C-40 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints EDMUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) assesses water supplies against expected water demands for a 30-year planning horizon and outli nes actions to deal with future uncertainties. Projected water demand for lower income single-family and multi-family residential housing are included in this analysis. The 2020 UWMP found that EBMUD will be able to provide sufficient water supplies to meet the projected water demands o f its customers, including during a five-year consecutive drought period. Therefore, housing deve lopments on sites identified in the sites inventory (Appendix B) would not require expansion or improvement of existing water facilities.
Sewer and Stormwater
Richmond is served by three primar y sanitary sewer districts an d two waste treatment facilities, interfacing with EBMUD sewer systems and treatment plants during extreme winter storm events and wet weather overflow. Veolia Water North America and the City, through its subsidiary district, the Richmond Municipal Services District, provides wastewater s ervices to central Richmond (approximately 13.5 square miles, or 24 percent of the City’s land area), and also processes and treats the leech water from the County landfill. The West Count y Wastewater District (WCWD) serves the northern portions of the City, while the Stege Sanitary District (SSD) provides services to a portion of the City along the west side of Interstate 580 adjacent to the City of El Cerrito. The City does not provide wastewater service to any parcels outside its corporate boundaries.
In 2011, the Richmond Municipal Services District and Veolia Water prepared the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), a comprehensive wastewater collection s ystem master plan. The City’s existing sewer collection system is comprised of approxi mately 187 miles of active gravity sewer pipelines with sizes ranging from 4 to 66 inches in diameter, 15 miles of pressure pipelines, and 14 pump stations. According to the 2011 SSMP, several neede d improvements were identified, including improving and determining a relocation si te for wet weather flows and addressing eight project areas where the water surface or hydra ulic gradeline exceeded the ground surface elevation. 8 The SSMP provides a Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Program, a recommended Capital Improvement Program, and additio nal next steps to address these issues.
The WCWD prepared a comprehensive study of the public system in 2021. WCWD operates a 258-mile network of collection system piping (252 miles of grav ity sewer mains and six miles of force mains), and a treatment plant that processes an average o f 6.9 million gallons per day.
WCW is responsible for the collection and treatment of wastewater from unincorporated areas of El Sobrante, portions of the City of Pinole and the City of Ric hmond, as well as the entire City of San Pablo. According to the 2021 SSMP, the District’s collectio n system is performing well and
8 West Yost Associates, Inc., City of Richmond Sewer Collection System Master Plan, November 2011, p.
ES-8.
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-41 best maintenance practices are reflected in the extended servic e life of many of the assets. 9 However, there were several issues noted, and many of the asset s will be in need of renewal during the next two decades.
The SSD prepared a master plan of the public system in 2022. Th e present service area of the District comprises 5.3 square miles and includes the communitie s of El Cerrito, Kensington, and the portion of Richmond Annex west of El Cerrito and south of P otrero Avenue. The sewage collection system includes 148 miles of collection lines and two small pump stations. The primary elements of this collection system are the public main sewers a nd the private sewer laterals.
According to the SSD’s 2021 Performance Report, the District ex periences 4.8 sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) per 100 miles, well below the California and Bay Area averages of 24 and 24.8, respectively. The number of severe SSOs and the volume of sewage overflow per capita are also well below State and regional averages. 10 Though this seems to indicate the District possesses capacity to handle increased service demand from new housing de velopment, it is worth noting the 2022 Master Plan states that the only areas of expected gro wth are through the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area Development and on vacant parcels.11 In January 2022, a portion of the City’s collection system, the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer and interceptor, was determined to have severe internal corrosion, sand deposits, defective laterals, buried manholes, and limited maintenance access. Current condit ions indicate pipe failure is an imminent possibility that would be exacerbated by additional connections and/or increased use of the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS). The KBSS was identified in the 2011 Sewer System Management Plan as needing critical, high-priority repairs, as the pipe is submerged and failure would discharge raw sewage directly into San Francisco Bay. On January 18, 2022, the City Council issued Urgency Ordinance No. 01-22 N.S., imposing a 45- day moratorium on the issuance and approval of all building permits that would require a new sewer collection. Although the moratorium is expected to end in 2024, no housing sites hav e been identified in the Keller Beach area.
Therefore, the City’s sanitary sewer districts have adequate ca pacity to treat wastewater for the service area to accommodate anticipated future development.
Dry Utilities
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Marin Clean Energy (MCE) pr ovide electricity services in Richmond. Natural gas services are provided solely by PG&E. In the case of new development in the area, telephone wires are laid concurrently with PG&E lines . Additional dry utilities include cable TV/internet (Bay Cablevision and Western Audio-Video, Bay Cablevision, and Comcast
9 West County Wastewater, Sewer System Management Plan, May 2021, p. 8-2. 10 Stege Sanitary District, Calendar Year 2021 Performance Report, January 2022, pp. 3-6. 11 Stege Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, March 2022, p. 3.
C-42 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Cable) and weekly garbage service (Republic Services, Inc.). So lid waste services are provided by Richmond Sanitary Service, an affiliate of Republic Services , Inc, and is taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill in the City of Pittsburg, located northeast of Richmond.
Overall, dry utility infrastructure is adequate to accommodate anticipated future development during the planning period.
C.4.3 Summary
Though Richmond must contend with numerous environmental challe nges related to sea level rise, geologic and seismic hazards, and more, the City has take n measures to prepare for and mitigate impacts from these hazards in its General Plan and oth er planning documents.
Richmond’s infrastructure is also subject to the challenges man y Bay Area cities face, but its water supply remains adequate to accommodate additional growth as per capita usage declines and best management practices are implemented to maintain and/o r improve existing infrastructure. When a crisis emerges, as it has with the Kelle r Beach Sanitary Sewer, the City takes swift, appropriate action to conduct critical repairs and limit the likelihood of worsening conditions.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 1 Appendix D: Existing Programs Review
Contents
Appendix D: Existing Programs Review ..................................................... 1 Section D.1 Existing Housing Programs Review ...................................................................... 2
D-2 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Section D.1 Existing Housing Programs Review
This Appendix documents the implementation status of the curren t 5th Cycle Housing Element programs. The main purpose is to evaluate which programs were successful and should be continued, and which programs wer e ineffective and should be eliminated or modified.
Many of the current Housing Element programs are ongoing City e fforts or were successfully completed. These programs have facilitated and will continue to facilitate affordable housing during the planning period, including housing and assistance to special needs populations. This includes utilizing Low/Moderate Income Housing Assets Fund to d evelop the Miraflores Senior Housing Development (completed June 2018 and leased completely August 2019) and renovate the RAD properties, Friendship Manor (55 units) and Triangle Court (100 units). The City has also continued to receive funding to facilitate housing development, including a Priority Development Area Grant in May 2021 for $750,000 from the Metropolitan Trans portation Commission for the Hilltop Specific Plan. Other important continued programs inclu de identifying and responding to the needs of homeless individuals and families, supporting the County’s Housing Choice Voucher program (currently approximatel y 1,700 housing choice vouchers, including project-based vouchers, are utilized in Richmond), and issuing home improveme nt loans to low-income households (at least 30 such loans were issued totaling approxi mately $800,000). As a result, many programs are recommended to be continued with some being u pdated to reflect changes since the last Housing Element adoption or merged with other programs to reduce overlap.
Recommended program modifications include integrating State law updates (supportive housing, emergency shelters, density bonus, etc.). Other recommended pro gram modifications include maintaining a list of senior housing resources, cataloguing a l ist of childcare services to assist female-headed households, and raising awareness of the City’s r easonable accommodation ordinance to help persons with disabilities. Modifications are also recommended based on the housing needs assessment (Appendix A), housing constraints anal ysis (Appendix C), and affirmatively furthering fair housing analysis (Appendix F). Pr ograms that can be effectively addressed through other existing or modified programs are recommended to be deleted.
Please see Table D-1 for the analysis of existing programs.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 3 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
Goal 1: A Balanced Supply of Housing
Policy H-1.1: Housing Element Implementation
H-1.1.1
Program H-1.1.1: Housing Element Coordination Group
Convene quarterly meetings of the Housing Element
Coordination Group (HECG) comprised of the Planning and Building Services Department, City Manager’s Office, Housing and Community Development Department, Richmond Housing
Authority, and Code Enforcement Division to coordinate
implementation and review of the City’s Housing Element Programs. HECG activities as part of the Housing Element’s Annual Progress Report (APR).
a) One HECG
meeting per
quarter
b) Activity
summary in APRs
Planning & Building
Services
Department, City
Manager’s
Department,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department,
Housing Authority,
Code Enforcement
Division
The Resident Advisory
Council (RAC) currently fills
this role; an
interdepartmental group
meets monthly to discuss
housing-related issues and
identify opportunities for
coordination and
collaboration.
Delete.
H-1.1.2
Program H-1.1.2: Housing Element Annual Progress Report Utilize the forms and definitions adopted by the State HCD to prepare Annual Progress Reports (APR) on the ongoing
implementation of the City’s Housing Element Programs. The APR shall be prepared by the Housing Element Coordination Group (HECG) and copies of the report shall be provided to the public, Planning Commission, and City Council and formally submitted it to the State HCD.
a) APRs to Cal
HCD by April 1st
of each calendar
year
b) APRs to HECG,
Planning
Commission, and
City Council by
June 1st of each
calendar year
Planning and
Building Services,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department,
Housing Authority,
Code Enforcement
Division, City
Manager’s Office
Continue to prepare and
submit APR. Also see
Program H-1.1.1 regarding
the HECG.
Continue/
Update to
reflect deletion
of Program H-
1.1.1. H-1.1.3
Program H-1.1.3: Findings of Consistency
Continue to require a written finding of consistency with the General Plan goals and policies prior to approving discretionary permits for residential development projects. Consider
recommending Zoning Ordinance amendments to also require written findings of consistency with the City’s other master planning documents such as the Pedestrian Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Parks Master Plan.
Develop
recommendations
for findings of
consistency with
other master
planning
documents as part
of the
comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City adopted a zoning
ordinance update in 2016
to require consistency with
its General Plan and any
other adopted City plans.
This is also required by
state law and does not
need a program.
Delete.
D-4 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
H-1.1.4
Program H-1.1.4: Compliance with Changes in State
Housing Law
Continually monitor changes in State housing law by
subscribing to the State HCD publications. Promptly amend the City’s plans and regulations to ensure ongoing compliance with State housing law.
Amendments
within three
months of
changes to State
housing law
Planning and
Building Services
Department,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
Various amendments
implemented (e.g., ADUs,
etc.). Current
inconsistencies addressed
by other more specific
programs throughout the
Housing Element. Ongoing
amendments are
challenging to implement
within three months due to
extent of State legislation.
Modify to reflect
compliance with
State law
regardless of
timing for
amendments.
Policy H-1.2: Adequate Supply of Housing Sites
H-1.2.1
Program H-1.2.1: Minimum Housing Densities
As part of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update,
establish minimum residential density requirements for all residential zoning districts and consider establishing floor-to- area ratio and maximum lot coverage provisions for single- family neighborhoods to preserve community character.
Complete as part
of comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Complete. Delete.
H-1.2.2
Program H-1.2.2: No Net Loss of Residential Capacity
Approve only those projects and general plan and zoning map amendments that do not result in an overall loss of the City’s capacity to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers for the current planning period. (Refer to State Government Code §65863)
Not applicable
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City has not received
any General Plan
Amendments over the last
several years that would
reduce its capacity to meet
its RHNA; in fact, the City
has received and approved
several applications to
convert non-residential
uses to residential uses
during that time, and other
residential development
applications for land zoned
for residential use. Note
that the City cannot deny
projects because they are
not providing assumed
Housing Element RHNA
capacity.
Continue.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 5 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
H-1.2.3
Program H-1.2.3: Residential Sites Inventory
Continue to maintain and regularly update the City’s Residential Sites Inventory as existing vacant and underutilized sites are developed over time. Develop a user-friendly version of the inventory and make available for use by developers and
general public via the City’s Planning and Building Services Department website. Continue to identify additional sites for housing development, especially for extremely low, very low, and low-income households. Include vacant and underutilized commercial and industrial land in the inventory to identify sites that may be attractive for residential development and to inform future changes to land use regulations. Demonstrate progress towards meeting the housing goals of the 2030 General Plan. a) Annual
updates
b) User-
friendly
inventory by
12/31/16
Planning and
Building Services
Department,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department, IT/GIS
Department
Data covering this topic has
been made available on the
City's website. Also, this is
replaced by the State’s
consolidated and publicly
available electronic sites
inventory and the program
on no net loss. See
Programs H-1.1.2 and H-
1.2.2. Delete.
Policy H-1.3: Supply of Affordable Housing
H-1.3.1
Program H-1.3.1: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Continue to implement the City’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and consider revisions based on recent and pending court decisions and the policy objectives of the Housing Element. Examine impacts
within 3 months of
final court rulings.
Planning and
Building Services
Department,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
Updates to the inclusionary
housing ordinance,
including modified in-lieu
fees and a new non-
residential linkage fee,
were adopted in 2020. The
inclusionary housing
ordinance should continue
to be evaluated to ensure
effectiveness.
Continue/
Modify. Merge
with Programs
H-1.3.2 and H-
1.3.3. H-1.3.2
Program H-1.3.2: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Study
Study other inclusionary housing ordinances in the Bay Area to learn about effective practices being used to provide affordable housing, especially housing for extremely low, very low, and low-income households. Review how other cities have modified their inclusionary programs in response to recent court rulings, affordable housing nexus studies, affordable housing impact fees, and commercial linkage fees. Consider recommending amendments to Richmond’s inclusionary housing ordinance based on the study’s findings and input from the community and residential developers. Ensure amendments do not constrain the overall production of housing in Richmond.
a) Study by
12/31/2016
b) Conduct
outreach and
make
recommendations
concurrent with
the Zoning
Ordinance Update
in 2016.
Planning and
Building Services
Department,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
See Program H-1.3.1
evaluation. Merge with
other inclusionary housing
ordinance programs.
Continue/
Merge with
Program H-
1.3.1.
D-6 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
H-1.3.3
Program H-1.3.3: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Performance
Continue to monitor the effectiveness of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by including the following annual data as part of the Housing Element’s Annual Progress Report (APR):
ꞏ Amount of inclusionary housing in-lieu fees collected; ꞏ Balance of the inclusionary housing fee account; and
ꞏ Expenditures made with funds from the inclusionary housing fee account.
Data included in
APRs
Planning and
Building Services
Department,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
See Programs H-1.1.2 and
H-1.3.1 evaluations. Merge
with other inclusionary
housing ordinance
programs.
Merge with
Program H-
1.3.1. H-1.3.4
Program H-1.3.4: Community Land Trust Study
Study existing community land trust (CLT) programs in
California and determine whether it is feasible to establish a CLT program in Richmond as a way of providing permanently affordable housing. Consider recommending formation of a CLT program in Richmond based on the study’s findings and input from the community. a) Identify
potential funding
sources by
12/31/2016
b) Study and
recommendation
by 12/31/17
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
In 2018, models for a
community land trust in
Richmond were evaluated.
In 2021, the City received a
Breakthrough Grant from
the Partnership for the
Bay’s Future to: 1) Design
and implement strategies to
enable community land
trusts to acquire public
land, 2) create an inventory
of vacant and blighted
properties, and 3) create a
Community Land Policy
package to encourage and
enable production and
presentation of
permanently affordable
housing. This grant work
will be done 2022-2024.
Modify. See
evaluation.
H-1.3.5
Program H-1.3.5: Affordable Housing Incentives
Modify the City inclusionary housing ordinance to provide incentives for developers to build the required percentage of affordable housing units as part of developments projects.
Consider an additional density bonus or other incentives for affordable and multi-family housing developments that use a local workforce.
Incentives by
12/31/17
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Code update in 2016
included incentives for
affordable housing projects.
The City continues to
regularly grant these
incentives to qualifying
projects. Update density
bonus provisions in light of
Continue/
Modify. See
evaluation.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 7 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
AB 2345. Also see
Program H-1.1.4.
Policy H-1.4: Variety of Housing Choices and Access
H-1.4.1
Program H-1.4.1: Variety of Housing Types
As part of the Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code (FBC) for Macdonald Avenue, 23rd Street, and portions of San Pablo Avenue and the surrounding areas, facilitate and provide incentives for mixed-use housing over retail development and a variety of other housing types and products such as duplexes, triplexes, large apartment buildings, second dwelling units, courtyard housing, livework units, condominiums, cooperative housing, single-room occupancy units (SROs),
retirement/assisted living communities, and manufactured or modular housing. Potential incentives include financial assistance, fee deferrals, density bonuses, reduced parking requirements, and expedited review. The City will ensure that the FBC that is adopted will not result in the loss of capacity of sites identified to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the current planning period. When considering parking reductions, the City will develop parking demand models and review successful demand management
programs in other jurisdictions to ensure supply efficiently meets demand.
Implement as part
of comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016.
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The Form-Based Code
hasn't been adopted yet;
the City is continuing this
effort.
Continue.
H-1.4.2
Program H-1.4.2: Single-Room Occupancy Unit Inventory
Develop an inventory of existing single-room occupancy units in Richmond. SROs provide an invaluable form of affordable housing for the homeless, lower income, re-entry, individuals, seniors, and persons with disabilities with fixed or little income.
