description Connection to health equity Department/ Organization
Analyze and re-
designate truck
routes away from
areas with high
asthma rates and
sensitive land
Policy HW9.1 Air
Quality (See also:
CN4.1; ED1.4;
EC5.3.); Action
HW9.H Truck Routes
Plan (See also:
CR4.B); Action CR4.A
Goods Movement
Plan; Action HW9.F
Sensitive Use
Location Guidelines
Living near busy roadways on heavy
industrial processing facilities and
the incidence of respiratory disease
symptoms, such as asthma. Diesel
particulate matter has acute short-term
impacts and a disproportionate effect
on the elderly, children, people with
illnesses or others who are sensitive to
air pollutants.
Planning
Engineering
Work with regional
regulators to enforce
regulations for
mobile sources
Action CN4.A Bay
Area Air Quality
Management District
Partnership; Action
CN4.B Air Pollution
Reduction Strategy
Also see: HW9.B
(1) Emissions standards; (2) Cleaner-
burning fuels (i.e. unleaded gasoline,
low-sulfur disease); (3) Inspection and
repair programs (i.e. Smog Check)
Planning
Commit to expanding
the training and
employment of
lay health care
workers, and
community health
workers (CHWs),
in partnership
between the City’s
employment training
programs, health
care providers, and
non-profits currently
working with CHWs.
Community health workers play
an important role in promoting
community-based health education
and prevention in a manner that
is culturally and linguistically
appropriate, particularly in
communities and for populations that
have been historically underserved
and uninsured.
City of Richmond,
Kaiser, Contra Costa
County Health
Services, and
Community Clinic
Consortium
RES & BUILT ENV.EJ & HEALTHHEALTH, HOMES, SERVICES
55References
1 City of Richmond, CA (2015). Health in
All Policies. City of Richmond, California. http://
www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2575/Health-in-All-
Policies-HiAP
2 Vital Signs (2018). Life Expectancy by
Zip Code (2000 & 2013). [Data file and code
book]. Retrieved from https://open-data-demo.
mtc.ca.gov/dataset/Vital-Signs-Life-Expectancy-
by-ZIP-Code/xym8-u3kc
3 California Office of Envir onmental
Health Hazard Assessment (2018).
CalEnviroscreen 3.0 Data. [Data file and code
book]. Retrieved from https://oehha.ca.gov/
calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30
4 City of Richmond, CA (2018).
Government Alliance on Race & Equity. City of
Richmond, California. https://www.ci.richmond.
ca.us/3701/GARE
5 Richmond Promise (2019). Ye ar 3
Progress Report May 2018-2019. Retrieved from
https://richmondpromise.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/05/richmond-promise-2019-
annual-report-2.pdf
6 City of Richmond, CA (2019).
RichmondBUILD Academy. https://www.
ci.richmond.ca.us/1243/RichmondBUILD
7 City of Richmond, CA (2020). Richmond
Police Department- Crime Incidents. [Data file
and code book]. Retrieved from https://www.
transparentrichmond.org/Police-Department/
Richmond-Police-Department-Crime-Incidents/
t3nu-7bbq
8 City of Richmond, CA (2016). Office
of Neighborhood Safety. https://www.
ci.richmond.ca.us/271/Office-of-Neighborhood-
Safety
9 Vassey, J. (2016, November 16). Health
programs for undocumented immigrants
in Contra Costa may be threatened under
Trump. Richmond Confidential. https://
richmondconfidential.org/2016/11/16/health-
programs-for-undocumented-immigrants-in-
contra-costa-may-be-threatened-under-trump/
10 RYSE (2016). Trauma and
Healing Learning Series. Retrieved
from https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/58ece61644024383be911a95/t/5a5
e4bc09140b79e6fd40ea3/1516129217932/
RYSE+THLS+2016.pdf
11 City of Richmond Manager’ s Office
Transportation Services (2020). Richmond Ferry
to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan.
https://ferry2bridge2greenway.com/
12 Richmond Standar d (2018). Your new-
est Bay Area homeowners: a teacher and a
non-profit worker. https://richmondstandard.
com/richmond/2018/08/02/your-newest-bay-ar-
ea-homeowners-a-teacher-and-nonprofit-work-
er/
14 Richmond Community Foundation
(2020). Richmond Housing Renovation
Program. https://www.rcfconnects.
org/community-initiatives/restoring-
neighborhoods/richmond-housing-renovation-
program/
13 City of Richmond, CA (2020). Richmond
Rent Program. City of Richmond, California.
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3364/Richmond-
Rent-Program
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) (2018). Fenceline Monitoring
Plans. Retrieved from https://www.baaqmd.
gov/plans-and-climate/emission-tracking-and-
monitoring/fenceline-monitoring-plans
16 City of Richmond, CA (2020). Cumulativ e
Solar Installations Production. [Data file and
code book]. Retrieved from https://www.
transparentrichmond.org/Environmental-
and-Health-Initiatives/Cumulative-Solar-
REFERENCES
56 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
Installations-Production/xrmb-nc8m
17 City of Richmond, CA (2016). Climate
Action Plan. City of Richmond, California.
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3313/Climate-
Action-Plan
18 Berkson Associat es & Abaris Group
(2017). Public Review Draft: Healthcare Services
Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence
Updates. Prepared for the Contra Costa
Local Agency Formation Commission (2017).
Retrieved from http://www.contracostalafco.
org/municipal_service_reviews/healthcare-
services/Public%20Review%20Draft%20
Appendix%2012-5-17.pdf
19 Richmond Rapid Response F und (R3F)
(2020). Richmond Rapid Response Fund. https://
www.richmondresponsefund.org/
20 Richmond Rapid Response Fund, Office
of Mayor Tom Butt (2020). News Release: City of
Richmond, community leaders announce launch
of Richmond Rapid Response Fund https://
www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/
View/52924/05052020-R3F-Joint-Press-
Release?bidId=
Richmond Community Survey Data
City of Richmond, CA (2019). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2019. [Data file and code
book]. Unpublished raw data.
City of Richmond, CA (2007). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2007, Report of Results.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/8935/Report-of-Results-
2007?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2009). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2009, Report of Results.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.
ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/4843/City-of-
Richmond-2009-Final-Report?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2011). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2011, Report of Results.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.
ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7204/City-of-
Richmond-Report-of-Results-Final-2011?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2013). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2013, Report of Results.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.
ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/27324/City-
of-Richmond-Report-of-Results-FINAL-
2013?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2015). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2015, Report of Results.
(Dashboard Summary Findings). Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/31300/Att-3---The-NCS-
Dashboard-Richmond-FINAL-2015?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2017). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2017, Report of Results.
(Dashboard Summary Findings). Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/44215/The-NCS-
Dashboard-Richmond-DRAFT-2017?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2019). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2019, Report of Results.
(Dashboard Summary of Findings). Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/52253/The-NCS-
Dashboard---Richmond-2019
City of Richmond, CA (2007). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2007, Report of
Demographic Subgroup Comparisons.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.
ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8932/Report-
of-Demographic-Subgroup-Comparisons-
2007?bidId=
57References
City of Richmond, CA (2009). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2009, Report of
Demographic Subgroup Comparisons.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/4844/Demographic-
Subgoup-Comparisons--Report-Richmond-
?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2011). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2011, Report of
Demographic Subgroup Comparisons.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/7205/Demographic-
Subgoup-Comparisons--Report-Richmond-
?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2013). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2013, Report of
Demographic Subgroup Comparisons.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/27325/Demographic-
Subgroup-Comparisons--Report-Richmond-
FINAL-2013?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2015). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2015, Report of
Demographic Subgroup Comparisons.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/31302/Att-5---The-NCS-
Demographic-Crosstabs-Richmond-FINAL-
2015?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2017). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2017, Report of
Demographic Subgroup Comparisons.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.
ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/44216/The-NCS-
Demographic-Crosstabs-Richmond-DRAFT-
2017?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2019). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2019, Report of
Demographic Subgroup Comparisons.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.
ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/52254/The-NCS-
Demographic-Crosstabs---Richmond-2019
City of Richmond, CA (2007). NCS
Richmond Community Survey 2007, Report
of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons.
Retrieved from https://www.ci.richmond.
ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8933/Report-
of-Geographic-Subgroup-Comparison-
2007?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2009). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2009, Report of
Geographic Subgroup Comparisons. Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/4845/Geographic-
Subgroup-Comparisons-Report-Richmond-
F?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2011). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2011, Report of
Geographic Subgroup Comparisons. Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/7206/Geographic-
Subgroup-Comparisons-Report-Richmond-
F?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2013). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2013, Report of
Geographic Subgroup Comparisons. Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/27326/Geographic-
Subgroup-Comparisons-Report-Richmond-
FINAL-2013?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2015). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2015, Report of
Geographic Subgroup Comparisons. Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/31303/Att-6---The-
NCS-Geographic-Crosstabs-Richmond-FINAL-
2015?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2017). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2017, Report of
Geographic Subgroup Comparisons. Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/44217/The-NCS-
Geographic-Crosstabs-Richmond-DRAFT-
2017?bidId=
City of Richmond, CA (2019). NCS Richmond
Community Survey 2019, Report of
Geographic Subgroup Comparisons. Retrieved
from https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/
DocumentCenter/View/52255/The-NCS-
Geographic-Crosstabs---Richmond-2019
58 Richmond Health in All Policies Evaluation
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Hispanic or Latino
Origins by Race, Table B03002 (5-year estimate),
2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Hispanic or Latino
Origins by Race, Table B03002 (5-year estimate),
2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Poverty Status in the
Past 12 Months, Table S1701 (5-year estimate),
2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Selected
Economic Characteristics, Table DP03, 2007-
2011 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Selected
Economic Characteristics, Table DP03, 2008-
2012 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Selected
Economic Characteristics, Table DP03, 2009-
2013 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Selected
Economic Characteristics, Table DP03, 2010-
2014 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Selected
Economic Characteristics, Table DP03, 2011-
2015 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Selected
Economic Characteristics, Table DP03, 2012-
2016 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Selected
Economic Characteristics, Table DP03, 2013-
2017 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Selected
Economic Characteristics, Table DP03, 2014-
2018 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/
US Census Data
Tab 22
Climate Action Plan
(CAP)
City of Richmond
Climate Action Plan
Adopted | October 2016
INTRODUCTION
FROM CITY
MANAGER
BILL LINDSAY,
CITY OF RICHMOND
Adopted | October 2016
The Richmond community continues to engage in local climate change prevention efforts, and initiatives to better prepare the community for the future impacts of climate change. The City is committed to improving safety, sustainability and health for all Richmond residents, and recognizes that the environment is an important determinant of community health.
