Richmond City Council
January 24, 2023

49 | City of Richmond 2023-2031 Housing Element
pathways to approximately 130 residents living in these specific encampments, beginning August 2022.

Program 6.AA: Tenant, Community, and Government Opportunity (TOPA/COPA/GOPA) to Purchase Ordinance
Implement a local tenant/community and government opportunity to purchase (TOPA/COPA/GOPA) ordinance and ensure adequate legal and organizational support so that tenants can avail themselves of the TOPA/COPA/GOPA process when it becomes available.

Collaborate with local jurisdictions including Oakland and Berkeley to learn from their experiences designing TOPA/COPA/GOPA policies that would cover a wider array of buildings outside of foreclosure, including rental housing with expiring federal and/or state subsidies and/or affordability protections. Require purchasers to preserve units as permanently affordable. Include these findings and best practice policy implementation information in the Housing Equity Roadmap.

Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Grant funding, comprehensive planning fee.

Time Frame: See Program 6.G (Housing Equity Roadmap) . Refine the City’s proposed TOPA/COPA/GOPA Ordinance for City Council review and potential adoption by September 2026.

Quantified Objective: Seek to preserve a minimum of two units annually upon implementation.

Program 6.A B: Public Improvements and Affordable Housing in Low -Income Neighborhoods of Color
Identify place-based strategies for new affordable housing and fair housing investments in low - income areas with new City infrastructure improvements.

Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Grant funding, comprehensive planning fee Time Frame: Secure funding by December 2031.

Quantified Objective: Secure at least $5 million for public improvements in low -income neighborhoods of color, coupled with new affordable housing and fair housing strategies.

2023-2031 Housing Element City of Richmond | 50
Program 6.AC: Resident Planning Councils
Review b est practices of resident planning councils in other cities, including staffing, funding sources, and interface with government to be included in the Housing Equity Roadmap. If deemed feasible, pilot resident planning council would review and provide feedback to the City on proposed development projects in their neighborhoods and policies that may impact resident health and displacement. Conduct a City sponsored training program to discuss how City planning and approval processes work, the history of land use discrimination, land use terminology and major policies, and the role of residents in land use decisions.

Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Grant funding, comprehensive planning fee Time Frame: See Program 6.G (Housing Equity Roadmap) . Design resident planning councils by December 2024. Launch and evaluate resident planning council by March 2026.

Goal 7: Encourage energy and resource conservation and sustainability measures.

Policies
Policy 7.1: Green Building Measures and Practices
Promote the incorporation of green building measures and practices in new residential development projects and existing residential structures.

Programs
Program 7.A: California Green Building Standards
Continue to enforce the State of California’s Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code), which is intended to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impacts during and after construction. Continue to enforce Natural Gas Ban to restrict the use of natural gas for new construction.

Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Permit fees
Time Frame: Ongoing.

Program 7.B: Energy Program Referrals and Funding
Continue to refer property owners to third-party organizations that provide energy programs. The City will continue to improve the energy efficiency of households by partnering with the following initiatives and leveraged funding sources: 1) Leverage funding from the Environmental and Community Investment Agreement (ECIA) to provide incentives to property owners; 2) Develop enhanced building codes and policies through a grant-funded partnership with the California

51 | City of Richmond 2023-2031 Housing Element
Energy Commission; 3) Partner with the East Bay Energy Watch to perform no-cost Green House Calls for residents; 4) Provide financing tools such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) for water and energy efficiency, solar, and seismic upgrades; and 5) Solarize affordable housing at no-cost to property owners with State funding through a partnership with GRID Alternatives. If construction of upgrades requires tenants to temporarily relocate, the City will require temporary relocation payments and other requirements consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 11.102 (Relocation Requirements for Tenants of Residential Rental Units).

Responsible Party: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: Grant funds, ECIA funds
Time Frame: Ongoing.

Quantified Objective: Conduct three referrals under this program during the planning period.

Program 7.C: Site Remediation
Require property owners to comply with State and federal requirements for site remediation as a condition for approving redevelopment on contaminated sites. In collaboration with other government agencies, utilize the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Cortese List to prioritize the r emediation of C ity and non-City-owned property to protect human and environmental health. Seek State and federal funds to implement the necessary level of clean-up.

Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Funding Source: EPA grants, revolving loan fund
Time Frame: Ongoing.

Quantified Objective: Complete remediation of four parcels by 2031.

IV.B Quantified Objectives
Table IV -2 presents the City’s quantified objectives for construction, preservation, and rehabilitation for the 2023 – 2031 planning period that will be achieved through the policies and programs described above.

Table IV-2: Quantified Objectives
Program Type/Affordability Extremely
Low1 Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
New Construction 420 420 485 638 1,651 3,614
Rehabilitation 0 6 6 0 0 12
Conservation/Preservation 0 10 0 0 0 10
Total 420 436 491 638 1,651 3,636
1 The City estimates 50% of the very low households would qualify as extremely low income.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 Appendix A: Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
Contents
Appendix A: Demographics Housing Needs Assessment ......................... 1 Section A.1 Introduction and Summary .................................................................................... 2 A.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 A.1.2 Summary ............................................................................................................... 3 Section A.2 Population Characteristics ..................................................................................... 5 A.2.1 Population ............................................................................................................. 5 A.2.2 Age ........................................................................................................................ 6 A.2.3 Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................................... 8 A.2.4 Employment ........................................................................................................ 10 Section A.3 Household Characteristics................................................................................... 16 A.3.1 Household Size ................................................................................................... 16 A.3.2 Overcrowding ...................................................................................................... 17 A.3.3 Household Income .............................................................................................. 20 A.3.4 Special Housing Needs ....................................................................................... 24 A.3.5 Displacement ....................................................................................................... 44 Section A.4 Housing Stock Characteristics............................................................................. 46 A.4.1 Housing Type and Vacancy ................................................................................ 46 A.4.2 Housing Tenure ................................................................................................... 47 A.4.3 Housing Units Permitted ...................................................................................... 50 A.4.4 Housing Age and Condition ................................................................................. 51 Section A.5 Housing Costs and Affordability .......................................................................... 53 A.5.1 Ownership Costs ................................................................................................. 53 A.5.2 Rental Costs ........................................................................................................ 55 A.5.3 Overpayment ....................................................................................................... 57 A.5.4 At-Risk Housing Assessment .............................................................................. 67

2 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Section A.1 Introduction and Summary
A.1.1 Introduction
This Appendix forms the foundation for understanding Richmond’s housing needs. It analyzes a range of demographic, economic, and housin g-related variables to determine the extent and context of the City’s housing-related needs.

The information discussed in this section provides a basis from which to build housing goals, policies, and programs to address those needs.

This needs assessment includes an analysis of the City’s popula tion, special needs groups, employment, housing stock, and housing affordability.

The main source of data analyzed in this section is HCD pre-certified local housing data provided by the Association of Bay Area Go vernments (ABAG), which relies primarily on the American Community Survey (ACS) 2015-2019, California Department of Fina nce (DoF), and HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data.

The sources of information used in the Housing Element describe racial and ethnic groups according to certain conventions. To ensure that the Housing Element identifies racial and ethnic groups in a respectful and inclusive manner, the Resident Advis ory Council (RAC) helped formulate a set of terms, which are used throughout the Housing Element. These terms are shown in the table below, which includes the comparable race and ethn icity designations used by the U.S. Census.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 3 Race and Ethnicity Categories
Richmond Housing Element U.S. Census
Asian American and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
Non-Hispanic Asian
Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Black/African American Non-Hispanic Black or African
American
Hispanic/Latinx Hispanic or Latino
Native American Non-Hispanic American Indian or
Alaska Native
White Non-Hispanic White
Multiracial
Non-Hispanic Two or more races
Non-Hispanic Some other race

A.1.2 Summary
Housing needs are determined by a city’s population and its exi sting housing stock and provide context for developing housing poli cy, such as which types of h ousing (and at what affordability level) are needed most in the community. The following summariz es key data from this housing needs assessment.
 In 2020, Richmond had an estimated population of 111,217. 1 From 2000 to 2020, Richmond grew by approximately 12,000 residents, an increase of 12.1 percent.

Richmond’s pace of growth in the last two decades was somewhat slower than the Bay Area, which grew by 14.8 percent.
 Richmond has a more racially and ethnically diverse population than either Contra Costa County (County) or the Bay Area as a whole. Richmond has a smal ler share of residents that identify as White than the County and the region, and Rich mond has a larger share of residents that identify as Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American compared to the County and the region.
 In general, Richmond has a somewhat younger population than Co ntra Costa County. In 2019 the median age in Richmond was 36 compared to 40 in the County.  Richmond has a higher rate of overcrowding than the rest of th e region. In 2017, 9.4 percent of Richmond residents faced overcrowded conditions, while 5.1 percent of Contra

1 The 2020 Decennial Census total population estimate is 116,448, and the California Department of Finance 2020 estimate from its 2022 data release is 115,894.

4 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Costa County residents and 6.9 percent of residents in the Bay Area experienced overcrowding.
 Household income in Richmond is lower than in Contra Costa Cou nty. In 2019, the County’s median household income of $99,716 was 46 percent high er than Richmond’s median household income of $68,472.
 In Richmond, 15 percent of the total population (14,712 reside nts) is below the federal poverty level, which is higher than the rate of Contra Costa County residents (9 percent).  A greater share of Richmond households are cost-burdened house holds compared to Contra Costa County. Of Richmond’s households, nearly half are cost-burdened, spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Among c ost-burdened households in Richmond, 20 percent are severely-cost burdened. In the County and the Bay Area, 36 percent of households are cost-burdened and 16 percent are severely cost- burdened.
 Renters in Richmond are typically more often cost-burdened tha n homeowners. Over half of renter households are cost-burdened, spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing, while around a third of households that own their home are cost-burdened.

Additionally, 25 percent of renters are severely cost-burdened, while 14 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened.
 Seniors (65 years and above) make up approximately 13.4 percen t of Richmond’s population. Out of the total senior population, approximately 3 9 percent are cost- burdened. Seniors are a designated special needs population under housing element law.

Seniors can face higher levels of housing insecurity because they are more likely to be on a fixed income while requiring higher levels of care.
 Richmond’s other special housing needs populations include per sons with a disability that may require accessible housing (12.6 percent of residents) and female-headed households who are often at greater risk of housing insecurity (17 percent of households).  In Richmond, 14 percent (5,119 households) of households are c onsidered large households (five or more people), which are generally served by three-bedroom or larger units. Richmond’s housing mix of three-bedroom or larger units (18,591 units) can sufficiently accommodate the number of larger families.  Household growth has been slower in Richmond than in the Count y. Total housing unit growth between 2010 and 2020 was 1.7 percent in Richmond, compared to 5.8 percent in Contra Costa County.
 A variety of housing types is important to meet the needs of a ll members of the community.

More than half (61 percent) of Richmond’s housing stock is sing le-family (attached and detached), however, multi-family housing experienced the most g rowth over the last decade.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5  In Richmond, 50 percent of residents rent their homes compared to 34 percent of households in Contra Costa County and 44 percent in the overall Bay Area.  There are an estimated 3,371 assisted units in Richmond. Among these units, 10 are at moderate risk of being converted to market-rate housing by 2033.

Section A.2 Population Characteristics
A.2.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nati on and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Rec ession.2 Many cities in the Bay Area have experienced significant growth in jobs and population . While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the regio n, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth.

In 2020, Richmond had an estimated population of 111,217 (Table A-1). The population of Richmond accounts for 9.6 percent of the overall Contra Costa County population. From 2000 to 2020, Richmond grew by approximately 12,000 residents, an incre ase of 12.1 percent.

Richmond’s pace of growth was somewhat slower than the region as a whole, which grew by 14.8 percent from 2000 to 2020.

11.6 percent of Richmond residents moved during the previous ye ar, which is a slightly smaller share compared to the entire Bay Area (13.4 percent).3
Table A-1: Population Growth Trends
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Geography
Richmond 86,019 90,903 99,216 102,30 7 103,701 108,371 111,217 1 Contra Costa County 803,732 863,335 948,816 1,016,372 1,049,025 1,113,341 1,153,561 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,831,961 6, 784,348 7,073,912 7,150, 739 7,595,694 7,7 90,537 Note: 1The 2020 Decennial Census total population estimate is 116,448, and the California Department of Finance 2020 estimate from its 2022 data release is 115,894.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Finance, E-5 series)

2 The Bay Area Region includes Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County. 3 ABAG Housing Needs Data Report: Richmond.

6 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment

Figure A-1: Population Growth Trends

Note: The data shown in the graph represents the population for Richmond, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area Region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year. For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts. The California Department of Finance uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Finance, E-5 series)

A.2.2 Age
The distribution of age groups in a city influences the types o f housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mea n there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children a nd young families may demonstrate the need for more family housing options and related services.

In Richmond, the median age in 2000 was approximately 32 years, and by 2019, the median age increased to around 36 years. The 2019 median age in Richmond was younger than in the County, which was 40 years.
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Index (1990 = 100)
Index
Richmond
Index
Contra Costa County
Index
Bay Area

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 7 Seniors (65 years and older) account for 13.4 percent of Richmond’s total population. Statewide, the population of seniors comprised approximately 21 percent of the total population. From 2000 to 2019, the Richmond senior population increased by 49.8 percent (Figure A-2).

Youths (14 years and under) accounted for 18.4 percent of Richmond’s 2019 total population and have decreased by 13.8 percent since 2000. Conversely, the popu lation of those aged 15 to 45 increased by 6.7 percent between 2000 and 2019 and account for 43.6 percent of the total population of Richmond.

Reviewing age demographics by race can provide additional infor mation about the share of a community’s population that is more likely to experience housing insecurity. Families and seniors of color are particularly important to note since these groups are more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing. In 2019, 59 percent of s eniors were people of color (all Non-White racial groups) and 66 percent of residents under the age of 18 were people of color (see Figure A-3).

Figure A-2: Richmond Population by Age, 2000-2019, City of Richmond

Universe: Total population
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data ((U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S.

Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001)

0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Age 0-4 Age 5-14 Age 15-
24 Age 25-
34 Age 35-
44 Age 45-
54 Age 55-
64 Age 65-
74 Age 75-
84 Age 85+
Population
2000 2010 2019

8 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-3: Senior and Youth Population by Race, City of Richmond

Universe: Total population
Note: The Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for this data, and an overlapping category of Hispanic/Non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting. Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Native American account for less than one percent of the population for each of the age categories shown in the figure.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G))

A.2.3 Race/Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are sha ped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impac t communities of color today. 4 Please see the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis (Appendix F) for an assessment of fair housing in Richmond.

Richmond has a smaller share of residents that identify as Whit e and AAPI than the County and the region, and Richmond has a larger share of residents that i dentify as Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American compared to the County and the region (see Figure A-4).

4 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a fo rgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 11%
17% 18%
13%
20%
31%
42%
26%
9%
33% 37% 41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 0-17 Age 18-64 Age 65+
% Population
White (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Multiracial (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Black/African American
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Asian American and Pacific
Islander (AAPI) (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Native American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 9 Since 2000, the number of residents in Richmond identifying as White, Black/African American, and Native American has decreased, while residents identifying as Hispanic/Latinx, AAPI, and Multiracial have increased (see Table A-2). From 2000 to 2019, the White population in Richmond decreased by seven percent, the Black/African American populati on decreased by 39 percent, and the Native American population decreased by eight percent. During this same period, the AAPI population increased by 36 percent, the Hispanic/Latinx population increased by 77 percent, and the Multiracial population increased by 1,097 percent.

Figure A-4: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019, City of Richmond Note: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates.

The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity as separate from racial categories. For this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group.

All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. The Native American population accounts for less than one percent of residents in Richmond, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S.

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002)

42%
26% 24%
20%
8%
6%
18%
44%
39%
16% 17%
27%
4% 5% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Population
Native American
Multiracial
Asian American and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latinx

10 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-2: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000-2019, City of Richmond

2000 2010 2019 Change 2000 to 2019
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native
American 351 <1% 250 <1% 324 <1% -27 -8%
Asian American
and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
12,553 13% 14,245 14% 17,073 16% 4,520 36%
Black/African
American 35,279 37% 26,872 26% 21,465 20% -13,814 -39%
White 21,081 22% 17,769 17% 19,569 18% -1,512 -7%
Multiracial 400 <1% 3,644 4% 4,789 4% 4,389 1097%
Hispanic/Latinx 26,319 27% 40, 921 39% 46,664 42% 20,345 77% Note: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates.

The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity as separate from racial categories. For this graph, the “Hispanic/Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S.

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002)

A.2.4 Employment
A city houses employed residents who either work in the communi ty where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent, the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job center s. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be s evere, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale. One measur e of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of resident workers (meaning more workers than jobs available) “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs (meaning more jobs than can be filled with local workers) must conversely “import” them.

In Richmond, there are 52,463 employed residents and 42,558 job s, and the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.81, indicating that Richmond is a net exp orter of workers. In the last two decades, the number of jobs in Richmond has steadily increased. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Richmond grew by 16.7 percent (see Figure A-5).

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 1 Figure A-5: Jobs in the City of Richmond
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus the United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment.

Note: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018)

Approximately 10 percent of Richmond residents work and live in the City according to the 2019 Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics program (Table A-3). Richmond has a smaller share of resident workers than Berkeley, but a larger s hare than the Cities of El Cerrito, San Pablo, and Pinole.

Table A-3: Employed Residents that Work and Live in the City, 2019

Number Percent
Berkeley 7,943 18.3%
Richmond 4,527 10.0%
San Pablo 672 5.6%
El Cerrito 503 4.2%
Pinole 335 3.8%
Source: Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-
Household Dynamics, 2019.

A community may offer employment for low-income workers but hav e few housing options for those workers, or the community may house residents who earn lo w wages but have few employment opportunities for them. A surplus of jobs relative t o residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import workers at that wage level , while conversely, surpluses of workers in wage groups relative to jobs means the community wil l export those workers to other -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172 0 1 8 Jobs

12 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, but over time , sub-regional imbalances may appear.

Figure A-6 shows the balance of jobs to workers broken down by different wage groups.

Richmond has more low-wage residents than low-wage jobs (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectru m, the City has more high-wage jobs than high-wage residents (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000).

Therefore, Richmond has fewer housing accommodations for its low-wage jobs and more options for its high-wage positions.

Figure A-6: Workers by Earnings, Richmond Residents and Workers in Richmond, City of Richmond Universe: workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519)

Figure A-7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident worke rs to the jobs from different wage groups as a ratio. A ratio of 1.0 means that a city has the sam e number of jobs in a wage group as resident workers. Values above 1.0 indicate a jurisdiction w ill need to import workers for jobs for the given wage group. Thus, Richmond does not need to impor t workers but rather needs to import jobs. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region.

5.6k

11.4k

16.4k

8.8k

10.3k

3.9k

6.7k

11.5k

8.4k

12.0k
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Less than $9,999 $10,000 to $24,999$25,000 to $49,999$50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more Worker Population
Richmond Residents Workers in Richmond

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 3 Figure A-7: Jobs-Resident Worker Ratios, by Wage Group, City of Richmond

Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus the United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Note: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018)

The balance between households and j obs can also reveal importa nt information about a community, and in particular, it can help indicate the level of housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live near their workpla ce and may experience long commutes, which contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users. The jobs- household ratio in Richmond has increased over time, from 0.83 jobs per household in 2002 to

0.91 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure A-8) and may indica te an increased demand for housing. Richmond’s job to households ratio is lower than both Contra Costa County (0.98) and the region (1.47), which may suggest there is a lesser amount o f housing demand from employment in Richmond than in the greater region, however, hou sing demand is typically experienced at a regional level and high job-household ratios i n the County and the region may instead demonstrate intruding demand for housing from the larger region on Richmond.

0.50 0.55

0.60 0.65

0.70 0.75

0.80 0.85

0.90 0.95

1.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172 0 1 8 Jobs-Resident Worker Ratio
Wages Less Than $1,250/Mo Wages $1,250-$3,333/Mo
Wages More than $3,333/Mo

14 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-8: Jobs-Household Ratio

Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus the United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Note: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are occupied.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households))

Health and Educational Services is the largest industry in Rich mond, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area. In 2019, Health and Educational Services jobs acc ounted for 34 percent of employment in Richmond, 31 percent of employment in the County, and 30 percent of employment in the region (Figure A-9).

0.91 0.98

1.47 0.60

0.70 0.80

0.90 1.00

1.10 1.20

1.30 1.40

1.50 1.60
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172 0 1 8 Jobs-Household Ratio
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 5 Figure A-9: Resident Employment by Industry

Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Note: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Less than one percent of residents in Richmond, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area are employed in the Agricultural & Natural Resources industry.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030)

In Richmond, the unemployment rate decreased between 2010 and 2 021, from an average of

13.4 percent in January 2010 to 9.2 percent in January 2021 (Fi gure A-10). Jurisdictions throughout the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in early 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 Pandemic but saw general improvements a nd recovery in the later months of 2020. As of June 2022, Richmond’s unemployment rate dropped to 3.8 percent.5

5 California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) 9% 7% 6%
19% 25% 26%
34% 31% 30%
4%
15% 14% 17%
9% 10% 9%
11% 9% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Employed Residents
Other
Retail
Manufacturing, Wholesale
& Transportation
Information
Health & Educational
Services
Financial & Professional
Services
Construction
Agriculture & Natural
Resources
2% 3%

16 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-10: Unemployment Rate

Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Note: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level are derived from larger-geography estimates.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021)

Section A.3 Household Characteristics
A.3.1 Household Size
In Richmond, the largest share of households (28.6 percent) con sists of two people, while the lowest share of households (13.8 percent) consists of five-or-m ore persons. One-person households make up 25.4 percent of the occupied housing stock i n Richmond. Three person- households and four-person households make up a smaller share of the occupied housing stock in the City, at 16.4 percent and 15.8 percent respectively. According to the California Department of Finance, Richmond had an average household size of 2.93 in 2 020. The average household size in Contra Costa County was smaller at 2.83 persons per hou sehold. 32.2 percent of households in Richmond are three-to-four person households, slightly lower than the County (34.2 percent three-to-four person households) and the region (32.6 p ercent three-to-four person households).