Identify funding sources to provide financial assistance for the preservation of existing SROs.
Inventory by
12/31/16
Planning and
Building Services
Department,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
Inventory of SROs
completed. Funding
sources for the
preservation of existing
SROs are identified in the
at-risk housing analysis in
Appendices A and G.
Delete.
H-1.4.3
Program H-1.4.3: Second Dwelling Unit Production
Continue to facilitate the production of second dwelling units throughout Richmond’s residential neighborhoods and amend the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance to ensure compliance with State housing law. Consider the following second dwelling unit initiatives:
ꞏ Reducing requirements such as minimum lot size, minimum Zoning ordinance
amendments to
comply with State
housing law
governing second
dwelling units as
part of
Planning and
Building Services
Department,
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
The current Zoning Code
allows ADUs ministerially
and impact fees are waived
for ADUs. The City will
continue to promote and
facilitate ADUs (e.g., pre-
approved building plans)
Continue/
Modify. See
evaluation.
D-8 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
open space requirements, and minimum parking requirements for second dwelling units;
ꞏ Developing a set of pre-approved architectural and building plans for detached second dwelling units for use on typical residential lots in Richmond;
ꞏ Developing handout materials to explain the benefits of second dwelling units, the City’s application review process and requirements, and the average cost of developing a second dwelling unit in Richmond; and
ꞏ Granting development impact fee waivers for property owners who contractually agree to restrict their second dwelling unit for extremely low, very low, and low-income households.
comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016.
and ensure the Code
complies with State law.
H-1.4.4
Program H-1.4.4: Garage Conversions
As part of the Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code (FBC) for Macdonald Avenue, 23rd Street, and portions of San Pablo Avenue and the surrounding areas, consider reducing covered parking requirements and establishing design
guidelines to facilitate appropriate garage conversions. Ensure that conversions do not deteriorate the architectural character of heritage homes in Richmond’s heritage residential
neighborhoods. When considering parking reductions, the City will develop parking demand models and review successful demand management programs in other jurisdictions to ensure supply efficiently meets demand.
Implement as part
of comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016.
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City allows garage
conversions to ADUs and
JADUs consistent with
State law. No further
changes will be included in
the FBC. Address and
promote through ADU
program.
Delete.
H-1.4.5
Program H-1.4.5: Alternative Housing Types
Identify alternative housing types, such as “Tiny Housing” and compact lot development, study approaches successfully
implemented in other jurisdictions, and amend zoning
regulations and development standards to accommodate these housing types consistent with the community’s needs and the quality and character of existing neighborhoods.
Implement as part
of comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016.
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Completed as part of the
2016 Zoning Ordinance
update which included
standards for small lot
single unit developments,
bungalow court, and
townhouse development
types.
Delete.
Policy H-1.5: Reduction of Housing Production Constraints H-1.5.1
Program H-1.5.1: One-Stop Permit Center
Continue to operate the City’s One-Stop Permit Center and develop a customer survey to identify potential improvements that would enhance customer service. Potential One-Stop Permit Center improvements include:
Develop and
administer survey
by 12/31/1016.
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Continue operation of the
One-Stop Permit Center.
The City solicits feedback
through its comment box at
the counter. Due to COVID-
Continue.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 9 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
ꞏ Establishing uniform customer service hours for all
departments;
ꞏ Improving the Center’s wayfinding signage to ensure
customers are directed to the appropriate staff;
ꞏ Standardizing application forms and submittal checklists for all Center departments;
ꞏ Providing cross-training for all Center staff;
ꞏ Developing a larger suite of customer handout materials for all departments participating in the Center;
ꞏ Establishing a self-service information kiosk for customers; & ꞏ Educating customers about the City’s website and online e- TRAKiT permit and record tracking system.
19, the City implemented
on-line project and permit
submittal process, including
electronic plan review.
H-1.5.2
Program H-1.5.2: Expanded Ministerial Approvals and
Administrative Reviews
As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update,
consider expanding the types of residential projects eligible for ministerial approval and administrative review.
Implement as part
of comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016.
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Complete. ADUs and other
residential projects are
allowed ministerially.
Additional types of housing
allowed ministerially are
addressed through various
new programs resulting
from the constraints
analysis (Appendix C).
Delete.
H-1.5.3
Program H-1.5.3: Housing Developer Interviews
Conduct interviews with representatives from the residential development community to identify different methods to
streamline the City’s development review and permitting process and while continuing to ensure high-quality and well-designed development. Continue to
administer
interviews as part
of close out
process
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Staff completed various
project close-out interviews.
Overall, the development
teams were pleased with
the outcome and process;
however, several
expressed concerns
regarding the design review
process. Include a new
program to streamline
design review process and
continue to interview
developers to ensure
process remains efficient.
Continue.
D-10 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
H-1.5.4
Program H-1.5.4: Fees for Expedited Review
Consider establishing expedited review fees for all residential development projects that provide housing for target needs. Recommendations by 12/31/16
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City currently facilitates
on-call planning and
building permit plan check
services to provide
expedited review for
residential land use
entitlements.
Continue.
Policy H-1.6: Funding for Affordable Housing Development H-1.6.1
Program H-1.6.1: Low Moderate Income Housing Assets
Fund
Utilize resources in the City’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Assets Fund (Low-Mod Fund) to continue providing affordable housing in Richmond. The Low-Mod Fund was
established by the City of Richmond as Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency to allow for the transfer of agency assets prior to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California. Assets in the Low-Mod Fund include real and personal property, bond proceeds, and rent payments. The City will identify and proactively seek new funding for low and moderate income housing assets, including social impact bond financing.
Not applicable
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
The City has utilized
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Assets Fund to
develop the Miraflores
Senior Housing
Development (completed
June 2018 and leased
completely August 2019).
The Miraflores project
received 79 project-based
vouchers from the
Richmond Housing
Authority. The City also
used $1.1M to support the
extensive renovation of the
RAD properties, Friendship
Manor (55 units) and
Triangle Court (100 units).
Continue.
H-1.6.2
Program H-1.6.2: State and Federal Housing Funds
Continue to aggressively compete for affordable housing funds provided by state and federal agencies such as HUD, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State HCD.
Specifically target funding available for persons with special needs and disabilities. Not applicable
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
Community Development
staff applied for an EPA
Brownfields Assessment
grant in the amount of
$600,000 in 2020, which
was awarded in 2021. The
City also applied for LEAP
funds in 2020 for the Hilltop
Specific Plan to accelerate
and streamline housing
production, which were
Continue.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 1 1 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
awarded. The City also
received a Priority
Development Area (PDA)
Grant for $750,000 from
MTC for the Hilltop Specific
Plan in 2021. An AHSC
grant was also applied for
in 2021, but not awarded.
The City continues to
review available funding
sources to support housing
activities, including SB2
and REAP.
H-1.6.3
Program H-1.6.3: Shared Equity Program Study
Study existing shared-equity programs in California and determine whether it is feasible to establish a shared-equity program in Richmond as a way of providing more affordable housing. Under a shared-equity program, the City would
provide funding to assist families with home purchases. In return for its investment, the City would share the benefits of any appreciation in home price. The City’s share of the home’s appreciation could be returned to the City in the form of a cash payment that could be used to help another family with a home purchase. The City’s share could also stay with the home, reducing the cost of that home for the next family.
a) Study by
12/31/16
b)
Recommendations
by 12/31/17
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
Although the City has not
yet conducted the shared
equity program study, the
City will initiate this work in
2022 under the
Breakthrough Grant (see
Program H-1.3.4).
Continue.
Goal H-2: Better Neighborhoods and Quality of Life
Policy H-2.1: High-Quality Living Environments
H-2.1.1
Program H-2.1.1: Development Impact Fees
Continue to require residential developers to pay all applicable development impact fees to ensure that existing public
infrastructure, services, and amenities are maintained and upgraded to adequately meet the needs of a growing city. Not applicable Planning and
Building Services
Department
Development impact fees
related to parks/open
space, sewer, traffic,
community/aquatics
centers, storm drainage,
library, police, and fire
facilities continue to be
collected as part of building
permits issued for new
development projects.
Modify to
evaluate and
adjust fees to
be on a per
square foot
basis. Page 740 of 1112
D-12 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
The City Council authorized
a contract to update the
City's impact fees. The
study was initiated 2019
and is anticipated to go to
City Council by Fall 2022.
H-2.1.2
Program H-2.1.2: Design Guidelines for Quality Housing
As part of the Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code (FBC) for Macdonald Avenue, 23rd Street, and portions of San Pablo Avenue and the surrounding areas, establish design guidelines and development standards to ensure that near and long-term development and capital improvement projects
substantially improve the quality of life for Richmond residents.
Implement as part
of comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016.
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Draft Richmond Livable
Corridors Form-Based
Code is being incorporated
into the Zoning Ordinance
using SB 2 funds.
Modify.
Development
standards must
be objective
standards per
State law.
H-2.1.3
Program H-2.1.3: Residential Design Guidelines for
Additions to Heritage Homes
Reinforce and enhance the architectural character of Richmond residential neighborhoods by continuing to implement the City’s Residential Design Guidelines for Additions to Heritage Homes.
The Guidelines were developed in 2008 and they set forth massing type and architectural style standards for additions to homes built before 1940. The architectural styles covered by the Guidelines are the Richmond Spanish Revival, Richmond Bungalow, Richmond Tudor, and Richmond Minimal Traditional.
Additions to homes with these architectural styles must meet the design guidelines to obtain city approval.
Not applicable
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City uses the
Rediscovering Richmond's
Architectural Heritage:
Residential Design
Guidelines for Additions to
Heritage Homes.
Delete.
H-2.1.4
Program H-2.1.4: Front Yard Requirements
As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update,
establish minimum landscaping and maximum concrete
coverage requirements. Many residents throughout Richmond have replaced a substantial portion of their front yards with impervious concrete surfaces because the current landscaping requirements are not stringent enough. Front yards with a high concrete-to-landscaping ratio are visually unappealing and cumulatively degrade environmental quality by increasing the amount of stormwater run-off pollution.
Implement as part
of comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016.
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Complete. The City
established landscape
standards for all required
front and side yard
setbacks. Additionally, it
established maximum
amount of paving
(impervious surface)
requirements in street-
facing yards, to 50 percent
of the required yard.
Delete.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 1 3 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
H-2.1.5
Program H-2.1.5: Historic Structures Code
Protect Richmond’s historic resources and districts by
continuing to implement the City’s Historic Structures Code.
The Code requires that exterior modifications and demolitions of historic resources be evaluated for consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Amend the Code to streamline the review process. Ensure that demolitions do not result in a new source of neighborhood blight. Recommendations
by 12/31/2016
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City continues to
implement its Historic
Structures Code for all
minor and major alteration
permit applications to
ensure consistency with the
US Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic
Properties. Housing
Element goals more
effectively addressed
through Mills Act
application to historic
properties (see Program H-
2.5.9, which will be
continued).
Delete.
Policy H-2.2: Green Building Measures and Practices
H-2.2.1
Program H-2.2.1: 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.
Not applicable
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City continues to
enforce the State of
California Green Building
Standards as part of its
building permit plan review
process. In 2020, the City
also adopted an Energy
Reach Code that would
restrict the use of natural
gas for new construction
with some exceptions for
cooking and fireplaces. A
natural gas ban was
adopted in late 2021 to be
effective on January 1,
2022.
Modify to reflect
the Natural Gas
Ban.
H-2.2.2
Program H-2.2.2: Expansion of California Green Building Standards
Study how other jurisdictions in California have expanded the Implement through
the Richmond
Livable Corridors
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Complete- As part of the
2019 Building Code
update, which was adopted
Delete.
D-14 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
scope and applicability of the CALGreen Code and consider recommending an ordinance based on this study’s findings and input from the community and residential development
community. As part of the study, consider establishing
incentives such as fee deferrals, waivers and/or reductions and an expedited review process for projects meeting or exceeding CALGreen requirements.
Form Based Code
and as part of
comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016.
by City Council on March 3,
2020, the City passed local
amendments to the 2019
California Energy Code.
These local amendments
exceed the requirements of
the Energy Code and are
therefore referred to as a
reach code. These
amendments require
electricity as the sole fuel
source for newly
constructed buildings (not
natural gas) and also
require the installation of
solar PV panels for all new
non-residential and high-
rise residential buildings.
These amendments
become enforceable upon
approval by the California
Energy Commission (CEC).
Submittal to the CEC was
made in March 2020. CEC
approval was granted on
June 20, 2020.
H-2.2.3
Program H-2.2.3: Energy Program Referrals and Funding
Continue to refer property owners to third-party organizations that provide energy programs like PG&E’s Low Income Energy Savings Assistance Program and Contra Costa County’s
Weatherization Program. Continue to seek funding for
innovative City-sponsored programs like the Richmond
Recovery Rebate for Energy Upgrade California, Richmond Recovery Rebate for Solar, and Green Energy Training
Services (GETS).
Referrals upon
request
City Manager’s
Office
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 to provide
incentives to property
owners; 2) Develop
enhanced building codes
Modify/Update.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 1 5 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
and policies through a
grant-funded partnership
with the California 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.
Policy H-2.3: Preservation and Modernization of Public Housing H-2.3.1
Program H-2.3.1: Conventional Public Housing Program
Continue to successfully administer the City’s Low Income Public Housing Program. Improve property management
oversight for all public housing developments throughout Richmond and ensure an occupancy rate of no less than
98 percent. Continue to utilize the Capital Fund Program (CFP) to systematically modernize Richmond’s public housing
developments by enhancing their visual appearance and
energy efficiency. Conduct a physical needs assessment for all public housing sites and establish a detailed capital
improvement strategy as part of the assessment. Prioritize identified improvements as part of the Housing Authority’s annual and five-year capital improvement plans.
Modernize
remaining public
housing units by
12/31/16
Richmond Housing
Authority
Staff has worked with
representatives from the
US Department of Housing
and Urban Development
(HUD) Region IX to prepare
a required 2019 Public
Housing Authority
Recovery and
Sustainability (PHARS)
agreement. The agreement
delineates performance
outcomes, timelines, and
reporting requirements
focused on the
repositioning of the RHA
Public Housing (PH)
portfolio.
Delete.
D-16 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
The performance measures
in the Recovery Agreement
are designed to improve
the Housing Authority’s
financial position, increase
the Authority’s housing
program performance
ratings and ensure ongoing
sustainability. The Housing
Authority staff is committed
to working with HUD and
successfully delivering the
desired outcomes in the
Recovery Agreement. As
such, this program would
be deleted.
Policy H-2.4: Conservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing Units H-2.4.1
Program H-2.4.1: Monitoring Program for At-Risk
Affordable Housing Units
Establish a monitoring program for at-risk housing units in Richmond. As part of the monitoring program, check the
conversion risk status on an annual basis and include the information as part of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR).
At-risk data in
APRs
Housing and
Community
Development
Department,
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City has 10 units at
one affordable housing
development (Rubicon
Homes) that are at-risk of
conversion to market-rate
(see discussion in
Appendix A).
Continue.
H-2.4.2
Program H-2.4.2: Assistance for At-Risk Affordable
Housing Units
Provide technical assistance to organizations interested in purchasing and maintaining subsidized affordable housing units should property owners express interest in converting them to market rate. Provide education and technical assistance to tenants of units being converted to market rate uses.
Not applicable
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
The City has 10 units at
one affordable housing
development (Rubicon
Homes) that are at-risk of
conversion to market-rate
(see discussion in
Appendix A).
Continue.
Policy H-2.5: Abatement of Foreclosures, Substandard Housing, and Blight H-2.5.1
Program H-2.5.1: Online Housing Resource Center
Continue providing comprehensive information and guidance on the City’s website for residents facing foreclosure and those seeking assistance in areas such as home purchases, housing Updated website
and point of
contact by
12/31/16
Housing and
Community
Development
Department,
There are several
resources available on the
Housing and Community
Development Department
Continue.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 1 7 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
beautification, rehabilitation and seismic retrofits, energy conservation improvements, and locating special needs
housing. Identify staff in the Housing and Community
Development Department who can provide information
about the National Mortgage Settlement Act and the State of California’s Foreclosure Reform and Homeowner’s Bill of Rights laws (SB 1137 and AB 2314). Expand the Online Housing
Resource Center to include information on tenant rights, as well as relevant state law and city ordinance and policies for property owners, landlords and property managers.
Planning and
Building Services
Department, Code
Enforcement
Division, City
Manager’s Office
webpage including
information on affordable
housing, home repair and
community services. Also
see the City’s webpage at
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.
us/4325/Housing-
Resources.
H-2.5.2
Program H-2.5.2: Housing Education Workshops and
Outreach
In partnership with community-based and non-profit
organizations, hold a quarterly bilingual workshop to educate residents, landlords, and property owners and managers about various local housing issues and available resources. Together with community-based and non-profit organizations, seek funding for community outreach workers to reach homeowners and tenants at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure.