The Richmond Climate Action Plan provides a framework of policies and programs to achieve the City’s health and environmental goals, operationalizing the community-driven vision set forth by the Richmond General Plan 2030.
The Richmond Climate Action Plan uses community input and cross sector collaboration to prioritize action and outcomes with the greatest community benefits for the Richmond community. Many people may think of climate action solely as a means to address environmental concerns; Richmond’s plan builds on this narrative with a more comprehensive strategy. The Richmond Climate Action Plan continues the mission that the City set forth with its Community Health and Wellness Element and its Health in All Policies Strategy: to create initiatives that improve the equitable delivery of services and improve the overall quality of life in Richmond.
This Climate Action Plan strengthens Richmond’s commitment to health equity and creates a strategy to serve the interests and well-being of the entire community – the environment, economy, and residents.
Climate change is a global challenge with impacts that we feel locally here in Richmond. When these impacts are approached with thoughtful planning, we create opportunities for a significant amount of positive, local development. Addressing climate change will create a more secure future for Richmond, and presents an opportunity to overcome many challenges that the community faces today. Richmond’s health equity lens facilitates a plan with a nontraditional focus that engages all City departments to better serve the public’s needs.
There are numerous opportunities for improvement and adaptation identified in the following pages, and this plan will complement the City’s ongoing efforts to lead and innovate through local policy. With close collaboration from hundreds of residents, the University of California, Berkeley’s, Department of City and Regional Planning and School of Public Health, the Y-PLAN Center for Cities and Schools, the West Contra Costa Unified School District, and local community based organizations, the City co-developed a plan that serves the needs of the Richmond community, and allows us to become an active participant in the global effort to address climate change.
Bill Lindsay
City Manager
“Climate action and health
equity go hand in hand,
and are among the City’s
top priorities. ”
ii
City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Acknowledgements
CITY COUNCIL
Tom Butt, Mayor
Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor
Nathaniel Bates
Jovanka Beckles
Gayle McLaughlin
Jael Myrick
Vinay Pimplé
CITY STAFF
Gabino Arredondo
Shasa Curl
Adam Lenz
Bill Lindsay
Jonathan Malagon
Richard Mitchell
Patrick Phelan
Paige Roosa
Mike Uberti
Sal Vaca
Lina Velasco
LaShonda White
UC BERKELEY
Sydney Cespedes
Professor Jason Corburn
Professor Rachel Morello-Frosch
Lauren Heumann
Youth Plan Learn Act Now! (Y-PLAN)
CITY’S CONSULTANT TEAM
Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
Raimi + Associates
Fehr and Peers
COMMUNITY PARTNERS
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC)
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Chevron
Community Civic Consortium
Community Energy Services Corporation
Contra Costa Health Services
Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Organization (CCISCO)
GRID Alternatives
Groundwork Richmond
East Bay Energy Watch
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Office of Supervisor John M. Gioia
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
Republic Services
Rich City Rides
Richmond Trees
Richmond High School Health Academy
Richmond Community Foundation
Rising Sun Energy Center (RYSE) Youth Center
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC)
Solar Richmond
The California Endowment
West Contra Costa Unified School District
YES – Nature to Neighborhoods
iii
City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
City Accomplishments:
Taking Climate Action
5 4
3 2
1 10
9 8
7 In 2008, the Richmond City Council adopted
a resolution to commit to the GHG emissions
target established by AB 32, and the City com-
pleted our first GHG Inventory for the baseline
year 2005.
Created the Richmond Build program in 2007
to provide ‘green’ job training and employment
opportunities for local youth.
Installed solar on 175 lower income homes
through our partnership with GRID
Alternatives.
Upgraded all of our streetlights with high
efficiency LED fixtures!
Adopted our Bicycle Master Plan in 2011, and
installed 36 miles of bikeways toward a goal
of a 145 mile network of bikeways throughout
the City.
6 Updated our General Plan to include a new
Energy and Climate, and Community Health
and Wellness Elements!
Over 80% of our residents and businesses
have enrolled in MCE’s Light Green program,
which supplies 50% of their electricity from
renewable sources.
Began weekly collection of recycling and
green waste for residents in 2014.
Adopted the Health in All Policies (HiAP)
Strategy and Ordinance in 2014, to ensure the
health of Richmond residents comes first!
Approved the MCE Solar One project to build a
10.5 MW solar facility at the Chevron
Refinery in 2016, which will be the largest
municipal solar field in the Bay Area!
iv
City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
10 1 In 2015, the City of Richmond partnered with the Y-PLAN (Youth – Plan, Learn, Act, Now) program from UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools to engage 265 students in Richmond High’s Health Academy to create adaptation and mitigation strategies to inform Climate Change Policy in Richmond. Each grade level focused on a different sector including individual/ household, schools, the City, and small businesses. Over 300 guests from the City, community organizations, parents and other stakeholders were in attendance to hear students’ findings and recommendations at the Y-PLAN Final Presentations in early May 2015. This event marked the formal launch of this Climate Action Plan.
5 4
3 2
1 10
9 8
7 6
Top Personal Actions to Support our
Climate Goals,
as Recommended by
Walk, bicycle and use public
transportation instead of driving.
Retrofit buildings with more efficient
lighting (e.g., LEDs), improved insulation
and windows, and installing solar panels.
Take advantage of local programs and
rebates to install solar panels, reducing
energy costs and our reliance on fossil
fuels.
Turn off lights and unplug electronics
when not in use.
Participate in composting and recycling
services to save money and reduce the
amount of waste sent to the landfill.
Conserve water by reducing shower
times, skipping flushes, installing cistern
displacement devices in toilets, and
retrofitting faucets with water-saving
fixtures.
Replace lawns with drought-tolerant
landscaping.
Install greywater systems to capture and
repurpose (non-toilet) domestic
wastewater for irrigation.
Install green roofs to diminish heat
island effect.
Support urban gardens and buy produce
at your local farmers markets to increase
access to fresh food and reduce the
greenhouse gases from transportation.
Quick Tips:
Richmond High School
Health Academy
Contents
v
City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION FROM CITY MANAGER BILL LINDSAY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
CITY ACCOMPLISHMENTS: TAKING CLIMATE ACTION iii
QUICK TIPS: 10 TOP PERSONAL ACTIONS TO SUPPORT OUR CLIMATE GOALS,
AS RECOMMENDED BY RICHMOND HIGH SCHOOL HEALTH ACADEMY
iv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Vision and Mission 1
1.2 Goals
3 1.3 CAP Development Pr
ocess
3 1.4 Relationship to Other City Plans
4 1.5 Relationship to State Policies on Climate Change
5 CHAPTER 2 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
2.1 Building a Better Community in the Face of Climate Change 13
2.2 Greenhouse Gases and their Impact on Climate
14 2.3 Vulnerabilities and Potential Consequences in Richmond 17 2.4 Climate Change and Public Health
18 2.5 Economic Opportunities
20 2.6 The Role of State and Regional Action
21 CHAPTER 3 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES, FORECASTS, AND REDUCTION TARGET
3.1 Community Inventory 26
3.2 Municipal Inventory
28 3.3 Emissions Forecasts and Reduction T
argets
29 1
2 3
Contents
vi
City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
CHAPTER 4 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
4.1 Organization of Objectives and Strategies 35
Objective 1: Energy Efficient Buildings and F
acilities
38 Objective 2: Increase Use and Generation of Renewable Ener gy
43 Objective 3: Sustainable Transpor
tation and Land Use
47 Objective 4: Zer
o Waste
53 Objective 5: Water Conser
vation
57 Objective 6: Green Infrastructur
e, Urban Forestry and Agriculture
61 Objective 7: Green Business and Industr
y
65 Objective 8: Resiliency to Climate Change
70 CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
5.1 Overview 81
5.2 Responsibility and Outreach Channels
81 5.3 Key Implementation Considerations
82 5.4 Tracking Per
formance and Co-Benefits
88 5.5 Aligning with Funding Opportunities
96 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 101
APPENDICES
A. Stakeholder Outreach and Education A-1
B. City of Richmond GHG Inventories
B-1
C. Traffic Study Report
C-1
D. Quantification Methods for GHG Reduction Measures
D-1
E. Implementing Actions
E-1
F . City of Richmond Climate Change Adaptation Study
F-1
4 5
1 City of Richmond
Climate Action Plan
CHAPTER
Introduction
Introduction
1 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Climate change presents the City of Richmond with complex challenges and tremendous opportunities. The City is
committed to creating a healthy, equitable community for all of its residents. The Richmond Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a multi-objective plan that addresses environmental, social and economic issues related to climate change. The CAP
builds on the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan and the Health in All Policies Strategy (HiAP) to further the City’s efforts to build health equity through the reduction of local GHG emissions, and to simultaneously ensure that the community is well prepared for the impacts of climate change. It elevates health equity priorities in the selection of climate action measures, building on the City’s existing policy framework to support a healthy, vibrant, and equitable City.