9.2%

7.7%

6.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020
% Labor Force that is Unemployed
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 7 Table A-4: Household Size, City of Richmond
Owner
Occupied
% Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
% Renter
Occupied
% of Total
Occupied
Housing
Units
1-person household 4,729 25.6% 4,685 25.2% 25.4%
2-person household 5,853 31.7% 4,768 25.6% 28.6%
3-person household 2,832 15.3% 3,233 17.4% 16.4%
4-person household 2,639 14.3% 3,230 17.4% 15.8%
5-or-more person household 2, 429 13.1% 2,690 14.5% 13.8% Total occupied housing units 18,482 100.0% 18,606 100.0% 100.0% Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Da ta (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009)

A.3.2 Overcrowding
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a house hold is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which defines overcro wding as having more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau defines units with more than 1.5 occupants per room as severely overcro wded. Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when housing deman d in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is experienced more by renters, some of which join with multiple households to rent a unit in order to stay in their communities.

Richmond has a higher rate of overcrowding than the rest of the region. In 2017, 9.4 percent (3,493 households) of Richmond households faced overcrowded con ditions and 5.1 percent (20,043 households) of Contra Costa County residents and 6.9 percent (188,378 households) of residents in the Bay Area experienced overcrowding (see Figure A-11).

Among Richmond households that rent, 8.3 percent experienced ov ercrowding, and 3.9 percent of those who own their home experience overcrowding (see Figure A-12). 4.7 percent of Richmond households that rent are severely overcrowded and 2 percent of households that own are severely overcrowded.

18 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-11: Overcrowding Severity

Note: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Figure A-12: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity, City of Richmond

Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income househ olds. In Richmond, 4 percent of very low-income households (below 50 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while

6.1%

3.5%

4.2%

3.3%

1.5%

2.7%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Occupied Households

1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 1.50 occupants per room or more

3.9%

8.3%

2.0%

4.7%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
% Occupied Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 9

1.5 percent of households (above 100 percent AMI) experience th is level of overcrowding (see Figure A-13).

Figure A-13: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity, City of Richmond Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding and more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents.

In Richmond, the racial and ethnic group with the largest rate of overcrowding is Hispanic/Latinx at a rate of 21.9 percent (2,514 households) (see Figure A-14). Residents identifying as Multiracial reported overcrowding at 21.2 percent (1,570 households), while AAPI reported overcrowding at

7.9 percent (427 households). Minimal rates of overcrowding wer e reported for Black/African American and White residents at 3.3 percent (301 households) and 2.6 percent (247 households) respectively.6

6 Data provided for Multiracial, AAPI, and Black/African America n residents include those identifying as Hispanic and Non-Hispanic.

5.7%

11.8%

8.2%

6.7%

2.7%

4.0% 4.3%

3.5%

1.2% 1.5%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
% Occupied Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room

20 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-14: Overcrowding by Race, City of Richmond

Note: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the White racial group is also reported for White householders who are not Hispanic. Since residents who identify as White and Hispanic may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as White and Non-Hispanic, data for multiple White sub-groups are reported here.

The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labeled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014)

A.3.3 Household Income
Household income is a critical component of housing affordabili ty. Income impacts the decision to rent versus own, the size of the unit, and the location of housing. Overall, household income in Richmond is lower than that of Contra Costa County. Richmond’s median household income in 2019 was $68,472 compared to the County’s median income of $99,716.

21.1%

7.9%

3.3%

21.9% 21.2%

7.8%

2.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
More than 1.0 Occupants per Room
% Occupied Households
Native American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
Asian American and Pacific
Islander (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Black/African American
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Hispanic/Latinx
Multiracial (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
White

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 2 1

Table A-5: Household Income, City of Richmond
Richmond Contra Costa County
Median Income $68,472 $99,716
Mean Income $87,666 $135,742
Source: ACS 5-year estimates (2019), S1901

Table A-6: Income Categories as a Percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) % of AMI
Acutely Low 0-15%
Extremely Low 15-30%
Very Low 30-50%
Low 50-80%
Moderate 80-120%
Above Moderate >120%
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021

Table A-7: Contra Costa County 2021 Annual Income Limits by Household Size Number of Persons in
Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Contra
Costa
County
Area
Median
Income:

Acutely Low $13,200 $15,100 $16,950 $18,850 $20,350 $21,850 $23,350 $ 24,900 Extremely Low $28,800 $32,900 $37,000 $41,100 $44,400 $47,700 $51,0 00 $54,300 Very Low Income $47,950 $54,800 $61,650 $68,500 $74,000 $79,500 $84 ,950 $90,450 Low Income $76,750 $87,700 $98,650 $109,600 $118,400 $127,150 $135,950 144,700 Median Income $87,900 $100,500 $113,050 $125,600 $135,650 $145,700 $155,750 $165,800 Moderate Income $105,500 $120,550 $135,650 $150,700 $162,750 $174,800 $186,850 $198,900 Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021

Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most econo mically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality betw een high- and low-income households in the state.7

7 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.

22 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment The concentration of high-income households in Richmond is lowe r than in the County and the region. In Richmond, 35.8 percent of households earn more than 100 percent of the County area median income (AMI), and 20 percent of households (7,329 househ olds) earn less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see F igure A-15). 8 Regionally, however, more than half of all households earn more than 100 pe rcent of AMI, and 13.5 percent earn less than 30 percent of AMI. Of Richmond’s total household s, 14.8 percent (5,445 households) are low-income (earning between 50 and 80 percent o f AMI), while around 12.1 percent of households in the County and 13.0 percent of househo lds in the Bay Area are low- income. In total, 19,474 households in Richmond earn less than 80 percent of AMI (52.3 percent of households). Households with multiple wage earners (including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals) can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

8 “AMI” represents the local area household median income. The area median income is the midpoint of a select geography’s income distribution, meaning that half of households in a specified area earn more than the median and half earn less than the median.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 2 3 Figure A-15: Households by Household Income Level

Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the County where that household is located.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the income s of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In Richmond, the largest proportion of renters falls into the 3 0 percent or less AMI income group (Figure A-16). Alternatively, the largest proportion of homeown ers falls into the greater than 100 percent AMI income group.

20.0% 13.5 14.7%

18.3%

11.3% 10.9%

14.8%

12.1% 13.0%

11.1%

9.4% 9.4%

35.8%

53.8% 52.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Occuiped Households
Greater than 100% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
0%-30% of AMI

24 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-16: Household Income Level by Tenure, City of Richmond

Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

A.3.4 Special Housing Needs
Large Families
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing. The higher costs required for homes with mu ltiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing an increased risk of housing insec urity. In Richmond, 14 percent (5,119 households), are considered large households (see Figure A-17). Among large households in Richmond 42, percent are low-income (earning 50 percent or less of AMI) (see Figure A-18). 2,114
2,500
2,585
1,980
9,274
5,215
4,200
2,860
2,095
3,873
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 2 5 Figure A-17: Household Size

Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009)

25% 22% 25%
29% 32% 32%
32% 34% 33%
14% 12% 11%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Households
5-Person or More Household
3-4-Person Household
2-Person Household
1-Person Household

26 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-18: Household Size by Household Income Level, City of Richmond Note: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are 18,591 units in Richmond, or 50 percent of all units in the City. Among units with three or more bedrooms, 30 percent (5,570 units) are renter-occupied and 70 p ercent (13,021) are owner- occupied (see Table A-8; Figure A-19). 5,119 households are con sidered large households in Richmond. Therefore, the housing mix in Richmond is considered adequate to accommodate larger household sizes. However, 42 percent of large households are low-income, and there may be a need to ensure that enough affordable large units (three o r more bedrooms) are available for these households.
20% 17%
18% 24%
14%
20%
11%
9%
37%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Families of 5+ Persons
% Households
Greater than 100% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
0%-30% of AMI

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 2 7 Table A-8: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, City of Richmond Number of Bedrooms Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
0 Bedrooms 117 790
1 Bedroom 499 4,553
2 Bedrooms 4,845 7,693
3-4 Bedrooms 12,355 5,376
5 Or More Bedrooms 666 194
Totals 18,482 18,606
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021

Figure A-19: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, City of Richmond Universe: Housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042)

Senior Households
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed income s and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions, or reduced mobility.

There are 1,925 extremely low-income senior households in Richmond (earning no more than 30 percent of AMI). In general, extremely low- and very low-income seniors (both renters and owners) are more likely to be cost-burdened compared to higher- earning seniors. In Richmond, 117
499
4,845
12,355
666
790
4,553
7,693
5,376
194
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
0 Bedrooms 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3-4 Bedrooms 5 Or More Bedrooms
Occupied Housing Units
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

28 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment

39.1 percent of all senior households are cost-burdened (see Ta ble A-20, Section A.5.3 Overpayment).

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. In Richmond, 71 percen t of senior households are owner-occupied (6,270 households), and 2,530 senior households rent their home. Among extremely low-income seniors (those earning 30 percent AMI or less) 48 percent rent their home, while only 10 percent of seniors earning the area median income or greater are renters (Figure A-20).

Figure A-20: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, City of Richmond

Universe: Senior households
Note: For this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

52%
67% 63% 68%
90%
48%
33% 37% 32%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
% Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 2 9 Female-headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of ho using insecurity, particularly female-headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Richmond, the largest proportion of households is Married-coupl e Family Households at 42 percent, while Female-Headed Households make up 17 percent of all households (6,470 households) (Figure A-21).

Figure A-21: Household Type
Note: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001)

Female-headed households with children may face particular hous ing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In Richmond, 35 percent of female-headed households with childr en fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 10 percent of female-headed households with out children live in poverty (see Table A-9).

17% 12% 10%
7%
5% 5%
42% 55%
51%
7%
6%
9%
25% 22% 25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Households
Single-person
Households
Other Non-Family
Households
Married-couple Family
Households
Male-headed Family
Households
Female-Headed Family
Households

30 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-9: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status, City of Richmond

FHH with Children FHH with No Children

Number Percent Number Percent
Above Poverty Level 2,542 65% 2,324 90%
Below Poverty Level 1,351 35% 253 10%
Total 3,893 100% 2,577 100%
Note: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012)

Persons with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. En compassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and require specialized care, yet often rely o n family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Overall, 13,709 residents, or

12.6 percent of people living in Richmond, have a disability of some type (Figure A-22). 9 Figure A-23 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Richmond.

9 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 3 1 Figure A-22: Population by Disability Status

Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18101

Figure A-23: Disability by Type, City of Richmond

Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Note: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:

Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.

Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107)

12.6% 11.2% 9.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Population

6.8%

5.4%

4.8%

3.5%

2.8%

2.1%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a hearing
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
% Adult Population Reporting Disability Type

32 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Dev elopmental disabilities are defi ned as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are un able to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after a n aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them. In Richmond, of the population with a development disability, children under the age of 18 make up 48.2 percent, while adults account for 51.8 percent (see Table A-10). The most common living arrangement for individuals with developmental disabilities in Richmond is the home of a parent, family, or guardian (see Table A-11).

Table A-10: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age, City of Richmond Age Group Number of People with a Developmental Disability Age Under 18 472
Age 18+ 440
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Note: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020))

Table A-11: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence, City of Richmond Residence Type Number of People with a Developmental Disability Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 765
Independent/Supported Living 90
Community Care Facility 43
Other 13
Foster/Family Home 11
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Note: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020))

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 3 3 Residents Living Below the Poverty Level
The Federal Poverty Level is an estimate of the minimum annual income a household would need to pay for essentials, such as food, housing, clothes, and transportation. This level considers the number of people in a household, their income, and the state in which they live. In Richmond, 15 percent of the total population (15,946 residents) is below the federal poverty level, which is higher than the rate of Contra Costa County (9 percent) and Bay Area (9 percent) residents.

Table A-12 Poverty Status

Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Below Poverty Level 15,946 15% 98,595 9% 658,327 9%
Above Poverty Level 92,858 85% 1,034,282 91% 6,937,245 91% Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Source: ACS 5-year estimates (2019), S1701

As mentioned, female-headed households with children experience poverty at a disproportionate rate than those without children or the overall population.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically ex cluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. 10 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement, o r homelessness. In Richmond, Multiracial (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience th e highest rates of poverty, followed by Black/African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure A-24).

10 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place : A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

34 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-24: Poverty Status by Race, City of Richmond

Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Note: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as White and Hispanic may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labeled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B17001(A-I))

Farmworkers
Agricultural jobs account for a small share of resident employment in Richmond, the County, and the Bay Area. Less than one percent of residents in Richmond, C ontra Costa County, and the Bay Area are employed in the agriculture and natural resources industry (Figure A-9). Despite the small representation of agricul tural jobs in Richmond and many other communities across the California, the State has identified housing for farmworkers as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs, which makes finding decent and afforda ble housing challenging, particularly in the current housing market. Over the past two d ecades, the need for permanent farmworker housing has also increased in many communities as ma ny farms have shifted away from employing seasonal workers in favor of permanent employees.

Farmworker housing is not solely a rural issue, and farmworker housing needs may be present in suburban and urban communities. Commuting trends for farmworkers show that they often travel

20.7% 18.9%

16.0%

13.0%

8.8%

6.7%

2.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
Multiracial
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic/Latinx Black/African
American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and Non-
Hispanic)
White Asian American
and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Native American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
% Households in Racial / Ethnic Group

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 3 5 far outside their communities for work. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that farmworkers commute 75 miles on average.

Housing for farmworkers extends beyond explicitly farmworker-de signated housing. Housing types promoted in the Housing Element, such as housing for low- income households and multi- family housing, can also serve farmworkers.

According to the USDA Census of Farmworkers, the number of perm anent and seasonal farmworkers in Contra Costa County has decreased since 2002. In 2017, there were 450 permanent farm workers and 860 seasonal farmworkers, and in 2002 there were 730 permanent farmworkers and 1,874 seasonal farmworkers (see Figure A-25).

In Richmond and Contra Costa County, there were no reported stu dents of migrant workers in the 2016-17 through 2019-20 school years (Table A-13). The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4 percent in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016- 17 school year.

Figure A-25: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Contra Costa County

Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors) Note: Farmworkers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm for less than 150 days in a year, while farmworkers who work on a farm for more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor)

730
1,874
578
1,295
509
1,540
450
860
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Permanent Seasonal
Farm Workers
2002 2007 2012 2017

36 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-13: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
2016-17 0 0 4,630
2017-18 0 0 4,607
2018-19 0 0 4,075
2019-20 0 0 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Note: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016- 2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020))

People Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities ac ross the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising ho using costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too m any residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or long-term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. The Point-in-Time (PIT) Count is an annual censu s and survey to identify the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population. According to the 2019 PIT Count, of the 2,295 reported homeless persons in Contra Costa County, the majority of persons experiencing homelessness are households without children in their care, and an overwhelming majority of those (1,374 or 69.7 percent) are unsheltered (Table A-14). Of those homeless persons that are under 18 years old or with children (319), 191 (59.9 percent) a re sheltered in an emergency shelter or transitional housing.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 3 7 Table A-14: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County Variable People in
Households
Composed Solely of
Children Under 18
People in
Households with
Adults and Children
People in
Households without
Children Under 18
Total
Sheltered –
Emergency Shelter
0 159 359 518
Sheltered –
Transitional Housing
0 32 118 150
Unsheltered 0 128 1,499 1,627
Totals 0 319 1,976 2,295
Note: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January.

Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county level.

Per HCD's requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)

According to the 2022 PIT Count, 3,093 people were staying in shelter beds or living outdoors on an average night in Contra Costa County. 11 This estimate of sheltered and unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness has increased by 35 percent since 201 9. Richmond’s population of people experiencing homelessness has increased more significantly, from 333 people in 2019 to 632 in 2022 (see Appendix F, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Table F-32).

In Richmond, there were 387 students experiencing homelessness during the 2019-20 school year (Table A-15). The number of students experiencing homeless ness decreased by 12.4 percent between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 school year. By compari son, Contra Costa County experienced a 4.4 percent increase in the population of student s experiencing homelessness between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 school year. The number of stud ents in Richmond experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 17.5 percent of th e Contra Costa County total and 2.8 percent of the Bay Area total.

11 https://cchealth.org/press-releases/2022/0516-Rise-in-Homelessness-During-Pandemic.php

38 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-15: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year Richmond Contra Costa
County Bay Area
2016-17 442 2,116 14,990 2017-18 413 2,081 15,142 2018-19 486 2,574 15,427 2019-20 387 2,209 13,718 Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020))

As noted above, people of color are more likely to experience p overty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have histor ically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black or African American residents.

In Contra Costa County, Black/African American and Native Ameri can residents experiencing homelessness are significantly overrepresented among racial gro ups in the County. In 2019, residents identifying as Black/African American accounted for 33.8 percent of people experiencing homelessness and 8.7 percent of the total population, and resid ents identifying as Native American accounted for 14.5 percent of people experiencing home lessness and 0.5 percent of the County’s total population. White residents accounted for 45 percent of the people experiencing homelessness and 55.8 percent of the total County population.12

12 Data provided for Black/African American, Native American, and White residents include those identifying as Hispanic and Non-Hispanic.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 3 9 Figure A-26: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County

Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Note: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.

Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I))

14.5%

3.1%

33.8%

45.0%

3.7%

0.5%

17.2%

8.7%

55.8%

17.7%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
Native American
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Asian American
and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Black/African
American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
Multiracial
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
% Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population

40 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-27: Hispanic/Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Note: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I))

Many of those experiencing homel essness are dealing with severe issues (including mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence) that are poten tially life-threatening and require additional assistance. In Contra Costa County, homeless individ uals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 519 reporting this condition (se e Figure A-28). Of those, some 70 percent are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

16.6%

83.4%

25.4%

74.6%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Latinx
% Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 1 Figure A-28: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County

Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Note: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area County is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019))

Emergency Shelters/Transitional Housing
Table A-16 details the services and housing resources for peopl e and families experiencing homelessness in Richmond.
86 31
377
4 1 4
126
27 364
25 14
75 28
6 80
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Sheltered - Emergency
Shelter
Sheltered - Transitional
Housing
Unsheltered
Population
Chronic Substance
Abuse

HIV/AIDS
Severly Mentally Ill
Veterans
Victims of
Domestic Violence

42 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-16: Services and Housing Resources for Persons and Families Experiencing Homelessness
Facility Location Capacity Services
Bay Area
Rescue Mission
200 Macdonald
Avenue,
Richmond
123 beds for men (28 emergency
shelter beds and 95 beds in the long-
term Life Transformational Program)
192 beds for women and women with
children (96 emergency shelter beds
and 96 in the long-term Life
Transformational Program)
Meals, case management,
housing and jobs assistance,
referral services
Brookside
Shelter
847 C Brookside
Drive,
Richmond
Assists approximately 100 adults, and
youth aged 14 to 17 when space is
available, on a year-round basis
Meals, on-job training, life skills
training, case management,
referral
services, housing
assistance
Churches Various Varies Lodging and meals
Contra Costa
Crisis Center
Homeless
Hotline

Various Provides Emergency Motel Vouchers 24-hr homeless hotline, referral to assistance organizations

Deliverance
House
113 Macdonald
Avenue,
Richmond
Transitional housing with four beds,
women and children (0-8 years) only,
12-18-month maximum stay

Supportive services, showers,
laundry facilities, meals, job
training, living
and basic skills
training
Greater
Richmond
Interfaith
Program
Services
165 22nd Street,
Richmond
75-bed facility year-round available for
families only

Free meals year-round, showers,
voicemail, Winder Shelter
Program including meals, referral
services, counseling and care
management, other services
Health Housing
and Integrated
Services,
Contra Costa
County Health
Services

101 Broadway
Avenue,
Richmond
Capacity to service 75 individual men
and women, including a specialized
program for those 18-21. Residents are
allowed to stay up to 120 days if
involved in case management.
24-hr facility that emphasizes
case management and wrap-
around services. Meals, laundry
facilities, mail, and telephones.

Nevin House,
Anka Behavioral
Health
3215 Nevin
Avenue,
Richmond
16-bed residential treatment for
homeless mentally ill.

Program serving dually
diagnosed adults age 18 and
older who need 24-hr therapeutic
care.

Richmond
Endeavor
501 9th Street,
Richmond

Overnight lodging and meals for 12
persons

Multi-assistance, showers,
laundry facilities, lockers, food
pantry, mail, drop-in day room,
computer
training, job assistance
Richmond
House
735 12th Street
and various
other locations
in Richmond
Three 6-bed facilities Multi-assistance, transitional
housing, job assistance
Glo’s
Independent
Living LLC
852 7th Street,
Richmond
8-bed facility Credit and budget counseling, life
skills training, referral services
Source: City of Richmond, HomelessShelterDirectory.org., www.bayarearescue.org/bridge-of-hope

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 3

Resources for People Experiencing Homelessness
The Contra Costa County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a program de signed to assist individuals and families experiencing homelessness. The CoC provides servic es that are needed to help these individuals and families move into permanent housing, wit h the goal of long-term stability.

Additionally, the CoC coordinates access to and assessments of resources through the management of a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) d atabase. Examples of resources for people experiencing homelessness provided by the Contra Costa County CoC include Coordinated Assessment Referral and Engagement (CARE) s ervices like GRIP which provides people experiencing homelessness in Richmond with meal s, bathrooms, mail, and laundry, case management, and housing navigation.

In 2021, the City adopted a safe parking pilot program through an urgency ordinance. This pilot program allows certain private property owners to host up to four vehicle households for a limited duration. Safe parking creates opportunities for safe and secur e places for car and recreational vehicle dwellers to park and sleep, reducing the number of peop le living illegally in their vehicles on city streets, decreasing enforcement actions, and providing resources to secure permanent housing and economic stability. While no applications have move d forward as of August 2022, the City will monitor the effectiveness of this pilot program as the City moves forward with various related housing programs, such as the homelessness strategic plan.