One public
workshop per
quarter
Housing and
Community
Development
Department,
Planning and
Building Services
Department, Code
Enforcement
Division, City
Manager’s Office
The City of Richmond Rent
Program offers daily
counseling sessions for
Landlords and Tenants
about the Rent Ordinance,
Relocation Ordinance, and
related State and local
laws, as well as monthly
community workshops. The
Rent Program also funds
non-profit groups Bay Area
Legal Aid and the Eviction
Defense Center to provide
weekly legal clinics to
provide legal advice and
assistance to Richmond
Landlords and Tenants.
The Richmond Housing
Rights Clinic, hosted by
Bay Area Legal Aid, is
currently held on Mondays
at the Catholic Charities
Richmond Service Center.
Rent Program Staff provide
referrals to the Eviction
Defense Center for legal
assistance and
representation for Unlawful
Continue.
D-18 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
Detainer (eviction) court
cases.
H-2.5.3
Program H-2.5.3: Vacant Residential Property Ordinance
Continue to improve code enforcement and promote the
registration of vacant and/or underutilized properties under the recently adopted ordinance. Develop informational outreach materials for potential new registrants, and make available at the City and online.
Outreach
materials by
12/31/2016
Code Enforcement
Vacant properties continue
to be registered and
generate fees. Total vacant
properties registered in
2021 were 13 with a total of
$3,957 collected in
registration fees. Fees
collected are for cost
recovery for code
enforcement efforts.
Continue.
H-2.5.4
Program H-2.5.4: Code Enforcement for Residential
Neighborhoods
Continue to address foreclosures, substandard housing
conditions, and neighborhood blight through aggressive code enforcement. Consider increasing current staffing levels to expand proactive code enforcement efforts in residential neighborhoods, especially in Central and North Richmond.
Ensure that foreclosed properties are being properly maintained and fine lenders who do not address code enforcement issues promptly. As part of the Housing Element’s Annual Progress Report (APR), include the total number of code enforcement cases opened for foreclosures, substandard housing conditions, and neighborhood blight. Also include the total amount of fines collected for these types of cases in the APR.
Code enforcement
data in APRs Code Enforcement
The City continues to
address substandard
housing conditions.
Hundreds of code
enforcement cases are
opened per year and
penalties assessed. In
2021, 728 code
enforcement cases were
opened, and 748 cases
were closed. $498,237 in
penalties were assessed.
Continue.
H-2.5.5
Program H-2.5.5: Residential Rental Inspection Program
Continue to operate the City’s Residential Rental Inspection Program (RRIP), which requires regular, periodic inspections for property owners of three or more residential rental units and continue to implement an inspections process for property owners of 1 or 2 rental units. The RRIP exempts units
subsidized by the City of Richmond and federal or state government. Newly constructed units are also exempted, but only for a period of five years from the date of construction.
Not applicable
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City continues to
perform residential rental
inspections (including self
and audit inspections). In
2021, 1,543 rental units
were inspected.
Continue, but
include
evaluation of
program to
enhance
methods to
address
noncompliance.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 1 9 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
H-2.5.6
Program H-2.5.6: Soft-Story Building Inventory
Continue to maintain the City’s inventory of multi-story buildings with potential earthquake hazards and consider making it readily available to property owners and residents to raise awareness and encourage voluntary health and safety retrofits.
Not applicable
Planning and
Building Services
Department
City maintains an inventory
of multi-story buildings with
potential earthquake
hazards.
Delete/Merge
with H-2.5.7.
H-2.5.7
Program H-2.5.7: Soft-Story Building Ordinance
Study soft-story building ordinances in California to learn about effective practices being used to incentivize the seismic retrofitting of hazardous multi-story buildings. Consider adopting a soft-story ordinance based on the study’s findings and input from the community and landlords.
a)
Recommendations
by 12/31/16
b) Draft Ordinance
by 12/31/17
Code Enforcement
There is no funding
identified for this program.
The City will continue to
take efforts to improve
resiliency to seismic
hazards and monitor
funding opportunities.
Modify to reflect
that the City will
seek funding for
seismic
resiliency
efforts.
H-2.5.8
Program H-2.5.8: Home Improvement Loan Program
Continue providing the City’s Home Improvement Loan
Program (HILP) based on funding availability for the program.
The HILP offers low interest loans to low-income homeowners for certain home improvement projects. The City will give special consideration to seniors and persons with disabilities.
The maximum home improvement loan amount is currently
$35,000 and interest rates range from zero to three percent over a 15-year term. Assistance
commensurate
with demand and
funding
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
In 2018, 20 loans were
completed valued at
$501,211, and in 2019, 10
loans were completed
valued at $295,000. In
2020, 15 loans were
initiated; however, due to
the COVID-19 pandemic
many loans were
suspended due to
coordination issues with
borrowers and contractors.
Zero loans were initiated in
2021. The City does not
currently have CDBG funds
available, so will support
County rehabilitation
program and seek funding
for other rehabilitation and
home improvements
through other programs.
Modify.
H-2.5.9
Program H-2.5.9: Mills Act Historical Property Contracts Begin utilizing Mills Act contract agreements to allow qualifying property owners to receive a potential property tax reduction and use the savings to assist with the rehabilitation, restoration, Data in APRs
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City has not executed
a Mills Act contract in
several years (e.g., no new
contracts at least as of
Continue.
D-20 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
and maintenance of residential buildings designated as historic resources. Include annual Mills Act contract activity as part of the Housing Element’s Annual Progress Report (APR).
2016). The City is exploring
ways to update its Mills Act
ordinance to promote tax
savings under the Mills Act
that could be used for
rehabilitation, restoration,
and maintenance of
residential buildings.
H-2.5.10
Program H-2.5.10: Sanitary Sewer Lateral Grant Program
Continue providing the City’s Sewer Lateral Grant Program to help residents repair or replace private sewer mains and laterals. Under the Program, the City reimburses residents with up to 50 percent of the project costs, or $3,000, whichever is less. Full utilization of
program’s annual
budget allocation
Engineering and
Wastewater
The City continues to
award grants for the
replacement of private
sewer mains and laterals,
awarding hundreds of
grants per year (hundreds
of laterals are replaced
each year as well through
this program). During 2021,
the City awarded 134
grants; however, 282
laterals were replaced.
Continue.
H-2.5.11
Program H-2.5.11: Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program
Continue providing the City’s Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program (RRLP) based on funding availability for the program.
The RRLP provides landlords with no-interest loans to upgrade substandard rental housing units for low-income tenants. The program requires landlords to provide a 50 percent match in funds. No minimum monthly payment is required, but program loans must be paid in full within ten years.
Assistance
commensurate
with demand and
funding
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
This program is no longer
offered due to lack of
funds. Richmond is
estimated to have 2,077
substandard units
(Appendix A). The City will
continue to seek funding for
the Rental Rehabilitation
Loan Program through
grant or other programs.
Modify. See
evaluation.
H-2.5.12
Program H-2.5.12: Richmond Housing Rehabilitation Loan
Program
Identify, acquire, rehabilitate, and sell dilapidated, abandoned, vacant and foreclosed housing stock to stabilize neighborhoods and create clean, safe and decent housing and provide
opportunities for first time homebuyers. Program objectives will be met by creating Social Impact Bond Financing that will recycle funding to maximize the number of housing units that Assistance
commensurate
with demand and
funding
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
The Richmond Housing
Rehabilitation Program
facilitated the rehabilitation
of two properties in 2021;
Mechanics Bank extended
the term of the social
impact bond for another
Continue.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 2 1 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
will be rehabilitated. The program will also provide opportunities for local hiring and will implement Richmond Build personnel. five years, allowing the
program to continue.
H-2.5.13
Program H-2.5.13: Emergency Loan Program
Continue providing the City’s Emergency Loan Program based on funding availability for the program. The Emergency Loan Program offers low interest loans to homeowners with poor credit and in need of emergency home repairs. The maximum loan amount is $15,000 and interest rates range from zero to three percent. As part of the program, borrowers are required to obtain credit counseling services.
Assistance
commensurate
with demand and
funding
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
This program is no longer
offered due to lack of
funding.
Modify to seek
funding.
H-2.5.14
Program H-2.5.14: Richmond Effort to Abate Lead (Project Real)
Continue to provide the City’s Project Real Program based on funding availability for the program. Project REAL offers free in- home lead paint testing and remediation services to low-income families living in Richmond’s Iron Triangle, Santa Fe, and North Richmond neighborhoods. To be eligible for the program, homes must have been constructed before 1978 and at least one child under the age of six must live in or visit the home frequently. The program also offers free blood lead testing for children under the age of six.
Assistance
commensurate
with demand and
funding
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
No funding was received
for this program from 2017-
2021. Funding was
previously provided by
HUD. The City is preparing
an Environmental Justice
Element that is anticipated
to have programs related to
lead-based paint and
asbestos removal in older
housing.
Modify to seek
funding and
coordinate with
any related
Environmental
Justice Element
actions.
H-2.5.15
Program H-2.5.15: Foreclosure Loan Fund
Seek funding for foreclosure loan fund program which would allow residents to buy their homes back as a way of saving their homes from foreclosure. Study the City of Oakland and
Community Housing Development Corporation’s programs as potential models.
Not applicable
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
This program is no longer
offered due to lack of
funding.
Delete.
Policy H-2.6: Toxic and Contaminated Sites
H-2.6.1
Program H-2.6.1: 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 remediation of city and non-city-owned property to protect Not applicable
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City is working on
several projects proposed
on contaminated sites,
including Terminal 1, Point
Molate, and the Richmond
Bay Specific Plan Area.
The City is working with
DTSC and the SF Bay
Continue.
D-22 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
human and environmental health. Seek state and federal funds to implement the necessary level of clean-up.
Regional Water Quality
Control Board to ensure
cleanups are completed to
foreseeable land uses. The
Richmond Brownfields
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF)
awarded the Community
Housing Development
Corporation (CHDC) a
grant in the amount of
$269,792 to support the
remediation costs related to
the removal of lead
impacted soil on four
vacant parcels located
along Fred Jackson Way.
The Richmond RLF
originated from a
$1,000,000 EPA Revolving
Loan Fund grant award to
the City in 2004. A portion
of the grant funds were
used to complete several
required environmental
reports; Removal Action
Workplan (RAW), Health
and Safety Plan (HASP),
Community Air Monitoring
Plan (CAMP) and Naturally
Occurring Asbestos
Evaluation (NOA), all of
which were approved by
DTSC in 2021. The
balance of RLF grant funds
will be used towards the
remediation site cleanup
mitigation.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 2 3 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
Policy H-2.7: Balanced Neighborhoods
H-2.7.1
Program H-2.7.1: Higher Density Residential Land
Ensure sufficient higher density residential land feasible for affordable housing development is available throughout the City. The City will consider local parking demand in areas with potential for higher density residential and mixed-use
development, and develop parking demand management
measures to ensure the efficient use of land for parking.
Implement as part
of comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City adopted an
Ordinance in 2016 to allow
reductions in the amount of
required parking for higher
density residential land
uses. The sites inventory
and no net loss program
address having adequate
high density residential
land.
Delete. See
evaluation. H-2.7.2
Program H-2.7.2: Balanced Housing Development
Work with nonprofit and for profit housing developers to encourage mixed-income housing developments.
Not applicable
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City updated the
inclusionary housing
ordinance and has
additional means (e.g.,
density bonus) to promote
mixed-income housing
developments.
Delete.
Goal H-3: Expanded Housing Opportunities for Special Needs Groups Policy H-3.1: Senior Housing Development
H-3.1.1
Program H-3.1.1: Senior Housing Incentives
Provide incentives for senior housing developments that provide a percentage of their total units at rents or prices affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate-income seniors. Potential incentives include financial assistance, density bonuses, increased height limits, reduced parking requirements, development fee waivers or deferrals, and expedited review.
Incentives by
12/31/16
Planning and
Building Services
Department
As part of the updated
2016 density bonus
ordinance, the City offers
density bonuses and
concessions for developers
of senior housing
developments.
Delete. H-3.1.2
Program H-3.1.2: List of Senior Housing in Richmond
Develop and maintain a comprehensive list of senior housing projects in Richmond and make it readily available to residents through the Online Housing Resource Center.
List available on
City website by
12/31/16
Housing and
Community
Development
Department,
Planning and
Building Services
Department
Due to staffing constraints,
this program has not been
implemented. However, a
list of resources is available
to refer tenants to senior
housing resources.
Modify to show
available senior
housing
resources
online.
D-24 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
Policy H-3.2: Accessible Housing Opportunities
H-3.2.1
Program H-3.2.1: Accessible Housing Incentives
Provide incentives for residential developments that make 15 percent or more of their total units accessible to persons with disabilities. Potential incentives include financial assistance, density bonuses, increased height limits, reduced parking requirements, development impact fee waivers or deferrals, and expedited review.
Incentives by
12/31/16
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City's density bonus
ordinance provides
concessions for persons
with disabilities (i.e., up to
three concessions where at
least 20% of total units are
for low income and
accessible to persons with
disabilities, or at least 15%
of total units are for very
low income households
and accessible to persons
with disabilities, or at least
10% of total units are for
extremely low income
households and accessible
to persons with disabilities).
Delete.
H-3.2.2
Program H-3.2.2: Enforcement of ADA Requirements
Continue to enforce State accessibility and adaptability standards.
Not applicable
Planning and
Building Services
Department
This is required by State
law and doesn’t need a
specific program.
Delete.
H-3.2.3
Program H-3.2.3: Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
Develop a reasonable accommodation ordinance using the
State HCD Model Ordinance for Providing Reasonable
Accommodation under Federal and State Fair Housing Laws.
Having a codified standard procedure for reasonable
accommodation requests will facilitate uniform and timely reviews.
Develop
Ordinance in
coordination with
the
comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City has adopted a
reasonable accommodation
ordinance consistent with
State law. The City has not
had any reasonable
accommodation requests
over the last planning
period.
Delete.
Policy H-3.3: Child Daycare
H-3.3.1
Program H-3.3.1: On-Site Child Daycare Services
Identify potential incentives for development projects that make a commitment to provide on-site child daycare services for residents and employees.
Recommendations
by 12/31/16.
Consider
incentives as part
of 2016 Zoning
Code Update
Planning and
Building Services
Department
The City's density bonus
ordinance provides
bonuses for developments
with on-site childcare
facilities.
Delete. Page 753 of 1112
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 2 5 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
H-3.3.2
Program H-3.3.2: List of Child Daycare Services in
Richmond
Develop and maintain a comprehensive list of childcare
services that are available in Richmond and make it readily available through the Online Housing Resource Center. List and link to resources on City
website by
12/31/16
Housing and
Community
Development
Department,
Business Licensing
Division
The City works closely with
the Contra Costa Child
Care Council which
provides childcare
subsidies and referral
services to the families in
Richmond. Families can
find the most conveniently
located childcare provider
in Richmond according to
their needs.
Modify to reflect
Contra Costa
Child Care
Council
services.
Policy H-3.4: First-Time Homebuyer Opportunities
H-3.4.1
Program H-3.4.1: Mortgage Credit Certificate Tax Credit Program
Support and participate in the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Tax Credit Program administered by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development and
make program information readily available through the
Online Housing Resource Center. Also provide information about first-time homebuyer programs administered by local nonprofits such as Community Housing Development
Corporation (CHDC).
Not applicable
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
The Mortgage Credit
Certificate Program did not
administer any MCC’s in
the City of Richmond in
2021 due to lack of funding
available to support the
program, but this program
did assist eight Richmond
homeowners from 2018-
2020.
Continue.
Policy H-3.5: Large-Family Housing
H-3.5.1
Program H-3.5.1: Large-Family Housing Incentives
Provide incentives for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income residential developments that include units with four or more bedrooms. Potential incentives include financial assistance, density bonuses, development impact fee waivers or deferrals, and expedited review.
Develop
incentives in
coordination with
Zoning Ordinance
Update in 2016
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
This was completed
through the updated Zoning
Ordinance that contains
incentives for low income,
very low income, and
extremely low income
housing projects with four
or more bedrooms per unit.
Projects that exceed the
percentage of affordable
units per household income
groups are entitled to a
density bonus.
Delete.
D-26 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
Policy H-3.6: Emergency, Transitional, and Supportive Housing H-3.6.1
Program H-3.6.1: Homelessness Coordination Efforts
Participate in the Contra Costa HOME Consortium and the Contra Costa Interagency Council on Homelessness (CCICH) to identify and respond to the needs of homeless individuals and families in Richmond and surrounding communities.
Prioritize implementation of the strategies and actions identified in the Consortium’s Consolidated Plan and the CCICH 10-Year Homeless Plan. Actively support education and outreach
services for homeless persons.
Not applicable
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
The City adopted an
urgency notice on June 22,
2021, amending Sections
9.40.010 and 9.40.015 and
adding a new Section
9.40.018 “Safe Parking
Sites Pilot Program” to the
Code. This ordinance
allows private property
owners to host up to four
vehicle households for a
limited duration.
Additionally, the City has
begun the process of
creating a Homeless
Strategic Plan in 2021. Due
to COVID-19, shelters and
other group quarter
facilities were impacted,
which resulted in a
significant increase in tent
and vehicle dwellers. In
addition, the CCHS
operated two hotel sites in
Richmond under Project
RoomKey.
Continue.