The City of Richmond is committed to developing a coordinated approach to reducing GHG emissions within the community, and the CAP establishes the framework for that process. It provides an inventory of the City’s emissions, establishes an emissions reduction target, and identifies feasible City and community actions that cost-effectively reduce GHG
emissions and improve community health across all sectors.
Climate Action Plan Mission
Serve as a roadmap for the City to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, create jobs, and prepare for the impacts of climate change on public health, infrastructure, the
economy, ecosystems, and public spaces in our
community.
INTRODUCTION
In the last decade, cities across the globe have taken the lead in addressing climate change at the local level. Municipal and regional climate action plans are becoming standard operations across the nation, as cities have a responsibility and a unique capacity to tailor and develop programs to reduce community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
In addition to reducing GHG emissions, successful
implementation of the CAP will result in numerous co-benefits to the community, and will position the City to obtain grant funding for sustainable development programs such as
affordable housing, transit-oriented development, and urban forestry.
1.1 Vision and Mission
The CAP expands and operationalizes the community vision for health equity, sustainability, and climate change established in the Richmond General Plan 2030. The Richmond CAP
Community Vision is as follows:
Introduction
2 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Community Vision
The City of Richmond plays a pivotal role in developing climate policy at a local level that, in turn, influences regional, state, and national objectives. The City relies on clean energy sources, waste reduction practices, sustainable buildings and innovative land use planning to reduce energy and climate impacts. These measures have resulted in broad community benefits including dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use, cost savings, emission reductions, improved health equity, water conservation, and an enhanced quality of life. City officials and community members value and protect natural resources and continue to work together to reduce the impacts of a changing climate. A renewed focus on education and local and regional partnerships further supports sustainable practices that will nurture human health and environmental quality for future generations. The City builds resiliency to climate change impacts through actions focused on transitioning to renewable energy, strengthening critical transportation infrastructure, creating safe and affordable housing, enhancing local jobs and wages, creating healthy local food systems, and protecting natural resources and habitat.
Co-benefits of Implementing the City of Richmond Climate Action Plan z Improve community health and air quality
z Increase investment in homes and buildings
z Complete streets and increased urban tree canopy
z Conserve water and other natural resources
z Increase home and building values
z Create local green jobs
z Reduce utility bills and maintenance costs
z Increase educational and training opportunities
z More resilient infrastructure prepared for climate change impacts
Introduction
3 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
In support of this vision, the mission of the Richmond CAP is to serve as a roadmap for how the City will reduce GHG emissions, create local jobs, and prepare for the impacts of climate change on public health, infrastructure, ecosystems, and public spaces in our community. The CAP supports the community’s goals and policies in the City’s General Plan 2030, and builds upon other local policies such as the Health in All Policies Strategy. It also enables the City to implement strategies that successfully fulfill the requirements of state initiatives Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375).
1.2 Goals
The Richmond CAP is founded on four overarching goals that represent the aim or desired result of climate action planning in the City.
1. GHG Emissions
Reduction: The City is committed to
substantially reducing GHG emissions originating from
the community and from government operations. The
City will contribute to emissions reductions needed to
achieve statewide targets and reduce the societal and
environmental risks associated with climate change.
2. Healthy and
Resilient Community: Richmond is committed
to sustainable growth that provides a healthy, resilient and equitable environment for all. Richmond will continue to invest resources in residences, businesses, infrastructure, and public spaces to better prepare for the impacts of
climate change. Every resident should have access to
walkable neighborhoods, and good jobs. Homes should
be safe, affordable, and efficient. Urban forestry and
green space should be integrated throughout the City’s
neighborhoods.
3. Prosperous Local
Economy: The City will work with the
local business community to capitalize on emerging
clean technology economic opportunities in energy,
transportation, land use, and general consumption. Local jobs creation will create more employment options and
reduce the need for City residents to commute to distant employment centers.
4. Engaged Community
and Educated Youth: The City
is committed to utilizing culturally and linguistically responsive outreach to engage the community and
maximize community participation and benefits. Students, residents, and businesses are essential partners in
confronting the climate change challenge. An engaged
community is more cohesive and capable of achieving
City climate program goals in energy efficiency, waste
reduction, water conservation, sustainable transportation, and sustainable resources such as community gardens
and healthy food. In Richmond’s youth lies its foundation for a sustainable and resilient future. Young people
empathize and embrace climate-smart behaviors, and
are empowered to take ownership of Richmond’s future
as active citizens within the local climate change policy decision-making processes.
1.3 CAP Development Process
The Richmond CAP is the culmination of several years of work within the City, and organizes the City’s past and future path with that of the growing state and worldwide movement to address the causes of human-induced climate change.
In 2007, the City signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, a pledge to meet the Kyoto Protocol’s goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2009, the City published its 2005 baseline GHG inventory as a first step to understand its sources of GHG emissions across the community. That same year, Richmond became a member of
ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability, an international network for municipalities dedicated to addressing climate change. In 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 108- 08 committing to the GHG emissions target established by AB 32, and to achieving an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
or AB 32, seeks to fight climate change through a
comprehensive program reducing GHG emissions
from virtually all sources statewide. The landmark law
requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to
develop regulations and market mechanisms that will cut statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Introduction
4 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Richmond strengthened its commitment to climate action in 2012 with the adoption of an Energy and Climate Element into the City’s General Plan 2030 update, which seeks to recognize and responsibly address the impacts of climate change.
Developing a CAP is an implementing action of the General Plan 2030.
Preparation of the Richmond Draft CAP began in earnest
in 2013, and commenced with a community workshop to
discuss the CAP with partners from UC Berkeley. The City collaborated with the UC Berkeley Department of City and Regional Planning and the School of Public Health to develop a 2012 update of the GHG inventory, survey current best practices for the Plan, and evaluate policy synergies with state and federal initiatives. In 2014, the City also sought input on CAP strategies and actions from 250 Richmond High School students via the Youth Plan Learn Act Now (Y-PLAN) Program, sponsored by the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools and the City of Richmond. The Y-PLAN program analyzed what
actions residents, businesses, schools, and the City could undertake to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2015, the City held two additional community workshops and hosted three luncheons with stakeholders representing community-based organizations, businesses, and utilities, franchisees, and industry groups. These events provided ample opportunity for stakeholder input, informed the
strategies and actions included in the CAP , and helped identify and strengthen important partnerships for pursuing funding and implementing the CAP .
The City also held meetings with the Bay Area Regional
Collaborative (BARC), Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC),
and UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. These meetings were designed to capture important stakeholder concerns regarding the City’s climate action planning, to help align the CAP with regional transportation plans, state and regional climate programs, and funding opportunities.
This CAP reflects the vast breadth and depth of input received at these events and through these programs. Appendix A:
Stakeholder Outreach and Education includes the City’s CAP Community Engagement Plan, as well as a summary of input received during community and stakeholder engagement
events. Appendix E: Implementing Actions provides a timeline of state and local actions to date that address climate change.
1.4 Relationship to
Other City Plans
The City of Richmond understands that addressing climate change goes beyond environmental concerns. Efforts to
reduce GHG emissions and improve resilience to climate
change will improve the local economy, sustainability,
health, and well-being of the entire community. The City is continuously working to address climate change through
policy, and has adopted numerous plans and strategies that directly or indirectly support climate action. The Richmond CAP was influenced by, and builds upon, these plans and strategies, including the City’s General Plan, the Health in All Policies Strategy (HiAP), Draft Urban Greening Master Plan, Parks Master Plan, Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, and Richmond Pedestrian Plan. The CAP not only directly supports policies within these plans, it provides actions that implement requirements of these policies.
Introduction
5 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
RICHMOND CLIMATE
ACTION PLAN
Health in All
Policies Strategy
Draft Urban Greening
Master Plan
Parks Master
Plan
Richmond Bicycle
Master Plan/Pedestrian Plan
Richmond
General Plan 2030
City Council
Resolutions
1.5 Relationship to State
Policies on Climate Change
Many strategies for monitoring and addressing climate
change have emerged at the international, national, and state levels. California remains a leader in the effort to reduce GHG emissions through mitigation and adaptation strategies. With AB 32, California became the first state in the U.S. to mandate GHG emissions reductions across its entire economy. To
support AB 32, California has been developing policy and passing legislation that seeks to control emissions
of gases that contribute to climate change. These have
included regulatory approaches such as mandatory reporting for significant sources of GHG emissions and caps on
emission levels, as well as market-based mechanisms, such as the state’s Cap and Trade program. The state policies and regulations most relevant to the Richmond CAP are briefly described below.