The City is developing a homelessness strategic plan centered o n community and stakeholder engagement. The City is striving to complete this strategic plan by Spring 2023.

Additionally, in 2022, the City was awarded $4.8 million in Encampment Resolution Funds (ERF) to focus on the Castro vehicle encampment. The City’s two-year work plan to sunset the encampment will use a Housing Fi rst approach, empowering the en campment residents to progress toward physical and mental wellness while being suppor ted in developing a path to stable housing. Over $1.8 million of the ERF are allocated to direct payments for housing options for residents.

Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United S tates, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrat ed to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aw are of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns.

In Richmond, 13.5 percent of residents five years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for Contra Costa County (Figure A-29). Throughout the region, the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 7.8 percent.

44 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment In Richmond, this includes a variety of non-English speakers such as Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, etc.), Vietnamese, and others.13
Figure A-29: Population 5 Years and Over Who Speak English "Not well" or "Not at all"

Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005)

A.3.5 Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major c oncern in the Bay Area.

Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-i ncome residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and com munities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification.14 They find that in Richmond, 11.6 percent of households are in census tracts that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 38.2 percent are located in census tracts at risk of or undergoing gentrification. Among household s in census tracts that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement 50 percent (1,794 households) rent their home, and among households located in census tracts at risk of or undergo ing gentrification 62 percent are renters (11,818 households) (Figure A-30).

13 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C16001. 14 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/

13.5%

6.4% 7.8%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Population 5 Years and Older

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 5 Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not ha ve housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 18.0 percent of households in Richmond live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs (see Appendix F, Affirmatively Furthe ring Fair Housing, for a map of these areas and a discussion of displacement risk).

Figure A-30: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure, City of Richmond

Universe: Households
Note: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block-level population weights. The total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction-level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity:

At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed- Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed-Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: Low- Income/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure)

1,803
4,547
6,024
3,702
1,794
7,271
3,903
1,877
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Susceptible to or
Experiencing
Displacement
At risk of or Experiencing
Gentrification
Stable Moderate/Mixed
Income
At risk of or Experiencing
Exclusion
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

46 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Section A.4 Housing Stock Characteristics
A.4.1 Housing Type and Vacancy
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across California consisted of single- family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some hou seholds are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing,” including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may op en up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age in place.

Richmond’s housing stock in 2020 was made up of 55.5 percent si ngle-family detached homes,

5.9 percent single-family attached homes, 15.9 percent multi-family homes with two to four units,

22.3 percent multi-family homes with five or more units, and 0. 4 percent mobile homes. In Richmond, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was multi- family housing with five units or more. Total housing unit growth between 2010 and 2020 was 1.7 percent in Richmond, compared to 5.8 percent in Contra Costa County.

Table A-17: Housing Type Trends, City of Richmond
2010 2020 Change (in Units)
2010 to 2020
% Change
2010 to 2020
Single-Family Home: Attached 2,370 2,370 0 0.0
Single-Family Home: Detached 22,141 22,198 57 0.3%
Multi-family Housing: Two to Four Units 6,227 6,353 126 2.0% Multi-family Housing: Five-plus Units 8,427 8,931 504 6.0% Mobile Homes 163 163 0 n/a
Total 39,328 40,015 687 1.7%
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series

Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies account for 2.6 percent of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducti ng the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for rec reational or occasional use” are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.

In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated or repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to repre sent a large portion of the “other

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 7 vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitti ng in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.

In 2019, vacant units accounted for 6.4 percent of the overall housing stock in Richmond. The rental vacancy stands at 3 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is 7 percent. The largest share of vacancies in Richmond is due to “Other Vacant” reasons, similar to that of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area (see Figure A-31).

Figure A-31: Vacant Units by Type

Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004)

A.4.2 Housing Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity, such as the ability f or individuals to stay in their homes in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more qui ckly if prices increase. In Richmond, 50 percent of residents rent their homes (see Figure A-32). By comparison, 34 percent of households in Contra Costa County are renters and 44 percent of Bay Area households rent their homes.
18% 23% 24%
4%
11% 6%4%
12% 22%
64%
45% 36%
3% 4% 6%
7% 6% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Vacant Housing Units
Sold, Not Occupied
Rented, Not Occupied
Other Vacant
For Seasonal, Recreational,
Or Occasional Use
For Sale
For Rent

48 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-32: Housing Tenure

Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003)

In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-fa mily homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. I n Richmond, 71 percent of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 12 percent of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure A-33).

Figure A-33: Housing Tenure by Housing Type, City of Richmond\ Universe: Occupied housing units
71%
47%
12% 15%
100%
29%
53%
88% 85%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Detached Single-
Family Homes
Attached Single-
Family Homes
Multi-Family Housing Mobile Homes Boat, RV, Van, or
Other
% Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
50%
66%
56%
50%
34%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 9 Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032)

Homeownership rates often vary considerably across racial and e thnic groups in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limi ted access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white re sidents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities. In Richmond, the two groups with the lowest rates of homeownership are Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx households, respectively. In the City, 40.8 percent of Black/African American households owned t heir homes, while homeownership rates were 70.7 percent for AAPI households, 38.5 percent for Hispanic/Latinx households, and 56 percent for White households. Notably, recen t changes to State law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair ho using issues when updating their Housing Elements. Please see Appendix F (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) for an analysis of fair housing issues.

Table A-18: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder, City of Richmond Racial/Ethnic
Group
Owner
Occupied
% of Total Owner
Occupied
Renter Occupied % of Total Renter
Occupied
Total # of
Households
Native American 78 0.3% 83 0.3% 161
AAPI 3,813 13.1% 1 ,580 5.4% 5,393
Black/African
American
3,754 12.9% 5,458 18.7% 9,212
Hispanic/Latinx 4,427 15. 2% 7,075 24.3% 11,502
Multiracial 2,491 8.6 % 4,925 16.9% 7,416
White (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
8,346 28.7% 6,560 22.5% 14,906
White 6,132 21.1% 3 ,466 11.9% 9,598
Total 29,041 100.0% 29,147 100.0% 58,188
Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as White and Hispanic may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as White and non-Hispanic, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labeled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I))

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also reveal certain housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, se nior homeowners seeking to

50 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing marke t. In Richmond, 71 percent of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 2 4 percent of householders over 65 rent their home (see Figure A-34).

Figure A-34: Housing Tenure by Age, City of Richmond

Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007)
A.4.3 Housing Units Permitted
Between 2015 and 2019, 953 housing units were issued permits in Richmond. 55.3 percent of the permits issued by the City were for above moderate-income housing, no permits were issued for moderate-income housing, and 44.7 percent were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table A-19).

Because a large share of Richmond’s 6th Cycle RHNA housing allocation is for above moderate- income housing (approximately 45.7 percent of the City’s total RHNA allocation, or 1,651 units), the City’s housing plan contains additional programs and polici es to increase the representation of very low, low, and moderate-income units permitted.
8%
21%
36%
50%
62% 61%
74% 79% 80%
92%
79%
64%
50%
38% 39%
26% 21% 20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 15-
24 Age 25-
34 Age 35-
44 Age 45-
54 Age 55-
59 Age 60-
64 Age 65-
74 Age 75-
84 Age 85+
% Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 1 Table A-19: Housing Permitting, City of Richmond
Income Group Number of Units
Above Moderate-Income Permits 527
Moderate Income Permits 0
Low Income Permits 160
Very Low-Income Permits 266
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Note: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the County in which the jurisdiction is located.

Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the County in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income:
units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the County in which the jurisdiction is located.

Sources: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)) A.4.4 Housing Ag e and Condition
The age of housing stock is a key indicator of the community’s overall housing condition. As homes get older, there is a greater need for maintenance, repai r, and/or replacement of key infrastructure systems. If not properly addressed, an aging hou sing stock can represent poorer living standards, incur more expensive repair costs, and under certain conditions lower overall property values.

Housing production has not kept up with housing demand for seve ral decades in the Bay Area, and the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. Based on U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data, the largest proportion of the Richmond’s housing stock was built between 1940 and 1959, with 13,661 units constructed during this period (see Figure A-35). The number of housing units built during these two decades accounts for approximately 35 percent of the City’s housing stock compared to 19 percent of the total ho using stock for Contra Costa County. Since 2010, 1.3 percent (496 units) of Richmond’s total housing stock was built according to ACS data.

52 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-35: Housing Units by Year Structure Built, City of Richmond Universe: Housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034)
Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issu es in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in Figure A-36 gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Richmond. For example, one percent of re nters (202 units) in Richmond reported lacking a kitchen and one percent of renters (174 units) lack plumbing, compared to 0.5 percent of owners (75 units) who lack a kitchen and 0.5 percent of owners (80 units) who lack plumbing.

Figure A-36: Substandard Housing Issues

4,547
13,661
9,383 8,508
3,048
496
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Built 1939 or
Earlier
Built 1940 to
1959
Built 1960 to
1979
Built 1980 to
1999
Built 2000 to
2009
Built 2010 Or
Later
Housing Units

0.5% 0.5%

1.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%
Kitchen Plumbing
% Units Lacking Amenity
Owner Renter

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 3 Note: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049

The National Center of Healthy Housing (NCHH) estimates that in the San Francisco Area, 5.6 percent of housing units are in substandard condition. Among th ese units, 3.4 percent had moderate physical problems and 2.2 percent had severe physical problems.15 Assuming that the same share of units are substandard in Richmond, then a total of 2,077 units are estimated to be in substandard condition in the City. Community input during the Housing Element update process included residents’ experiences with substandard conditions suc h as mold, heating issues, flooding, and pests, among others.

Section A.5 Housing Costs and Affordability
A.5.1 Ownership Costs
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job ou tlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation.

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, be sides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with home values in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this period. Since 2001, the typical home value more than doubled in Richmond from $275,690 to $641,530. The growth of ho me values in Richmond is similar to growth in Contra Costa County (135 percent increase) and for the Bay Area (133 percent increase) (see Figure A-37). Community input included that home ownership is inaccessible to many Richmond residents, especially low-income and young people and that homeowners also have difficulty affording utilities.

15 The NCHH estimate is based on data from the 2018 U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey.

54 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-37: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)

Note: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)) Based on U.S. Census ACS data, the largest proportion of homes in Richmond were valued at between $250,000 and $500,000 (see Figure A-38). Similarly, the largest share of units in the County were valued between $250,000 and $500,000. The largest share of units in the Bay Area were valued between $500,000 and $750,000. ACS data often lags behind market valuations.

For more current home prices, see Zillow estimates (Figure A-37). $1,077,233
$772,413
$641,530
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
Bay Area Contra Costa County Richmond

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 5 Figure A-38: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units

Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075)

A.5.2 Rental Costs
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color.

Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may hav e had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving ou t of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

Rents are lower in Richmond than in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. Based on U.S.

Census data, in 2019 the largest share of rental units in Richm ond (32 percent) were rented for 12%
7% 6%
45%
29%
16%
34%
27%
23%
6%
15%
20%
2%
13%
18%
0%
5%
8%
0%
3%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Owner Occupied Units
Units Valued Less than $250k Units Valued $250k-$500k Units Valued $500k-$750k Units Valued $750k-$1M Units Valued $1M-$1.5M Units Valued $1M-$2M Units Valued $2M+

56 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment between $1,000 and $1,500 per month, and 25 percent of units re nted for between $1,500 and $2,000 per month (see Figure A-39). 16 Conversely, the largest share of rental units in both the County and the region rented at $1,500 to $2,000 monthly, at 30 percent and 23 percent respectively.

Figure A-39: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056)

According to the U.S. Census, the median rent in Richmond has increased by 37.1 percent since 2009, from approximately $1,090 to $1,380 per month (see Figure A-40). 17 In Contra Costa County, the median rent has increased 28.8 percent, from around $1,300 to $1,680. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from about $1,200 to $1,850, a 54 percent increase. As of 2019, Richmond’s median rent remains lower than that of the County and region, by 18.1 percent and 25.3 percent respectively. Although r e n t i s r e l a t i v e l y l o w e r i n Richmond, community input described that many Richmond tenants cannot keep up with rent increases, especially low-income seniors.

16 Census-reported rents may be gen erally lower than asking rents , particularly in cities with rent- stabilization ordinances like Richmond. The American Community Survey provides data on self-reported rents, which are likely accurately reported, but may not represent prices for vacant apartments since rents are generally lower for longer-term tenants in rent-stabilized units. 17 Since U.S. Census data often lags behind market rates, Zillow rental data was obtained to provide more current market rates. Zillow dat a shows typical observed rent p rice at approximately $2,300 per month in August 2021.
9%
5% 6%
16%
10% 10%
32%
24%
19%
25%
30%
23%
14%
17% 17%
3%
7%
12%
1%
6%
13%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Rental Units
Rent less than $500 Rent $500-$1000 Rent $1000-$1500
Rent $1500-$2000 Rent $2000-$2500 Rent $2500-$3000
Rent $3000 or more

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 7 Figure A-40: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Note: For unincorporated areas, the median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year)

A.5.3 Overpayment
A standard measure of housing affordability can be determined by comparing the cost of market- rate housing to the price residents can afford to pay for housi ng based on their income levels. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents a re the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. When a household is overpaying for housing costs, the household has less disposable income for other necessities, including health care, food, and clothing. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low- income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. In the event of unexpected circumstances, such as loss of employment and health problems, lower-income households with burdensome housing costs are more likely to bec ome homeless or be forced to live with other households.
$1,381
$1,686
$1,849
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area

58 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Cost Burden Severity
Richmond has a larger proportion of cost-burdened households co mpared to Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. Among Richmond’s households, nearly ha lf (44 percent; 16,232 households) are cost-burdened, spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Among cost-burdened households in Richmond, 20 percent (7,346 househo lds) are severely-cost burdened. In the County and the Bay Area, 36 percent of househo lds are cost-burdened and 16 percent are severely cost-burdened. During outreach for the Housing Element update, 46 percent of people interviewed said they struggle with housing affordability.

Figure A-41: Cost Burden Severity
Note: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091)

Renters are typically more often cost-burdened than owners. Whi le the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners oft en have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. Data for cost-burdened households by tenure in Richmond shows that over half of renter households (53 percent; 9,932 households) are cost-burdened, spending 30 percent or more of t heir income on housing, while around a third of households (34 percent; 6,300 households) tha t own their home are cost- burdened. Additionally, 25 percent of renters (4,742 households ) are severely cost-burdened, while 14 percent (2,604 households) of owners are severely cost-burdened. 54%
61% 62%
24%
20% 20%
20% 16% 16%
2% 3% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Households
Not Computed
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
0%-30% of Income
Used for Housing

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 9

Figure A-42: Cost Burden by Tenure, City of Richmond

Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091)

Cost-burdened household rates vary across income categories (se e Figure A-43). Among low- income Richmond households (earning 80 percent of AMI or less) 68 percent (13,070 households) are cost-burdened, and 36 percent (6,850 households) are severely cost-burdened. 62 percent (4,385 households) of households earning less than 3 0 percent of AMI are severely cost-burdened, while households earning more than 100 percent o f AMI, just 0.8 percent (100 households) are severely cost-burdened, and 90 percent (11,870 households) of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing. 66%
42%
20%
28%
14%
25%
<1% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
% Households
Not Computed
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
0%-30% of Income
Used for Housing

60 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-43: Cost Burden by Income Level, City of Richmond Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

19%
27%
54%
74%
90%
18%
43%
38%
23%
9%
62%
30%
8% 3% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
% Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 6 1 Cost Burden by Race
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically ex cluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Hispanic/Latinx residents are the most cost-burdened with 31 pe rcent of households spending 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing, and Native American residents are the most severely cost-burdened with 35 percent of households spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (see Figure A-44).

Figure A-44: Cost Burden by Race, City of Richmond

Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

48%
67%
53%
68%
52% 47%
18%
16%
21%
18%
27% 31%
35%
16%
24%
13%
19% 22%
1% 1% 1% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Native
American
Asian American
and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
Black/African
American
White Multiracial Hispanic/Latinx
% Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed

62 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Cost-Burdened Large Families
In Richmond, 27 percent of large family households are cost-bur dened, and 16 percent of households are severely cost-burdened. 22 percent of households with fewer than five persons are cost-burdened and 20 percent are severely cost-burdened (see Figure A-45).

Figure A-45: Cost Burden by Household Size, City of Richmond

Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Cost-Burdened Senior Households
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house pay ments or pay rent, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost- burdened is of particular importance due to their special housi ng needs, particularly for low- income seniors. 51 percent of seniors making less than 30 perce nt of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing (990 households). For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, 87 percent are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing (2,695 households) (see Figure A-46). In total, 39 perc ent of all senior households are cost-burdened (3,445 households), while 32 percent of low-incom e senior households are cost- 58% 57%
22% 27%
20% 16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Family 5+ persons
% Households
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
0%-30% of Income
Used for Housing

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 6 3 burdened (2,835 households). Community members also commented t hat seniors with fixed incomes are priced out of their homes as rent increases.

Figure A-46: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level, City of Richmond

Universe: Senior households
Note: For this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

33% 37%
54%
80%
87%15%
36%
32%
17%
11%
51%
28%
14%
3% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
% Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

64 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-20: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Income Group 0%-30% of Income Used
For Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing % Cost Burdened
0%-30% of AMI 640 295 990 14.6%
31%-50% of
AMI 585 570 445 11.5%
51%-80% of
AMI 625 375 160 6.1%
81%-100% of
AMI 810 175 30 2.3%
Greater than
100% of AMI 2,695 345 60 4.6%
Totals 5,355 1,760 1,685 39.1%
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Housing Costs Compared to Ability to Pay
The ability to pay for housing is a function of housing costs and other essential living expenses in relation to household income. Since above-moderate income house holds do not generally have trouble finding units that are affordable, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that earn low to moderate incomes.

Table A-21 shows the 2021 income limits and compares them to af fordable rent and purchase prices (defined as being no more than 30 percent of gross incom e). The median gross rent in Richmond (approximately $1,380, see Figure A-40) would generall y be affordable to those earning at least 50 percent of AMI. However, the typical value of a Richmond home in 2020 ($641,530, see Figure A-37) would generally be affordable to th ose earning over 100 percent of AMI.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 6 5

Table A-21: 2021 Contra Costa County Ability to Pay for Housing and Fair Market Rent and Purchase Prices Number of Persons in Household
1 2 3 4
Extremely Low (0-30% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $27, 450 $31,350 $35,250 $39,150
Monthly Income $2,28 8 $2,613 $2,938 $3,263
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $686 $784 $881 $979
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $117,026 $133,653 $150,280 $166,906 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $138,922 $158,660 $178,397 $198,135 Very Low (30-50% Area Median Income)
Annual Income Limit $45,700 $52,200 $58,750 $65,250
Monthly Income $3,808 $4,350 $4,896 $5,438
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,143 $1,305 $1,469 $1,631
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $194,831 $222,543 $250,467 $278,178 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $231,284 $264,180 $297,329 $330,224 Low (50-80% Area Median Income)
Annual Income Limit $73,100 $83,550 $94,000 $104,400
Monthly Income $6,092 $6,963 $7,833 $8,700
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,828 $2,089 $2,350 $2,610
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $311,645 $356,196 $400,747 $445,085 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $369,953 $422,839 $475,726 $528,359 Median (100% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $83,450 $95,350 $107,300 $119,200
Monthly Income $6,954 $7,946 $8,942 $9,933
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $2,086 $2,384 $2,683 $2,980
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $355,770 $406,503 $457,449 $508,182 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $422,333 $482,558 $543,036 $603,261 Moderate (80-120% Area Median Income)
Annual Income Limit $100,15 0 $114,450 $128,750 $143,050 Monthly Income $8,34 6 $9,538 $10,729 $11,921
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $2,504 $2,861 $3,219 $3,576
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $426,966 $487,931 $548,896 $609,861 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $506,850 $579,221 $651,592 $723,963 120-150% of Area Median Income
Annual Income Limit $125,17 5 $143,025 $160,950 $178,800 Monthly Income $10,43 1 $11,919 $13,413 $14,900

66 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-21: 2021 Contra Costa County Ability to Pay for Housing and Fair Market Rent and Purchase Prices Number of Persons in Household
1 2 3 4
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $3,129 $3,576 $4,024 $4,470
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $533,655 $609,754 $686,173 $762,272 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $633,500 $723,837 $814,554 $904,891 150-180% of Area Median Income
Annual Income Limit $150,21 0 $171,630 $193,140 $214,560 Monthly Income $12,51 8 $14,303 $16,095 $17,880
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $3,755 $4,291 $4,829 $5,364
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $640,386 $731,705 $823,408 $914,727 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $760,199 $868,604 $97 7,464 $1,085,869 180-200% of Area Median Income
Annual Income Limit $166,90 0 $190,700 $214,600 $238,400 Monthly Income $13,90 8 $15,892 $17,883 $19,867
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $4,173 $4,768 $5,365 $5,960
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $711,540 $813,005 $914,897 $1,016,363 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $844,666 $965,116 $1, 086,072 $1,206,521 Notes:
1 30% of income devoted to maximum monthly rent or mortgage payment, including utilities, taxes, and insurance 2 Assumes 95% loan (i.e., 5% down payment) @ 2.875% annual interest rate and 30-year term 3 Assumes 80% loan (i.e., 20% down payment) @ 2.875% annual interest rate and 30-year term Source: LWC, 2022

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 6 7 A.5.4 At-Risk Housing Assessment
State law requires that jurisdictions identify the number of existing assisted housing units that are at risk of conversion from below market-rate to market-rate due to the expiration of affordability restrictions during the next 10-year review period (2021-2031). Assisted housing units are defined as multi-family, rental units that receive government assistance under any federal, state, or local programs or any combination of rental assistance, mortgage insu rance, interest reductions, or direct loan programs and are eligible to convert to market-rate units. There are three general cases that can result in the conversion of assisted units:

Prepayment of HUD Mortgages: Section 221(d) (3), Section 202, a nd Section 236 — Section 221 (d) (3) is a privately owned project where HUD provides either below-market interest rate loans or market-rate loans with a subsidy to the tenants. With Section 236 assistance, HUD provides financing to the owner to reduce the costs for tenants by paying most of the interest on a market rate mortgage. Additional rent al subsidies may be provided to the tenant. Section 202 assistance provides a direc t loan to non-profit organizations for project development and rent subsidy for low- income elderly tenants. It also provides assistance for the development of units for physi cally handicapped, developmentally disabled, and chronically mentally ill residents.