H-3.6.2
Program H-3.6.2: Funding for Emergency, Transitional, and Supportive Housing
Support nonprofit organizations seeking funding sources for the establishment and operation of emergency, transitional, and supportive housing. Continue working with GRIP and the Bay Area Rescue Mission to provide shelter and services for the homeless. Proactively seek and help secure financing that is periodically available under federal programs such as the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program (EHAP) and the Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG).
Engage
organizations by
12/31/16
Housing and
Community
Development
Department
GRIP and the Bay Area
Rescue Mission provide
emergency shelter and
services for homeless
individuals and families.
The Brookside adult
shelter's completed
remodeling and began
operations November
2021.
Continue.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 2 7 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
Goal H-4: Equal Housing Access for All
Policy H-4.1: Rent Subsidies for Affordable Housing
H-4.1.1
Program H-4.1.1: Housing Choice Voucher Program
Continue to administer the City’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and maximize the program’s utilization.
Continue monitoring key program performance indicators such as attrition rates, fail-to-lease ratios, and waitlist size. Continue to work with local affordable housing developers to provide project-based vouchers. Respond to any future Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) and apply for more vouchers.
Provide program information as part of the Online Housing Resource Center.
a) 10,500 unit
inspections by
12/31/16
b) 10,500 tenant
eligibility re-
examinations by
12/31/16
c) Timely NOFA
responses
Richmond Housing
Authority
The Housing Choice
Voucher Program was
transferred to the Contra
Costa County Housing
Authority in July 2019. The
Richmond Housing
Authority no longer
administers a Housing
Choice Voucher Program
(see Appendix G for more
details).
Modify/Update
to reflect that
the program is
administered by
Contra Costa
County and the
City will
promote the
program.
Policy H-4.2: Tenant Protections
H-4.2.1
Program H-4.2.1: Enforcement of Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance
Continue to enforce Richmond’s Just Cause for Eviction
Ordinance pertaining to rental units in foreclosed properties.
The Ordinance was adopted in 2009 and provides protections for tenants in good standing from being evicted in the event of transfer of title or foreclosure. The City will provide information to residents and property owners and managers on the current ordinance as well as future changes. Not applicable
Housing and
Community
Development
Department, City
Ballot Measure L (approved
in 2016) expands Just
Cause for Eviction
protections to most
residential tenancies in
Richmond. Landlords and
owners of residential rental
units must enroll all
properties containing at
least one residential Rental
Unit and are required to file
all notices of termination of
tenancy, and changes in
terms of tenancy with the
Rent Program within two
business days of service on
the tenant.
Continue/
Update.
H-4.2.2
Program H-4.2.2: Expansion of Just Cause for Eviction
Ordinance
Continue to analyze the effectiveness of the City’s existing just cause for eviction ordinance applying to tenants in foreclosed properties. Study other just cause for eviction ordinances in Recommendations
and draft
Ordinance
amendment by
5/31/2015
Manager’s Office,
City Attorney’s
Office
Complete. Ballot Measure
L expands Just Cause for
Eviction protections to most
residential tenancies in
Richmond.
Delete.
D-28 | City of Richmond Existing Programs Review Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
California and evaluate whether to expand the City’s ordinance so that it applies to all rental properties. The study should examine cities with both just cause for eviction protections and rent control ordinances and cities with just cause for eviction protections and no rent control ordinance. Draft and implement a new Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance Amendment that
reflects the best practices and input from the Community.
H-4.2.3
Program H-4.2.3: Rent Control Ordinance Study
Study rent control ordinances in California, evaluate their effectiveness, and identify opportunities and tradeoffs to establishing rent control in Richmond. As part of the study, identify potential funding sources for rent control/review board, review administration and legal requirements, and identify the necessary steps for timely implementation. Consider whether to recommend an ordinance based on this study’s findings and extensive input from the community and rental property owners.
Study and
recommendations
by 10/31/2015
Housing and
Community
Development
Department, City
Complete. Ballot Measure
L: The Richmond Fair Rent,
Just Cause for Eviction,
and Homeowner Protection
Ordinance (RMC 11.100),
was approved by the voters
in November 2016 and
established rent control in
Richmond for all properties
with two or more dwelling
units on one parcel
constructed prior to
February 1, 1995, with
limited exceptions. The
Ordinance establishes a
Rent Board and Rent
Program to administer and
enforce the Ordinance. The
Rent Program budget is
funded by the annual
Rental Housing Fee, which
is paid by all Richmond
Landlords.
Delete.
H-4.2.4
Program H-4.2.4: Counseling Service Referrals for
Foreclosures, Landlord-Tenant Disputes, Unlawful
Evictions, and Housing Discrimination
Continue to refer homeowners, tenants, and landlords to third- party organizations such as Bay Area Legal Aid, Community Housing and Development Corporation of North Richmond, and 211 Bay Area for assistance with issues such as foreclosures, landlord-tenant disputes, unlawful evictions, and housing Referrals upon
request
Manager’s Office,
City Attorney’s
Office"
Since its establishment in
January 2017, the City of
Richmond Rent Program
offers daily counseling
sessions for Landlords and
Tenants about the Rent
Ordinance, Relocation
Ordinance, and related
Continue/
Update.to
include the
Richmond Rent
Program.
E x i s t i n g P r o g r a m s R e v i e w C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | D - 2 9 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
Program
# Program Objectives Responsible
Party Evaluation Modify / Delete
/ Continue
discrimination. Provide referral information as part of the Online Housing Resource Center.
State and local laws. The
Rent Program also funds
community legal services
agencies, such as the
Eviction Defense Center to
provide legal
representation to Tenants
in Unlawful Detainer
(eviction lawsuit) cases, as
well as Bay Area Legal Aid,
to provide weekly legal
clinics for Richmond
Landlords and Tenants.
Policy H-4.2: Discrimination Prevention
H-1.4.2
Program H-1.4.2: Housing Access and Discrimination
Study
Study of housing access in the City to determine if any discrimination is occurring and ensure equal housing access for all groups. Develop a protocol to eliminate instances of discrimination where discovered, and coordinate with local organizations and representatives providing support to groups receiving unfair treatment in the pursuit of suitable housing. Use the study to develop ongoing monitoring practices to prevent future instances of housing discrimination.
Study by 12/31/16
Manager’s Office,
City Attorney’s
Office
Contra Costa County and
the cities of Walnut Creek,
Antioch, Concord, and
Pittsburg, as well as the
housing authorities of
Contra Costa County,
Cities of Pittsburg and
Richmond, conducted a
regional analysis of
Impediments to Fair
Housing in 2019
(https://www.contracosta.ca
.gov/DocumentCenter/View
/59623/Final-BOS-
Approved-AI-6-11-19). In
2016, the City Council
adopted a Fair Chance
Access to Affordable
Housing Ordinance to
address housing access for
persons who have a
conviction history.
Continue/
Update.
Public Participation Summaries City of Richmond | E-1
Appendix E: Public Participation
Summaries
Contents
Appendix E: Public Participation Summaries ............................................. 1 May 19, 2022 Planning Commission Study Session Summary .................................................... 1 Community Engagement Summary .............................................................................................. 4 April 27, 2022 Housing Developer Interviews Summary ............................................................. 22
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 1 6th Cycle Housing Element Update,
Housing Equity Roadmap & Related
General Plan Amendments
City of Richmond
Planning Commission Study Session Summary
I
NTRODUCTION
O
n May 19, 2022, during its regularly scheduled meeting at 6 p.m., the Planning Commission held a study session on the Housing Element Update (HEU), Housing Equity Roadmap (HER), and related General Plan Amendments (i.e., Safety and Environmental Justice elements). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting was conducted as a virtual webinar with attendance available via Zoom and telephone. Notifications of this meeting were distributed by the City through its various email listservs to residents and other stakeholders in Richmond.
The m
eeting was recorded and posted on the City’s Planning Commis sion website so it may be viewed at any time. The City’s project contact information was included in the presentation to facilitate additional comments or questions being provided at any time via phone or email.
AT
TENDANCE
P
lanning Commission
• Jen Loy, Vice-Chair
• Bruce Brubaker, Secretary
• Jonathan Harrison, Commissioner
• Masoomeh Soofiani, Commissioner
C
ity Staff
• Lina Velasco – Director
• Andrea Villarroel – Planner
Lisa Wise C
onsulting, Inc.
• Jen Murillo – Director, Project Manager
Just
Cities Institute
• Margaretta Lin – Executive Director
Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-1
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 2
OVERVIEW
A
ndrea Villarroel, Jen Murillo, and Margaretta Lin gave a PowerPoint-supported presentation.
The presentation outline is provided below:
1. H
ousing Element Update Overview
2. Related General Plan Amendments
3. Preliminary Housing Data
4. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
5. Community Engagement
6. Housing Equity Roadmap Overview
7. Wrap Up & Next Steps
At the end of the pr
esentation, time was given to the Planning Commission to offer comments and ask clarifying questions. After the presentation, the Planning Commission provided an opportunity for public comment, although no public comments were given.
P
LANNING COMMISSION C OMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
The
bullets below provide a summary of topics raised during Planning Commissioner comments and questions.
• Ther
e is interest in strategies the City can use to attract private sector investment and hous
ing development to Richmond. Public private partnerships are a tool to facilitate hous
ing development, and financing strategies will be evaluated in the Housing Equity Roadmap work.
• The H
ousing Element will use State (i.e., California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD)) pre-certified demographic and employment data as well as HCD fair housing data. As new data becomes available (e.g., 2020 Census), it c
an be incorporated into the pre-certified data as appropriate. • The s
ites inventory and fair housing assessments will use ArcGIS for spatial analysis to s
upport the development of the updated Housing Element. This work is currently underway.
• The P
lanning Commission’s role is as the advisory body to the City Council. There will be a public workshop in the fall, and the Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend.
This will allow public input and feedback before the Housing Element is submitted to HCD.
• A
Planning Commission study session to discuss the Safety Element and Environmental Justice Element is planned for June. The environmental review (CEQA) for these el
ements and the Housing Element are anticipated to be aligned, but timing and c
oordination may be affected by the number of Housing Element reviews required by HCD.
• The H
ousing Element Update (HEU) is part of the General Plan and is more general in natur
e while complying with State mandates. The Housing Equity Roadmap (HER) is Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-2
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 3 more detailed and focused on implementation, timing, and resources to fulfill HEU programs and other housing objectives.
• The
application period for the Resident Advisory Council (RAC) has been closed, and the first meeting is anticipated to be in June.
• C
oncern was expressed with developments being modified or proposed at lower densities than originally approved. Interest was voiced about requiring a density floor for parcels that are in the Housing Element sites inventory. • A
s part of Housing Element law the City is required to submit annual progress reports (APRs) to HCD to report on the progress of the implementation of the programs in the H
ousing Element. This has included tracking all building permits issued based on i
ncome level, residential projects submitted through planning review, any projects that through the approval process resulted in fewer units, etc. The public can review these A
PRs and they are approved by the City Council before being sent to HCD. • Ther
e are economic conditions outside of the City’s control that affect housing pr
oduction (supply chain, material costs, availability of labor, etc.). While the City has generally achieved targets for lower income units, it has not achieved targets for moderate and above moderate-income units
.
• It i
s anticipated that most of the future housing units are going to be located at major sites like Campus Bay and Richmond Hilltop.
Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-3
Community Engagement Summary
This community engagement summary describes Just Cities’ engagement strategy, key takeaways from engagement, and describes the engagement activities from February to June 2022.
Problem/Opportunity Statement
Community engagement is critical in the planning process to hear the housing priorities and needs of Richmond residents. The traditional planning model has historically excluded lower income, people of color, and other marginalized groups in the community engagement process.
These groups are also harder to reach because they may face language barriers, time constraints, lack of access to information, or government distrust. Through our transformative planning framework and engagement strategy, we center the voices of those most impacted and meet them where they are at (i.e, community events, community meetings, multiple meetings to talk through issues and solutions, etc.).
Engagement Strategy
Key tenets of transformative community planning as elucidated by Urban Planning Professor Marie Kennedy (Kennedy 2018) include:
● Increasing community capacity for taking control over the kind of development projects and planning processes in their communities.
● Actively listening and respecting what people know, helping people acknowledge what they already know, and helping them back up this “common sense” and put it in a form that communicates convincingly to others.
● Challenging exclusionary thinking in planning processes and outcomes. ● Actively acknowledging the attitudes and biases of planners in a profession that has enacted and continues to enact racial exclusion and harm, including that in many instances the professional planner may only have one part of the answer and sometimes may not have a clue.
To carry out this transformative community planning approach, the City team engaged in various forms of community engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders and community members:
● Planning capacity building for Richmond residents through the formation of a Resident Advisory Council composed of Spanish-speaking, formerly incarcerated, unhoused, and other marginalized residents to ensure that community leadership 1 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-4
development occurred and key issues, data, and policy solutions identified in the draft Housing Element align with community concerns and lived experiences. ● Active listening sessions with residents normally excluded from government planning including over 50 unhoused people, Latina mothers, formerly incarcerated residents, and youth to understand barriers to housing and desired solutions. ● Active listening sessions with long-standing housing justice community-based organizations including 17 staff leaders who have been engaged in improving Richmond’s housing conditions to ground inquiry.
● Going to where the Richmond community shows up including six pop-up events where over 150 residents were interviewed about housing barriers and solutions and community education materials were distributed to increase awareness of the Housing Element process and housing issues in Richmond.
● Interviews with staff involved in fair housing at 10 local and regional organizations, including fair housing agencies, homeless service providers, housing and community development providers, public housing authorities, advocacy organizations, and regional centers.
● Ground-truthed assumptions, data, analysis, and language used in the Housing Element through an iterative feedback process with the Resident Advisory Council and community partners.
● Builds Upon Existing and Past Community Efforts: Just Cities values the existing and past work and research that community groups in Richmond have conducted related to housing and strives to build on these efforts rather than reinvent the wheel. The background materials listed below provide background information and critical insights on the history of Richmond, housing issues and policies in Richmond, and the experiences of underrepresented populations in Richmond such as Laotian Americans or formerly incarcerated.
● Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing report, Housing Authority of Contra Costa County Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg & Richmond Housing Authority, 2019
● Housing Policy and Belonging in Richmond, Othering Belonging Institute 2017 ● Housing and Community Reintegration in Contra Costa County, Safe Return Project, 2014
● Project PRISM Historic Context Statement, Page & Turnbull, inc., 2009 ● Speaking Truth on Coming Home, Safe Return Project, 2011 ● Richmond is Home: Preventing a Second Displacement of Laotian Americans, APEN 2020
2 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-5
Engagement Activities
From February to June 2022, we spoke with many community members, community based organizations, city and county staff, and businesses via the following activities:
● 27 stakeholder interviews
○ 3 Community listening sessions
● 6 community pop-ups
● 130 interview surveys with Richmond residents and constituents ○ 125 in-person interview surveys
○ 5 online interview surveys
These activities are described in this document further below.
Key Takeaways from Community Engagement
Housing Issues
● Top Issues: Housing affordability, homeownership, housing habitability, homelessness, and racial and income discrimination were among the issues Richmond residents shared they experience
● Impacted Populations: Immigrants, people of color, undocumented people, formerly incarcerated, seniors, and people with disabilities face discrimination and barriers to accessing housing
● Substandard Conditions: Residents reported experiences with mold, heating issues, flooding, pests, among other unsafe qualities of their homes. ● Tenant Harassment: Some tenants report instances of harassment and illegal actions by their landlord, as well as feeling taken advantage of for not being fully aware of their rights.
● Service Organizations Need Help: Direct aid and legal service organizations are under-resourced and over capacity.
● Implementation Barriers: The lack of City capacity and funding are a major barrier to implementation and enforcement of housing ordinances or programs. ● Hard to move to High Opportunity Areas: Affordable housing and voucher utilization is concentrated in lower income areas, affecting low income residents’ ability to move to high-opportunity areas
Housing Solutions
● Increase capacity of legal services organizations
● Increase outreach and education on fair housing, fair chance housing, and residents’ legal rights
● Protect renters with stronger tenant protections
● Implement and enforce source of income protections to prevent discrimination against voucher holders
● Increase services and housing accessfor unhoused, transitional youth, 3 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-6
undocumented people, and people with disabilities
● Create programs and opportunities for undocumented residents, including homeownership, accessible legal services, and prohibiting the need for social security numbers on applications
● Strengthen Fair Chance Housing and expand the policy beyond public housing ● Increase city capacity to enforce/administer existing housing programs and laws ● Build housing on vacant land
● Create a robust rental inspection and code enforcement program ● Create a city rent assistance program
● Support homeownership with first time home buyer programs, homeownership counseling
● Create housing repair programs
● Create and support community land trusts to facilitate community ownership of land and long-term affordability
● Create programs to prevent real estate speculation such as an anti-speculation tax ● Reform Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act
Lessons learned from community engagement
● People were more willing to participate in the interview surveys during community pop-ups when there was an incentive such as spinning a wheel for a prize or a fun, creative activity such as the community vision board.
● Listening sessions with the membership base of community organizations were effective ways to hear residents’ lived experiences and gain a deeper understanding of issues.
Members built on each other’s responses and felt more comfortable to speak because they were with their community.
● Populations identified as gaps in our engagement include low income elderly homeowners and emancipated or foster youth.