Introduction
6 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Richmond General Plan 2030
richmond general plan 2030
On April 25, 2012, the Richmond City Council adopted a new General Plan to guide the City’s sustainable growth and development. The General Plan provides a comprehensive framework for developing a healthy city and healthy neighborhoods.
The Energy and Climate Change Element of the General Plan provides Richmond’s community vision for energy and climate in 2030. The element examines how the City’s land use and transportation network will affect energy consumption and determines what measures can be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The element also provides policy direction for protecting energy resources and responding to climate change, and provides goals, policies, and actions to address energy conservation, renewable energy generation and use, sustainable business development, and responsible community revitalization.
The Richmond CAP stems from, and supports implementation of these General Plan goals, policies, and actions. The first goal in the Energy and Climate Change Element is “Leadership in Managing Climate Change” (Goal EC1). General Plan policies supporting this goal include:
z Policy EC1.1
Leadership and Advocacy: Take a leadership role in advocating for local, regional and national solutions to climate change at all levels of government and with the private sector. z Policy EC1.2
Public Awareness and Support: Provide incentives to encourage residents and businesses to reduce their carbon footprint by raising their awareness about the impacts of climate change and by building support for climate change initiatives in Richmond and the greater region.
Moreover, the structure and content of the CAP meet the directive of General Plan Action EC1A, which calls for development of a CAP for reducing GHG emissions to meet or exceed state reduction targets.
EO-S-3-05 provided the basis for subsequent regulation
to reduce GHG emissions, including AB 32 and SB 375
(described below). It also created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), which is tasked with preparing biennial science assessment reports on climate changes and adaptation
options for California.
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, signed on June 1, 2005 by
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, set the stage for multiple legislative actions to reduce GHG emissions in California. EO S-3-05 established the following statewide GHG emissions targets:
y By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 lev
els;
y By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 lev
els; and
y By 2050,
reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990
levels.
Introduction
7 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Richmond Health in All Policies Strategy (HiAP)
City of Richmond
Health in All Policies Strategy 2013-2014
The City is fully committed to achieving the highest level of health for all Richmond residents. The City’s HiAP Strategy reflects this pledge to health equity by integrating health and wellness throughout City policies, programs, and operations. The City defines health equity as attaining the highest level of health for all people, while describing health inequity as differences in health that are unfair, unjust, and preventable. Environmental conditions, socioeconomic conditions, and other root causes contribute to health inequity.
Health Equity is incorporated into the CAP in the following ways:
z Commitment to
Health Equity: The City’s vision for a healthy, climate-resilient City includes a commitment to improving the overall health of all its residents (health equity) by implementing GHG reduction measures that also address unnecessary and unjust health burdens faced by some of its most disadvantaged residents (health inequities). z Strategies and Actions: The CAP includes specific strategies and actions that work towards these goals by :
y Encouraging physical activity through pedestrian and bicycle infrastructur e.
y Advancing state,
regional, and local efforts to reduce GHG emissions, criteria pollutants, and short-lived climate pollutants through enforcement of existing emission regulations. y Supporting local agriculture and food pr
oduction to ensure residents have better access to healthy local foods. y Building healthy schools
through partnerships to reduce energy and water consumption, and increase solid waste diversion.
y Developing
partnerships with community-based organizations that support workforce development and green jobs. y Targeting specific pr
ograms such as energy efficient upgrades and solar installation to low-income facilities. y Encouraging safe, affordable, and healthy housing.
Assembly Bill 32 – California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006
AB 32 was approved by the legislature and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006. The landmark legislation requires the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop the plans, programs, and regulations needed to achieve
reductions in a technologically feasible and cost-effective manner. Under the legislation, CARB is mandated to:
y Identify early action
items that can be quickly
implemented to achieve GHG reductions. These early
action items were adopted by CARB in 2007 and include
regulations affecting landfill operations, motor vehicle fuels, car refrigerants, and port operations, among other regulations.
y Create and adopt r
egulations that require the state’s
largest industrial emitters of GHGs to report and verify their emissions on an annual basis.
y Develop and maintain a Climate Change Scoping Plan
to identify the most technologically feasible and cost- effective measures to achieve the necessary emissions
reductions to reach 1990 levels by 2020. The first Scoping Plan,
1 adopted in 2008, put forth a variety of programs,
regulations, incentives, and market-based mechanisms
to reduce GHG emissions across the state, including:
y Expanding and str
engthening existing energy
efficiency programs;
y Achieving a
statewide renewables energy mix of 33
percent for electricity generation;
1 CARB 2008 Scoping Plan. Available at http://arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm Introduction
8 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
y Developing a California Cap and Trade program
affecting
major industrial facilities and power plants
in the state as well as companies that import power
from other states for sale in California;
y Establishing targets
for transportation-related GHGs
for regions throughout California and pursuing
policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
y Adopting measures
pursuant to existing laws
including clean car standards and low carbon fuel
standards;
y Creating tar
geted fees on high global warming
potential gases and a fee to fund the administrative
costs of the state’s long term commitment to AB 32
implementation; and
y Adopting measures
to increase commercial recycling.
CARB’s 2014 update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan
outlined the challenges to reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, clarified the role of local governments in reducing GHG emissions within their jurisdictions, and highlighted the need for targeted investment, new policy developments, and rapid market uptake of new technologies in transportation, energy, agriculture, water, waste management and land management. The next update
to the Scoping Plan, due to be released in late 2016, is expected to include new program and policy details that will demonstrate how the state expects to meet its long-term GHG targets.
Senate Bill 97 – California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guideline Amendments of 2007
Senate Bill (SB) 97 amends the CEQA Guidelines to address GHG emissions. Local governments may now use adopted
plans consistent with the amended CEQA Guidelines to
assess the cumulative impacts of projects on climate change, if the plan for the reduction of GHG emissions accomplishes the following:
y Quantifies GHG emissions,
both existing and projected
over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area;
y Establishes a le
vel, based on substantial evidence,
below which the contribution to GHG emissions from
activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
Introduction
9 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
2 Association of Bay Area Go vernments (ABAG) and MTC, 2013. Plan Bay Area 2013: Strategy for a Sustainable Region. July 2013.
SB 375 – Sustainable Communities
and Climate Protection Act of 2008
SB 375, also known as the Sustainable Communities and
Climate Protection Act of 2008, builds off of AB 32 and aims to reduce GHG emissions by linking transportation funding to land use planning. It requires the state’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to create a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan (RTP) for the purpose of reducing urban sprawl and reliance on automobiles. Under SB 375, CARB established for each MPO a regional target for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. The regional GHG reduction targets for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) region, which is the MPO with jurisdiction over Richmond, are 7 percent per capita by 2020 and 15 percent per capita by 2035 from 2005 levels.
2 y Identifies and analyz
es the GHG emissions resulting
from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
y Specifies measures
or a group of measures, including
performance standards, that substantial evidence
demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project
basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
y Establishes a mechanism
to monitor the plan’s progress
toward achieving the specified emissions level and to
require an amendment if the plan is not achieving it; and y Is adopted
in a public process following environmental
review.
Introduction
10 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Executive Order B-30-15 calls on CARB to update the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan to incorporate the 2030 statewide target. In June 2016, CARB released a 2030 Draft Scoping Plan Update concept paper describing policy scenarios for achieving the target. The scenarios present the various ways in which industrial emissions could be reduced (e.g., cap & trade, carbon tax, new regulations) and how aggressive the state would need to be in expanding the use of zero emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles by 2030. All scenarios call for enhancing reductions from existing programs (e.g., increase the use of zero emission and plug-in electric vehicles) along with aggressive implementation of existing policies like SB 350 and the state’s Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy. Although the paper states that local actions are critical for implementation of California’s ambitious climate agenda, there is no specific guidance for setting post-2020 reduction targets for local climate action plans. The City is expecting more concrete guidance from the state with the eventual release of the 2030 Scoping Plan Update later in the year.
Senate Bill 379
Beginning January 1, 2017, SB 379 requires California cities and counties, upon the next revision of their local hazard mitigation plan, to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety elements of their general plans. The bill requires the safety element update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives for their communities based on a vulnerability assessment, as well as implementation measures to increase community resilience to climate
change. The safety element update can incorporate these components by reference from an adopted local hazard
mitigation plan and/or climate adaptation plan.
Senate Bill 535 – Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund and Disadvantaged
Communities (2012)
SB 535 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to identify disadvantaged communities, and requires that 25 percent of all funds allocated pursuant to an investment plan for the use of state moneys collected through a Cap and Trade program be allocated to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities and at least 10 percent of the 25 percent to be spent on projects located in disadvantaged communities.
Senate Bill 350
In October 2015, the California legislature passed the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350), requiring the State to 1) generate half of its electricity from renewable energy sources; 2) double energy efficiency for both electricity and natural gas end uses in all buildings by 2030; and 3) substantially improve the infrastructure for electric vehicle transportation.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 to establish an interim GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030. This new target represents the most aggressive goal set by any government in North America to reduce GHG emissions by 2030. The EO also establishes a climate adaptation directive for state investments and agencies, and requires state agencies to “take current and future climate change impacts into account” and consider “full life-cycle cost accounting” when making future planning and investment decisions, particularly as applied to infrastructure planning.