Opt-outs and Expirations of Project-Based Section 8 Contracts: Section 8 is a federally funded program that provides subsidies to the owner of a pre-qualified project. Subsidies make up for differences between what the tenants are able to pa y, and the actual cost of contract rent. Opt-outs occur when the owner of the project decides to opt-out of a contract with HUD by pre-paying any remaining mortgage. Usually the like lihood of opt-outs increases as market rents exceed contract rents.

Other: Expiration of the low-income use period of various finan cing sources which may include one or more of the following: Low-income Housing Tax Cr edit (LIHTC), bond financing, density bonuses, California Housing Finance Agency ( CalHFA), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and HOME funds. Generally, bond -financing properties expire according to a qualified project period or when the bonds mature.

68 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment At-Risk Units
According to the Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database th ere are 3,371 assisted units in Richmond (see Table A-22). Among these units, the City confirmed that 10 units are at moderate risk of being converted to market-rate housing by 2033. These 1 0 units are subsidized, deed- restricted units from a single project, Rubicon Homes (see Table A-23). The restrictions on these units are set to expire by the year 2029. ‘
Table A-22: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing Risk Level for Conversion Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area Low Risk 3,361 13,403 110,177
Moderate Risk 10 211 3,375
High Risk 0 270 1,854
Very High Risk 0 0 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 3,371 13,884 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the State’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the State. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

Note: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market-rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

High Risk: affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Low Risk: affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020)

Table A-23: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing by 2033 Project
Name Address Assisted
Units
Total
Units
Funding
Program Current Owner Earliest Date
of Expiration Risk Level
Rubicon
Homes
978
Thirteenth St 10 10 HUD;
CalHFA
Rubicon
Programs 2029 Moderate
Note: The Rubicon Homes Project contains no assisted units for elderly tenants.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: City of Richmond, 2022; ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020).

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 6 9 Preservation and Replacement Cost Analysis
The following section provides an analysis of the estimated cos t to preserve or replace the units that are at risk of conversion to market-rate. The analysis com pares the costs of providing rent subsidies, acquiring and rehabilitating the units, and constructing new units.

Rent subsidies are a potential option for preserving affordable housing units. Rent subsidies function similarly to housing choice vouchers (Section 8), whic h fund the difference between the affordable rent and the fair market rent. The City would fund the rent subsidies and could leverage a variety of sources to do so. Table A-24 shows that the estima ted total rent subsidy to preserve the 10 at-risk units is $42,591 per year. Assuming the difference between the affordable rents and fair market rents remains constant, then the total cost to main tain the units for the next 55 years would be $2,342,505 ($234,251 per unit).

Table A-24: Estimated Rent Subsidies
Units Low-Income Rent
(50% AMI)1
Fair Market
Rent2
Per Unit Monthly
Subsidy
1-Bedroom 6 $1,828 $2,159 $331
2-Bedroom 4 $2,350 $3,196 $846

Total Annual Subsidy $42,591
Note: 1 Calculated based on 30% of the 2021 Contra Costa Area Income Limits. 1-bedroom is equal to a 1.5-person household. 2-bedroom is equal to a 3-person household. 2 HUD 2021 Fair Market Rents for Contra Costa County by bedroom size.

Source: 2021 Contra Costa Area Income Limits.

Purchasing and transferring the ownership of at-risk units to b e managed by a non-profit or for- profit housing organization is another potential method for preserving the units’ affordability status.

Acquired assisted units, particularly older units, may also require rehabilitation to update the units and extend the life of their use. The estimated costs for acqui ring and rehabilitating at-risk units are shown in Table A-25. According to recent California Tax Cre dit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) applications in Contra Costa County, the average per-un it cost for acquisition and rehabilitation is $418,307. The total cost to acquire and rehab ilitate the 10 at-risk units would be $4,183,072.

70 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-25: Estimated Acquisition and Rehabilitation Costs Project Name City
CTCAC
Application
Year
Units
Total
Development
Cost
Cost per
Unit
Barrett Terrace Apartments Richmond 2021 115 $78,329,328 $681,1 25 Hacienda Richmond 2020 150 $73,929,316 $492,862
Hilltop Commons Apartments San Pa blo 2020 324 $152,540,519 $470 ,804 Villa Medanos Antioch 2019 112 $36,495,870 $325,856
Willow Glen Apartments Hercules 2019 84 $29,824,711 $355,056 Marina Heights Apartments Pitts burg 2019 200 $58,992,556 $294,9 63 Hidden Cove Apartments Bay Poin t 2019 88 $30,706,915 $348,942 Coggins Square Apartments Walnu t Creek 2019 87 $47,056,209 $540 ,876 Clayton Villa Apartments Concor d 2018 80 $39,267,896 $490,849 Montevista Senior Apartments S an Pablo 2018 82 $25,364,921 $309 ,328 Antioch Scattered Site Renovation Antioch 2018 56 $16,907,622 $ 301,922 Hookston Senior Apartments Pleas ant Hill 2018 100 $40,710,327 $ 407,103

Average Cost Per Unit $418,307
Note: Cost estimates are based on applications approved by governing bodies and are not certified total development costs.

Source: CTCAC, 2022.

Constructing new units could also replace the at-risk units. Table A-26 shows the estimated cost of new construction of below market-rent units. Based on recent California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) applications in Contra Costa County, the aver age cost to build a new assisted unit is $485,514. Using this per-unit estimate, the to tal replacement cost for the 10 at- risk units would be $4,855,137.

Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 7 1 Table A-26: Estimated Replacement Costs
Project Name City CTCAC
Application Year Units Total Development
Cost Cost per Unit
Vista Woods Pinole 2021 179 $77,000,791 $430,172
Elm Lane Apartments Oakley 2021 170 $68,556,283 $403,272 Antioch Senior and
Family Apartments Antioch 2020 394 $152,289,974 $386,523 Oakley Senior
Apartments Oakley 2020 130 $47,995,058 $369,193
Veterans Square Pittsburg 2020 30 $22,477,409 $749,247
The Atchison Pittsburg 2020 202 $90,115,222 $446,115
Beacon Villa Pittsburg 2020 54 $33,159,987 $614,074

Average Cost per Unit $485,514
Note: Cost estimates are based on applications approved by governing bodies and are not certified total development costs.

Source: CTCAC, 2022.

Table A-27 compares the costs of the preservation and replaceme nt methods and shows that building new units is the most expensive option. Providing rent subsidies is the least expensive method, however, this option does not allow for physical updates to the units and does not allow for the leveraging of private-sector financing. It is also important to note that none of the estimates are precise calculations and are only intended to demonstrate the relative magnitude of need.

Table A-27: Summary of Preservation and Replacement Costs Method Estimated
Cost per Unit
Total Estimated
Cost
Rent Subsidy $234,251 $2,342,505
Acquisition and Rehabilitation $418,307 $4,183,072
New Construction $485,514 $4,855,137

Qualified Entities to Acquire and Manage Affordable Housing There are several non-profit and for-profit organizations in th e region that could facilitate the acquisition and management of assisted units. HCD maintains a l ist of pre-approved organizations that are interested in the acquisition and manage ment of assisted units. As of December 2021, there are 16 qualified organizations in Contra Costa County (Table A-28).

72 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-28: HCD Qualified Entities in Contra Costa County Organization Address City
Rubicon Programs, Inc. 250 0 Bissell Ave Richmond
East Bay NHS 2320 Cutting Blvd Richmond
Community Housing Development Corp. 1535 Fred Jackson Way Ste A Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services of the East Bay 2320 Cutting Blvd . Richmond Affordable Housing Associates 1250 Addison St., Ste. G Berkeley Satellite Housing Inc. 2526 Martin Luther King., Jr Way Berkele y Northern California Land Trust, Inc. 3122 Shattuck Avenue Berk eley Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael
Anka Behavioral Health 1850 Ga teway Blvd., Suite 900 Concord Alameda County Allied Housing Program 224 W. Winton Avenue, Roo m 108 Hayward East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation 310 Eighth Street, Suite 200 Oakland Pacific Community Services, Inc. 329 Railroad Ave, P.O. Box 139 7 Pittsburg ROEM Development Corporation 165 0 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara ACLC, Inc 315 N San Jo aquin St Stockton
Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento L + M Fund Management LLC 187 4 Palmer Ave Westchester Source: HCD, 2022.

Funding Sources to Preserve or Replace Assisted Units
Potential funding sources to preserve or replace assisted units are provided in the list below.

These resources include federal, state, and local funding programs and are described in Appendix G (Housing Resources).
 HOME Investment Partnerships Funds
 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
 Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
 Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program
 Low Income Housing Tax Credits
 Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program
 California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)
 Richmond Affordable Housing Fund

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 1 Appendix B: Sites Inventory &
Methodology
Contents
Appendix B: Sites Inventory & Methodology .............................................. 1 Section B.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 B.1.1 Overview and Purpose .......................................................................................... 2 B.1.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ...................................................................... 2 B.1.3 Data ....................................................................................................................... 3 Section B.2 Future Residential Development Potential ............................................................ 3 B.2.1 Accessory Dwelling Units ...................................................................................... 3 B.2.2 Entitled and Proposed Developments ................................................................... 4 B.2.3 Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 7 B.2.4 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 9 B.2.5 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites .............................................................................. 11 Section B.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites in Meeting RHNA ................................................ 12 B.3.1 Summary ............................................................................................................. 12 B.3.2 Housing Sites Map .............................................................................................. 13 B.3.3 Housing Sites Table ............................................................................................ 18

B-2 | City of Richmond S i t e s I n v e n t o r y a n d M e t hodology Section B.1 Introduction
B.1.1 Overview and Purpose
According to California Government Code §65580-65589, the housi ng element must include an inventory of adequate sites that are zoned and available within the planning period to meet the jurisdiction’s fair share of regional housing needs across all income levels. The sites inventory, in addition to p rojected accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and entitled or in process development projects, assists in determining if the jurisdiction has enough developable land to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), given its current regulatory framework and m arket conditions. This Appendix details the sites inventory and supporting analysis methodology and assumptions.

B.1.2 Regional Housi ng Needs Allocation
Jurisdictions must provide sufficient land to accommodate enoug h housing for all economic segments of the community. Compliance is determined by the juri sdiction’s ability to provide adequate development capacity through appropriate development r egulations and land use policies. The number of new units that must be accommodated is established through each jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected housing needs for the planning period. This share for each jurisdiction is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a regional plan ning agency, is responsible for distributing the RHNA to each jurisdiction within its nine- county region (including the County of Contra Costa). 1 The RHNA is distributed by income category. For the 2023-2031 Housing Element update, Richmond is allocated a RHNA of 3,614 units as follows:
 Very Low Income (less than 50 percent of Area Median Income (A MI2)): 840 units (23 percent)
 Low Income (50 to 80 percent of AMI): 485 units (13 percent)  Moderate Income (80 to 120 percent of AMI): 638 units (18 perc ent)  Above Moderate Income (greater than 120 percent of AMI): 1,651 units (46 percent) For this Housing Element planning period, January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, the City must ensure the availability of adequate residential sites to a ccommodate these units. This Appendix provides an overview of the methodology used to evaluate the adequacy of sites within

1 Association of Bay Area Govern ments (ABAG) covers a nine-coun ty region, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Solano, and Sonoma. 2 See Housing Element Section II (Projected Housing Need), Table II-1 for income limits.

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 3 Richmond and identifies such sites for future residential devel opment to fulfill the City’s share of regional housing needs.

B.1.3 Data
The sites inventory analysis used data provided by the City, su ch as GIS data and building permit/entitlement information. The following is an overview of the data used:
 City and County-level parcel GIS data, including General Plan land use designation, zoning, existing land use, etc.
 ADU building permits issued
 Entitled projects and projects in the entitlement phase  Prior housing element site inventories
 Annual Progress Reports to HCD during the 4 th and 5th Cycles  Zoning Code allowed density (minimum and maximum)
Section B.2 Future Residential Development Potential
B.2.1 Accessory Dwelling Units
New State laws in effect since January 1, 2018 have significant ly eased the development standards and streamlined the approval process for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). As a result, the City has experienced an increase in ADU applications and pr oduction in recent years. Table B-1 shows the number of building permits issued for ADUs in Richmond in 2018 through 2021.

Table B-1: ADU Building Permits Issued (2018-2021)
Year Permitted ADUs
2018 48
2019 59
2020 64
2021 88
Total 259
Annual Average 64.75

From 2018 through 2021, the City issued an average of 64.75 ADU building permits per year. The City is estimating that ADUs will be produced at the same rate throughout the eight-year planning

B-4 | City of Richmond S i t e s I n v e n t o r y a n d M e t hodology period, resulting in approximately 517 ADUs. 3 This is a conservative estimate since the City will be conducting further efforts to facilitate ADU production (Program 2.E).

ABAG conducted a regional ADU affordability analysis to provide local governments in the region with assumptions for ADU affordability that can be used to assi gn projected ADUs to income categories. The ADU affordability assumptions identified in ABA G’s technical guidance memo were applied to ADUs projected over the 2023 – 2031 planning period in Table B-2.

Table B-2: Affordability per ABAG ADU Survey
Income Level Percent ADU Projections
Very Low 30% 155
Low 30% 155
Moderate 30% 155
Above Moderate 10% 52
Total 517
Source: ABAG, City of Richmond
B.2.2 Entitled and Proposed Developments
Because the RHNA projection period for the 2023-2031 Housing El ement began on June 30, 2022, housing developments that are proposed or received entitl ement and were not issued a certificate of occupancy before July 1, 2022, but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (January 31, 2031), can be credited toward the RHNA. Error! Reference source not found. Table B-3 lists those projects that meet those criteria and can be credited toward the 6th Cycle RHNA. 4

3 64.75 ADUs per year x 8-year pl anning cycle = 517 estimated total ADUs during the 2023-2031 planning cycle. 4 The City reports on RHNA progress annually during the planning cycle. Through annual reports submitted by the City to HCD, RHNA progress is measured through building permits issued.

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 5 Table B-3: Entitled and Proposed Developments as of August 202 2 Address Project
Name/Description Status
Vacant/
Existing or
Previous Use
Units by Income Level
Very
Low1 Low1 Moderate1 Above
Moderate
Total Net
New2
Barrett Ave. New SRO Multi-
Family Development Under construction Vacant 17 - - - 17 1390 S. 49th St.

Campus Bay Mixed
Use Project – Phase
I
Approved Vacant - 235 0 940 1,175
2100 Stenmark Dr. Point Molate Mixed
Use Development Approved Vacant - - 67 1,193 1,260
1500 Dornan Dr.

Terminal 1
Residential Project Approved
Former
Terminal 1
Wharf
- - 20 182 202
1300 Roosevelt Ave. Hacienda Senior
Apartments Approved Vacant
Building 148 - - 2 150
S. 47th St.

Miraflores
Residential
Development
Approved Former
Nursery - 38 152 - 190
2301 Columbia Blvd.

Cherry Blossom
Row Residential
Project
Approved Vacant - - 10 90 100
Colusa Ave.

TBV: Villas at
Renaissance
Apartments
Approved Vacant 7 98 - - 105
3900 Giant Rd.

Richmond Country
Club Residential
Development
Approved Vacant - - - 94 94
1135 Canal Blvd. Quarry Redesign Approved Vacant - - 8 68 76 Entitled/Approved Subtotal 172 371 257 2,569 3,369
100 38th St. Supportive and
Family Apartments Under review Vacant
Building 95 38 - 2 135
1101-1221 Macdonald Ave. 12th & Macdonald Under review Vacant - - 69 278 347

B-6 | City of Richmond S i t e s I n v e n t o r y a n d M e t hodology Table B-3: Entitled and Proposed Developments as of August 202 2 Address Project
Name/Description Status
Vacant/
Existing or
Previous Use
Units by Income Level
Very
Low1 Low1 Moderate1 Above
Moderate
Total Net
New2
Portola Ave. Metrowalk Phase II Under review Surface
Parking Lot 46 104 - - 150
5620 Central Ave. Central SB35 Under review Vacant 39 - - 349 388 Brickyard Cove Road PG&E Site
Subdivision Under review Vacant - - 9 85 94
2400 Nevin Ave. Nevin Plaza New
Construction Preliminary Vacant - 90 - 2 92
Maine Ave. Nystrom Village Preliminary 100 Low-
Income Units 100 -100* - 303 303
Preliminary Pipeline Subtotal 280 132* 78 1,019 1,509
Total Net New 452 503 335 3,588 4,878
1 Any low or moderate units are or will be deed restricted to the identified income level. 2 Only counts net new units (i.e., subtracts existing units that are being demolished as part of the new housing development). *Subtracts the 100 existing low-income units to be demolished in Nystrom Village.

Source: City of Richmond

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 7 Entitled and proposed developments would result in 4,878 net ne w units, and most of these projects provide above moderate housing units.

B.2.3 Assumptions
Density
Table B-4 summarizes density for residential and mixed-use zones that allow residential.

Realistic Capacity and Development Trends
Table B-5 summarizes assumptions for realistic residential deve lopment capacity, which are primarily calculated as 20 dwelling units per acre, which is sl ightly above minimum density standards but much lower than development trends. Housing Element Program 1.I would evaluate and establish 20 dwelling unit per acre minimum densities in th e RM1, RM2, CM-1, CM-2, and CM-3 zones to ensure that the realistic capacity assumed would be achieved. For other zones that do not have minimum density standards (e.g., single-family zones RH, RL1, and RL2), the sites inventory analysis conservatively assumes a realistic cap acity that is less than 70 percent of maximum density. As shown in Table B-5, realistic capacity assumptions are much lower than average development trends.

For the CM-5 Zone, the City generally used the minimum density standards (40 dwelling units per acre) for its realistic capacity assumption, except in the case of lower income sites (for which a realistic capacity assumption of 70 dwelling units per acre was used). The density of 70 dwelling units per acre is 52 percent of the maximum allowed density in the CM-5 Zone. A higher density assumption is applied to lower income sites since affordable de velopments are typically built at Table B-4: Density for Zones that Allow Residential
Zone Minimum Density (Dwelling
Units Per Acre)
Maximum Density (Dwelling
Units Per Acre)
RH - 5
RL1 - 9
RL2 - 15
RM1 10 27
RM2 15 40
CM-1 15 50
CM-2 10 30
CM-3 15 50
CM-4 30 82.5
CM-5 40 135
Source: City of Richmond

B-8 | City of Richmond S i t e s I n v e n t o r y a n d M e t hodology higher densities, often utilizing density bonuses. Density trends in Richmond for lower income unit development include projects at densities of over 100 units per acre (e.g., new SRO – Multi-family Development and Nevin Plaza New Construction).

Table B-5: Zones Realistic Residential Development Capacity Assumptions Zone Projects In Process, Approved, Entitled,
and/or Permitted
Average Development
Trends Capacity
Realistic Capacity
Assumption
RH None N/A
3 units/acre (60% of
maximum allowed
density)
RL1 None N/A
6 units/acre (67% of
maximum allowed
density)
RL2 None N/A
10 units/acre (67% of
maximum allowed
density)
RM1
- Brickyard Cove Rd. (16 units/acre)*
- Colusa Ave. (88 units/acre)
- Maine Ave. (44 units/acre)*
50 units/acre
20 units/acre (74% of
maximum density and
40% of average
development trends)
RM2 None N/A 20 units/acre (50% of
maximum density)
CM-1 None N/A
20 units/acre (40% of
maximum allowed
density)
CM-2 None N/A
20 units/acre (67% of
maximum allowed
density)
CM-3 - 2301 Columbia Blvd. (21 units/acre)
- 100 38 th St. (48 units/acre)* 34 units/acre
20 units/acre (40% of
maximum density and
58% of average
development trends)
CM-5
- Portola Ave. (49 units/acre)*
- 1300 Roosevelt Ave. (50 units/acre)
- 2400 Nevin Ave. (102 units/acre)*
- 1101-1221 Macdonald Ave. (110 units/acre)*
- Barrett Ave (154 units/acre)
93 units/acre
40 units/acre (minimum
density) or 70 units/acre
for lower-income sites
(52% of maximum
density and 80% of
average development
trends)
Note: See Table B-3 for project affordability levels. There are no available vacant sites in the CM-4 Zone. * Projects are in the entitlement phase/under review.

Source: City of Richmond, LWC

From 2019 to 2021, Richmond received four applications for deve lopment within its mixed-use zones. Only one of these four applications proposed 100 percent commercial uses (25 percent).

This demonstrates strong market demand for residential uses wit hin these zones. Furthermore, with the declining trend of brick-and-mortar retail/commercial coupled with COVID-19 pandemic impacts (e.g., the increasing prevalence of working from home, etc.) and continued demand for

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 9 housing, the likelihood of 100 percent commercial projects is not expected to increase in the near future. The realistic capacity assumptions for mixed-use zones identified in Table B-5 are conservative, reflecting minimum density standards or much lowe r densities than demonstrated trends.

In certain zones, such as the RM1 Zone, pipeline projects are being proposed at densities higher than the maximum density allowed by zoning, demonstrating stron g demand for residential use.