4 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-7
Engagement Activities
Stakeholder and Community Listening Sessions
Stakeholder Interviews
Between February and June, Just Cities conducted 27 stakeholder interviews consulting the diversity of the community including representatives from City and County departments, housing justice organizations, affordable housing developers, and businesses. Stakeholders include:
● Alliance of Californians for Community Environment (ACCE) ● Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
● Bay Area Legal Aid
● City of Richmond (Bill Lindsay, former City Manager; LaShonda White, Interim Library and Community Services Director)
● Contra Costa County Senior Legal Services
● Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
● Contra Costa Housing Authority
● Council of Industries
● Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP)
● Hello Fresh
● Kaiser
5 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-8
● Othering & Belonging Institute
● RYSE Center
● Region Center of the East Bay
● Richmond Community Development Department
● Richmond Community Foundation
● Richmond LAND
● Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services
● Richmond Progressive Alliance
● Richmond Rapid Response Fund
● Richmond Rent Program
● SOS (Safe, Organized Spaces) Richmond
● Safe Return Project
● Sims Metal
● The Richmond Promise
● West Contra Costa Public Education Fund
● West County Regional Group
Community Listening Sessions
Just Cities conducted three listening sessions with the membership of the following community organizations to hear their members’ lived experiences related to housing issues in Richmond and ideas for solutions.
● The Richmond Promise: 6 low income, first generation students of color in Richmond ● SOS Richmond: 15-20 unhoused residents in Richmond
● West County Regional Group: 20-25 Hispanic or Latinx parent and resident leaders in Richmond
Key Takeaways
The following issues were identified and discussed during stakeholder interviews and community listening sessions:
● Legal Barriers:
○ Direct aid and legal service organizations are under-resourced and over capacity ○ The burden is on tenants to file complaints. Tenants are afraid to pursue legal action because they fear retaliation.
● Lack of city capacity: The lack of City capacity and funding are a major barrier to implementation and enforcement of housing ordinances or programs. ● Discrimination:
○ Many people do not understand their rights when they experience housing discrimination, especially immigrants, undocumented people, and people with disabilities.
○ Despite protections, source of income discrimination persists ○ There is discrimination aganist tenants who are monolingual Spanish-speaking ○ Racial discrimination is more difficult to prove in court ○ Majority of fair housing cases are disability-related. 6 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-9
○ Fair housing outreach to seniors is hard because they are not online and senior centers have been largely closed during the COVID-19 pandemic ● Affordability
○ The cost of land and real estate has increased in Richmond, and community organizations such as Richmond Community Foundation or Richmond LAND cannot compete with outside investors to create housing with long-term affordability.
○ Seniors with fixed incomes are priced out of their homes as rent increases ○ Increasing housing prices create tension between renters who are being displaced and homeowners who are finally seeing their home values rise ○ Communal ties and the lower cost of housing in Richmond compared to other cities in the Bay Area are major points of attraction for Richmond Promise students. However if costs continue to increase, many don’t see themselves staying.
● Displacement: People are being displaced and moving out of Richmond to east Contra Costa County because of rising housing costs
● Segregation and Integration:
○ High-opportunity neighborhoods have higher rents and housing costs, and therefore inaccessible to lower-income people.
○ Affordable housing and voucher utilization is concentrated in lower income areas. ○ High-opportunity areas are inaccessible to voucher recipients despite SOI protections, thus affecting residents’ ability to move to areas with better resources such as high-performing schools.
○ Higher-income areas tend to be further from transit, which creates an issue with putting low-income housing there
● Homelessness
○ The lack of affordable housing drives homelessness.
○ There is a lack of emergency/interim, supportive, and permanent housing unhoused people.
○ NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) creates barriers for housing solutions for unhoused populations.
● Formerly incarcerated people face barriers to housing because of criminal background checks
● Undocumented people are more vulnerable to homelessness because they do not qualify for Section 8 and face barriers in renting or homeownership. Barriers include application requirements for a social security number, provable streams of income, credit reports, or history of former rentals. There is a lack of legal or housing programs that serve undocumented people.
● Richmond Employers care about affordable housing and housing equity, but they don’t know what they can do to help. They need easy, effective ways to plug into this work.
Tension between Richmond’s business community and the City that must be resolved in order for private employers to cooperate with efforts to advance housing equity. 7 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-10
The following ideas and opportunities were identified and discussed during stakeholder interviews and community listening sessions:
● Increase capacity of legal services organizations
● Increase outreach and education on fair housing, fair chance housing, and residents’ legal rights
● Increase services for unhoused, transitional youth, and undocumented people ● Create programs and opportunities for undocumented residentsto rent and purchase homes such as accessible legal services and prohibiting the need for social security numbers on applications
● Implement and enforce source of income protections to prevent discrimintaion against voucher holders
● Strengthen Fair Chance Housing and expand the policy beyond public housing ● Require affordable housing developments to include units for people with intellectual or developmental disability
● Increase housing access for people with disabilities and expand it to their family members who serve as caretakers
● Support more integrated housing models for people with disabilities ● Connect housing programs & policies to community groups that serve residents ● Create a right to return policy
● Engage residents for buy-in to create safe encampments and emergency housing locations
● Provide basic services in homeless encampments
● Maintain affordability for senior housing by pairing LIHTC housing with Project Based Vouchers (Section 8 based on income rather than AMI)
● Maintain affordability for Project Based Vouchers with 20-year contracts with owners with a 20-year extension option.
● Increase city capacity to enforce/administer existing housing programs and laws ● Create a Housing Department with funding for enforcement ● Build housing on vacant land
● Utilize vacant sites for temporary housing or encampments ● Create a robust rental inspection and code enforcement program ● Create a city rent assistance program
● Support homeownership with first time home buyer programs, homeownership counseling
● Create housing repair programs
● Connect public housing with public transportation
● Expand housing rehabilitation and acquisition efforts ● Acquire small sites/single family homes as affordable rental housing ● Apply for three EPA grants to provide funding to nonprofits to assess brownfield sites and remediate those sites for nonprofit developers
● Continue effective services and policies: Richmond Rent Program, CC County Behavioral Health Services, Just Cause, Rent Control
● Increase value of vouchers so families can live in or nearhigh-opportunity neighborhoods
● Build affordable housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods ● Create and support community land trusts to facilitate community ownership of land and long-term affordability
8 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-11
● Create programs to prevent real estate speculation such as an anti-speculation tax ● Reform Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act
● Invest in low-income schools
● Create new units to support tenants.
○ This includes a hearings unit that administers the rent adjustment petition process. If there is a reduction in space or quality is deteriorating, tenants can get a retroactive rent refund or decreased rent. Landlords can do the same to offset increased maintenance or capital improvements.
○ Billings and enrollment unit that collects regulatory fees; has ability to prohibit rent increases and evictions if landlords are out of compliance Community Pop-Ups
Just Cities seek to engage hard-to-reach populations who have not traditionally been part of planning processes by holding community pop-ups and meeting people at local events.
Community pop-ups of the month were advertised on the City website and City Manager’s Weekly Report at the beginning of each month.
9 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-12
As of June 30, 2022, Just Cities has conducted 6 community pop-ups in Richmond and interviewed 125 Richmond residents or constituents. Pop-ups were held in the following community events:
● 4/22 Earth Day at Contra Costa College
● 4/23 Earth Day with Urban Tilth at Unity Park
● 4/30 Park Rx Day at Nicholl Park
● 5/14 Spring Family Day at Richmond Art Center
● 5/21 Willie Mays Day at Nicholl Park
● 6/18 Juneteenth Family and Festival Day at Nicholl Park ● 5 online surveys (no event)
Activities conducted at pop-ups include:
● Interview Survey: Just Cities staff held conversations with Richmond residents and community members to learn about their perspectives on or lived experiences related to housing issues in Richmond and ideas for solutions. An online survey was also available in English and Spanish. The online survey was advertised via the City website and on postcards/flyers passed out at pop-ups..
● Community Vision Board: Passersby were encouraged to respond to the community vision board. Questions included:
○ What is your favorite part about living or visiting Richmond? ○ If there was one thing you could change about Richmond to make it a better place for you, your family, and friends, what would it be? ● Prize wheel: Participants that completed the interview survey could spin the wheel to receive a prize. Prizes included hand sanitizer, tissues, chapstick, and candy. ● Resource distribution: Flyers with information about the housing element update were distributed to participants and passersby. Brochures with phone numbers to city resources or services were made available to participants. COVID-19 test kits were distributed on the 6/18 Richmond Juneteenth Family and Festival Day pop-up.
Just Cities staff members conducted Interview surveys with the following question:
1. When did you/your family arrive in Richmond?
2. Where were you living before?
3. What neighborhoods have you lived in?
4. What’s your favorite memory of Richmond?
5. Have your family members struggled with housing problems (affordability, quality, overcrowding, displacement)? If so, what have been your major problems?
6. How do environmental issues impact housing quality or access in Richmond? (ie. air quality, proximity to highways, building condition)
7. Do you feel like there is housing discrimination in Richmond? If so, which groups do you believe are most impacted?
8. Have you tried living in other neighborhoods in Richmond and if so, did you experience any barriers, such as housing access and affordability?
9. What housing solutions would you like to see in Richmond?
10. Anything else you would like to share?
10 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-13
Key Takeaways
The following issues were identified and discussed during the community pop-ups:
● Housing affordability:
○ Out of 130 interviews, 59 people (45.38%) brought up housing affordability as something they struggled with.
○ Rent is increasing at a rate that many Richmond tenants can’t keep up with, especially low income seniors with fixed incomes.
● Homeownership is inaccessible to many Richmond residents, especially low-income and young people. Homeowners are also having difficulty affording utilities. ● Homelessness: Out of 130 interviews, 14 people (10.77%) brought up homelessness as something they struggled with personally or believed was an issue for Richmond.
Seniors with fixed incomes, undocumented, and formerly incarcerated people face additional barriers to securing housing and are therefore vulnerable to homelessness. ● Displacement of longtime residents is caused by unaffordability, evictions, and foreclosures. Children of longtime residents are moving away from their home city due to the expensive prices of housing. Some residents reported having to relocate within Richmond multiple times to afford housing. Residents mention family members moving to Bay Point, Antioch, or Pittsburg to afford housing.
● Overcrowding: Some residents cannot find or afford a home that fully accommodates their family size. Some residents and their families are overcrowding in order to afford housing.
● Quality & Unsafe Living Conditions: Residents reported experiences with mold, heating issues, flooding, pests, among other unsafe qualities of their homes. ● Landlord Harassment: Some tenants report instances of harassment and illegal actions by their landlord, as well as feeling taken advantage of for not being fully aware of their rights.
● Discrimination: Out of 154 interviews, 54 people (41.22%) brought up racism and 24 people (18.32%) brought up income as types of housing discrimination existing in Richmond.
● Environmental Impact on Housing: Housing closer to the Chevron refinery or contaminated areas are cheaper, but they are lower quality and are areas with less resources. People shared concerns on health impacts because of proximity to the Chevron refinery, especially for children and individuals with asthma.
The following ideas and opportunities were identified and discussed during the community pop-ups:
● Develop affordable housing for low-income residents, especially on sites that are vacant. Support Section 8 and shorten waitlist periods
● Protect renters with rent control, stronger tenant protections, and promoting tenant services like rental assistance and tenant unions
● Create assistance and education programs for (first-time) homebuyers, emphasizing residents who are from the community
11 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-14
● Create more housing opportunities for unhoused people by making housing more affordable
● Remove requirements that deny access to housing during the application process for renting and buying homes, especially for formerly incarceratedand undocumented people.
● Invest in more social services that transition unhoused people to permanent housing ● Subsidize and financially support homeowners performing housing upgradesso that people can afford to live in healthy homes
● Utilize space more efficiently, creating housing opportunities where there are vacant lots ● Build up and increase density
● Ensure that neighborhoods of all incomes receive city maintenance and investment in quality housing development
● Improve city safety and clean streets
● Preserve Richmond’s parks
● Continue community events that celebrate culture such as Cinco de Mayo parade and Juneteenth
Demographics
Table 1. Engagement by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Count Percent
Asian American 12 9.2%
Black/African American 32 24.6%
Caribbean Islander 0 0.0%
Native American/
Indigenous or Alaska Native 5 3.8%
Hispanic or Latinx
(non white or Black) 51 39.2%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander 1 0.8%
Multiracial 5 3.8%
Middle Eastern 0 0.0%
White/European 17 13.1%
Other 2 1.5%
*Note: Total Count and Percent is above 100% due to some participants marking multiple options
Table 2. Engagement by Age
12 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-15
Age Count Percent
12-17 16 12.3%
18-24 9 6.9%
25-34 17 13.1%
35-44 18 13.8%
45-54 12 9.2%
55-64 12 9.2%
65+ 11 8.5%
Decline to state 35 26.9%
Total 130 100.0%
Table 3. Engagement by Gender
Gender Count Percent
Female 67 51.5%
Male 40 30.8%
Non-binary 5 3.8%
Transgender 1 0.8%
Decline to State 17 13.1%
Total 130 100.0%
Table 4. Engagement by Housing
Housing Count Percent
Rent 44 33.8%
Own 51 39.2%
Temporary with Friends/Family 4 3.1%
Shared housing with family/
roommates/partner 14 10.8%
Mobile housing/unhoused 3 2.3%
Temporary (in shelter, hotel) 1 0.8%
Decline to state 18 13.8%
13 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-16
Total 135 103.8%*
*Note: Total Count and Percent is above 100% due to some participants marking multiple options
Table 5. Engagement by Disability
Disability Count Percent
A mobility impairment 4 3.1%
A mental health disorder 4 3.1%
A sensory impairment
(vision or hearing) 4 3.1%
A learning disability
(e.g., ADHD, dyslexia) 5 3.8%
Other 5 3.8%
None 26 20.0%
Decline to State 86 66.2%
Total 134 103.1%*
*Note: Total Count and Percent is above 100% due to some participants marking multiple options
Table 6. Engagement by Personal Annual Income
Annual Personal
Income Count Percent
$0 - $10,000 14 10.8%
$10,001 - $20,000 7 5.4%
$20,001 - $30,000 10 7.7%
$30,001 - $40,000 3 2.3%
$40,001 - $50,000 11 8.5%
$50,001+ 40 30.8%
Decline to state 45 34.6%
Total 130 100%
Table 7. Engagement by Sexual Orientation
14 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-17
Sexual Orientation Count Percent
Heterosexual 73 56.2%
Bisexual 7 5.4%
Gay 2 1.5%
Lesbian 2 1.5%
Other 2 1.5%
Decline to State 44 33.8%
Total 130 100%
Table 8. Engagement by Experience with Mass Incarceration Mass Incarceration Count Percent
I am formerly incarcerated 6 4.6%
I am a family member of
someone
who is currently incarcerated 5 3.8%
I am a family member of
someone
who is formerly incarcerated 14 10.8%
None 23 17.7%
Decline to state 85 65.4%
Total 133 102.3%*
*Note: Total Count and Percent is above 100% due to some participants marking multiple options
Resident Advisory Council
A Resident Advisory Council (RAC) was formed to engage a diversity of perspectives, deep listening, partnership not token engagement for input and feedback on housing needs, constraints, and ideas for improving housing conditions and affordability in the Housing Element Update. Stipends of $50 per meeting were provided to each RAC member.
As of June, the RAC has convened once to get to know each other, better understand the Housing Element process and their role. Just Cities will have RAC feedback on specific housing constraints, needs and policies at the next meetings.Recruitment process. 15 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-18
Applications for the RAC were open from March 1st to May 8th. Promotional materials for the RAC were made available in English and Spanish and were posted on the City website and City Manager’s Weekly Report. Promotional materials were shared with the city’s planning department, city council members, and community organizations to help circulate the opportunity and encourage Richmond residents to apply. 20 applications were received.
RAC Demographics
Selected by an interview committee from Just Cities, the City, and Richmond LAND that balanced important diversity considerations, the members of the RAC are: Anna Johnson, Diana Diaz-Noriega, Gina Holguin Garcia, Havah Aisha Isary, Kathryn Sibley, Lea Murray, Malaika Khan, Scott Littlehale, Tomasa Espinoza, and Yolanda Williams. They come from diverse backgrounds and neighborhoods across Richmond including the following:
● Hard to reach communities: People from communities that planning processes traditionally have excluded including Asian American, Black or African American, Latinx or Hispanic, multiracial, people with disabilities, undocumented, and people who speak little to no English.
● Neighborhood diversity: Belding Woods, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Hilltop, North and East, and Coronado.
● Age diversity: People at different stages of their lives to ensure varied knowledge and experiences.
● Diversity of gender and sexual orientation: To ensure women’s, non-binary, and LGBTQ+ perspectives are included in this process.
● People who work and live in Richmond. Seven members of the RAC are Richmond residents, two members work in Richmond and are heavily involved in the Richmond community, and one member is a former resident that currently works in Richmond. 16 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-19
Category** # %
Low-income person 6 60%
Tenant/Renter 5 50%
Homeowner 5 50%
Limited or non-English speaker 1 10%
Person with disabilities 2 20%
LGBTQ+ person 3 30%
Senior 1 10%
Youth 2 20%
**The 10 RAC members meet 1 or more of the categories listed above.
Residency # %
Lives in Richmond 7 70%
Former resident, works in Richmond 1 10%
Works in Richmond 2 20%
RAC Meeting Schedule
The RAC will meet 6 times between June and September.