City of Richmond
Climate Action Plan
CHAPTER 2
Opportunities and Challenges
Opportunities and Challenges
13 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
OPPORTUNITIES
AND CHALLENGES
Climate change presents the City with enormous challenges and tremendous opportunities. Taking meaningful action on climate change can mean challenging the status quo and questioning long-held beliefs. But the urgent need to take action provides the City with a unique opportunity to build a thriving community based on sustainable, equitable and resilient systems. This chapter provides a summary of the science behind climate change and the local impacts expected in Richmond. It introduces the City’s primary vulnerabilities to climate change, describes the nexus between climate change and public health, and concludes with a discussion of the economic opportunities associated with reducing emissions and increasing community resilience.
Although climate change presents serious long-term
challenges to the City of Richmond, it also presents
opportunities. Strong public policy that provides funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation has multiple benefits. For example, strategies to dramatically reduce community-wide GHG will also invest in homes and
infrastructure and improve public health. By investing in skilled workers and new low carbon technologies like clean energy, renewable materials, and bio-based fuels, the City can develop new engines for job growth and sustainable
economic prosperity. By investing in adaptation strategies, such as flood and tidal defenses, the City can lessen the impact of future natural disasters while simultaneously driving economic growth by strengthening infrastructure. By instituting public health measures to deal with heat waves, and air quality impacts, the City can plan for climate change in a way that protects vulnerable populations and provides an equitable distribution of costs, benefits, and opportunities for all members of the Richmond community.
2.1 Building a Better
Community in the Face
of Climate Change
Climate change is happening, as evidenced by larger, more powerful storms, changing precipitation patterns, and rising seas. Climate change is a challenge that demands action in both reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to minimize future hazards, and investing in resilience and adaptation measures for the impacts we are experiencing now and expect to worsen in the coming decades.
Opportunities and Challenges
14 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
2.2 Greenhouse Gases and
their Impact on Climate
The Greenhouse Effect is a natural phenomenon whereby
greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the Earth’s temperature. This natural effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate, but over the last century human activities have greatly increased atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is very likely that this increase of human-generated GHG emissions, which has accelerated since the mid-20th century, is a primary cause of climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of
GHG emissions now far exceed the average of the past
several thousand years. Land use changes, burning of fossil fuels, and agricultural practices have all contributed to this observed increase. Global climate models clearly show that human activity is having an effect on global temperatures Photo courtesy of The Royal Society;
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ Figure 2-1: The Greenhouse Effect
Opportunities and Challenges
15 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
The most prevalent GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor. Others important GHGs are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These gases are emitted through a variety of natural processes and human activities, as follows:
y CO2 and N2O are bypr
oducts of fossil fuel combustion;
y N2O is associa
ted with agricultural operations, such as
fertilization of crops;
y CH4 is common
ly created by off-gassing from agricultural
practices (e.g., manure from cows), anaerobic composting, and landfills;
y CFCs were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents; their production has been mostly
eliminated by international treaty, but past emissions
remain in the atmosphere due to their long lifespan;
y HFCs are
now used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons
in refrigeration and cooling; and
y PFCs and SF6
emissions are common byproducts of
industries such as aluminum production and semi-
conductor manufacturing.
Figure 2-2: Impact of Sea Level Rise on City of Richmond Transportation and Energy Assets
Opportunities and Challenges
16 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
The City of Richmond has also completed its first Climate Change Adaptation Study (see Appendix F) which includes an evaluation of climate change impacts at the local scale and a vulnerability and risk assessment of the City’s most important assets to rising temperatures, rising seas, extreme weather events, and more extreme droughts.1 The methodology
used to develop the City’s Adaptation Study expands on the Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) methodology2 developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commissions (BCDC) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center, to evaluate how San Francisco Bay Area communities can adapt to sea level rise and storm event flooding. The findings from the City of Richmond Climate Change Adaptation Study, which incorporate a wide range of analyses done for the Contra Costa County ART Project,
3 are
summarized in the following sections.
Rising Seas
Historical records show that sea level in San Francisco Bay has risen more than 7 inches (18 cm) over the past 100 years.
Scientists agree that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, but projections of future sea levels vary considerably. The State of California has adopted sea level rise projections for the San Francisco Bay region from the National Research Council (NRC), which includes an allowance for vertical land motion (tectonic uplift, or subsidence from compaction of sediments). For the Bay Area, the NRC projects 11 inches of sea level rise (measured at Mean Higher High Water, or MHHW) over current levels by 2050 (with a range of 5 to 24 inches) and 36 inches by 2100 (with a range of 17 to 66 inches by 2100). The Contra Costa County ART Project mapped these sea level rise scenarios, as well as higher Bay water elevations ranging from 77 to 108 inches above MHHW. These higher
levels are above current predictions for sea level rise likely to occur before 2100, but they illustrate short-term flooding that could occur in that time frame when extreme tides are coupled with sea level rise. For example, 77 inches above MHHW is approximately equal to a 36-inch sea level rise plus 100-year extreme tide
As described in the Adaptation Study, hundreds of Richmond homes are at risk from current or future flooding that will be more frequent or extensive as sea level rises. Critical infrastructure including roads, railways, and wastewater treatment plants are vulnerable to sea level rise and coastal flooding, as are recreational areas at Point Isabel Recreational Shoreline, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, and Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. Figure 2-2 illustrates the anticipated impact of sea level rise on transportation and energy assets in the City of Richmond, using a projection of 77 inches above MHHW (equivalent to 36-inch sea level rise plus 100-year extreme tide). The Chevron refinery is located in a high risk area for sea level rise, as is the Port of Richmond, and critical stretches of important highways and rail lines.
Rising Temperatures
California in general expects overall hotter conditions for both average and extreme temperatures. An increase in heat waves and wildfires are expected to be among the earliest climate impacts experienced across the state.
4 According to
the State’s climate adaptation planning tool known as Cal- Adapt, the City of Richmond area can expect to experience a rise in average annual temperature of about 3 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit above the historical average by the end of the century. Urban areas with lots of pavement and few trees will tend to heat up even more. Though extreme heat events in coastal areas like Richmond are not expected to be as severe or as long-lasting as further inland, the residents of these historically cooler areas are less accustomed to hot weather and may not be as well prepared or equipped to deal with it.
Air conditioning is far less common, for example. Outdoor workers, elderly populations, and infants are particularly vulnerable to extreme temperatures.
51 City of Richmond Climate Change Adaptation Study, 2016. 2 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2011: Adapting to Rising Tides; project information and resources available at http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/ 3 Project information available at: http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.or g/project/contra-costa-county-adapting-to-rising-tides-project 4 California Natural Resources Agency, 2014, Saf eguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk; An update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/ 5 Contra Costa Health Services. Climate Change Vulnerability in Contra Costa County: A Focus on Heat, 2015 Opportunities and Challenges
17 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
different natural resource conditions. The report emphasizes the unprecedented levels of leadership and cooperation
needed amongst multiple stakeholders to effectively address adaptation.
8 The local impacts on climate described in the prior section will affect community infrastructure and resources. The City of Richmond Climate Change Adaptation Study assesses
vulnerabilities for the following eleven categories of
community assets, which include City-owned or operated
facilities deemed critical for operations, utility services, and risk management, and other tangible and non-tangible assets that are important to community health, safety, and well- being. Assets are categorized as follows:
1. Community Services and Public F
acilities
2. Public Health
3. Housing
4. Water Supply
5. Wastewater Management
6. Stormwater Management
7. Transportat
ion Infrastructure
8. Shoreline Flood Management
9. Energy Security and Infrastructur
e
10. Solid Waste/Hazar
dous Materials Management
11. Natural Areas/Ecosystems/Recr
eation Assets
12. Commercial and Industrial Assets
6 Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis, 2012. Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco Region.
California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-2012-042. 7 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, September 2013. Available at: http://bairwmp.or g/ 8 California Natural Resources Agency, 2014, Saf eguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk; An update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/ Precipitation and Drought
Climate models indicate that the San Francisco Bay Area is likely to continue with its Mediterranean climate of cool wet winters and hot dry summers, but conditions will be drier than the historical average in the second half of the century. While average conditions may be drier, the expectation is that more intense downpours will occur during a somewhat shorter
rainy season.
6 Since the City already has an arid climate, it is
sensitive to a decrease in annual local precipitation, which can cause local drought, impacting local flora and contributing to wildfire risk. An increase in local precipitation during extreme storms can increase the peak storm runoff, thereby increasing the risk of flooding due to the overtopping of stormwater channels, pipes, pumps, and creeks.
Regional changes in precipitation and temperature patterns present a long-term risk to the City’s water supply. Climate models predict reductions in the average annual Sierra
snowpack with a shift in snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year, changes in the timing, intensity and variability of precipitation, and an increased amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow.
7 Long-term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires could affect water quality in local reservoirs. Higher temperatures would also increase
evaporation, which in turn would increase irrigation demand.
2.3 Vulnerabilities and Potential
Consequences in Richmond
In its recently published update to the California Climate Adaptation Strategy, the California Natural Resources Agency outlines the significant climate change impacts facing the Bay Area, including sea level rise, public health problems arising from more extremely hot days and poorer air quality; longer and more intense wildfire conditions; more frequent droughts with possible disruptions in fresh water supplies; and vastly Opportunities and Challenges
18 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Richmond’s greatest risks related to climate change result from the City’s shoreline, the inherent sensitivities of its Mediterranean climate, and its dependence on imported water from the distant Sierra Nevada as its primary water supply.