However, in the CM-3 and CM-5 zones, residential development ap plications are coming in at below maximum density (CM-3: 34 units per acre average developm ent trend compared to the maximum density of 50 units per acre allowed; CM-5: 93 units pe r acre average development trend compared to the maximum density of 135 units per acre allowed). Although it is in a different zone, the Quarry Redesign project may illustrate why developers are proposing lower densities in some cases.

Originally, the Quarry Redesign proposed 193 units (193 condomi nium units). However, given market conditions in the Bay Area, including the increasing cos t of building multi-family development, decreasing condominium prices on account of the CO VID-19 pandemic and concerns regarding adequate air circulation between multiple un its, and the inherent difficulty in obtaining financing on condominium projects, the developer modi fied its application to propose 76 single-family homes to support costs.

The above project illustrates the market challenges that may inform why projects in certain zones are being proposed at densities that are lower than the maximum density allowed. The conservative unit projections in the sites inventory reflect these market constraints.

B.2.4 Methodology
To create the adequate sites inventory, the City developed a co mprehensive, iterative methodology to screen parcels for near-term development. The me thodology is comprised of several phases described below.

Phase 1.A: Vacant Residential Parcels
First, the City identified vacant residentially-zoned parcels. Parcels were determined to be vacant using the City’s GIS data and confirmed to be vacant given available aerial imagery. Most parcels identified as sites in the sites inventory are vacant parcels.

Phase 1.B: Nonvacant, Underutilized Parcels
To accommodate its remaining RHNA, the City included a handful of nonvacant, underutilized sites that are zoned for either residential or mixed-use develo pment. These underutilized sites

B-10 | City of Richmond S i t e s I n v e n t o r y a n d M e t hodology include vacant and abandoned buildings, car garages on empty lo ts, surface parking lots, and surplus government-owned land (i.e., designated as surplus consistent with the Surplus Land Act).

Phase 2: Screening
Parcels that passed through Phase 1 were then screened to ensur e the parcel does not have a current entitlement and is not under review (i.e., not included in Table B-3) Phase 3: Categorization
Eligible parcels were assessed to determine which income levels they can accommodate. Each parcel was determined to be able to accommodate a specific income category given its maximum allowable density standards. The lower income category threshol d is consistent with the default density for Richmond pursuant to Government Code §65583.2.

Table B-6: Income Levels by Density
Density Allowed by Zone Income Level
< 20 dwelling units/acre Above moderate
20 – 29 dwelling units/acre Moderate
> 30 dwelling units/acre Lower
Source: HCD, LWC

Per Government Code Sections 65583.2(c)(2)(A) and (B), sites ac commodating lower-income housing should be between 0.5 and 10 acres. All sites originall y considered for lower-income housing capacity but whose lot size is smaller than 0.5 or larg er than 10 acres were categorized for moderate income housing capacity. Note that this does not p reclude lower-income housing from being developed on sites smaller than 0.5 acres or larger than 10 acres.

In addition, the City identified three parcels less than 0.5 ac res in size and in zones allowing at least 30 dwelling units per acre that could be consolidated to meet the 0.5-acre minimum size threshold for lower-income sites. Said parcels are all adjacent , vacant lots with the same owner.

Consolidated sites for lower income are noted in Table B-7.

Table B-7: Parcels Less than 0.5 Acres Included in Lower Income Consolidated Sites APN Acreage Description Site Total Acreage of
Consolidated Site
538220004 0.16 Parking
A 0.55* 538220008 0.32 Vacant
538220003 0.06 Vacant
* Figure rounds up to 0.55 acres.

Source: City of Richmond

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 1 1 Phase 4: Site-by-Site Assessment
Some initial potential sites had other conditions (e.g., irregu lar shape, accessibility issues/landlocked, etc.) that preclude them from the site inven tory. The analysis included a site- by-site assessment and removal of potential sites depending on additional information from direct observation or firsthand experience from City staff. This analy sis included an evaluation of environmental and infrastructure constraints, which are describ ed in Appendix C, Section C.4.

Potential vacant sites that were brownfield locations or within the Keller Beach moratorium area were removed from the sites inventory. All identified sites hav e access to infrastructure and utilities and adequate infrastructure capacity (e.g., water and sewer supply) exists to serve housing of the identified sites. Furthermore, all publicly owne d sites have been designated as surplus land consistent with the Surplus Land Act.

Phase 5: Parcels in Prior Housing Elements
Vacant parcels from both the 4th and 5th Cycles and non-vacant parcels from the 5th Cycle can be reused in this Housing Element (the 6 th Cycle) to accommodate lower-income housing, but they must be rezoned to allow projects with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower income households to be by-right. Table B-10 shows 6th Cycle sites and any site previously identified as a site in the 5th Cycle (sites identified in the 5th Cycle are assumed to have also been identified in the 4th Cycle). Two lower-income sites are subject to rezoning. Program 1.K is included to rezone reused sites identified for lower income consistent with AB 1397.

B.2.5 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
As noted previously, the sites inventory largely comprises vaca nt sites. Since there are so few nonvacant sites, nonvacant sites accommodate less than 50 perce nt of the City’s lower income RHNA. The handful of nonvacant sites that are included in the s ites inventory are underutilized sites that are zoned for either residential or mixed-use develo pment. These underutilized sites include unoccupied and abandoned buildings, car garages on empt y lots, surface parking lots, and surplus government-owned land (i.e., designated as surplus consistent with the Surplus Land Act). Vacant buildings, surface parking lots, and other existin g uses are being converted into residential development as shown in Table B-3. The City is unaw are of any leases that would prevent the development of housing on underutilized or abandone d sites during the planning period. These types of underutilized properties have a high lik elihood of redeveloping with residential units based on strong demand for housing and development trends.

The following table lists the one nonvacant lower income site and its corresponding existing use.

The existing use is not an impediment to the development of hou sing during the planning period (2023-2031) based on development trends, market conditions, and redevelopment potential.

Furthermore, this site is 1800 Barrett Avenue, which is owned b y the City and has been designated as surplus land consistent with the Surplus Land Act. Under Program 1.J, the City will continue efforts to facilitate housing on this site.

B-12 | City of Richmond S i t e s I n v e n t o r y a n d M e t hodology Table B-8: Existing Uses on Nonvacant Lower Income Sites APN Zone Parcel Size
(acres) Existing Use
514140032 CM-5 0.53 Vacant Building and Parking Lot
Source: City of Richmond, Contra Costa County Assessor, LWC

Section B.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites in Meeting
RHNA
B.3.1 Summary
The following table summarizes the City’s methods for satisfying its RHNA (Table B-9). Based on ADU projections, entitled and proposed projects, and available sites, the City currently has excess capacity and meets its RHNA obligations for all income categori es under its existing zoning and General Plan. The City therefore would not need any rezoning pr ograms as part of this 6th Cycle Housing Element Update to meet its RHNA.

Table B-9: Residential Development Potential and RHNA

Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
RHNA See Very
Low 840 485 638 1,651 3,614
ADUs See Very
Low 155 155 155 52 517
Entitled/Approved
Projects1
See Very
Low 172 371 257 2,569 3,369
Preliminary Pipeline1,2 See Very
Low 280 132 78 1,019 1,509
Site Inventory See Very
Low/Low 416 216 198 830
Total Capacity See Very
Low/Low 1,681 706 3,838 6,225
Surplus / (Shortfall) See Very
Low/Low 356 68 2,187 2,611
1 Considers net new units only. No sites contain existing residential uses. 2 The Preliminary Pipeline describes projects that are currently preliminary applications or under review, while the Entitled/Approved Projects describes projects that have been approved or are under construction.

Source: City of Richmond, LWC

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 1 3 AB 725 requires at least 25 percent of the above moderate incom e RHNA be met on sites that allow four or more units, and at least 25 percent of the modera te income RHNA be met on sites that allow four or more units, but not more than 100 units per acre. The City’s sites inventory complies with these requirements as follows:
 Above moderate-income sites – 316 units maximum capacity (198 units realistic capacity); 110 units allowed on sites with a maximum of four or more units (34.8 percent)  Moderate income sites – 545 units maximum capacity (216 units realistic capacity); 246 units allowed on sites with a maximum of four or more units but not more than 100 units per acre (45.1 percent)
B.3.2 Housing Sites Map
The following maps (Figures B-1 to B-4) show the inventory of sites by income category.

B-14 | City of Richmond S i t e s I n v e n t o r y a n d M e t hodology Figure B-1: 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory Map by Income Category (Northwest Portion of Richmond)

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 1 5 Figure B-2: 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory Map by Income Category (Northeast Portion of Richmond)

B-16 | City of Richmond S i t e s I n v e n t o r y a n d M e t hodology Figure B-3: 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory Map by Income Category (Southeast Portion of Richmond)

Sites Inventory and Methodology C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | B - 1 7 Figure B-4: 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory Map by Income Category (Southwest Portion of Richmond

B - 1 8 | C i t y o f R i c h m o n d Sites Inventory and Methodology B.3.3 Housing Sites Table
Table B-10 lists the parcels in the City’s housing sites inventory with unit capacity by income category.

Table B-10: Housing Sites
APN Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan Zoning Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use
4th or 5th
Cycle Site
Income
Category
Max Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
560181121 HIMU CM‐5 4.91 Vacant No Low 663 344
538220004 A HIMU CM‐5 0.16 Parking Yes Low 22 11
538220008 A HIMU CM‐5 0.32 Vacant Yes Low 43 23
538220003 A RMU CM‐1 0.06 Vacant No Low 3 1
514140032* HIMU CM‐5 0.52 Vacant Building and Parking Lot No Low 71 37 Total ‐ Lower
416
507262014 CMU RM1 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 4 3
507262010 CMU RM1 0.47 Vacant No Moderate 13 9
507262011 CMU RM1 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 3 2
507262012 CMU RM1 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 4 3
510081034 MR RM1 0.13 Car Garage in empty lot No Moderate 3 3 510093032 MR RM1 0.14 Car Garage in empty lot No Moderate 4 3 508122015 MR RM1 0.12 Vacant Yes Moderate 3 2
513317001 MR RM1 0.13 Vacant Yes Moderate 4 3
534181027 MR RM1 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 3 2
540330018 MR RM2 0.15 Vacant No Moderate 6 3
538220011 HIMU CM‐5 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 17 5
540150006* HIMU CM‐5 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 18 5
513174023 RMU CM‐1 0.17 Vacant No Moderate 9 3
514060020 HIMU CM‐5 0.19 Vacant No Moderate 26 8
528250002 CMU CM‐3 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 7 3
534171007 NMU CM‐2 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 3 2
540300003 MR RM2 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 5 3
544221013 RMU CM‐1 0.35 Vacant No Moderate 18 7
540210022 MR RM2 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 5 3
540250004 HIMU CM‐5 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 18 5
549132001 MR RM2 0.16 Vacant No Moderate 7 3
549150004 RMU CM‐1 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 6 3

Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Richmond | B-19 Table B-10: Housing Sites (Continued)
APN Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan Zoning Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use
4th or 5th
Cycle Site
Income
Category
Max Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
549150004 RMU CM‐1 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 6 3
561181010 NMU CM‐2 0.34 Vacant No Moderate 10 7
540300017 CMU CM‐1 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 6 3
538270011 CMU CM‐1 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 6 2
540150002 HIMU CM‐5 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 18 5
538260001 HIMU CM‐5 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 17 5
538220001 RMU CM‐1 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 6 3
538161011 RMU CM‐1 0.28 Vacant No Moderate 14 6
549110014 CMU CM‐3 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 6 3
544302021 CMU CM‐3 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 6 3
517320005 CMU CM‐3 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 6 2
515350006 CMU CM‐3 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 6 2
515190011 HIMU CM‐5 0.14 Vacant No Moderate 19 6
515190012 HIMU CM‐5 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 17 5
515190015 HIMU CM‐5 0.27 Vacant No Moderate 36 11
515190010 HIMU CM‐5 0.20 Vacant No Moderate 27 8
519290026 CMU CM‐3 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 6 2
534330020 NMU CM‐2 0.14 Vacant No Moderate 4 3
534181024 NMU CM‐2 0.25 Vacant No Moderate 8 5
534142006 NMU CM‐2 0.19 Vacant No Moderate 6 4
528250023 CMU CM‐3 0.14 Vacant No Moderate 7 3
529170032 CMU CM‐3 0.22 Vacant No Moderate 11 4
524010003 CMU CM‐3 0.12 Vacant No Moderate 6 2
528080003 CMU CM‐3 0.21 Vacant No Moderate 11 4
507262013 CMU RM1 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 4 3
549131010 MR RM2 0.47 Vacant No Moderate 19 9
515241011* CMU CM‐3 0.12 Vacant Building No Moderate 6 2 538250001* CMU CM‐5 0.13 Vacant No Moderate 17 5
538250012* CMU CM‐5 0.19 Vacant No Moderate 26 8
538260009* CMU CM‐5 0.21 Abandoned Building No Moderate 28 8 Total ‐ Moderate
216

B - 2 0 | C i t y o f R i c h m o n d Sites Inventory and Methodology Table B-10: Housing Sites (Continued)
APN Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan Zoning Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use
4th or 5th
Cycle Site
Income
Category
Max Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
558330039 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
558330040 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
558330041 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
534012006 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
529040013 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
556121017 HR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
408054001 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
408012036 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
561192031 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
561202015 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
534122013 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
534212005 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
561251012 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
530230025 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
549201004 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
534131009 LR RL2 0.13 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
538342003 LR RL2 0.13 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
513025001 LR RL2 0.16 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 2
561251013 MR RL2 0.17 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
561192030 MR RL2 0.17 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
558271001 LR RL2 0.15 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 2
513162013 LR RL2 0.21 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
549201005 LR RL2 0.19 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
538190027 LR RL2 0.21 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
561151009 MR RL2 0.23 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
558251013 LR RL2 0.23 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
558251014 LR RL2 0.24 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 4 2
549203030 LR RL2 0.29 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 4 3

Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Richmond | B-21 Table B-10: Housing Sites (Continued)
APN Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan Zoning Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use
4th or 5th
Cycle Site
Income
Category
Max Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
513151006 LR RL2 0.37 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 5 4
556170029 HR RL1 0.41 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 4 2
408054027 LR RL2 0.13 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
408032020 LR RL2 0.13 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
534024021* LR RL2 0.14 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
549201016 LR RL2 0.17 Vacant No Above Moderate 3 2
549201018 LR RL2 0.26 Vacant No Above Moderate 4 3
435300011 HR RH 1.90 Vacant No Above Moderate 9 6
509350038 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
544262008 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
556101007 HR RL1 0.25 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
556134032 HR RL1 0.24 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
558013001 HR RL1 0.31 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
544332010 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
544332015 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
558012015 HR RL1 0.20 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
544332036 LR RL2 0.17 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
556170016 HR RL1 0.20 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
556131018 HR RL1 0.26 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 2
544332030 LR RL2 0.17 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
558012014 HR RL1 0.23 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
556170033 HR RL1 0.21 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
556170032 HR RL1 0.15 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 1 1
558072014 HR RL1 0.20 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
544332034 LR RL2 0.17 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 2
556151006 HR RL1 0.22 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
544332004 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
544332028 LR RL2 0.23 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 4 2
556152007 HR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1

B - 2 2 | C i t y o f R i c h m o n d Sites Inventory and Methodology Table B-10: Housing Sites (Continued)
APN Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan Zoning Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use
4th or 5th
Cycle Site
Income
Category
Max Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
558071001 LR RL2 0.25 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 4 2
558212010 HR RL1 0.14 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 1 1
558241007 LR RL2 0.14 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
544221024 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
550202004 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
550212015 LR RL2 0.13 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
550221008 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
550141005 LR RL2 0.13 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
538360009 LR RL2 0.14 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
538341019 LR RL2 0.10 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
538190011 LR RL2 0.14 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
538060018 LR RL2 0.13 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
538070024 LR RL2 0.10 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
509360032 LR RL2 0.13 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
549192006 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
513235008 LR RL2 0.15 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 2
513162007 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
544182012 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
544182002 LR RL2 0.29 Vacant No Above Moderate 4 3
513034020 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
513081015 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
513322018 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
516050021 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
519260010 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
519240019 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
534193009 LR RL2 0.10 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
534161024 LR RL2 0.16 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 2
534222005 LR RL2 0.10 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
534193017 LR RL2 0.10 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
534122012 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1

Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Richmond | B-23 Table B-10: Housing Sites (Continued)
APN Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan Zoning Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use
4th or 5th
Cycle Site
Income
Category
Max Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
534023002 LR RL2 0.19 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
534012019 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
561202003 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
561201010 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
561151011 MR RL2 0.15 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
561221001 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
561262001 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
561232015 MR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
561192018 MR RL2 0.17 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
561192019 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
561262003 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
561252029 MR RL2 0.20 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 3 2
561181021 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
561181031 MR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
561171016 MR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
518111007 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
518111006 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
524180002 LR RL2 0.12 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 2 1
433492003 HR RH 0.50 Vacant No Above Moderate 3 2
435210005 HR RL1 1.35 Vacant Yes Above Moderate 12 8
408034010 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
408011032 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
414010014 LR RL2 3.44 Vacant No Above Moderate 52 34
433372008 HR RH 0.32 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
508371016 LR RL2 0.11 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
508371017 LR RL2 0.10 Vacant No Above Moderate 2 1
544232009 LR RL2 0.09 Vacant No Above Moderate 1 1
538210007 LR RL2 0.20 Vacant No Above Moderate 3 2
538190031 LR RL2 0.28 Vacant No Above Moderate 4 3
Total ‐ Above Moderat
e 198
*Surplus Land (government‐owned)
Source; City of Richmond, LWC

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 1 Appendix C: Housing Constraints
Contents
Appendix C: Housing Constraints .............................................................. 1 Section C.1 Introduction and Summary .................................................................................... 2 C.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 C.1.2 Summary ............................................................................................................... 2 Section C.2 Governmental Constraints ..................................................................................... 3 C.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 C.2.2 Land Use Controls ................................................................................................. 3 C.2.3 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement ................................................... 24 C.2.4 Permits and Procedures ...................................................................................... 25 C.2.5 On and Off-site Improvements ............................................................................ 33 C.2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................. 33 Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints ........................................................................... 34 C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions ................................................................................. 34 C.3.2 Development Costs ............................................................................................. 35 C.3.3 Availability of Financing ....................................................................................... 36 C.3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................. 37 Section C.4 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints ..................................................... 38 C.4.1 Environmental Constraints .................................................................................. 38 C.4.2 Infrastructure Constraints .................................................................................... 39 C.4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................. 42

C-2 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Section C.1 Introduction and Summary
C.1.1 Introduction
This Appendix covers local governmental, non-governmental, and environmental and infrastructure constraints to housing production in Richmond.

C.1.2 Summary
City policies and regulations, such as the Zoning Code, and mar ket factors outside of the City’s control affect the quantity and type of residential development that occurs in Richmond. The following summarizes key governmental and non-governmental cons traints to housing development as detailed in this Appendix.
 The design review process and subjective findings for approval , while limited in their applicability to housing developments due to State law (Housing Accountability Act), could result in uncertainty for developers and act as a constraint to housing production.  Due to various legislative updates, certain zoning provisions are not consistent with State law (e.g., Low Barrier Navigation Centers, employee/farmworker housing, density bonus, etc.).
 Zoning provisions for community/residential care facilities (e .g., separation requirements, permitted zones, etc.) are not compliant with State law.  Economic conditions in Richmond reflect a competitive housing market for both for-sale and rental housing, although lower land costs facilitate more a ffordable housing development relative to the Bay Area.

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 3 Section C.2 Governmental Constraints
C.2.1 Introduction
Local policies and regulations can affect the quantity and type of residential development. Since governmental actions can constrain the development and the affo rdability of housing, state law requires the housing element to "address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and d evelopment of housing" (Government Code Section 65583(c)(3)).

The City’s primary policies and regulations that affect residen tial development and housing affordability include: the General Plan, the Zoning Code, development processing procedures and fees, on- and off-site improvement requirements, and the California Building and Housing Codes.

In addition to a review of these policies and regulations, an a nalysis of the governmental constraints on housing production for persons with disabilities is included in this Appendix.

C.2.2 Land Use Controls
This section provides an overview of the City’s land use contro ls and their relation to the City’s housing supply.

General Plan Land Use Designations
The City adopted the Richmond General Plan 2030 on April 25, 20 12. Element 3 of the General Plan is the Land Use and Urban Design Element, which directs th e location and form of future development in the city.

The General Plan includes 10 land use designations that allow a range of residential development types, at a variety of densities (see Table C-1).

Table C-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations General Plan
Designation Description
Residential
Hillside Residential
Includes attached and detached single-family housing on subdivided parcels and clustered multi-family residential on developable portions of hillside parcels below the 400- foot elevation. Hillside development should address key environmental challenges and constraints such as steep slopes and soil erosion. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes.

Low-Density
Residential
Includes attached and detached single-family residential development in level to moderately sloped areas. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes. Existing multi-family residential structures may remain and may be improved without increasing densities, or may revert to single-family residential uses.

C-4 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Table C-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations General Plan
Designation Description
Medium-Density
Residential
Includes single and multi-family housing types such as one to three-story garden apartments, historic bungalows and cottages on small lots, townhouses and stacked flats.

Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes.

Neighborhood Mixed-
Use
Includes residential and neighborhood-serving retail uses such as shops, markets, professional offices, boutiques, barber shops, beauty salons and restaurants. Residential development above ground floor commercial is strongly encouraged. Development is emphasized at neighborhood nodes.

Key Corridor
Medium-Density Mixed-
Use (Residential
Emphasis)
Includes mixed-use development with commercial uses encouraged at street-level along corridors. However, residential-only development is allowed and may include condominiums, townhouses or apartments. Commercial-only development is not allowed.

Projects with commercial components must also include a residential component. New development is required to have a pedestrian-oriented building design with minimal setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings.