17 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-20
Meeting Description
1 Introduction to Housing Element (HE), Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), and Housing Equity Roadmap (HER).
The first meeting focused on providing information and context to help the RAC members fully understand what each of the housing components are, how they work together, and their role in the project. RAC members discussed community agreements to set expectations for how RAC members and Just Cities staff will show up, interact, and work together for the upcoming sessions. 2 Community Engagement This session will be to provide findings from our community engagement pop ups and listening sessions. RAC members will provide feedback on the findings.
3 AFFH. We will get the RAC’s input on some of the conclusions made on the AFFH analysis. Their lived experiences will allow us to corroborate our findings or add new information.
4 AFFH Identified Issues. This session will be to provide feedback on the identified issues and meaningful actions identified by JC and the City. 5 Housing Element. Obtain input on the HE programs and actions. 6 HE Public Review Draft. Session to guide RAC members in navigating the public review process.
18 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-21
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 1 6th Cycle Housing Element Update -
Housing Developer Interviews Summary
City of Richmond
Housing Developer Interviews Summary
Overview
On April 27, 2022, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) conducted an hour-long group interview of both for-profit and nonprofit housing developers that work in Richmond as part of the public engagement process for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The stated purpose of the meeting was threefold:
1. D
iscuss housing opportunities and constraints
2. Gain deeper understanding of available resources
3. Gather policy and program recommendations
LWC
began the meeting with a PowerPoint-supported presentation on the purpose, mandates, and components of the Housing Element and the update process, followed by a facilitated discussion on questions as follows:
1. What are the unique challenges with building housing in Richmond? a. What are the unique challenges with building affordable housing in Richmond?
2. Are there any specific constraints with residential development standards and/or approval procedures in Richmond?
3. What are the most in demand types of housing products in Richmond, and how do you s
ee those needs changing over the next few years?
a. What can the City do to facilitate these types of housing developments?
4. Where (geographically) do you see opportunities for housing in Richmond? a. Which of these areas would provide the best opportunities for affordable housing?
5. Which of these areas would provide the best opportunities for affordable housing? Participants were encouraged to respond verbally, and the chat function was also available to capture written input. The meeting was held without City staff present to encourage open dialogue. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and confidential, with all notes being reported out in aggregate, and not tied to any one individual.
The
City invited approximately 18 housing developers via email on April 15, 2022 and followed up with the relevant Zoom link on April 22, 2022. A total of nine individuals participated in the scheduled meeting; the City and Consultant team sent follow up emails April 28 and May 4, 2022 to solicit additional feedback, but received no response.
Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-22
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 2 Summary and Feedback
The following is a summary of input received from the interview participants. Comments are listed in no particular order, and being listed below does not indicate group consensus on any topic or recommendation.
• The Design Review Board requirements are unclear and seem to change during the enti
tlement process.
• The Design Review Board may hold several meetings to review a project and oftentimes requires significant changes. The Design Review process in Richmond is mor e
c
umbersome than in other jurisdictions, adding time and expense. • Ther
e is a lack of clarity regarding the development process. Sometimes housing pr
ojects have to go to a subcommittee, then the Design Review Board, then Planning C
ommission. It would speed up the process if Design Review Board review were to happen c
oncurrently.
• Discretionary review prolongs the entitlement process, sometimes causing developers to r
isk missing funding deadlines (e.g., TCAC Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, etc.). • Staff and the City Council work efficiently. Current staff provide an open line of c
ommunication with developers.
• The Rent Control Board assesses annual fees (i.e., tens of thousands of dollars) even on pr
ojects for 100 percent affordable housing. This increases operational costs for affordable projects.
• The Arts Committee collects a portion of the development fees and provides input on certain housing projects. This is another layer to the entitlement process that adds time and ex
pense.
• B
uilding Department fees can be much higher in Richmond than other jurisdictions for similarly sized projects; however, the permitting process is very smooth, especially as compared to other cities. The third-party review has a quick turnaround time. • Sometimes new codes that are adopted are not posted online in a reasonable ti
meframe.
• City staff makes themselves available to meet with developers regularly to answer questions.
• Staff should explain the streamlining limits on the allowed number of meetings per SB 330
to reviewing commissions/committees.
• Business licenses in Richmond are several times more expensive than in other cities in the r
egion; this can disincentivize low- or moderate-income would-be business owners from opening a business in and living in Richmond.
Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-23
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-1
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
Contents
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) .......................... 1 Section F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 F.1.1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Richmond ............................................... 4 F.1.2 Community Engagement Efforts ........................................................................... 4 F.1.3 Data and Analysis Considerations......................................................................... 5 F.1.4 Richmond Neighborhoods and Subareas ............................................................ 7 Section F.2 Barriers to Fair Housing in Richmond .................................................................... 8 F.2.1 Regional Impacts on Racial and Income Diversity in Richmond ........................... 9 F.2.2 Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Housing Policy ............................................ 13 F.2.3 Lasting Effects of Historic Discrimination ............................................................ 15 Section F.3 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ............................................. 16 F.3.1 Existing Fair Housing Laws and Regulations ...................................................... 17 F.3.2 Activities and Capacity of Agencies and Organizations ...................................... 19 F.3.3 Housing Discrimination and Harassment ............................................................ 20 Section F.4 Patterns of Integration and Segregation .............................................................. 24 F.4.1 Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................................. 25 F.4.2 Income Status ..................................................................................................... 33 F.4.3 Disability Status ................................................................................................... 40 F.4.4 Familial Status ..................................................................................................... 43 F.4.5 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty or Affluence ..................... 46 F.4.6 Location of Affordable Housing ........................................................................... 49 F.4.7 Integration and Segregation Additional Factors .................................................. 53 Section F.5 Access to Opportunity ......................................................................................... 53 F.5.1 Overall Access to Opportunity ............................................................................. 54 F.5.2 Educational Opportunity ...................................................................................... 57 F.5.3 Economic Opportunity ......................................................................................... 61 F.5.4 Access to Transportation ..................................................................................... 66
F-2 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g F.5.5 Environmental Health .......................................................................................... 70 F.5.6 Food Access ........................................................................................................ 73 F.5.7 Barriers to Access to Opportunity ........................................................................ 75 Section F.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs......................................................................... 75 F.6.1 Housing Affordability ........................................................................................... 76 F.6.2 Overcrowding ...................................................................................................... 88 F.6.3 Gentrification and Risk of Displacement.............................................................. 91 F.6.4 Homeownership ................................................................................................ 101 F.6.5 Housing and Neighborhood Quality................................................................... 102 F.6.6 Access to Subsidized Housing .......................................................................... 107 F.6.7 Contributing Factors to Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................. 108 Section F.7 Housing Barriers Facing Other Marginalized Groups ........................................ 109 F.7.1 Unhoused Residents ......................................................................................... 109 F.7.2 Residents with Disabilities ................................................................................. 112 F.7.3 Formerly Incarcerated Residents ...................................................................... 114 F.7.4 Undocumented Residents ................................................................................. 116 F.7.5 Low-Income Seniors .......................................................................................... 117 F.7.6 LGBTQ+ Residents ........................................................................................... 118 F.7.7 Former Foster Youth ......................................................................................... 119 F.7.8 Single Female Headed Households with Children ............................................ 119 Section F.8 Analysis of Sites Inventory ................................................................................ 120 F.8.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation ..................................................... 122 F.8.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity ....................................................... 124 F.8.3 Potential Effects on Displacement Risk and Disproportionate Housing Needs . 128 F.8.4 Sites Inventory Analysis .................................................................................... 134 Section F.9 Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues and Meaningful Actions ............... 150
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-3
Section F.1 Introduction
Enacted in 2018, California Assembly Bill (AB) 686 establishes new requirements for all public agencies, including cities, to affirmatively further fair housi ng (AFFH). Modeled after President Obama Administration’s federal AFFH Rule implemented in 2015, A B 686 requires public agencies to go beyond prohibiting housing discrimination and take specific proactive steps to (1) replace patterns of segregation with inclusive integrated commu nities; (2) address disparities in housing needs; (3) and promote access to opportunity. The law is intended to address disparities based on race, ethnicity, sex, disability, and other characteri stics protected by federal and state law (Gov. Code § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1)).
AB 686 also created new requirements for all Housing Elements b eginning January 1, 2021 including:
● An assessment of fair housing enforcement and outreach capaci ty, patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), access to opportunity, and disparities in housing needs, based on avai lable federal, state, and local knowledge.
● An analysis of the relationship between available sites for h ousing and the resource level of the surrounding area.
● An assessment of contributing factors to fair housing issues and prioritization of factors that limit or deny fair housing choice, access to opportunity, fair housing or civil rights. ● Concrete strategies and actions to affirmatively further fair housing.
In addition, Richmond’s AFFH appendix analyzes how barriers to fair housing in Richmond are shaped by historic and ongoing discrimination, differ between g roups, and the strengths and shortcomings of the City of Richmond’s efforts to meet the hous ing needs of residents. Most of the analysis is based on governm ent survey data and an extensiv e community engagement process undertaken to inform the Housing Element.
While AFFH is contained as a separate section in the Housing El ement, considerations of fair housing drive the analysis and priorities contained in all other sections of the Housing Element.
Information in this Appendix is organized to comport with State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidance, and is not based upon an order of priorities. Findings from the assessment of fair housing issues are used to identify meaningful actions that the City will undertake. Taken together, these actions are intended to affirmatively fur ther fair housing by ensuring that all Richmond residents have equitable access to a ffordable, safe, and dignified housing and to opportunities that promote economic well-being.
F-4 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g F.1.1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Richmond AFFH mandates public agencies to take active steps to replace p atterns of segregation with inclusive communities that are integrated, address disparities in housing needs, and promote access to opportunity. According to HCD’s AFFH guidance, “Fair housing choice means that individuals and families have the information, opportunity, and options to live where they choose without unlawful discrimination and other barriers” (HCD AFFH G uidance). Some residents may want to move to areas that currently offer higher levels of opportunity, but others may want to stay in their communities, where they have familiar and beneficial s ocial, cultural, and economic ties.
In order to secure fair housing choice for diverse people, it is important that both high-opportunity neighborhoods are accessible to all and also that low-income co mmunities of color are transformed into places of increased opportunity.
Additionally, while unhoused, undocumented, and formerly incarcerated people are not explicitly protected groups under fair housing laws, discrimination agains t them may constitute a violation of fair housing protections because historic and ongoing racial ly discriminatory laws and policies in housing, immigration, and criminal justice systems have resu lted in people of color disproportionately represented in homelessness, undocumented, a nd formerly incarcerated populations. As such, this Appendix addresses the housing barr iers faced by these groups of people whenever possible.
Richmond holds the unique position as one of the few remaining relatively affordable cities in the Bay Area. The City is still home to working class communities o f color, especially Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents. It is also small enough, at a population of about 115,000, that solutions to provide affordable and dignified stable housi ng to every resident is not an unrealistic goal. However, racialized displacement and housing unaffordability have become serious problems impacting lower income residents, including re sulting in growing numbers of unhoused residents. It will require focused commitment and the collective action of government, community, and philanthropic leaders to implement the meaningful actions identified and raise up Richmond as a beacon for fair housing solutions.
F.1.2 Community Engagement Efforts
AB 686 requires “meaningful, frequent, and ongoing community pa rticipation, consultation and coordination to ensure that input has been received from groups most impacted by fair housing issues and that local knowledge is incorporated.” Accordingly, the City of Richmond hired Just Cities, a racial justice planning organization, to conduct a tr ansformative community planning approach to engage residents in the development of the Needs As sessment (Appendix A) and AFFH (Appendix F) of the Housing Element. Key tenets of transf ormative community planning, as elucidated by University of Massachusetts Urban Planning Pro fessor Marie Kennedy, include increasing community capacity for taking control over developme nt projects and planning processes in their communities; actively listening, respecting, and acknowledging what residents
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-5
know, including utilizing non-traditional data sources to valid ate community knowledge and experience; challenging exclusionary thinking in planning processes and outcomes; and actively acknowledging the attitudes and biases of planners in a profess ion that has enacted and continues to enact racial exclusion and harm (Kennedy, 2018).
To carry out this transformative community planning approach, t he City team’s community engagement strategies included:
● The formation of a Resident Advisory Council (RAC). The RAC is composed of groups that have been traditionally excluded from planning processes, including AAPI, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, multiracial, low-incom e, LGBTQ+, youth, and undocumented residents, and limited English speakers. This sele ction process was intended to ensure that key issues, data, and policy solutions identified in the Housing Element align with community concerns and lived experiences. ● Interviews with residents and stakeholders involved in fair hou sing to understand barriers to housing and desired solutions. Resident engagement included active listening sessions with residents normally excluded from govern ment planning, including over 50 unhoused people, Latina mothers, formerly incarcerated residents, and youth.
Additionally, over 140 residents were interviewed at six pop-up events. Stakeholder engagement included active listening sessions with 17 staff lea ders at long-standing housing justice community-based organizations and interviews wi th staff involved in fair housing at 10 local and regional organizations, including fair housing agencies, homeless service providers, housing and community development providers, public housing authorities, advocacy organizations, and regional centers. ● Community workshop with XX participants during the Housing Element Public Review Period to share information, answer questions, and gather community feedback. ● Ground-truthed assumptions, data, analysis, meaningful actions, and language used in the Housing Element through an iterative feedback proce ss with the RAC and community partners.
Insights from these community engagement efforts are included t hroughout this document.
However, the City team will be gathering additional feedback fr om Richmond’s Native American people and their feedback will be included in the next version of the City’s Housing Element.
F.1.3 Data and Analysis Considerations
Unless otherwise noted, all demographic data was provided by th e Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and HCD’s AFFH Data Resources and Web Mappin g Tool. This analysis also includes information from the Contra Costa County’s Analys is of Impediments to Fair Housing report and community input described above. In additio n, the U.S. Census Bureau divides geographic areas into census tract and block group subd ivisions in order to facilitate statistical analyses. These census tract and block group bounda ries do not always follow city,
F-6 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g town, and other administrative boundaries. As a result, some ce nsus tract analyses in this appendix may include small areas that fall outside of the City of Richmond boundaries. It is footnoted where this occurs.
The City attempted to address the following shortcomings of available government data:
● HCD provided maps are based upon using regional income and othe r standards. In defining whether an area is low, moderate, or high income in Ri chmond, HCD utilizes the median income standard of a regional area, HUD Metro Fair Marke t Rent (FMR) area. The FMR area for Richmond is the Oakland-Fremont FMR area, which includes cities in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. As provided in Table F-1, the media n income in the Richmond FMR area ($92,900 in 2015) is higher than the Richmond median i ncome ($55,102 in 2015).
This means that the maps that describe income information, such as low to moderate income areas, may include areas that by Richmond standards, are not low income. Indeed, this was an issue that RAC members flagged in reviewing several of the m aps. Throughout this section, we highlight where issues may exist with specific maps.
Table F-1: Median Household Income (2015)
Geography 2015
Richmond $55,102
Oakland-Fremont, Ca HUD Metro Area -Fremont FMR Area
(includes Richmond)
$92,900
Source: ACS 5-Year Data (2011-2015), Table B19013.
● Insufficient data on marginalized populations. The way that government data is collected and analyzed often excludes the experiences of minority groups. For example, Richmond has one of the largest Laotian communities in the Bay Area, but ins ufficient data is available to capture their experiences because they are collapsed into one category for all Asian American and Pacific Islander people. Likewise, Native Americans - on wh ose land Richmond was founded - are often left out of data analysis due to small samp le sizes. Additionally, the experiences of Middle Eastern and North African residents are erased by grouping them into the “White” category. Barriers to reaching marginalized groups also makes it difficult to accurately capture their experiences through official data. Uns tably housed and unhoused people are hard to reach because they sometimes do not have a p ermanent address.
Undocumented people’s experiences may not be captured in offici al data because federal laws prevent them from participating in federally funded housin g and employment.
Additionally, residents who distrust government - often for leg itimate reasons tied to historic marginalization - may be less likely to fill out government surveys. As a result, the community engagement efforts specifically inc lude resident experiences th at may not be captured in official data sources and provide complimentary qualitative data to the quantitative analysis. ● Census tract level data may not represent neighborhood dynamics. Government survey data is typically analyzed at the census tract level, but these boundaries often do not
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-7
meaningfully reflect neighborhood dynamics. As a result, while the maps in this chapter show data at the census tract level, neighborhoods are used to discuss trends in the narrative. This approach helps ensure that residents understand where their com munities fit into the data and that the policy solutions identified in Section F.9 are tai lored to residents’ lived experiences.
● Limitations in racial and ethnic group naming conventions. W h i l e r a c e i s a s o c i a l construct with no biological basis (Wagner et al. 2017), histor ic and ongoing racism create disparities between racial groups that are real and pervasive. However, the way racial and ethnic groups are named in official data may not accurately ref lect how members of these groups self-identify. To ensure that the Housing Element names racial and ethnic groups in a way that is respectful and inclusive, the RAC helped formulate naming conventions reflected in Appendix A, Section A.1.1, which are used throughout the Richmond Housing Element.