Some of the City’s most critical assets are located in close proximity to the low-lying shoreline where risk of damage or disruption from sea level rise is significant. These include wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater management
infrastructure, residential neighborhoods, historical landmarks, the Chevron Refinery and other industrial areas including the Port of Richmond, highways, rail lines, emergency response facilities, and parks. Climate change is expected to bring hotter and drier summers and winter storms that are predicted to be fewer in number but higher in intensity. These changes can stress natural habitats and public health while posing a potentially serious risk to the long-term reliability of the City’s potable water supply. Based on this study, the City-owned and community assets at highest risk from climate change by the year 2100 include the following:
1. Property
and infrastructure located in areas along the bay
shore prone to coastal flooding. Current levees are not designed to protect these assets from sea level rise;
2. The City’
s long-term potable water supply, which is largely
dependent on runoff from the Sierra Nevada Mountains,
especially during dry years;
3. Road transportation
assets including streets and highway
approaches that are located in flood-prone areas near the bay shore;
4. The health and
well-being of the most vulnerable of the
City’s residential populations, and its natural inhabitants (flora and fauna), which can experience severe stress from extreme heat, drought and extreme precipitation events; and
5. Parks, r
oads and residential areas in the Richmond Hills
that become increasingly high risk zones for wildfires by the year 2100.
Richmond is already engaged in multiple planning efforts that address some or all of these risks. However, the Adaptation Study represents the City’s first widely coordinated effort to identify and document vulnerabilities across a broad range of community assets, and assess the risk of climate-related impacts to those assets over near-term (to 2050) and longer- term (to 2100) planning horizons.
2.4 Climate Change and
Public Health
Climate change presents a significant risk to community health. More extreme weather events, worsening air quality, and increased transmission of infectious disease may
negatively affect human health, health behaviors, and the socio-economic factors that influence health outcomes.
Some existing health threats may intensify, while new health threats may emerge. The impacts of climate change will not affect everyone equally. It is expected that already burdened and vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, infants and children, people of color/communities of color, and people living in poverty, will be disproportionally impacted by climate change. Fortunately, many of the actions that address climate change also improve the health and wellbeing of vulnerable communities, helping to address the existing, unequal health burdens faced by some of the City’s most disadvantaged
residents.
Health Effects and
Vulnerable Populations
Climate change, together with other stressors, is expected to impact many facets of public health. For example, extreme heat can cause premature death, cardiovascular stress or failure, and heat-related illness such as heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and kidney stones. Air pollution can cause
increased asthma attacks, allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Any of these stressors can lead to mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PSD), substance abuse, and other conditions.
Opportunities and Challenges
19 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Health Co-benefits
Climate change will have significant health impacts and it is important that people are prepared to mitigate and adapt to our changing climate. Many climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts can bring multiple health co-benefits to Richmond residents. For example, reducing vehicle miles traveled by increasing safe and accessible walking and
bicycling infrastructure can increase physical activity, reduce air pollution, and decrease injury collisions. Corresponding health co-benefits include reductions in chronic disease, obesity levels, and respiratory diseases, and improvements in mental health.
Promoting local agriculture and food systems can increase access to healthy and fresh foods, reduce upstream energy use, and increase local social cohesion. Urban greening is another strategy that helps reduce energy use, moderate temperature and the urban heat island health effect, reduce air and noise pollution, and enhance safety. Likewise, having access to urban green space can improve physical and mental health.
Finally, climate actions can indirectly improve health. Actions that reduce residential building energy use can reduce
household energy cost and promote healthy homes while at the same time creating local green jobs with living wages.
Better employment, housing, and other physical environment factors are all factors that affect health and wellbeing.
Climate Change and Health Equity
Climate change will act as a stress multiplier for many existing health problems which already disproportionally impact low- income populations and communities of color in Richmond.
While climate change is expected to affect environmental conditions such as temperature and air quality, which can result in more illness and injury, it is also expected to impact socio-economic conditions and access to basic goods and services, such as health care, food, and housing, exacerbating existing cumulative stress.
Community Resiliency to Climate Change
The driving hypothesis behind the City’s HiAP Strategy
is recognizing that the cumulative impact of multiple
stressors on the body is a key factor in the persistence of health inequities. Toxic stress refers to prolonged
and repeated exposure to multiple negative factors that have known physical and mental health impacts that
contribute to chronic conditions such as heart disease
and diabetes, including poor air quality resulting from GHG emissions. Similarly, the “climate gap” refers to
the disproportionate and unequal health and economic
impact that climate change has on people of color and
low income communities.
9 Together, the City’s HiAP
Strategy and the CAP focus on reducing toxic stress and the climate gap by focusing on the Social Determinants
of Health, the conditions in the environment in which
people are born, live, work, play, and age that affect a wide range of health and quality of life outcomes.
The City’s most vulnerable populations (the elderly, low- income families, communities of color, and individuals
already suffering from chronic diseases) face significant risk from extreme heat events. These populations will also face higher risk of health problems from worsening air quality and new disease vectors. The City has an important role, in partnership with public agencies and community-based organizations, to educate and engage the public on climate change issues, and to promote community involvement in
actions to reduce climate change risks, using linguistically and culturally responsive approaches that are effective to improving resiliency for diverse populations.
9 Morello-Frosh, Rachel, Manuel Pastor, James Sadd, and Seth Shonkoff. The Climate Gap: Inequalities in How Climate Change Hurts Americans & How to Close the Gap. May 2009, a
vailable at: https://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/climategap/
Opportunities and Challenges
20 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
The map in Figure 2-3 shows the disadvantaged communities in Richmond designated by California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA) for the purpose of implementing SB 535, which allocates twenty-five percent of available moneys in the State’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
(GGRF) to projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged communities.
10 These areas are disproportionately affected
by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure or environmental degradation. Their location is determined by CalEnviroScreen
2.0,
11 a screening tool that uses twenty-one indicators to
identify communities most burdened by pollution from
multiple sources and most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status. These areas tend to have high concentrations of people with low income, high unemployment, low levels of home ownership, high rent burden, health sensitivities, or low levels of educational attainment. Communities in North Richmond, Central Richmond, South Richmond, and
the Richmond Annex are among those designated by these
criteria as disadvantaged communities.
Actions focusing on the most burdened and vulnerable
communities can help alleviate existing health and social inequities by helping to address some of the upstream root causes of those inequities. As opportunities to build local capacity, engage and empower the community, and implement cross-sector partnerships are integrated into the City’s climate change efforts, the CAP will be leveraged to maximize health co-benefits and reduce existing inequities. Furthermore, by strengthening local capacity to respond to natural hazards when they occur, the City can reduce the number and severity of injuries and illnesses when they do happen.
2.5 Economic Opportunities
The City is already home to many prominent, innovative
green businesses and clean tech companies, and is poised to be a new center of innovation in the low carbon economy.
Studies conducted by CARB and others show that economic growth does not have to be compromised to achieve deep
reductions in GHG emissions in line with the state’s goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
12 The state is committed
to meeting this challenge though innovation and investment that will drive technology development and advance social progress. Recent legislation and policy developments are providing clear signals that the transformation to a low carbon economy is upon us, encouraging businesses to invest in clean technology and develop products and services that do not come at the expense of future generations, but instead, provide even more opportunity for growth in the future.
Achieving GHG reductions of this magnitude requires
innovation and investment in energy, transportation,
agriculture, water, waste management, and land management.
It also requires scaling up the market adoption of new
technologies in these sectors. Already, public and private investment in new technologies has reaped broad economic benefits for the state along with significant GHG reductions.
Energy policies in particular have enabled the state to emerge Figure 2-3: Disadvantaged Communities in Richmond
Courtesy Image by; California Environmental Protection Agency http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/
10 See SB 535 maps at the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) web site: http://oehha.maps.ar cgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html? appid=dae2fb1e42674c12a04a2b302a080598
11 CalEnviroScreen is the state’s Environmental Health Screening Tool used to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. CalEPA has used the tool to designate California communities as disadvantaged pursuant to Senate Bill 535. The tool will be updated periodically; CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Draft became available in September 2016. 12 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014: First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, May 2014.
Opportunities and Challenges
21 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
as the national leader in both clean energy jobs and clean energy investment. Title 24 and other energy standards have saved Californians $74 billion in energy costs since 1977. 13 California has the fourth lowest per-capita energy-related GHG emissions in the country and produces on average twice as much economic value for every unit of electricity used. The state’s AB 32 Scoping Plan Update references multiple studies that show how businesses in the U.S. could collectively cut energy-related GHG emissions by more than 20 percent by 2020, and generate hundreds of billions of dollars in net savings.
14 New economic opportunities will continue to emerge as state and regional agencies direct investment, policy and planning towards reducing GHG emissions. Electrification of the transportation and building sectors, decarbonization of electricity supply, and designing new buildings to be net energy producers are just three examples of the transformative developments required for the state to meet its long term GHG targets. Many of the technologies needed to accomplish these outcomes are cost-competitive and available today. As technologies improve and supporting infrastructure becomes available, costs will come down, accelerating market uptake and saving consumers money that will be re-directed
elsewhere into the economy.
The City of Richmond recognizes future business growth
opportunities in the bioscience and green/clean technology sectors and has set has set a long-term vision to be nationally recognized for business development in these sectors.
Richmond has an abundance of marketable assets that
position it for growth in the low-carbon economy, including robust transportation and transit networks, proximity
and partnerships with world-class universities and urban innovation centers, and relatively affordable real estate. 15 2.6 The Role of State and
Regional Action
The Richmond CAP contains many strategies and actions
designed to enhance and leverage existing State policies and programs. Building on the State’s existing policies and programs improves the effectiveness of the CAP and
increases State funding opportunities.