Medium-Intensity
Mixed-Use (Commercial
Emphasis)
Includes mixed-use development with commercial or office/light industrial uses encouraged at street-level along corridors.1 This classification is distinguished from the Medium-Density Mixed-Use (Residential Emphasis) land use classification in that it allows residential-only or commercial-only development. Residential uses may include condominiums, townhouses or apartments and commercial uses may include small to large-scale retail or office. New development must have a pedestrian-oriented building design with minimal setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings preferred.

Activity Center
Medium-Intensity
Mixed-Use (Community
Nodes and Gateways)
Includes mid-rise mixed-use development at key community nodes and gateways with commercial uses strongly encouraged at street-level. Commercial development must have a pedestrian-oriented building design with setbacks allowing for public amenities and parking located behind buildings.

High-Intensity Mixed-
Use (Major Activity
Center)
Includes mid and high-rise mixed-use development at major activity centers to serve the community and region. Office, retail, entertainment and residential uses are allowed.

Areas with this designation are characterized by streets with minimal setbacks, wide sidewalks and public spaces that cater to pedestrians and transit riders. Medium-Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) is allowed within this land use designation.

Regional Commercial
Mixed-Use
Includes mid-rise mixed-use development characterized by compact and pedestrian- friendly environments. Office, retail and residential uses are allowed in mid-rise buildings.

Business and Industry
Live/Work
Includes lofts and apartments connected to small-scale production spaces as well as office and storefront retail in transitional areas where it can be demonstrated that the use does not conflict with adjacent uses.

Note: See discussion on Specific Plans in the following section. 1 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1808, residential uses are prohibited within the Transition Zone Overlay District (TZOD) as referenced on General Plan Map 3.2: General Plan Land Use.

Source: Richmond General Plan 2030, Land Use and Urban Design Element

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 5 Other Relevant Plans
Richmond has adopted several specific plans over the years to facilitate the orderly development of distinct sections of the City, including the Tricornia Estat e Specific Plan (1986), the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan (1993), and the City Center Sp ecific Plan (2001). During the 5th Cycle Housing Element update, approved specific plans accounte d for the majority of vacant sites appropriate for housing development. The plans relevant t o the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update are described briefly below. Additionally, the City is c urrently preparing a Hilltop Specific Plan with funding through a Priority Development Area Grant rec eived from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to accelerate and streamline ho using production near public transit.

Richmond Bay Specific Plan
The Richmond Bay Specific Plan (RBSP) was adopted in December 2016 to document the long- term vision for a 320-acre portion of Richmond’s Bay that was once home to the Kaiser Shipyards and associated industrial uses. Now home to University of Calif ornia, Berkeley’s Richmond Bay Campus, the RBSP area is envisio ned to eventually contain a ser ies of mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods that can accommodate over 5.6 million square feet of research and development uses, 720,000 square feet of retail and services, 84 acres of p ublic/nature open space, and over 4,000 housing units. The RBSP is implemented by several form-ba sed zones, all of which allow for residential and mixed-use development.

Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code
The Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code (RLC FBC) will implement a mixed-use vision for several of the City’s commercial corridors and surrounding areas consistent with the vision of General Plan 2030. Though originally intended to represent the first phase of a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, the RLC FBC is still in development as of Summer 2022. Upon adoption, the development standards associated with the FBC zoning districts will be incorporated into the Zoning Code as Series 400 (Form-Based Code Zoning Dist ricts). Several programs are proposed in the Housing Plan (Section IV) to codify portions of the RLC FBC and remove constraints, including programs to provide a variety of housing types and objective design standards.

Zoning Districts
The Zoning Code is Chapter 15.04 of the Richmond Municipal Code . The Zoning Code and Zoning Map are available on the City’s website consistent with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1)(B). A comprehensive update to the Zoning Code was adopted in 2016 to be consistent with the Richmond General Plan 2030. A primary objective of the update was to replace suburban and auto-oriented development standards with those that promote and facilitate mixed- use, higher density and transit-oriented developments.

C-6 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints This section analyzes the Zoning Code and the zones which allow residential development, as well as the Richmond Bay Specific Plan. Table C-2 lists the zon es that allow residential development, including mixed-use, with a description of each.

Table C-2: Zones that Allow Residential Development
Zone Description
Residential Districts
Single Family
Hillside Residential RH
Residential development comprised of single-family housing on developable portions of hillside lots below the 400-foot elevation. Development in this district must address key environmental challenges and constraints, such as steep slopes and soil erosion, and standards will ensure that development is compatible with hillside conditions and a rural environment.

Single Family Very
Low Density
Residential
RL1
Create, preserve, and enhance areas for very low-density single-family housing in outlying, undeveloped hillside areas. Standards will ensure that development is compatible with hillside conditions and promote clustered development to preserve open space.

Single Family Low
Density Residential RL2
Low density residential development with attached and detached single-family homes in level to moderately sloped areas. Dwelling types also may include small lot single unit development, duplexes, townhomes, cottages, bungalows, and second units. In addition to single-unit homes, this district provides for compatible, supportive uses, such as small family day care, park and recreation facilities, civic and institutional uses, including schools and places for community assembly that may be appropriate in a single-family residential neighborhood, and community gardens. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes identified by the Planning Commission. Existing multi-family residential structures may remain and may be improved without increasing densities, or may revert to single-family residential uses.

Multi-family
Residential RM1
Single and multi-family housing types such as one to three-story garden apartments, historic bungalows and cottages on small lots, townhouses and stacked flats. In addition to residential uses, this district allows for a limited number of public and semi-public uses such as day care centers, public safety facilities, and residential care facilities that are appropriate in a medium density multi-family residential environment. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes identified by the Planning Commission. Small lot single unit and bungalow court development is allowed in the RM-1 District where it would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Multi-family High
Density Residential RM2
This district is intended for multi-family housing types including apartments, condominiums, townhouses, and group housing. In addition to residential uses, this district allows for compatible public and semi-public uses, including day care centers, public safety facilities, community assembly, residential care facilities, and transitional and supportive housing that are appropriate in a medium-high density residential environment. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes identified by the Planning Commission.

Mixed-Use Districts
Commercial Mixed-
Use, Residential CM-1
Intended for mixed-use development with commercial uses at street-level along corridors. Residential-only development also is allowed and may include condominiums, townhouses or apartments. Commercial-only development is not allowed. Projects with commercial components must also include a residential component. New development is required to have a pedestrian-oriented building

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 7 Table C-2: Zones that Allow Residential Development
Zone Description
design with minimal front and street-side setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings.

Commercial Mixed-
Use, Neighborhood CM-2
Residential and neighborhood-serving retail uses, such as small stores, markets, professional offices, boutiques, barbershops, beauty salons, and restaurants.

Residential development above ground floor commercial is preferred, but not required. Standards will ensure that development at neighborhood nodes is appropriately scaled, so that the physical form relates to and does not overwhelm adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods.

Commercial Mixed-
Use, Commercial
Emphasis
CM-3
Mixed-use development with commercial or office/light industrial uses at street- level along corridors. This classification is distinguished from the CM-1 Commercial Mixed-Use, Residential, in that it allows residential-only or commercial-only development. Allowable residential uses include condominiums, townhouses or apartments, and commercial uses may include small to large-scale retail, business and personal services and, at street-level, offices serving a walk-in clientele. New development must have a pedestrian-oriented building design with minimal front and street-side setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings preferred.

Commercial Mixed-
Use, Gateway/Node CM-4
Mid-rise mixed-use development at key community nodes and gateways with commercial uses at street-level and offices or residential uses on upper floors.

Commercial development must have a pedestrian-oriented building design with setbacks allowing for public amenities and parking located behind buildings.

Commercial Mixed-
Use, Activity Center CM-5
Mid and high-rise mixed-use development at major activity centers to serve the community and residents and businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area. Office, retail, entertainment and residential uses are allowed. Standards for physical form will create an urban character as envisioned in the General Plan with streets with minimal setbacks, wide sidewalks and public spaces that cater to pedestrians and transit riders.

Commercial Districts
Regional
Commercial CR
Mid-rise mixed-use development and regional shopping centers (e.g., Hilltop, Pacific East Mall, and Target) characterized by intensive development of retail space in compact and pedestrian-friendly environments. Office, retail and residential uses are allowed in mid-rise buildings.

Source: Richmond Zoning Code, Series 200 (Base Zoning District Regulations)

Development Standards
Development standards can constrain new residential development if the standards make it economically infeasible or physically impractical to develop a particular lot, or there are not suitable parcels which meet the development criteria for buildi ng form, massing, height, and density in a particular zone.

Through its Zoning Code, the City enforces minimum site develop ment standards for new residential uses. Tables C-3 summarizes the basic standards for the City’s zones that allow residential development.

C-8 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Table C-3: Development Standards in Zones that Allow Residential Development Zone Max. Dwelling
Units/Acre
Min. Lot Size Min. Setbacks (ft) Max.

Height (ft)
Max.

Stories
Max. Lot
Coverage
Min. Open
Space/Unit (sf) Min.

Landscaping
Area (sf) Width (ft) Front Interior
Side
Street
Side Rear Private Common
RH 5 11,000 70 25 1 10 10 25 35 – 40% – – –
RL1 9 6,000 60 20 1 6 7.5 20 2 35 – 45% – – –
RL2 15 3,750 37.5 20 1 5 7.5 20 2 35 – 50% – – –
RM1 27 5,000 50 10 5 3 1 0 2 0 35 3 65% 75 150 15%
RM2 40 5,000 50 10 5 3 1 0 2 0 35 3 75% 60 120 15%
CM-1 50 5,000 50 0 5 0 20 45 4 4 5 – 75 200 10%
CM-2 30 5,000 50 0 0
Adj to R: 5 0 5
Adj to R: 10 45 4 4 5 – 75 200 15%
CM-3 50 5,000 50 0 0
Adj to R: 5 0 0
Adj to R: 10 55 6 5 7 – 60 200 15%
CM-4 82.5 5,000 50 0 0
Adj to R: 5 0 0
Adj to R: 10 55 6 5 – 60 200 15%
CM-5 135 5,000 50 5 0
Adj to R: 5 5 0
Adj to R: 10 135 6 12 – 60 200 15%
CR – 5,000
Corner: 6,000
50 Corner: 60
0 Adj to R: 5
0 Adj to R: 5 0 0
Adj to R: 5 55 – – – – –
sf = square feet | ft = feet | Adj = adjacent | R = Residential zone 1 Where the adjoining lots on the same block face have been improved with buildings, the minimum ground floor front setback requirement shall be the average of the actual front setback of these abutting improved lots on such block face or 20 feet, whichever is less. When the lot slope is 20 percent or more, the front setback may be reduced to 10 feet provided the garage door is setback 18 feet from the edge of the pavement.
2 In the RL2 and RL1 districts the rear setback may be reduced to 10 feet if the combined front and rear setback is at least 40 feet. 3 Where an RM District adjoins an RH or RL District, the building setback from an RH or RL District boundary shall be 10 feet for interior side yards. 4 Maximum building height is 35 feet when within 30 feet of a Residential District. 5 The top story of all four-story buildings in the CM-1 and CM-2 districts shall contain only residential uses and shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet from the story below. 6 Maximum building height is 35 feet within 50 feet of a Residential District. 7 For the CM-3 District along San Pablo Avenue, the maximum allowable number of stories is three when abutting a single-family residential zone.

Source: Richmond Zoning Code, Series 200 (Base Zoning District Regulations)

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 9 Development Standards Analysis
Richmond’s basic development standards are generally not a constraint to housing development.

For example, floor area ratio (FAR) limitations are not applied to residential developments or residential portions of mixed-use developments, and most zones do not have lot coverage/area standards. While the RM1 and RM2 zones have maximum lot area re quirements of 65 and 75 percent respectively, this amount of coverage does not pose an undue constraint on the development of housing in the City.

Parking Requirements
Required residential parking rates are shown in Table C-4.

Table C-4: Residential Parking Rates
Land Use Required Number of Spaces
Single Unit 2 per dwelling unit
Duplexes or 2 or more attached units 1.5 per dwelling unit ADU 1 per dwelling unit or bedroom, whichever is less
Junior ADU ‒
Multi-Unit Dwelling (except senior and long-
term care)
1-bed 1 per dwelling unit
2-bed 1.5 per dwelling unit
3-bed+ 2 per dwelling unit
Efficiency unit 0.5 per dwelling unit
Guest parking (for developments with 5+ units) 0.2 per dwelling unit Senior Housing 2
Resident parking 0.5 per dwelling unit; 1 per employee
Guest parking (for developments with 5+ units) 0.2 per dwelling unit Mobile Home Park 1 per mobile home
Residential Facility/Group Residential
Limited/Small (≤6 persons) ‒
General, Senior/Large 0.25 per bed
Supportive Housing 0.25 per bed
Transitional Housing 0.25 per bed
Live-Work 1 per dwelling unit
Domestic Violence Shelter 0.25 per bed
Emergency Shelters 0.25 per bed, plus 1 per 10 beds 1
1 The Zoning Administrator may reduce this parking requirement upon finding that the actual parking demand will be less than the standard assumes.

Source: City of Richmond Zoning Code, Article 15.04.607 (Parking and Loading Standards)

C-10 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Parking Requirements Analysis
The City typically requires two space per single residential dw elling unit, with reduced requirements for duplexes, ADUs, multi-unit dwellings, and uses that serve residents with low vehicle ownership rates (e.g., senior housing, community care facilities, etc.).

Section 15.04.607.030.F (Unbundled Parking) provides provisions for the sale or rental of parking spaces in new multi-unit residential buildings with 10 or more units, allowing the lease or sale of off-street parking spaces separately from the rental or purchas e fees for the dwelling units. This may result in lowering the cost of housing for non-car househol ds and reducing parking demand in the surrounding neighborhood by opening up surplus spaces fo r public use. The Zoning Administrator may grant an exception from these requirements fo r affordable units subject to financing conditions that require that costs for parking and housing be bundled together.

Covered parking (e.g., carport, roofed structure, or garage) is only required if parking is located in the front half of a lot or within 25 feet of the side street on a corner lot per Section

15.04.607.030.G (Garages/Carports/Uncovered Residential Parking), with exceptions for ADUs.

In addition to the standards in Table C-4, the City provides parking reduction strategies in Section

15.04.607.070 (Alternative Compliance with Parking Requirements ). For example, consistently available on-street parking may be counted towards all or a portion of the parking spaces required of each land use, provided the applicant funds an on-street par king inventory and occupancy study (or references one completed in the last two years). Addi tionally, alternative parking area design and loading plans may be allowed with a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission. Therefore, parking requirements are not a constraint to the development of housing.

Design Standards and Guidelines
Design standards and guidelines are evaluated as they have the potential to increase development costs and extend the permitting process. The Housin g Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) limits jurisdictions’ ability to deny or reduce the density of a housing development project that complies with applicable objec tive zoning and development standards. The City provides design standards for single family homes in Section 15.04.201.040 (Design Standards for Single Family Housing). The section inclu des objective standards relating to entrances, building articulation, exterior siding, and more. Section 15.04.201.070 (Design Standards for Multi-Family Housing) identifies similar objectiv e standards for entrances, building length, pedestrian access, and more. For mixed-use districts, S ection 15.04.202.040 (Supplemental Regulations) objective standards for entrances, building articulation, windows, and more are provided.

Outside the Zoning Code, the Residential Design Guidelines for Additions to Heritage Homes (2008) provide a series of guidelines on the appropriate scale and location of additions and alterations to existing single-family dwellings as a complement to the Zoning Code’s design review procedures. Unlike the design standards for base zoning distric ts referenced above, the

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 1 1 Residential Design Guidelines include a mixture of objective massing standards and architectural recommendations.

Design standards and guidelines are generally objective and are not a constraint to housing production. However, see analysis of the design review process in Section C.2.4 for streamlining recommendations.

Provisions for a Variety of Housing
The City has adopted provisions in its Zoning Code that facilit ate a range of residential development types. Table C-5 provides a list of housing types a nd the zones in which they are permitted, require a conditional use permit, or are not permitted.

C-12 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Table C-5: Housing Types Permitted by Zone
Housing Type
Residential Districts Mixed-Use Districts Commercial
Districts
RH RL1 RL2 RM1 RM2 CM-1 CM-2 CM-3 CM-4 CM-5 CR
Single Family, Attached C 1 P P P P P P P A A 2 ‒
Single Family, Detached C 1 P P P P ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ A
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) P P P P P P P P P P ‒
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
(JADU) P P P P P P P P P P ‒
Duplex ‒ A 3 A 4 P P ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Multi-Unit Dwelling C 5 ‒ ‒ P P P P 6 P P 6 P 6 P 7
Supportive Housing P P P P P P P P P P 2 ‒
Transitional Housing P P P P P P P P P P 2 ‒
Emergency Shelter P 8 P 8 P 8 P 8 P 8 P 8 C P / C 9 ‒ P 2 ‒ Group Residential
Congregate Housing P P P P P C C C ‒ C 2 ‒
Senior Group Residential P P P P P C C C ‒ C 2 ‒
Planned Residential Groups C C C C C C ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Residential Facility
Residential Care, Limited (≤6
persons) P P P P P P P P P P 2 P 7
Residential Care, General (>6
person) ‒ ‒ ‒ C C C ‒ C C C 2 P 7
Residential Care, Senior ‒ ‒ ‒ C C C C C ‒ C 2 P 7
Hospice, Limited (≤6 persons) P P P P P P P ‒ ‒ ‒ P 7
Hospice, General (>6 persons) ‒ ‒ ‒ C C C C ‒ ‒ ‒ P 7
Key
P = Permitted Use; A = Administrative Use Permit required; C = Conditional Use Permit required; – = Not Permitted/Not Specified

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-13 Table C-5: Housing Types Permitted by Zone
Housing Type
Residential Districts Mixed-Use Districts Commercial
Districts
RH RL1 RL2 RM1 RM2 CM-1 CM-2 CM-3 CM-4 CM-5 CR
Notes
In the Live-Work (LW) Zone, ADUs/JADUs, Duplexes, and Live-Work units are permitted.

Emergency shelters are also permitted in the General Commercial (CG) Zone. See discussion below.

1 Only attached and detached single-family housing on subdivided parcels and clustered multi-family residential are allowed with design review on developable portions of hillside parcels below the 400-foot elevation. Hillside development standards and density controls in Section 15.04.201.100 (Hillside Subdivisions) apply. 2 If not within the Industrial Buffer Zone.
3 Allowed with an administrative use permit on lots 7,500 square feet or larger. 4 Allowed with an administrative use permit on lots 5,000 square feet or larger. 5 Up to 10 units allowed with a conditional use permit in a neighborhood mixed-use development at a neighborhood node. 6 Permitted above the ground floor or behind an allowed ground floor use, but not within the Industrial Buffer Zone. 7 Permitted above the ground floor or behind an allowed ground floor use, otherwise, a conditional use permit is required. 8 Permitted with 10 or fewer beds only.
9 Up to 25 beds permitted; for more than 25 beds, a conditional use permit is required.

Source: Richmond Zoning Code, Series 200 (Base Zoning District Regulations)

C-14 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Multi-Family
The City defines multi-family dwellings as housing three or mor e dwelling units within a single building or within two or more buildings on a site or parcel, i ncluding garden apartments, senior housing developments, and multi-story apartment buildings. This classification includes transitional housing in a multiple-unit format and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing units.

Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the RM1, RM2, CM-1, CM- 2, CM-3, CM-4, CM-5, and CR zones.

In the RH Zone, multi-family developments with up to 10 units are allowed with a conditional use permit in a neighborhood mixed-use development at a neighborhood node. Additionally, duplexes are allowed by-right in the RM1 and RM2 zones, and in the RL1 a nd RL2 zones with an administrative use permit on lots larger than 7,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet, respectively.

The City regulates condominium conversions in Section 15.04.711 .020 (Condominium, Community Apartment, and Stock C ooperative Conversion Regulatio ns) for the purposes of maintaining an adequate supply of rental housing and reducing t he displacement of long-term residents. These provisions prohibit existing residential renta l properties from being converted into condominiums unless all provisions of the City’s Code are complied with. Conversions are allowed subject to application, tenant notification, and reloca tion requirements, including right of first refusal for current tenants.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are permitted by-right in all Residential and Mixed-Use districts. They must be must be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the standards of Section 15.04.610.020 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units). These standards were updated in November 2020 to reflec t recent amendments to State law and include a provision that, if any portion of Section15.0 4.610.020 conflicts with State law, the applicable provision of State law shall control.

However, Government Code Section 65852.2(e) requires ADUs to be permitted ministerially in all mixed-used zones where residential uses are allowed. The CR dis trict permits “multi-unit dwellings” above the ground floor or behind an allowed ground floor use, but does not allow ADU or JADUs. Though State law would already control in this case, to provide additional clarity, Program 2.E is proposed to explicitly permit ADU and JADUs in the CR district.

Applicants for an ADU must submit an application for zoning com pliance review to the Zoning Administrator for ministerial approval (or as part of a building permit application). No discretionary review is permitted, in compliance with State law. Additionally , the City’s Planning Division provides both an info sheet and checklist to assist homeowners in the construction of compliant ADUs and JADUs. Also provided is a handout explaining the relationship between ADUs and the City’s rent control and just cause regulations.

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-15 Emergency Shelters/Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Emergency shelters containing any number of beds are permitted by-right on commercial parcels zoned CM-1. Additionally, emergency shelters are permitted by-r ight on commercial parcels zoned CM-5 and not within the Industrial Buffer Zone. Shelters with any number of beds are conditionally permitted on parcels zoned CM-2. In the CM-3, CG, and CR zones, emergency shelters with up to 25 beds are permitted by-right; shelters wi th 25 or more beds require a CUP.

Emergency shelters with 10 or fewer beds are permitted by-right in all Residential zones.