F.1.4 Richmond Nei ghborhoods and Subareas
Neighborhood names are used to refer to specific geographic loc ations when describing demographic trends. Additionally, HCD requires a jurisdiction t o be divided into sub-areas for purposes of analyzing new housing sites, as provided in Section F-8. To meet this requirement, Richmond is divided into the six sub-areas described in the below map (Figure F-1).
F-8 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-1: Richmond’s Neighborhoods and Sub-Area
Source: City of Richmond, 2022.
Section F.2 Barriers to Fair Housing in Richmond
This section examines the causal and contributing sources of Richmond’s current housing crisis, its impact on the City and its residents, and the persistent ba rriers to fair housing. Key findings include:
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-9
● Rising housing costs in Richmond are driven by a shortage of housing (particularly affordable housing) in Richmond and the Bay Area.
● The shortage of affordable housing and barriers to housing ch oice contribute to the displacement of low-income residents, especially those who are Black/African American, Latinx/Hispanic, Laotian, and Asian Indian, and threatens to pu sh additional long-time residents out of Richmond.
● The shortage of affordable housing and barriers to housing ch oice result in severe overcrowding, especially of H ispanic/Latinx residents, and unin habitable rental housing conditions.
● The disproportionate impact of the housing crisis results fro m discriminatory policies and practices such as racially restrictive covenants, urban renewal , and predatory mortgage lending that have segregated Richmond and limited economic and other forms of opportunity in communities of color.
● Unlike many cities in the Bay Area that have undergone gentri fication and displacement, Richmond remains relatively racially diverse, but strategic and bold policymaking is necessary to preserve the City’s current diversity.
F.2.1 Regional Impacts on Racial and Income Diversity in Richmond Richmond is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse cities in the Bay Area, giving the City a unique history, cultural vibrancy, and a strong sense of comm unity. During community engagement events, many residents expressed pride in Richmond’s diversity. Residents of color shared that they deeply value being surrounded by people who look like them and who can relate to their life experiences. Many residents stated that community events that celebrate cultural heritage, like Juneteenth and Cinco de Mayo, were their favorite aspect of Richmond. Importantly, residents shared that their love for the City is rooted in bein g able to raise their families in the same place that they grew up.
The growing regional affordable housing crisis in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area more broadly threatens Richmond’s racial diversity. For years, housi ng production and policy did not match population growth (Table F-2), resident needs, and market forces. Table F-2 shows Richmond’s progress toward its Regional Housing Needs Allocatio n (RHNA) during the 2015- 2022 cycle. RHNA goals are the housing production goals that t he State of California sets for each region every eight years to accommodate population growth).1 Regarding the housing permits that the City issued from 2015 to 2021, as of December 2021, Richmond issued permits for 100 percent of its very low-income housing goal, 70 percent of its low-income housing goal, and 63 percent of its above moderate-income housing goals. However, the City had not permitted any moderate-income housing. The Cit y of Richmond’s Community
1The State of California allows cities to meet their RHNA goals based on the number of units permitted rather than the actual number of units built.
F-10 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Development Department (CDD) did not deny proposals for moderate-income housing, but rather developers did not seek to build this type of housing in Richmo nd during the 2015-2022 RHNA cycle. Overall, the majority of building permits issued (55 percent) are for above moderate-income housing, which may contribute to market rate displacement. It is important to note that providing a permit does not guarantee that the project will actually be built.
Regarding the actual units built, which is taken from data on c ertificates of occupancy issued by the City (Table F-2), only 808 housing units overall were actually built from 2015 to 2021, reaching only 33% of the City’s overall RHNA goals. While the City reached 79% of its low income housing goals, it only met 24% of very low income, 0% of moderate income, and 36% of above moderate income goals, respectively.
Table F-2: Progress Toward 2015-2022 State RHNA Housing Production Goals, Richmond
Income Affordability
Categories 2015-2022
RHNA
Goals
(Housing
Units)
Permits Issued 2015-
2021
Units Built
2015-2021 2023-2031
RHNA
Goals Count % of Goal
Met Count % of Goal
Met
Very Low (<50% of AMI)
(<$62,800) 438 438 100.0% 106 24.2% 840
Low (50-80% of AMI)
($62,800 - $100,480) 305 214 70.2% 241 79% 485
Moderate (80-120% of AMI)
($100,480 - $150,720) 410 0 0.0% 0 0% 638
Above Moderate (>120% of
AMI)
(>$150,720)
1,282 805 62.8% 461 36% 1,651
Total Units 2,435 1,457 59.8% 808 33.2% 3,614
Notes: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals.
AMI calculations are based on median income for a family of four in Contra Costa County in 2021.
Source: Data on housing units is from City of Richmond Annual Progress Reports (2015-2021). AMI data is from HCD 2021 calculations.
Richmond’s progress toward its RHNA goals varies from many Bay Area jurisdictions, which tend to underproduce low-income housing and overproduce above-modera te income housing. As a result, many neighboring residents may move to Richmond because of its lower housing prices.
This additional demand for housing, along with rising construction costs, contribute to rising rental and home prices in Richmond.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-11
As a result of the lack of an adequate regional housing supply, housing costs in Richmond grew considerably over the past decade (Figure F-2). According to Zillow, between 2011 and 2020, the typical value of a Richmond home increased by 159 percent from $247,317 to $641,530.
Figure F-2: Zillow Home Value Index (2001-2020)
Notes: The Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) is 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 and includes all owner-occupied housing units. 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. For median contract rent, county and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)) Additionally, between 2015 and 2019, Richmond median rent incre ased by 25 percent, from $1,102 to $1,381 (Figure F-3).
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000Dollars
Bay Area Contra Costa County Richmond
F-12 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-3: Median Contract Rent (2009-2019)
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) As wage growth fails to keep up with rising housing prices, residents in Richmond are increasingly unable to afford rent and are at risk of displacement. Despite lower housing prices relative to the region, a higher percentage of Richmond residents experience ho using cost burden (Section F.6.1). Unaffordable housing has contributed to a 40 percent de cline in the Black/African American population since 2000 and a 54 percent decline in the Laotian population since 2015 (Section F.4.1).
As lower-income Black/African American and Laotian residents mo ved out of Richmond, data suggests that similar numbers of higher-earning households and low-income households moved in. The incoming households may be attracted to Richmond because of its relatively low housing prices compared to the other Bay Area cities (Section F.2.1). G iven the 77 percent increase in Richmond’s Hispanic/Latinx population since 2000, a majority of the new low-income residents are likely Hispanic/Latinx (Section F.4.1). As housing costs co ntinue to rise, Black/African and Hispanic/Latinx residents are at greater risk of displacement b ecause these groups face higher levels of housing cost burden (Section F.6.1). Additionally, H ispanic/Latinx residents are more than twice as likely to live in overcrowded households than the citywide average (Section F.6.2).
Overcrowded conditions could also be exacerbated by the end of COVID-19 eviction moratoria and rental assistance programs that were protecting residents who fell behind on rent during the pandemic.
$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
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-13
Increasingly, residents perceive the City as being divided into “two Richmonds”: one that is higher- income with quality housing and access to opportunity, and one that is lower-income and lacks these advantages. But despite these challenges, residents expre ssed an overwhelming pride in living in Richmond and a strong desire to address these problems and preserve their community.
Richmond has a strong infrastructure of community-based organizations, and many residents are proud to be part of those efforts. As one unhoused resident explained, “It’s my city, and I want to see it do better and be better.”
While many Bay Area cities, such as San Francisco and Oakland, already experienced extensive gentrification and displacement of their low-income residents o f color (especially their Black/African American residents) Richmond still has an opportunity to preserve its diversity and be home to the kind of stably integrated community that is at t he heart of the State’s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing.
F.2.2 Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Housing Policy Racial and ethnic disparities faced by residents of Richmond ar e the legacy of centuries of discriminatory policies and practices designed to maintain the wealth and power of White people by restricting opportunity for people of color. Identifying the specific policies and practices that created and maintain these disparities will give insight into h ow to undo the harm they have caused. Discussion of past discrimination in this section draws from Project PRISM, a historical study of Richmond completed by the City’s Planning Department in 2009, unless otherwise noted (Richmond Planning Department, 2009). However, the PRISM study does not sufficiently record the history of discrimination faced by Hispanic/Latinx, AAPI, and Native American people.
The earliest known residents of what is now known as Richmond are the Chochenyo- and Karkin- speaking groups of the Muwekma Ohlone people, who have resided on the land for over 2,000 years (Dremann 2022). Recognizing the Native American groups w ho lived on this land prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors is necessary for explaini ng how the commodification, privatization, and capitalization of housing today is ultimatel y rooted in the displacement of the Native American people. In 2003, there were approximately 600 members of Ohlone Muwekma who lived on their native land (D remann 2022). Tribal members a re still seeking federal government recognition of their tribal status, which would supp ort their access to housing, healthcare, and education, as well as establishment of a land trust (Dremann 2022).
Before World War II, Richmond’s Black/African American populati on was centered in semi-rural North Richmond, which is currently an unincorporated part of Co ntra Costa County. During the war, North Richmond and Richmond became popular destinations fo r Black/African American people fleeing the Jim Crow South because of opportunities in t he defense industry in the Richmond shipyards. Richmond’s Black/African American populatio n grew from 38 residents in 1930 to approximately 13,000 residents in 1950. North Richmond’ s Black/African American population also grew exponentially during this time, from 270 t o approximately 5,700 between 1940 and 1944 (Bissell et al., 2018). While it is impossible to determine the size of the Hispanic
F-14 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g population during this period because the U.S. Census had dropped “Mexican” as a race category and had not yet introduced ethnicity as a demographic category, secondary sources, including oral histories, indicate that the Hispanic population also grew substantially during this time.
Black/African American residents in Richmond were restricted by similar forms of housing and employment discrimination that existed outside the Jim Crow Sou th. Black/African American workers were largely reliant on the temporary defense housing projects operated by the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) because they faced discrimination on the private market. However, RHA reserved only 20 percent of its housing for Black/African Ameri can shipyard workers, making these housing options insufficient. Additionally, RHA’s policy was to segregate public housing, concentrating Black/African American, Hispanic, and other non-W hite residents into inferior housing in certain parts of the City and prohibiting access to superior permanent public housing complexes that were reserved for non-Hispanic White residents.
In 1945, Richmond’s Chamber of Commerce declared its plan to re place “all hastily constructed war time homes” with “modest suburban type, one-family homes.” The Richmond Redevelopment Agency (RDA), which had been formed in 1949 to address neighbor hood “blight,” worked with developers to carry out this plan. By 1950, the City moved forward with plans to tear down wartime housing, despite over three-quarters of Richmond’s Black/Africa n American population still occupying these homes. These housing projects in Richmond were removed to make way for Highway 580 and future development. Additionally, according to an interview with the City of Richmond, RDA policies led to the destruction of local homes an d businesses in majority Black/African American neighborhoods as part of urban renewal in downtown Richmond.
Richmond was not formally redlined, a practice in which the fed eral Home Owners’ Loan Corporation ranked the loan worthiness of neighborhoods in over 200 cities across America, deeming some neighborhoods “risky” based on their racial and et hnic characteristics, and effectively excluding them from receiving mortgage loans. Howev er, Black/African American residents in Richmond faced various barriers to homeownership. These barriers included discrimination by lending institutions, legal deeds which prohibited the sale of individual homes to Black/African American people, known as racially restrictive covenants, and mob violence against families who attempted to move into White neighborhoods. Thus, White residents were able to take advantage of government-backed mortgages and buy homes in new private housing developments, but Black/African American residents were exclude d from this important wealth- building opportunity in Richmond. This extended to Black/Africa n American war veterans who were promised affordable mortgages by the federal government, but were unable to successfully buy homes.
These practices entrenched racial segregation in Richmond by re stricting residents to certain parts of the City. Racially restrictive covenants as early as 1909 (and some as late as 1963) made it extremely difficult for Black/African American people to pur chase homes outside of North Richmond (Bissell et al., 2018). Within Richmond, Black/African American people and other residents of color were largely restricted to purchasing homes in southern Richmond and the Iron
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-15
Triangle, and Black/African American residents became increasin gly concentrated in southern Richmond housing projects below Ohio Avenue. Many housing developments in the northeastern part of the City were understood to be off-limits to residents of color.
As more Black/African American people moved into Richmond, many formerly predominantly White neighborhoods transitioned to majority Black/African Amer ican neighborhoods. This was facilitated by a practice called “blockbusting,” where realtors fanned racial fears by convincing White people that their neighborhood was “turning” and that the y should sell their home quickly, which they often did at or below market price. Banks and realto rs bought these properties at reduced prices and benefitted again when they sold them to Blac k/African American people and other people of color who could only access subprime loans with higher fees and interest rates.
During the 1940s and 1950s, Neitha Williams led a small group of Black/African American people who worked in Richmond real estate to purchase, renovate, and s ell properties in southern Richmond and the Iron Triangle almost exclusively to the Black/ African American community.
Additionally, in 1949, an alliance of Black/African American de velopers and community leaders developed Parchester Village in northwest Richmond, which becam e one of the few residential developments in Richmond that offered homeownership opportunities to Black/African American people.
The Black/African American community organized efforts through groups such as the NAACP, Richmond CORE, and the Richmond C ouncil for Civic Unity to deve lop strategies to protest housing and employment discrimination. In July 1964, Richmond CORE organized a sit-in at the RHA office to protest discrimination in the allocation of public housing. Additionally, staff from the CORE regional office and members of the UC Berkeley and Richmon d CORE chapters joined together to conduct a door-to-door survey of RHA housing and cr eated a map showing that the units were both segregated and disproportionately White.
During WWII, Richmond’s Japanese American population faced disc riminatory policies and practices. In April of 1942, all of Richmond’s Japanese residents were forcibly uprooted from their homes and businesses and initially sent to the Tanforan Assembly Center south of San Francisco, where most were interned at the Topaz Relocation Center in the Utah desert. In 1945, the War Relocation Authority planned to send Japanese Americans returning from forced internment F to live in 1,000 housing units in Richmond, which the Richmond may or and RHA director publicly opposed. In response, only Japanese Americans who were military veterans received housing accommodations in Richmond. Census records show that in 1946, o nly 205 family units were occupied by residents described as “Other,” a category primaril y made up of Japanese Americans.
F.2.3 Lasting Effects of Historic Discrimination
While the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlawed many forms of overt and covert housing discrimination, these legacy of the policies and practices pers ist today. During community
F-16 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g engagement events for this Housing Element, community members e mphasized that racism is the reason why segregation, gentrification, and displacement di sproportionately affect people of color in Richmond. For decades, residents of color have been excluded from homeownership and other economic opportunities that would have allowed them to build wealth, which makes it more difficult to afford housing in Richmond’s higher-opportunity ne ighborhoods (Rothstein, 2017).
Additionally, as a result of urban renewal and other forms of d isinvestment in Richmond’s communities of color, residents of those impacted neighborhoods are more likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty that lack the high-performing schools, good jobs, and amenities that help produce upward mobility (Section F.5).
Predatory lending in the 1990s and early 2000s that specifically targeted homeowners of color for risky, subprime mortgages led to a large number of foreclosed h omes, abandoned properties, and displacement of long-time residents in Richmond’s Black/Afr ican American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods (Bissell et al., 2017). Discrimin ation persists today in various forms, including landlord discrimination, concentration of affo rdable housing in low-income neighborhoods, and single-family zoning laws that effectively p revent affordable housing in higher-income neighborhoods. Laws that are race-neutral on their face, such as requiring the use of Social Security numbers or criminal history information on h ousing applications, can also be discriminatory because they perpetuate existing racial disparities.
Throughout the community engagement process, several residents identified racial tensions and conflicts between Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx re sidents as a byproduct of the racial demographic change that has occurred in Richmond due to these discriminatory policies.
These residents identified the resentment that some Black/African American residents may have towards Hispanic/Latinx residents, who have increased in popula tion size in once Black/African American ethnic enclaves such as Parchester Village and Iron Tr iangle. However, information from both community engagement and census data show that many L atinx residents residing in these neighborhoods are low income and also experience high rates of overcrowding. This leads us to believe that it is not Hispanic/Latinx residents who are directly responsible for the involuntary displacement of Black/African American residents.
Section F.3 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
This section details the strengths and shortcomings of existing local, state, and federal fair housing laws and the activities and capacity of fair housing or ganizations that serve Richmond residents. It also examines the evidence of various types of ho using discrimination against residents based on race or ethnicity, disability, source of inc ome, previous incarceration, undocumented status, and gender identity or sexual orientation. Key findings include:
● The Richmond Rent Program’s administration of Richmond’s Fair Rent and Just Cause for Eviction ordinances and Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) and the Eviction Defense Center’s legal services are effective components of the City’s AFFH infrastructure.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-17
● Legal support services are critical for residents who have ex perienced discrimination, but current capacity is insufficient to meet the level of need. ● Housing discrimination persists in various forms due to ongoi ng racism, structural shortcomings of existing fair housing laws, a lack of enforceme nt mechanisms, and gaps in residents’ awareness of housing rights. Several key factors contribute to shortcomings in fair housing outreach and enforcement described below. These include:
○ Lack of City housing department infrastructure and enforcemen t mechanisms may result in reduced capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement.