The State is providing an important leadership role in climate protection through policy development, planning, regulations, research, legislation, and funding programs. California has established a broad framework, across all sectors of the economy, to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This framework, outlined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the Climate Change Scoping Plan Update of 2014, identifies the following six sectors that must undergo profound transformation in order for the State to meet its 2050 goal:
1. Energy
2. Transportat
ion (Vehicles/Equipment, Land Use, Fuels, and
Infrastructure)
3. Agriculture
4. Water
5. Waste Management
6. Natural and Working Lands
13 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014: First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, May 2014. 14 City of Richmond Marketing Plan, 2013, by Social Sector Solutions (S3), a pr oject of the UC Berkeley Haas Business School MBA program. 15 California Energy Commission web site, accessed November 28, 2015: http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/savings.html Opportunities and Challenges
22 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
California’s Scoping Plan measures are designed to reduce state-wide emissions from each of these sectors. State
measures include developing new policies, supporting
emerging technologies, and growing the markets for those technologies. Market transformation is a recurring theme of the Scoping Plan Update, which acknowledges the role that the State must play in developing infrastructure and commercial markets for low-carbon solutions to grow to
the scale required to meet its GHG emissions reduction
goal. Convergence of technologies and market objectives is needed across multiple sectors and will require integrated planning among dozens of State agencies as well as closely coordinated efforts with locally-driven GHG reduction efforts, such as the City of Richmond CAP .
Many of the State’s transportation measures, including the Advanced Clean Car standards and the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS), are designed to achieve consistent GHG reductions statewide by increasing vehicle efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of fuels. These measures have been incorporated into the City’s forecasted GHG emissions through the year 2050.
California’s energy policies have enabled the State to
emerge as the national leader in both clean energy jobs and infrastructure investment. With respect to energy, California has the fourth lowest per-capita emissions in the country and produces on average twice as much economic value
for every unit of electricity used. The State adopted SB 350 in 2015 establishing requirements that by the year 2030 the State’s buildings increase energy efficiency by 50 percent, and electricity be generated from 50 percent renewable
energy sources. The Richmond CAP builds on these policies, facilitates effective implementation within the City, and in some cases goes beyond the State’s standards and policy goals to achieve deeper reductions.
16 Association of Bay Area Go vernments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 2013. Plan Bay Area 2013: Strategy for a Sustainable Region, July 2013
17 PDAs in Richmond include the Central Richmond and 23rd Street Corridors, South Richmond, and North Richmond. For maps and more information, see the Plan Bay Area web site: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/ As described in CAP Chapter 1, Introduction, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) aims to reduce GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by incentivizing denser development that reduces urban
sprawl. Plan Bay Area
16 is the Region’s required Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS), which demonstrates how the
Bay Area region will integrate transportation, land-use and housing to reduce GHG emissions. Plan Bay Area concentrates approximately 80 percent of housing growth and 66 percent of job growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). A
majority of PDAs are infill development areas located near existing or planned public transit, and in communities where there is local commitment to develop more housing.
17 The
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program associated with Plan
Bay Area provides discretionary funds geared toward transit- oriented housing projects and transportation infrastructure that supports growth in the PDAs. These funds can be spent on infrastructure items such as new bicycle lanes and more pedestrian-friendly sidewalks. Transportation and land use strategies in the CAP are geared toward leveraging the OBAG program.
City of Richmond
Climate Action Plan
CHAPTER 3
Emissions Inventories, Forecasts, and Reduction Target
Emissions Inventories, Forecast, and Reduction Targets
25 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
EMISSIONS
INVENTORIES,
FORECASTS, AND
REDUCTION TARGET
The City of Richmond greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory quantifies the annual GHG emissions resulting from activities within the City by residents, businesses, and local government. The community inventory provides an understanding of where GHG emissions are originating and informs development of effective strategies and actions to reduce emissions.
1. Community GHG Inventory: Includes all emission sources within the community with the exception of large industrial sources that are regulated by CARB and are a part of
California’s Cap and Trade Program per the requirements of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). These sources are referred to in this chapter as “AB 32-regulated facilities. ”
2. Community GHG
Inventory with AB 32-Regulated Sources:
Includes emissions from all sources located within the City of Richmond including large industrial facilities regulated by the State.
2 The City’s baseline Community GHG Inventory for 2005
forms the basis for setting emissions reduction targets and measuring future progress. In developing the CAP , the City revised its existing 2005 inventory with better transportation and solid waste data, and compiled a 2012 inventory update that allows the City to start assessing emissions trends over time. Detailed information regarding the boundaries of analysis, methods of quantification, data sources, and changes that occurred between the 2005 and 2012 inventories is provided in Appendix B.
The 2005 baseline and 2012 updated inventories account for GHG emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e)
1 from four sectors: energy, transportation, solid
waste, and water. The GHG inventories are presented as:
1 MTCO2e combines the global warming potential (GWP), or extent to which each GHG is able to trap heat, for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and/or nitrous o
xide (N2O) into a single unit of measurement for purposes of comparison. 2 These sources were not r egulated per the requirements of AB 32 in 2005, as AB 32 was not signed until 2006.
Emissions Inventories, Forecast, and Reduction Targets
26 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
This approach is consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, which recommends presenting community GHG inventories
with and without large industrial sources that are regulated by the State through CARB. The adjusted inventory approach 1) provides City directives and actions that advance sustainability for community emission sources; and 2) institutionalizes and formalizes City support of State cap-and-trade regulation of large industrial facilities.
3.1 Community Inventory
As shown in Table 3-1, the baseline (2005) Community GHG Inventory for the City of Richmond includes 693, 426 MTCO2e.
In 2012, community emissions rose by 0.4% to 696,407
MTCO2e.
If large industrial sources currently regulated by AB 32 3 are
added to the Community Inventory, total 2005 emissions from sources within the City of Richmond amount to more than 5.6 million MTCO2e.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the results of the 2005 community inventory, with and without emissions from AB 32-regulated sources. Without the emissions from AB-32 regulated sources, the Richmond Community GHG Inventory resembles that of
most other cities in California. Contributing the largest share of emissions to adjusted Community GHG Inventory is On- road Transportation, accounting for approximately 38 percent of total emissions. Commercial/Industrial/Municipal Energy Use (from electricity and natural gas) accounts for around 33 percent of total emissions, while 18 percent is attributed to Residential Energy Use. The remaining emissions are
comprised of GHGs from Solid Waste (7 percent), Off-road Transportation (3 percent), Water and Wastewater (1 percent).
In 2012 the City emitted approximately 4.9 million MTCO2e, of which almost 4.2 MTCO2e (82 percent) is attributed to large industrial emissions regulated by AB 32 (see Table 3-1).
The 2012 inventory is similar to the 2005 inventory in terms of total emissions and relative contribution by sector. The vast majority of emissions were the result of large industrial sources that are regulated by AB 32, and when those sources are excluded, the biggest contributions are from On-road Transportation (54 percent), followed by Commercial/
Industrial/Municipal Energy Use (25 percent), and Residential Energy Use (13 percent).
Table 3-1: GHG Emissions Inventory Results
Sector
2005
MTCO2e
(baseline)
2012
MTCO2e
Change from 2005 to 2012
MTCO2e Percent
Residential Energy Use 126,118 120,248 -5,870 -4.7
Commercial/Industrial/Municipal Energy Use 226,591 225,736 -855 -0.4 Transportation (On- and Off-road) 287,916 299,701 11,785 4.1 Solid Waste 50,214 48,999 -1,215 -2.4
Wastewater 222 239 17 7.6
Water 2,364 1,484 -880 -37.2
Community GHG Inventory 693,426 696,407 2,982 0.4
Large Industrial Energy Use (Regulated by AB
32) 4,914,982 4,169,879
-745,103 -15.2
Community GHG Inventory with AB 32-Regulated Sources 5,608,407 4,866,206 -742,121 -13.2 3 These sources were not r egulated per the requirements of AB 32 in 2005, as AB 32 was not signed until 2006.
Emissions Inventories, Forecast, and Reduction Targets
27 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
How does the Richmond Cap Consider “AB 32 Regulated” Sources? The Richmond CAP is largely focused on GHG emissions sources that the City controls or influences. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD and ICLEI’s Draft Community-wide Protocol, the City is supporting AB 32 as the primary vehicle and framework to regulate and reduce emissions from large industrial facilities (Chevron, West Contra Costa County Landfill, and New NGC, Inc.) in its community-wide GHG reduction target for the following reasons:
1. These facilities’ GHG
emissions are regulated by CARB under the state’s Cap and Trade program, which requires that power generators, refineries, and other large industrial emitters that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (which collectively represent approximately 85 percent of the state’s emissions) reduce their emissions over time in line with the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). The Cap and Trade program provides a limit on emissions with the state as the enforcing agency; the City does not have the same jurisdictional authority.
2. These facilities ar
e also regulated through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC), and are subject to air quality and emissions standards set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency, CARB, and the BAAQMD.