The City has adopted supplemental standards addressing operatio nal and design criteria (consistent with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)) contained in Municipal Code Section

15.04.610.180 (Emergency Shelters), which include the following:
 Shelters must be a minimum of 300 feet from each other.  Shelters must include an outdoor courtyard/waiting area, on-si te management during hours of operation, and exterior lighting at all building entra nces and outdoor activity areas.
 Shelters may provide common facilities, including child care, a commercial kitchen, a dining area, laundry, a recreation room, and support services ( e.g., training, counseling).
 No more than 10 beds shall be provided in any single emergency shelter located in a Residential zoning district and no more than 25 beds shall be p rovided in any single emergency shelter located within a Mixed-Use zoning district, except in response to a disaster or as authorized by a CUP.
 At least one parking space shall be provided for every four be ds, and one additional parking space for every 10 beds. The Zoning Administrator may r educe this parking requirements upon finding that the actual parking demand will b e less than the standard assumes.
 At least one bicycle space shall be provided for every five be ds.

The minimum separation requirement of 300 feet is allowed by St ate law, which prohibits any separate requirement greater than 300 feet (Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(v)).

Although the number of required parking spaces for an emergency shelter is lower compared to that required for multi-family (see Table C-4), it does not ref lect the parking necessary to only accommodate shelter staff. Therefore, these requirements will be amended to be consistent with State law, which requires sufficient parking for emergency shelter staff, provided that it is not more parking than is required for other residential or commercial us es within the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)).

According to the 2022 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, there were an estimated 632 persons experiencing homelessness in Richmond. Available housing sites in the CM-1 and CM-5 zones, which allow emergency shelters by right (without discretionary review), have a maximum capacity

C-16 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints of 1,151 units (see Appendix B, Sites Inventory and Methodology ). Additionally, the CM-3 Zone, which also allows emergency shelters with up to 25 beds without discretionary review, has a maximum unit capacity of 78 units with no housing site having a maximum capacity over 11 units.

Therefore, these zones provide sufficient capacity for emergenc y shelters that could house the current PIT Count estimate of 632 persons. The Zoning Code does not address low barrier navigation centers (LBNCs), defined as Housing First, low-barri er, service enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provide te mporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing (Government Code Section 65660). State law requires LBNCs to be permitted by-right in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresid ential zones permitting multi- family uses provided they are sat isfying the provisions establi sh by AB 101 (see Government Code Section 65662). Program 4.G is included to permit Low Barr ier Navigation Centers in the CM1, CM2, CM3, CM4, CM5, and CR zones.

Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing
In addition to emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing are used to further facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. They can serve those who are transitioning from rehabilitation or other types of tem porary living situations (e.g., domestic violence shelters, group homes, etc.). Transitional ho using can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and mu lti-family apartments, and typically offers case management and support services to return people to independent living (usually between six and 24 months). Transitional housing is defined in Government Code Section 65582(j) as buildings configured as rental housing development but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and re circulation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months.

Supportive housing is defined in Government Code Section 65582(g) as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

AB 2162 (Government Code Section 65650-65656) requires supporti ve housing to be allowed by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones that allow multi-family uses, if the proposed development meets certain criteria (e.g., deed restricted for 55 years to lower income households, serving “ta rget population” of homeless individuals, minimum area dedicated for supportive services, etc.).

In Richmond, transitional and supportive housing are allowed in all zones that allow residential uses and are subject to the same development standards that app ly to other residential uses of a similar type within these zones. They are also allowed by-rig ht in all zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted, with the exception of the CR Zone. Because the CR

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-17 district permits “multi-unit dwellings” above the ground floor or behind an allowed ground floor use, transitional and supportive housing should be permitted in the same fashion.

The Housing Element includes Program 4.H to amend the Zoning Code to permit transitional and supportive housing by-right in the CR Zone.

Farmworker (Employee) Housing
State law provisions related to farmworker housing (also called employee housing) derive from Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 and Section 17021.6 . Section 17021.5 generally requires employee housing for six or fewer persons to be treated as a single-family structure and residential use. Section 17021.6 generally requires that employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters designed for use by a single family or household to be treated as an agricultural use. No conditional use permits, zoning varianc es, or other zoning clearance are to be required.

The Zoning Code does not explicitly allow farmworker (employee) housing in any zone and has not been amended to comply with State law. As shown in the Need s Assessment (Appendix A, Table A-10), there are 319 City residents employed in the Agriculture & Natural Resource industry, well under one percent of all job holders. This indicates low d emand for this housing type.

However, Program 4.I has been included for the City to amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing consistent with State law.

Single-Room Occupancy (SROs)
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units are included in the City’s definition of “multiple-unit dwelling” as stated in Section 15.04.104.020 (Definitions). Municipal Cod e Section 15.04.610.390 (Single Room Occupancy Housing) provides supplemental standards for SROs, addressing requirements for room size/amenities, common areas, facility management, and more. None of these standards are likely to constrain the development of SROs. In fact, an SR O which contains a common kitchen that serves all residents is entitled to a 20 percent d ensity bonus above the maximum allowed by the base zoning dist rict. A new 17-unit SRO was appr oved in 2020 and began construction in 2021.

Manufactured and Mobile Homes
Mobile and manufactured homes can be an important source of hou sing choice and affordability As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Table A-16), the number of mobile homes in Richmond is very low (163 mobile homes) and has not changed in the past decade. Mobilehome parks require a CUP granted by the Planning Commission and subs equent approval by City Council within 30 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, a s described in Section 7.76.020 (Conditional Use Permits – Required). Further supplemental park and lot standards are provided outside the Zoning Code in Chapter 7.76 (Mobilehome Parks).

Government Code Section 65852.3 requires cities to allow and pe rmit manufactured and mobile homes on a permanent foundation in the same manner and in the s ame zone as a conventional

C-18 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints stick-built structure, subject to the same development standards that a conventional single-family home on the same lot would be subject to. As manufactured homes that meet certain requirements must be permitted in mobile home parks and are fre quently regulated by jurisdictions together, they are discussed here jointly.

Manufactured homes on a foundation are included as part of the City’s definition of “single unit dwelling, detached” and “accessory dwelling unit” as stated in Section 15.04.104.020 (Definitions).

Development standards for manufactured homes are also described in Section 15.04.610.260 (Manufactured Homes). They are treated as a conventional single -family home consistent with Government Code Section 65852.3 and in compliance with State law.

Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. This classification includes facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide permanent living accommodations and 24 hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of dail y living. It includes hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug addictions.

The City ensures that new housing developments comply with California building standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) and federal requirements for accessibility.

Health and Safety Code Section 1502 defines community care faci lities as “any facility, place, or building that is maintained and operated to provide nonmedical residential care, day treatment, adult daycare, or foster family agency services for children, a dults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, the physically handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children.” This definition includes a w ide variety of facilities, including foster family homes, small family homes, and group homes.

Health and Safety Code Section 1569.2 defines residential care facilities for the elderly as “a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of a ge or over, or their authorized representative, where varying levels and intensities of care an d supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are prov ided, based upon their varying needs, as determined in order to be admitted and to remain in the facility. Persons under 60 years of age with compatible needs may be allowed to be admitted or r etained in a residential care facility for the elderly.”
State law requires local governments to treat both facility typ es with six or fewer residents as a residential use and subject to the same development standards a s a single-family dwelling.

Furthermore, no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or oth er zoning clearance shall be required of a community/residential facility that serves six or fewer persons that is not required of

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-19 a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. The residents and operators of a residential care facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to the residential use of property. However, “six or fe wer persons” does not include the operator, operator’s family, or persons employed as staff.

The City defines a “Residential Facility” as those that provide permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living. This classification includes several sub-types, including:

1. Residential Care, Limited. A Residential Facility licensed by the State of California providing care for six or fewer persons;

2. Residential Care, General. A Residential Facility licensed by the State of California and providing care for more than six persons;

3. Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person, w here residents are 60 years of age or older and where varying levels of care and supe rvision are provided as agreed to at the time of admission or as determined necessary a t subsequent times of reappraisal. This classification includes continuing care retir ement communities and life care communities licensed for residential care by the State of California;

4. Hospice, Limited. A facility that provides residential living quarters for up to six terminally ill persons; and

5. Hospice, General. A facility that provides residential living quarters for more than six terminally ill persons.

As shown in Table C-5, the “Residential Care, Limited” sub-type is permitted by-right in all zones allowing residential uses. However, several other Zoning Code p rovisions are not in compliance with State law, including:
 Section 15.04.610.360 (Residential Facility) requires such fac ilities to be separated by a minimum distance of 300 feet from any other residential facil ity and at least 20 square feet of common open space for each person who resides th ere. These constitute development standards not required of a single-family dwelling of the same type in the same zone (for those facilities serving six or fewer persons).  “Residential Care, Senior” does not delineate between faciliti es serving six or fewer persons and more than six persons. For such facilities serving six or fewer persons, they must be permitted by-right in the same manner as “Resident ial Care, Limited” (i.e., in all zones allowing residential uses).
 “Hospice, Limited” facilities must be permitted by-right in th e CM-3, CM-4, and CM-5 zones.

C-20 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints These changes are included in Program 3.E, which also requires that community/residential care facilities, regardless of type or size, are only subject to obj ective standards (non-discretionary review).

Lastly, the Zoning Code defines a “family” as “one or more persons, related or unrelated, living together as a single housekeeping unit.” This definition does n ot require relation by blood or by marriage, and therefore does not unnecessarily limit the operation of community/residential care facilities.

Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modificati ons or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodat ions may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabiliti es to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is rea sonable depends on the circumstances.

Article 15.04.809 (Waivers) establishes a formal procedure for individuals with disabilities seeking equal access to housing to request a reasonable accommodation a nd criteria to be used when considering such requests. The Code allows a reasonable accommo dation request to be made by any person with a disability or their representative when th e rules, standards, and practices required for housing acts as a barrier to fair housing opportun ities. The following factors are required to be considered prior to a decision on a reasonable accommodation request:
 Physical attributes of the property and structures.
 Alternative reasonable accommodations which may provide an equ ivalent level of benefit.
 Whether the reasonable accommodation would require a fundament al alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning.  Whether the subject housing will be used by a person with a di sability.  Whether the request is necessary to make specific housing avai lable to a person with a disability.

These are reasonable factors for the City to consider in approv ing a reasonable accommodation request. The finding of whether the request would require a fun damental alteration in the nature of a City program or law allows the City to evaluate whether modifications to City regulations are appropriate to facilitate processing of reasonable accommodation requests. The City has not had any reasonable accommodation requests over the last planning pe riod, and a program is proposed to raise awareness of reasonable accommodations to increase the number of requests filed and approved by the City.

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-21 Density Bonus and Incentives for Affordable Housing
The City’s density bonus provisions and incentives are located in Article 15.04.602 (Affordable Housing Density Bonus). There have been changes to State densi ty bonus laws since these provisions were adopted in 2018 (e.g., allowance for up to 50 p ercent density bonuses via AB 2345). Therefore, though Section 15.04.602.020 (General Provisi ons) affirms that State law governs in the event of a conflict, this article should be upda ted to reflect current State law, as proposed in Program 3.D.

Subsection C provides incentive standards that the City has determined would not have a specific, adverse impact. These incentives are:
 A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning requirements or design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Standards Commission including, but not limited to, reduced minimum setbacks, increased maximum lot coverage, reduced on-site parking standards, etc.  Other incentives proposed by the developer or the City that re sult in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions, including, but not limited to expedited "fast track" processing of development applications, waiver of filing or processing fees. use of public financing, etc.

The number of incentives or concessions allowed varies from one to three depending on the level of affordability, the type of housing unit, and the percentage of total units they represent.

Inclusionary Housing
In 2001, the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IH O) which modified the City’s requirements for the provision of affordable housing by builders of new residential projects. During the 5th Cycle Housing Element Update in 2014, affordable housing advocates expressed concerns as to whether the City’s inclusionary housing in-lieu fee was a dequate to assist in increasing the supply of affordable housing in the City. To address these concerns, two specific Housing Element programs related to the IHO were added in the 5 th Cycle and adopted by the Council in 2015. In the following years, three studies (a financial feasibility ana lysis and two nexus studies) were prepared to support consideration of updates to the City’s affo rdable housing requirements. In 2020, a substantially reorganized and expanded IHO was adopted, repealing and readopting Article 15.04.603 (Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Linkage Fee).

Section 15.04.810.060 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements for Re sidential Development Projects) establishes requirements for the inclusion of afforda ble housing in all new housing developments of 10 or more units in both entirely residential p rojects and in the residential components of mixed-use projects. Developers can meet the City’ s inclusionary housing requirement by:
 Making seven percent of the dwelling units in a for-sale resid ential development project available at a price affordable to low-income households;

C-22 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints  Making 10 percent of the dwelling units in a for-sale resident ial development project available at a price affordable to moderate-income households;  Making nine percent of the dwelling units in a rental resident ial development project available at a rent affordable to very low-income households; or  Making 10 percent of the dwelling units in a rental residentia l development project available at a rent affordable to low-income households.

Alternately, except for for-sale residential developments propo sed south of Interstate Highway 580 (I-580) and on the Point San Pablo peninsula, the above inc lusionary requirements may be satisfied by the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City’s Afford able Housing Fund described in Section 15.04.603.130 (Affordable Housing Fund). Other alternative compliance options include:
 The inclusionary housing requirement for for-sale residential developments may be satisfied by providing 10 percent of the dwelling units in deve lopment at a rent affordable to very low-income households (which may be later so ld at a similarly affordable price and kept affordable for a 45-year term);  The construction of inclusionary units on another site in Rich mond; or  The dedication of property to the City, provided the number of affordable units to be constructed on the property is at least 10 percent greater than the number of inclusionary units otherwise required and a viable financing plan is in place.

Inclusionary housing requirements may increase development cost s. However, the City offers developers the following incentives and concessions to offset such costs:
 Allowing a density bonus according to the provisions of Articl e 15.04.602 (Affordable Housing Density Bonus);
 Allowing the concentration of inclusionary units within a port ion of the building or site if required by a funding source or other legal requirements (ot herwise prohibited by Section 15.04.603.050.C); and
 Allowing the construction of inclusionary units that are of a different type or smaller size than market rate units within the same project, provided t he differences provide adequate housing and will result in at least five percent more affordable units than required.

Continued affordability must be maintained at a price affordabl e to the targeted income level for 45 years for for-sale units and 55 years for rental units. The affordability term is outlined in an Inclusionary Housing Agreement recorded with the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder’s Office and is binding upon any future owners for the duration of the term.

Inclusionary Housing Analysis
The City has implemented inclusionary housing requirements sinc e 2001. Since that time, Richmond has continued to experience new development and housin g production, with 3,544

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-23 units (nine percent of the City’s housing stock) built since 20 00. Between 2015 and 2019, 953 housing units were issued permits in the City; of these, 527 we re above moderate-income units, none were moderate-income units, 160 were low-income units, and 266 were very low-income units (see Appendix A, Housing Needs Assessment, Table A-18). T his is an average of 238 residential units permitted per year. The City has achieved all of its very low income 5 th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 438 units, but has not yet met the 5th Cycle RHNA in the low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income categories. The City’s progress is 70 percent of low income, zero percent of moderate income, and 63 percent of above moderate income.1 The recent amendments to the IHO reduced the City's inclusionary requirements to make it more feasible to construct housing, especially north of I-580, where most housing construction was found to be infeasible. However, for-sale projects south of I-5 80 are required to construct inclusionary units rather than pay in-lieu fees to disperse the City's affordable housing stock and to ensure that inclusionary units will be built. The amendments also authorize the City Council to impose linkage fees on non-residential development. While the r evised fees are modest, over time the City anticipates that it will accumulate substantial f unds to assist in the construction of affordable housing.

Other Local Ordinances
Short-Term Rental Ordinance
To maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods, the City has adopted a brief short- term rental ordinance in Section 15.04.610.030 (Accessory Short-Term Rentals (“Home-shares”)).

Adopted in 2020, these regulations allow accessory short-term rentals of one or two bedrooms in Residential and Commercial Mixed-Use zoning districts, provided the primary use of the dwelling remains residential. The rental of ADUs or JADUs for a period of less than 30 days is prohibited, and a resident must occupy the dwelling unit for at least 200 d ays during each calendar year, living in one of the bedrooms on-site.

Richmond Hills Initiative
The Richmond Hills Initiative (RHI), a voter initiative that re stricted residential development in an area of the El Sobrante Hills, was adopted in 2017. The RHI are a is approximately 430 acres, comprised of 38 parcels, and located north and east of Wildcat Canyon Regional Park and southwest of San Pablo Dam Road. Pursuant to the RHI, development in this area is not permitted if it would reduce the quantity or quality of wetlands or water and/or native vegetation in a stream corridor. The RHI includes minimum lot sizes, limited development envelopes, and maximum floor area of all buildings with certain exceptions. A transferable d evelopment credit program was included to ensure no net loss in residential capacity under the RHI. Under this program, density

1 HCD, APR Dashboard, July 2022.

C-24 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints may be transferred to the CM-4 and CM-5 zoning districts, again , ensuring no net loss in residential capacity citywide.

SB 9
Effective January 2022, Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), mandates local jurisdictions to ministerially approve up to two residential units and/or a two-lot subdivision in single-family residential zones if specific objective criteria are met. SB 9 projects are exempt from discr etionary review if the project is consistent with objective zoning, design standards, and subdivi sion standards. The City has not yet passed an ordinance related to SB 9, but provides applicati ons and checklists for SB 9 dwelling units or lot splits on its website.

Other Ordinances
The City does not have other ordinances, such as a growth contr ol ordinance or other growth control measures that directly impact the cost and supply of re sidential development. A ban on the use of natural gas in new construction is described in Sect ion C.2.3 (Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement).

C.2.3 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement
Richmond has adopted by reference the 2019 California Building Standards Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24) as the Building Code of the City of Rich mond. All codes that constitute the 2019 Building Standards Code are referenced in Article 6 (Building Regulations) of the Municipal Code. The standards may add material and labor costs but are necessary minimums for the safety of those occupying the structures.

In many cases, amendments to the State Code have been incorpora ted to reflect issues of local concern in Section 6.02.030 (Amendments, Additions, and Deletio ns). For example, in 2021 the City amended the 2019 California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) to require all newly constructed buildings be All-Electric Buildings, no n atural gas or propane plumbing installed and uses electricity for space heating, water heating , cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. Exceptions are included for scientific labor atories, publicly-owned emergency centers, non-residential buildings containing a for-profit restaurant (by request). These standards may increase initial construction costs, but over time will benefit the health, welfare, and resilience of current and future residents.

The City’s Code Enforcement Division is responsible for monitor ing Code compliance. Code enforcement practices occur on both a proactive and complaint-d riven basis. Proactive inspections occur equitably based on the City’s knowledge of housing structures most in need of repair and life safety conditions. The following describes the City’s standard code enforcement procedure:

1. Residents or City staff submit a complaint to Code Enforceme nt via telephone or email;

2. A code enforcement officer is assigned and investigates the complaint;

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-25

3. A notice of abatement is prepared and filed with the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office;

4. If the property is vacant, an invoice or work order is prepa red and the property is abated;

5. If the property is occupied, the City Attorney’s Office obta ins a forcible entry warrant prior to abatement;

6. The property is re-inspected to determine compliance and nee d for further action; and

7. If the property owner files an appeal, all abatement activit y are ceased until Board of Appeals renders a decision.

In 2021, 728 code enforcement cases were opened, and 748 cases were closed. To prevent the relocation of lower-income tenants while resolving Code violati ons, the City offers relocation services and rehabilitation loan assistance to absentee landlords through Municipal Code Chapter

11.102 (Relocation Requirements for Tenants of Residential Rental Units).

Additionally, the City implements a Residential Rental Inspecti on Program (RRIP) (Municipal Code Section 6.40) to safeguard and preserve the housing stock of decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling units and protect persons entering or residing in them by providing a regular and comprehensive system of inspection and correction of substandar d conditions. Under this program, the City conducted 2,898 total inspections of 1,543 re ntal units in 2021. Of these, 833 were self-inspections, and 2,065 were audit inspections. 2021 was a lower than typical inspection year due to timing of registrations and the COVID-19 pandemic.

C.2.4 Permits and Procedures
The time required to process a project varies greatly from one entitlement to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal, as well as the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process. Tables C-6 and C-7 identifies a pprovals and/or permits that could be required for planning entitlements, their corresponding approval body, and the typical or estimated approval timeline. It should be noted that each proje ct would not have to obtain each permit/approval.

C-26 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Table C-6: Permit/Procedure and Approval Authority
Permit/Approval Type
Approval Authority
Recommendation Decision Appeal
Zoning Compliance
Review ‒ Zoning Administrator Planning Commission
Administrative Use Permit ‒ Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Minor Design Review ‒ Zoning Administrator Design Review Board Major Design Review ‒ Design Review Board Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit ‒ Planning Commission City Council Variance ‒ Planning Commission City Council
Source: City of Richmond

Table C-7: Estimated Approval Timelines
Permit/Approval Type Approval Authority Estimated Approval Timelines 1 Zoning Compliance Review (ADU/JADU) Zoning Administrator 1 month Minor/Administrative Design Review Zoning Administrator 1 – 2 months Design Review Board ‒ 6 – 18 months
Planning Commission ‒ 6 – 24 months
Building Plan Check
ADU and Single-Family/Duplex Zoning Administrator 1 – 3 months Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Administrator 2 – 6 months Notes
All permit/approvals are assumed to be subject to a Mitigated Negative Declaration/Negative Declaration or lower-level environmental review.
1 Typical approval timeline is from date of application submittal. Applicant work periods to provide a complete application or other applicant delays that are not within the City’s control are reflected in these timelines.