3. Chevron
’s GHG emissions are currently limited by the Conditional Use Permit the City recently issued for the Chevron Refinery Modernization Project. Mitigation included in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ensures compliance with AB 32 by requiring the refinery, even operating at full capacity (100% utilization), to maintain no net increase (NNI) in GHG emissions, and include numerous measures to reduce GHG emissions from operations. In addition, the subsequent Environmental and Community Investment Agreement (ECIA) between Chevron and the City identifies a number of Community-based GHG Reduction Programs (CGRPs) designed to mitigate the refinery’s operational GHG emissions that fall outside of California’s Cap and Trade Program, and allocates funding to those programs and to community programs that overlap those in the CAP , covering the transportation and mobility, energy, solid waste, and biological sequestration sectors.
Figure 3-1: 2005 Baseline Community GHG Inventory
Residential Energy Use
Commercial/Industrial Energy Use
Transportation: On-road
Transportation: Off-road
Solid Waste
Water/Wastewater
92%
2%
5%
1%
33%
38%
18%
7%
3% 1%<1%1%
2005 Including AB-32 Regulated Sources Excluding AB-32 Regulated Sources Emissions Inventories, Forecast, and Reduction Targets
28 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Comparison of the 2005 and 2012 inventories shows that the City saw a reduction in total GHG emissions, including Large Industrial Energy Use by sources regulated under AB 32, of 742,121 MTCO2e over the seven year period (a 13.2 percent reduction). Excluding sources regulated by AB 32, emissions increased by 0.4 percent (2,982 MTCO2e). As shown in Table 3-1, every sector saw a reduction in emissions with the exception of Transportation and Wastewater, which exhibited increases of 4.1 and 7.6 percent, respectively. The sectors that exhibited the greatest decrease in emissions were Water (37.2 percent) and Large Industrial Energy Use (15.2 percent).
3.2 Municipal Inventory
The GHG emissions associated with municipal facilities
and operations, referred to as the Municipal Inventory, are a subset of the community-wide inventory. The Municipal Inventory represents less than one percent of the Community Inventory. Despite this low percentage, the City of Richmond recognizes the importance of providing leadership to the community and is committed to introducing policies and
programs to reduce GHG emissions associated with its
operations. Table 3-2 shows the municipal emissions for 2005 and 2012, which are estimated to be around 7,845
MTCO2e and 8,175 MTCO2e, respectively. In 2005 municipal energy use for Buildings accounted for the greatest share of emissions at approximately 46 percent, followed by the City’s Vehicle Fleet at 18 percent and Streetlights at 17 percent. In 2012, the City’s Vehicle Fleet had surpassed energy use as the greatest source of municipal emissions at around 35 percent, followed by Buildings at approximately 33 percent, and Water and Sewerage at 13 percent.
Figure 3-2: 2012 Community GHG Inventory Update
Residential Energy Use
Commercial/Industrial Energy Use
Transportation: On-road
Transportation: Off-road
Solid Waste
Water/Wastewater
90%
Including AB-32
Regulated Sources
Excluding AB-32
Regulated Sources
2%1%
6%
<1%1%
33%39%
17%
7%
4% <1%
Emissions Inventories, Forecast, and Reduction Targets
29 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Table 3-2: Municipal Inventory Results
2005 2012
Percent Change 2005-2012
MTCO2e Percent MTCO2e Percent
Buildings 3,599 45.9 2,669 32.6 -26%
Streetlights 1,312 16.7 930 11.4 -29%
Water and Sewerage 1,005 12.8 1,033 12.6 3%
Waste 543 6.9 701 8.6 29%
Vehicle Fleet 1,386* 17.7 2,842 34.8 105%
Total 7,845 100 8,175 100 4%
*2005 data unavailable, 2008 used as proxy year
4 The BAU forecast takes into consideration emissions r eductions resulting from implementation of statewide mandates including the California’s Advanced Clean Car Initiative (Pavley II standards) to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to reduce the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels. For additional information on how future emissions were calculated, see Appendix B. 5 Note that state measures affecting ener gy efficiency (e.g., SB 350) and renewable energy (Renewables Portfolio Standard) are not accounted for here.
Adjusted Business as Usual Forecast
The adjusted business as usual (Adjusted BAU) forecast
accounts for the local impact of state measures designed to reduce GHG emissions. Through its Climate Change Scoping Plan Update of 2014, the State of California establishes a broad framework to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050, across all sectors of the economy.
Transportation measures in particular are designed to achieve consistent GHG emissions reductions across the state by increasing vehicle efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of fuels used by the statewide vehicle fleet. These measures include the Pavley II/CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Vehicle standards (known as the Advanced Clean Car initiative in California), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), the Tire Pressure Program, the Tire Tread Standard, and the Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Program. Collectively, these measures are expected to reduce statewide transportation emissions by nearly 35 percent from the 2030 BAU forecast, and by extension should reduce community-wide emissions in the City of Richmond by the same percentage.
The Adjusted Business-As-Usual forecast for the City accounts for these state-level transportation measures.
5 Figure 3-3
shows how the BAU forecast compares to the Adjusted BAU forecast that accounts for state measures.
3.3 Emissions Forecasts and
Reduction Targets
Business as Usual Forecast
Business-as-usual (BAU) emissions forecasts for 2020 and 2030 were derived based on demographic growth projections from the City of Richmond General Plan 2030 for future
population, jobs, and households. Emissions forecasts for 2040 and 2050 were derived by continuing the average annual growth rates from 2005 to 2030. Excluding sources regulated by AB 32, the City of Richmond’s community emissions are expected to increase approximately 11 percent between
2005 (the baseline year) and 2020, from 693,426 to 767,673 MTCO2e; by 2030 emissions would increase approximately 46 percent from baseline conditions to approximately 1,015,000 MTCO2e; by 2050 emissions would increase to nearly 1.3
million MT CO2e.
4 The BAU emissions forecasts are depicted
in Figure 3-3. (For additional information on how these forecasts were derived see Appendix B.)
Emissions Inventories, Forecast, and Reduction Targets
30 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
6 Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-3-05 established a statewide GHG emissions goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 7 In its Climate Change Scoping Plan of September 2008, and confirmed in the Scoping Plan Update in 2014, CARB recommends that local gov
ernments adopt a GHG reduction target consistent with the State’s commitment to reach 1990 levels by 2020. This was identified as equivalent to 15% below “current” levels at the time of writing (2008). In its GHG Plan Level Guidance, BAAQMD also recommends using a baseline year of 2008 or earlier.
8 Under California’s constitutional system, the Legislature, not the Governor, is entrusted to make statewide laws. (See Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshe (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 836; see also Cal. Const. Art. 4 § 8(b)). The Legislature did not include EO S-3-05 goals in AB 32, and has not incorporated the EO in any implementing legislation or applicable plans. 9 Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-3-15 established the statewide interim GHG emission reduction target at 40% below 1990 levels. 10 Available online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf (last accessed 7/11/16). on May 22, 2014, the CARB approved the “First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan” describing the state’s progress towards achieving AB 32 and broader goals.
10 The
update stated that “California is on track to meet the near- term 2020 greenhouse gas limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32. ” Specifically, “if California realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals (such as 12,000 megawatts [MW] of renewable distributed generation by 2020, net zero energy homes after 2020, existing building retrofits under AB 758, and others) it could reduce emissions by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed in the developed world and to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. ”
Figure 3-3: Richmond GHG Emissions Baseline and Forecasts Forecast emissions
(Business as Usual)
Forecast BAU emissions
accounting for State
transportation measures
Reduction Target
On September 6, 2008, the Richmond City Council passed
Resolution No. 108-08 establishing a goal of achieving GHG reduction targets consistent with AB 32 and the Governor’s 2005 Executive Order S-3-05, which correspond to achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, respectively.
6 Consistent with Resolution No.
108-08, the City has established a 2020 GHG reduction target for the CAP of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
7 In addition, although executive orders do not have the same status as legislation
8, the City is committed to supporting the
state’s continued work toward meeting the deeper reductions called for in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-3-15.
9 Notably,
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Actual
2005
Actual
2012
Forecast
2020
Forecast
2030
Forecast
2040
Forecast
2050
2005 Baseline Emissions = 693 ,426
Emissions Inventories, Forecast, and Reduction Targets
31 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Figure 3-4: Richmond GHG Emissions Baseline, Forecasts, and 2020 Target Forecast emissions
(Business as Usual)
Adjusted forecast BAU
emissions, with State
transportation measures
Emissions trajectory
based on state targets
The City’s 2020 GHG emissions target, equivalent to 15
percent below 2005 levels, is 589,412 metric tons CO2e. Figure 3-4 illustrates the 2020 target in relation to deeper reductions needed for the City to maintain an emissions trajectory in line with the longer term statewide goals established by Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-3-15.
As outlined in the next chapter, Objectives and Strategies, the CAP provides a clear roadmap to meeting the 2020 target mandated by AB 32, and includes measures that will enable the City to accomplish much deeper reductions by 2030 and beyond, consistent with City commitments to support the state’s progress toward deeper emissions reductions as called for in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-3-15. As the State enacts new policies and regulations for reducing GHG emissions, the CAP and the City’s own GHG reduction targets will be revised accordingly.
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Actual
2005
Actual
2012
Forecast
2020
Forecast
2030
Forecast
2040
Forecast
2050
Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions
Adjusted BAU Emissions
2030 Statewide goal = 40% below 1990 levels
2050 Statewide goal = 80% below 1990 levels
2020 Target = 589,412
2005 Baseline Emissions = 693,426
Emissions Inventories, Forecast, and Reduction Targets
32 City of Richmond California Climate Action Plan
Tab 23
Richmond
Community Survey