Source: City of Richmond

Additionally, the time lapse between project approval and build ing permit issuance varies. This variation depends on many factors, including the project’s comp lexity, which can affect the time to prepare a full set of construction plans. Recently, the City has been observing a lapse ranging from approximately three months to over one year between projec t approval and building permit submittal for multi-family and mi xed-use projects. For example, a 100-unit multi-family development at 2301 Columbia Boulevard was approved on November 18, 2021 and submitted for building plan check on February 23, 2022. Other projects ha ve seen lapses of approximately one year. For example, a single-family development of 94 units at 1 Markovich Lane was approved on December 22, 2020 and submitted for building plan check on November 2, 2021.

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-27 Design Review
The City’s design review process is outlined in Article 15.04.8 05 (Design Review). Generally, all single-story residential additions, single-family homes, and duplexes not exceeding 1,200 square feet and no taller than 15 feet are reviewed by the Zoning Admi nistrator (minor or administrative design review). All larger single-family and multi-family resid ential structures, as well as mixed- use projects of over 1,000 square feet that abut a residential zoning district, are reviewed at a public hearing by the Design Review Board (major design review).

The review authority must consider the criteria described in Se ction 15.04.805.040 (Design Review Criteria) prior to approval of a design review application, including:

1. The overall design of the project, including its scale, mass ing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping, reflects design integrity and the relationship of form and function in a coherent manner; and

2. The project design evidences a sense of place; does not over whelm or adversely impact adjoining properties; and respects prevailing setbacks and the scale of neighboring buildings and how they relate to the street.

The Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board may also impose reasonable conditions of approval to ensure projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

The subjectivity of the design review criteria highlighted above could lead to a protracted approval process and potentially a denial based on interpretation. This conclusion is supported by input received from both for-profit and nonprofit housing developers that work in Richmond, who also note that Design Review Board requirements seem to change over the course of the entitlement process, adding time and expense. As noted previously, Senate Bill 330 (Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5) precludes jurisdictions f rom denying or reducing the permitted density of a housing development based on subjective development and design standards. Program 3.A is proposed to update design review find ings for housing developments in order to reduce subjectivity in the design review process. Additionally, this Program includes a legal training session to be held with the Design Review Board and City staff regarding State law provisions (e.g., Housing Accountability Act, SB 330) including limited purview, number of public meetings, and timeframes for project reviews.

Use Permits
The City’s use permit process is described in Article 15.04.806 (Use Permits). This includes both administrative use permits and conditional use permits. As shown in Table C-5, a limited number of higher intensity mixed-use and commercial zoning districts require an administrative use permit for single-family dwellings, as higher density and mixed-use development is encouraged in these areas. Duplexes require an administrative use permit to facilit ate their development in lower- density residential zones (RL1 and RL2 districts). Administrative use permits are reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. In select cases, a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for single-family

C-28 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints and multi-family dwellings, as well as emergency shelters and v arious facilities for persons with disabilities. The Planning Commission must review all CUPs at a public hearing and make standard findings to ensure compliance with applicable City requirements before approval.

An estimated approval timeline of up to 24 months for Planning Commission review is lengthy and indicates a need to streamline the process. Although few residential developments would be subject to a use permit, Program 3.A proposes actions to stream line the use permit process for residential uses.

SB 35 Processing
Before an SB 35 application can be made, an application must su bmit a notice of intent in the form of a preliminary application provided by the City that inc ludes the information required by Government Code Section 65941.1. The City must then notify Cali fornia Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area of the site to determine if they wish to engage in a scoping consultation. An SB 35 application cannot b e made until the notice and scoping consultation is complete and either an agreement is rea ched or no tribe elects to participate in a scoping consultation. A separate application f orm and checklist have been prepared by the City for SB 35 applications. The City processes SB 35 applications in compliance with State law and HCD guidelines. As of August 2022, one SB 35 project has been conditionally approved and two are under review.

Permit and Development Fees
The City requires payment of applic ation fees for entitlement p rocessing and development fees at time of building permit issuance. City fees are based on the City’s costs of providing services and are reviewed and adjusted periodically. The City’s permit and development fees are available on the City’s website consistent with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1)(A).

Planning Fees
Table C-8 lists the City’s Planning Fees.

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-29

Table C-8: Planning Fees
Service/Permit Type Fee Amount
Environmental Review
Preliminary CEQA Review $211
Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30% of tota l contract cost Environmental Impact Report 30% of total contract cost Consultant Environmental Work $11,000 deposit
Consultant Technical Studies $2,700 deposit
Subdivision Review
Tentative Parcel Map (0 to 4 lots) $6,500 deposit
Tentative Subdivision Map (5 to 25 lots) $7,500 deposit Tentative Subdivision Map (26 to 100 lots) $9,500 deposit Tentative Subdivision Map (101 to 200 lots) $14,000 deposit Tentative Subdivision Map (201+ lots) $18,000 deposit
Preliminary Plan $4,000 deposit
Zoning Compliance Review
ADU (attached/detached) $1,186
ADU (conversion) $947
JADU $711
Use Permit Review
Administrative Use Permit $2,161
Conditional Use Permit $5,000 deposit
Residential Design Review - Minor/Administrative
Single-Family Unit or Duplex (501 to 1,200 sf under 15 ft.) $2, 431 Residential Design Review - Major (Design Review Board) Single-Family Unit or Duplex (1,201 sf or more) $4,400 deposit Multi-family Project (3 to 10 units) $8,500 deposit
Multi-family Project (10 to 25 units) $10,500 deposit
Multi-family Project (26 to 100 units) $12,500 deposit
Multi-family Project (100+ units) $15,500 deposit
Legislative Actions
General Plan or Zoning Amendment $13,000 deposit
Specific Plan Amendment $13,000 deposit
Variance/Waiver Review
Variance - Residential $3,500 deposit
Source: City of Richmond, 2022 Planning Division Fee Schedule

C-30 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Development Fees
Development fees are applicable to newly constructed buildings and additions, or whenever a change of use within an existing building creates additional impacts. Fees cover the costs of City services and facilities. The City collects the Subregional Tran sportation Mitigation Program (STMP) fee on behalf of the West Contra Costa Transportation Ad visory Committee. The City does not otherwise collect fees for outside agencies, but does verify their payment prior to permit issuance, including the West Contra Costa Unified School Distri ct (WCCUSD), the West County Wastewater District (WCWD), and East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD).

Table C-9 lists the City’s Development Fees.

Table C-9: Development Fees
Impact Type Fee Amount1
State and Regional Impact Fees
WCCUSD Fee $4.08/square foot
Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) Fees Single-family $5,881/unit
Multi-family $2,897/unit
Senior Housing $1,588/unit
City Fees
Park/Open Space Impact Fee
Single-family $6,950/unit
Multi-family $5,707/unit
Sewer Impact Fee
Single-family $3,625/unit
Multi-family $2,934/unit
Traffic Impact Fee
Single-family $1,968/unit
Multi-family $1,573/unit
Community/Aquatic Centers Impact Fee
Single-family $1,667/unit
Multi-family $1,368/unit
Storm Drainage Impact Fee
Single-family $710/unit
Multi-family $386/unit
Library Impact Fee
Single-family $1,883/unit
Multi-family $1,883/unit
Police Facilities Impact Fee

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-31 Table C-9: Development Fees
Impact Type Fee Amount1
Single-family $391/unit
Multi-family $208/unit
Fire Facilities
Single-family $476/unit
Multi-family $179/unit
Mitigation Administrative Fee 3% of the total project impact fees Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee (per non-inclusionary unit) $0 – $12/square foot Park Land Dedication Fees
Single-family $432
Duplex $372/unit
Condominiums and clusters $300/unit
Apartments (7+ units) $216/unit
Public Art Fee (10+ units only) 1% of building development cost Water and Wastewater Connection Fees
WCWD Service Connection Fee
Single-family $10,244
Multi-family $7,350/unit
Sewer Connection Fee $2,950
EBMUD System Capacity Charge
Single-family $11,700 – $21,250
Multi-family $7,390/unit >500 square feet
$5,850/unit ≤500 square feet
Source: City of Richmond, WCWD, WCCUSD

C-32 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Fee Analysis
Table C-10 shows total estimated planning and development fees for single-family and multi- family units.

Table C-10: Planning and Development Fees for Single-Family and Multi-Family Fee Type Single-Family 1 Multi-Family (50 units,
market rate) 2, 3
Multi-Family (100 units,
affordable) 2, 3
Planning and Development Fees
Residential Design Review $4,400 $12,500 $12,500
WCCUSD Fee $14,280 $204,000 $408,000
Subregional Transportation Mitigation
Program (STMP) Fees
$5,744 $141,450 $282,900
Park/Open Space Impact Fee $6,950 $285,350 $570,700
Sewer Impact Fee $3,625 $146,700 $293,400
Traffic Impact Fee $1,968 $78,650 $157,300
Community/Aquatic Centers Impact Fee $1,667 $68,400 $136,800 Strom Drainage Impact Fee $710 $19,300 $38,600
Library Impact Fee $1,883 $94,150 $188,300
Police Facilities Impact Fee $391 $10,400 $20,800
Fire Facilities $179 $15,050 $30,100
Mitigation Administrative Fee $521 $21,540 $43,080
Park Land Dedication Fees $432 $10,800 $21,600
Public Art Fee N/A $99,090 $198,180
WCWD Service Connection Fee $10,244 $367,500 $735,000 Sewer Connection Fee $2,950 $2,950 $2,950
Total Fees $42,750 $1,574,880 $3,137,260
Total Fees per Unit $42,750 $31,498 $31,373
Development Cost
Total Estimated Development Cost $1,423,170 $23,481, 143 $41,537,623 Total Estimated Development Cost per
Unit
$1,423,170 $469,623 $415,376
Estimated Fee Cost as a Portion of Total
Development Cost
3% 7% 8%
1 Assumes a 3,500 square foot house with a 2-car garage. 2 Assumes 1,000 square foot units.
3 Assumes public art requirement is provided on-site.

Note: EBMUD fees not included in fees calculation due to meter size and geographic thresholds.

Source: City of Richmond, WCWD, WCCUSD

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-33 Planning and development fees add to the cost of housing and ca n constrain housing development if the cost of development exceeds the threshold fo r financial feasibility. The Park/Open Space Impact Fee, WCWD Service Connection Fee, and WCCUSD Fee are the most substantial fees on residential development in Richmond. Howeve r, as reviewed by the Terner Center in a March 2018 report, development fees typically represent reasonable costs.2 On a per-unit basis, fees on development in Richmond are higher for single-family development than multi-family. However, development fees make up a greater portion of market-rate multi- family development costs because single-family houses are much larger than multi-family units as per-unit fees incentivize larger unit sizes. Therefore, the City will evaluate refining fees to be applied on a per square foot basis rather than per unit to enco urage the development of smaller housing units (Program 2.B).

C.2.5 On and Off-site Improvements
New development is required to provide public improvements to serve its new residents consistent with City standards. Required improvements are described in Art icle 15.04.709 (Improvements) and Article 15.04.710 (Design Standards). Public improvement ob ligations include providing sidewalks, bikeways, street trees, storm drainage, sanitary sew ers, water connections, utility services, fire hydrants, walls, and fences. Required street right-of-way widths are based on street classification and range from 40 feet (local street) to 112 fee t (auto arterial) as described in Section 15.04.710.050.C (Street Cross-Sections and Dimensional Standards). The City allows deviations from these standards for special cases, such as hill side development. While these types of requirements result i n additional development costs, t hese improvements provide the necessary facilities and services for a safe and quality living environment.

C.2.6 Summary
Governmental constraints to the production of housing in Richmo nd are limited to the design review process and zoning provisions inconsistent with State law, including the permitting of Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNCs), community/residential care facilities, etc. Programs are included in the Housing Plan (Section IV) to remove these constraints and ensure regulations that apply to a variety of housing types are objective.

2 UC Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation. “It All Adds Up: The Cost of Housing Development Fees in Seven California Cities”. March 2018.
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/Development_Fees_Report_Final_2.pdf

C-34 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
Market factors over which a local government has only limited a bility to control can influence the jurisdiction’s capacity to develop more housing. These market-r elated constraints include land cost, construction cost, and the availability of financing. An assessment of these non- governmental constraints can inform the development of potential actions that can ameliorate its impact.

C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions
Market Overview: For-Sale
As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-39), the Region’s home values have increased significantly since 2011, when they had reached a low point following the Great Recession (2009-2011). From 2011 to 2020, the median home value in the Bay Area increased by 117 percent. Since 2011, the typical home value in Richmond has increased 159 percent, from $247,317 to $641,530.

Following the recovery from the Great Recession and until 2020, interest rates remained at low levels of 3.5 to 4.5 percent. When interest rates are low, capi tal investment and housing production generally increase, and more buyers are likely to ta ke out a mortgage than when interest rates are higher. In addition, consumers are able to b orrow more money for the same monthly payment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, national 30-year mortgage rates dropped to even lower levels, declining to as low as 2.65 percent in Janua ry 2021. However, interest rates began to increase in early 2022, to 5.3 percent by May 2022, th e highest rate since June 2009.3 The increase in home borrowing rates may impact the performance of the home buying market, but the severity of these impacts is uncertain due to the unusual conditions during the pandemic- recovery, including a shortage of housing supply, increased sav ings and significant changes to how many Americans work and live.

Market Overview: Rental
As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-41 and Figure A-42), Richmond rents have risen alongside rents in Contra Costa County and are higher than those across the Region.

According to U.S. Census data, the median rent in Richmond in 2019 was $1,381 per month and had increased by 37.1 percent in the past 10 years. In the same time period, median rent increased by 45.2 percent in Contra Costa County and 54 percent in the Region.

Per the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-44), homeowners are less cost-burdened than renters, who bear the brunt of an overall rise in housing costs without the benefit of fixed-rate

3 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), Primary Mortgage Market Survey®

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-35 mortgages. When looking at cost burden across tenure in Richmond, 28 percent of renters spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 20 percent of those that own. Additionally, 25 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing and are considered severely cost-burdened, while 14 percent of homeowners are severely cost-burdened. In total, 34 percent of homeowners and 58 percent of renters experience some level of cost burden in Richmond.

C.3.2 Development Costs
Land Costs
To estimate the price of land in Richmond, comparable sales wit hin the past two years (2020– 2022) were reviewed. Individual lots ranged from $21 to $54 per square foot, or about $925,926 to $2,352,240 per acre. Lot sizes ranged from approximately 2,5 00 to 5,227 square feet.

Residential multi-family land in and near Richmond is estimated to cost an average of $37 per square foot, or about $1,603,233 per acre. Land is not consider ed a constraint to development, as there is availability of vacant land for future housing cons truction as identified in the sites inventory.

Construction Costs
According to a March 2020 report published by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, construction costs for multi-family housing in California have climbed 25 percent between 2009 and 2018.4 This increase is in part due to the higher cost of building ma terials, such as lumber, concrete, and steel, as well as prevailing wage requirements. A ccording to RSMeans, construction costs (including materials and labor but excluding soft costs such as fees) for a small apartment complex in the Richmond area ranged between $185 to $215 per square foot in 2022.

Construction costs can vary depending on the type of development, ranging from more expensive steel-frame Type I construction to more affordable wood-frame Type V. Due to the smaller scale, single-family homes tend to be more expensive to construct on a per square foot basis than larger, multi-family developments. This cost can fluctuate depending on the type and quality of amenities to the property, such as expensive exterior and interior finish es, outdoor spaces, fireplaces, swimming pools, etc.

Soft costs are the costs that are not directly incurred by the physical construction of the development. These costs include services for architectural, en gineering, environmental assessments, landscape design and legal services, as well as permitting requirements and impact fees. They generally range from 15 to 30 percent of total devel opment costs but fluctuate depending on local fees and exactions. Please refer to the Permit and Development Fees section

4 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, The Hard Costs of Constr uction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California, March 2020

C-36 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints for a discussion of the City’s required permit and development fees; this section (Section C.2.4) also discusses the time lapse between approval and building permit submittal.

Lastly, see Appendix B, Section B.2.3 for a discussion of proje cts being proposed at densities below the maximum allowed, with the Quarry Redesign project discussed as an example of lower density requested based on difficulty obtaining financing for condominium projects.

C.3.3 Availability of Financing
The availability of financing has a large impact on rates of ho meownership. The ability to secure financing can be influenced by creditworthiness, debt-to-income ratio, and the restrictiveness (or leniency) of mortgage lending standards. Reviewing data collect ed through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveals the influence of the lending mark et on local home sales. Home purchase loans in 2020 are summarized in Table C-11 below.

In the City’s zip codes, over 80 percent of traditional home lo an applications in 2020 were for conventional loans and just below 20 percent for government-bac ked loans, for a total of 1,614 home loan applications across both types. This disparity could be driven by high home values in Richmond, as government-backed l oan programs typically have a m aximum loan amount. The approval rate for conventional loans was 73 percent.

In competitive housing environments, where purchasing a new hom e may be out of reach for some, home renovations can be a desirable and more affordable way to add value to a property.

There were 297 loan applications for home improvement in 2020. The approval rate for these types of applications was 42 percent.

Table C-11: Total Home Loan Applications
Loan Type Total Applications
Government-backed 268
Conventional 1,346
Refinancing 7,265
Home Improvement 297
5+ Units 25
Non-occupant 941
Source: HMDA, 2020

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-37 Figure C-1: Home Loan Application Disposition

Source: HMDA, 2020
C.3.4 Summary
Despite lower for-sale prices and comparable market rents to th e region, other economic conditions, particularly relatively lower land costs, are favor able for attracting new housing development in Richmond. While more new construction is expecte d to be for above-moderate income households, housing projects affordable to moderate and lower-income households are also being constructed (see Appendix B, Table B-3 for Entitled and Proposed Developments). 68%
73%
63%
42%
88%
61%
13%
9%
13%
41%
8%
16%
20% 18%
25%
18%
4%
23%
Government-backed Conventional Ref inancings Home Improvement 5+ Uni ts Non-occupant % Approved % Denied % Withdrawn or Incomplete

C-38 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Section C.4 Environmental and Infrastructure
Constraints
C.4.1 Environmental Constraints
Environmental Conditions
Richmond is located at the northwestern corner of Contra Costa County. Richmond’s land mass forms a promontory that stretches into San Francisco and San Pa blo Bays, with a shoreline that defines a significant portion of the City’s borders to the nort h, west, and south. The cities of El Cerrito, San Pablo, and Pinole (as well as several unincorporated communities) border Richmond to the north and east, and the Berkeley Hills, San Pablo, and S obrante ridges frame the eastern edge of Richmond. Surrounded by the East Bay hills and a 32-mil e shoreline, Richmond offers 6,300 acres of parks and open space. The region is subject to a range of natural hazards, including changes to local and regional weather patterns, risin g bay water level, changes in salinity and tidal patterns of San Francisco and San Pablo bays, coastal erosion, water restrictions, vegetation changes, and disrupted species migration patterns and extinctions.5 Historic land use associated with the City’s industrial and mar itime past has altered much of the landscape in Richmond and surrounding communities. However, wat er and transportation- dependent industrial activities established in 1900 still opera te along the Santa Fe Channel located on the City’s southern shoreline.

Flooding Constraints
Flooding is given special attention when accommodating new deve lopment in Richmond. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has i dentified several portions of Richmond’s shoreline which may be affected by sea level rise. A changing climate could affect or alter natural bayland habitats, infrastructure, and other st ructural uses located along Richmond’s shores, and human health may be affected by heat wav es, diminished air quality, and vector borne disease.

For the Bay Area as a whole, 11 inches of sea level rise (measu red at Mean Higher High Water, or MHHW) over current levels are projected 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 ele vations ranging from 77 to 108 inches above MHHW. These higher levels are above current predic tions for sea level rise likely to occur before 2100, but they illustrate short-term flooding t hat could occur in that time frame when extreme tides are coupled with sea level rise. The 2016 Ri chmond Bay Specific Plan

5 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030, April 2012, p. 8.5.

H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-39 identifies the flooding vulnerabilities of the area as it rests along the shoreline, finding the area as particularly susceptible to sea-level rise. 6 To facilitate redevelopment, Richmond Bay Specific Plan includes a sea level rise vulnerability assessment. This a ssessment will inform and guide the location and design of projects along this stretch of the City’s shoreline.

Richmond addresses the need to protect and manage low-lying areas that are likely to be affected by sea level rise and storm surges in the Richmond General Plan 2030.7 All new construction and substantial improvements in Special Flood Hazard Areas are requ ired to comply with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 12 .56). Development standards are intended to meet, if not exceed, minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) criteria for requirements for floodplain management regulations , including raising residential buildings and using flood-resistant building materials.

Other Environmental Constraints
The City has taken measures to prepare for and mitigate impacts from its other main environmental hazards, including w ildfires, seismic activity, a nd environmental contamination.

These measures include analyzing land use and transportation impacts, providing policy direction for protecting energy resources, conducting studies on local an d regional environmental issues, and responding to climate change. Furthermore, the City is upda ting the Safety Element to address evacuation routes for residential areas with limited access. None of these environmental hazards are considered a constraint that would significantly af fect the production and maintenance of housing. Additionally, though the Campus Bay and Terminal 1 housing developments (see Appendix B, Table B-3) are located on brownfi eld sites, both have approved Remedial Action Plans to address areas with significant environmental constraints.

C.4.2 Infrastructure Constraints
Water
The East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) provides wate r for the City of Richmond, as well as surrounding incorporated and unincorporated areas withi n Alameda and Contra Costa counties. EBMUD owns and manages approximately 29,000 acres of land and water surface in the East Bay, including portions of the watershed lands that fe ed EDMUD’s local reservoirs.

Approximately 90 percent of the raw water entering EBMUD’s syst em originates from the Mokelumne River watershed. The remaining 10 percent originates as runoff from the protected watershed lands in the East Bay area.

6 City of Richmond, Climate Action Plan, October 2016, p. 16. 7 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030, April 2012.