While the City of Richmond is eligible to be a HUD entitlement city and receive HUD funds directly, as a result of structural changes to the Ci ty’s former housing department combined with the loss of State redevelopment funds that resulted in severely reduced staffing, the City opted for Contra Costa Coun ty to receive its share of HUD funding. Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (CCSL S) noted that the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which is the main fair housing enforcement agency, operates too slowly to help with evictions. The Rent Program also noted that the City lacks the capacity to enforce fair housing laws because of insufficient staffing.
○ Structural shortcomings of existing laws result in fair housi ng disparities. Interviews with CCSLS, the Rent Program, and BALA found that meaningful re nt control at the local level is not possible due to the state Costa Hawkins law’s prohibitions on rent control of certain types of properties. Additionally, any funding from the federal government cannot be used to provide fair housing services to u ndocumented immigrants. Additionally, the narrow scope of the Fair Chance O rdinance limits legal avenues to protect formerly incarcerated people against f air housing violations.
○ Tenants face barriers to filing fair housing complaints. BALA n oted that when discrimination happens, the burden is on tenants to file a comp laint, and many tenants - especially those who are low income - do not have the time nor capacity to do so. Residents and community-based organizations emphasized that tenants are often afraid to complain about their landlords because they fear retaliation. For example, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) noted t hat Southeast Asians are sometimes reluctant to complain about housing issues because even if they are facing severe habitability issues, they feel gratef ul simply to have housing. Additionally, legal ser vices organizations are limite d in their ability to advocate on behalf of tenants because of understaffing.
F.3.1 Existing Fair Housing Laws and Regulations
State laws prohibit discrimination in many aspects of housing access and provision. The key laws include:
F-18 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government C ode, Title 2, Division 3, Part 2.8) prohibits discrimination or harassment in housing practices. I t expands the list of protected classes under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit discrimination based on:
○ Race (FHA)
○ Color (FHA)
○ Religion (FHA)
○ National origin (FHA)
○ Sex (FHA)
○ Disability (FHA)
○ Familial status (FHA)
○ Ancestry (FEHA)
○ Gender, gender identity,
gender expression (FEHA)
○ Sexual orientation (FEHA)
○ Source of income (FEHA)
○ Genetic information (FEHA)
○ Marital status (FEHA)
Under FEHA, people with disabilities have expanded rights and are entitled to reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and services and a re permitted to make reasonable modifications to their dwellings to ensure full enjo yment of the premises.
Additionally, FEHA makes explicit that fair housing violations can be proven through evidence of unjustified disparate impact of actions and inactions on protected classes and establishes the burden-shifting framework that courts and DFEH must use to evaluate disparate impact claims.
● California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. This l aw also prohibits local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to inquire about a person’s immigration or citizenship status.
● Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the state and in any land use decisions. Recent changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 require local jurisdictions to provide h ousing options for special needs groups, including people with disabilities (SB 520); unho used people, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housin g (SB 2); and extremely low income households, including single-room occupancy units. ● As discussed above, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AB 686) mandates that all state and local public agencies take meaningful action to address patterns of segregation and to foster inclusive communities. AB 686 lays out new requir ements for Housing Elements (Section F.1).
Richmond has both codified state laws related to fair housing i n local legislation and expanded protections to address local needs. Key local laws include:
● Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction, and Homeowner Protection Ordinance (the “Rent Ordinance”): Caps the amount that landlords can increase rent annually and p rohibits eviction unless the landlord has a just-cause reason specified under the law. The law exempts temporary rentals from Fair Rent and Just Cause protections.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-19
● Fair Chance to Access Affordable Housing Ordinance: Regulates when and how affordable housing providers may ask about and use arrest and c onviction records in making housing decisions.
● Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance: Protects tenants from harassment by their landlord and provides tenants with the ability to sue their landlord for harassment. ● Inclusionary Housing and Linkage Fee Ordinance: Facilitates the development of affordable housing by (1) requiring housing developers to inclu de set-aside affordable housing units in new market-rate rental developments, or, if they opt out, to pay an in-lieu fee, and (2) requiring an affordable linkage fee on certain new non-residential developments to generate local funding for affordable housing p roduction and preservation.
● Zoning Ordinance of 2016: Replaces the City’s previous zoning ordinance, establishes various zoning and land-use regulations that promote density, and establishes incentives for affordable housing, senior housing, accessible housing for people with disabilities, and developments with an on-site childcare facility. It also establ ishes waiver procedures to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through a waiver of the zoning regulations.
Community organizations emphasiz ed that Richmond’s strong Just Cause protections give its residents an important layer of protection against unlawful evictions in comparison to many other cities. BALA and CCSLS credited these protections as the reason why they receive far fewer eviction cases from Richmond than from demographically similar cities in Contra Costa County such as Antioch and Martinez. However, residents noted that inf ormal/constructive evictions, in which tenants move out of their homes after receiving warnings or threats from their landlord without a formal eviction notice ever being filed, are an ongoing problem.
In addition, the City is a member of the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) and passed Resolution 93-18 in December 2018 to apply a “racial equ ity lens in decision-making,” including regarding fair housing issues. As part of this priority, the City has affirmatively engaged in audits to research and monitor potential concerns such as race discrimination based upon voice identification in rental housing in four neighborhoods.
F.3.2 Activities and Capacity of Agencies and Organizations Several local and regional organizations provide legal represen tation and advocacy for people who have experienced housing discrimination. The City of Richmond’s Community Development Department (CDD) actively funds some of these organizations to conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement (marked with an asterisk below).
● Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) * is the main provider of legal representation and advocacy for Richmond residents facing fair housing issues. BALA focuses on serving low-income residents, especially people who speak limited English and people with disabilities. BALA
F-20 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g also conducts fair housing audit testing and operates a weekly Housing Law Clinic (funded by the Richmond Rent Program) that assists low-income litigants to prepare self- represented pleadings and understand the eviction process. Four staff members focus on housing.
● Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (CCSLS)* provides legal representation and advocacy to seniors ages 60 and over. Unlike BALA, it has no in come requirement.
CCSLS has one staff member that focuses on housing, and a consi derable share of its housing cases involve Richmond residents.
● Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing) provides legal services, offers tenant and landlord education on tenants’ rights, and co nducts fair housing audit testing. While its service area includes Richmond, it provides limited services in Richmond. ● Eviction Defense Center (EDC) offers legal services for residents facing eviction. While its service area includes Richmond, it provides limited services for Richmond residents.
Many community organizations noted that these legal housing ser vices organizations provide critical support for Richmond residents who face fair housing v iolations, including eviction defense, tenant advocacy, and help with reasonable accommodatio ns requests and filing fair housing complaints to DFEH. However, BALA and CCSLS stressed th at Richmond’s legal services infrastructure lacks the capacity to adequately meet the needs of residents. In particular, BALA noted that it cannot provide legal services for undocumented residents because it receives federal funds that prohibit servicing undocumented residents. However, undocumented residents can participate in BALA’s Housing Law Clinic. BALA is unable to provide services for higher- income residents, who do not meet its income requirement.
Community organizations also emphasized that the City of Richmo nd Rent Program, which conducts outreach for, administers, and enforces the Rent Ordin ance, is critical to Richmond’s fair housing infrastructure. Though the Rent Program is not a traditional fair housing organization because its activities are not focused on housing discrimination, Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction and Homeowner Protection Ordinance create structural protections that help prevent discrimination from occurring in the first place. The Rent Prog ram’s funding and current programming focus stem from a ballot measure that requires regu lated housing providers to pay an annual fee. If the City were to expand services and function s of the Rent Program, it would have to separately fund those activities, such as through City general funds.
F.3.3 Housing Discrimination and Harassment
DFEH tracks formal housing discrimination complaints filed by r esidents. Between 2011 and 2016, DFEH received between 30 and 40 housing complaints for Co ntra Costa County annually (C4 et al., 2019). While the number of complaints received each year did not increase during this period, additional efforts may be needed to prevent recurring p roblems. However, DFEH data is insufficient because it does not track the number or type of fa ir housing complaints at the local level. DFEH data also fails to capture the full scope of housin g discrimination in Richmond because residents face many barriers to filing formal housing c omplaints, including lack of
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-21
knowledge about their rights, lack of time and information to e ngage in the complaint process, and fear of retaliation from landlords or law enforcement (espe cially for undocumented immigrants).
According to the Richmond City Attorney’s office, there are cur rently four open claims related to fair housing and civil rights violations against the Richmond Housing Authority.
Residents and community-based organizations have shed additiona l light on the kinds of fair housing issues that residents encounter most often. These forms of discrimination are discussed below.
Discrimination Against Residents of Color
Many forms of private discrimi nation persist against residents of color. In 2011, Fair Housing of Marin (now known as Fair Housing Advocates of Northern Californ ia, or FHANC) worked with BALA to conduct fair housing testing via phone across the Marin a Bay, Point Richmond, Richmond Annex, and Hilltop neighborhoods. When White testers a nd Black/African American testers called 20 housing providers who had posted rental adver tisements on Craigslist, there was considerable differential treatment in favor of White teste rs in 55 percent of calls (C4 et al., 2019).
In addition, there have neem several cases of litigation over banks’ alleged discrimination in their treatment of foreclosed homes during the Great Recession. In 20 16, FHANC, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), and 19 local fair housing organization s across the nation filed a law against Fannie Mae, alleging that Fannie Mae had maintained and marketed foreclosed homes in predominantly White neighborhoods while allowing similar hom es in Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods across the country, including in Richmond, to fall into disrepair. The lawsuit argued that this differential treatment exacerbated the damage caused by the 2008 mortgage crisis and slowed economic recovery in neighb orhoods of color (C4 et al., 2019). In 2022, a $53 million settlement agreement was reached with Fannie Mae. Additionally, in an unresolved case that was filed in 2017, FHANC, NFHA, and 18 local fair housing organizations sued Deutsche Bank for intentionally failing to maintain foreclosed homes in middle- and working-class Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods in 30 metropolitan areas across the country, including Richmond (C4 et al., 2019).
There also exists large racial disparities in mortgage loan app roval rates (Table F-3). Data from 2018-2019 shows that, among Richmond residents who applied for a mortgage, financial institutions approved 64 percent of White applicants’ loans. Ap proval rates for Native American residents were the lowest of any racial or ethnic group (38 per cent). Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx applicants also had lower rates of loan approval than White applicants (51 percent and 52 percent, respectively). Approval rates for Asian America n or Pacific Islander (AAPI) applicants were around the middle of this range (57 percent). During community engagement, several residents expressed how unfair it is to be rejected for loans when they meet standard requirements.
F-22 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-3: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, Richmond (2018-2019) Racial/Ethnic Group2 Total Applications Percent of Total Applications by Race Rate of Loan Approval
AAPI 885 18. 5% 57.4%
Black/African American 616 12.9% 50.6%
Hispanic/Latinx 1,123 23.4% 51.6%
Native American* 21 0.4% 38.1%
White 1,065 22.2% 64.4%
Notes: “Loan approval” is based on rates of loan origination, meaning that the application was accepted and a loan was made by a financial institution to the applicant.
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files.
Additionally, BALA noted that more of their Richmond cases are related to disability-based discrimination than race because racial discrimination is harde r to prove, both from the victim’s perspective and from a legal perspective. BALA also noted that there is racial disparity in habitability cases (cases related to housing quality) in Richmo nd and that landlords tend to be more amenable to addressing issues with White tenants than with tenants of color.
Discrimination Based on Disability
In interviews with BALA and CCSLS, both noted that most of their cases across the Bay Area are focused on people with disabilities and involve reasonable acco mmodation requests. However, BALA said that landlords tend to be more willing to resolve issues with non-disabled tenants than with disabled tenants. Additionally, RCEB noted that landlord d iscrimination is a challenge for people with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs). And in 2017, RHA settled in a conciliation agreement with a disabled resident who filed a complaint with HUD after RHA refused to grant their reasonable accommodations request and te rminated their Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher.
Source of Income Discrimination
In 2020, State legislation made it illegal to discriminate based on source of income (SOI), meaning landlords cannot refuse to rent to people using a government housing subsidy from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, the HUD VASH program, Homelessn ess Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Programs, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, and security deposit assistance programs. However, BALA, CCSLS, the Othering & Belon ging Institute, and the
2 Except for the “Hispanic/Latinx” category, all analysis of rac ial and ethnic groups throughout this report includes only non-Hispanic members of that group.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-23
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) all emphasized that landlord discrimination against voucher holders persists despite existing protections.
SOI discrimination may continue because landlords are unaware o f the new state law. For example, a sample review of Richmond rental housing advertiseme nts on Craigslist in August 2022 found that six housing units specify “No Section 8” in the listing (Craigslist, 2022). Moreover, in an interview, the Community Development Department noted tha t the City does not have the capacity to investigate SOI discrimination, meaning the landlords of the six units noted above may never be corrected. In addition, HACCC explained that landlords find creative ways to discriminate against voucher holders, such as refusing to accept an applicat ion because it is an hour late or setting high standards on the application, such as strict credit score cut-offs, that voucher holders are unlikely to be able to meet (Contra Costa Consortium et al., 2019).
Discrimination Against Formerly Incarcerated Residents
Richmond’s Fair Chance Housing law limits landlords’ ability to ask about and use arrest and conviction records in housing decisions. The current law only a pplies to publicly subsidized housing providers and allows them to conduct a criminal background check at a later point in the housing application review process.
Formerly incarcerated residents are disproportionately Black/Af rican American and Hispanic/Latinx, so many also face racial discrimination in their housing search. In a Safe Return Project survey of Richmond residents returning home from incarceration, one in four respondents said they had tried to obtain public housing or a lease on the private market but were unsuccessful (Safe Return Project, 2014). 3 The City is currently revisiti ng its Fair Chance Housing polic y to expand it beyond its current limitations to potentially align w ith the recent Fair Chance Housing laws enacted in the cities of Seattle, Oakland, and Berkeley.
Discrimination Against Undocumented Residents
Many residents discussed pervasi ve housing discrimination again st undocumented residents.
They shared that undocumented residents experience exclusion from rental housing opportunities because rental housing applications require a Social Security N umber (SSN), which they do not have, instead of the form of identification they are more likel y to have, an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Residents also experience discrimination when seeking to purchase homes. For example, one resident shared that in 2007, she was initially offered a low interest rate on a mortgage, but once she shared that she only had an ITIN, n ot an SSN, the interest rate doubled, and the amount of the required down payment increased.
Additionally, residents shared that undocumented residents cont inue to face discrimination from landlords even after they find housing because landlords know that undocumented residents have little leverage to fight back. As a result, undocumented tenant s may stay quiet about housing
3 This study took place before the City of Richmond passed its current Fair Chance Housing Ordinance in 2019.
F-24 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g habitability issues and do repairs themselves because they fear eviction. BALA noted an increase in discrimination against monolingual Spanish speaking tenants, who make up a disproportionate percentage of the undocumented population.
Discrimination Against LGBTQ+ Residents
While data is not available at the local level, research suggests that Richmond residents who are LGBTQ+ face housing discrimination. According to an Urban Insti tute study, gay men and transgender couples face discrimination in the housing search p rocess, even in states with anti- discrimination protections. The study found that housing provid ers were less likely to make an appointment with gay male couples, less likely to inform them of available units, and quoted them higher rents. Housing providers also told transgender testers about fewer available units (Levy et al, 2017). Another study explored discrimination against same-s ex couples responding to online rental ads and found that same-sex couples received fewer respo nses to email inquiries about available units (Friedman et al, 2013). Finally, research has f ound evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples by mortgage lenders. One study found that, compared to different-sex borrowers of similar profiles, same-sex borrowers had a loan approval rate that was 3 to 8 percent lower and were also charged higher interest and/or fees among a pproved loans (Sun and Gao, 2019).
Landlord Harassment
Despite Richmond’s new Tenant Anti-Harassment Law, many residen ts reported that landlord abuse continues to be a major issue in their lives. In particu lar, tenants living in rent-controlled units said their landlords tried to push them out in order to i ncrease rent (under the state Costa Hawkins law, landlords can reset the rental rate on rent-contro lled units when they become vacant). Many residents said they felt taken advantage of by their landlords and that they are not fully aware of their rights or how to address harassment issues through City processes.
Section F.4 Patterns of Integration and Segregation
Addressing segregation, defined as the separation of demographi c groups into different geographic areas, is at the core of the AFFH mandate. As discussed in Section F.2, a long history of discrimination has produced segregated neighborhoods where r esidents have less access to highly-rated schools, good jobs, green space, public safety, and other services and amenities that create opportunities for upward mobility, educational attainmen t, higher lifetime earnings, and lower mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren, 2018; Sharkey, 2013). Additionally, physical and also psychological separation of residents by race/ethnicity and income creates power imbalances and divisions between groups that make it harder to collectively address inequities.
Key findings include:
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-25
● Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and low-income people are concentrated in Richmond relative to the surrounding region.
● Within Richmond, neighborhoods are largely segregated by race and income, with Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and low-income residen ts more likely to live in central and southern Richmond, and AAPI, White, and higher-income residents more likely to live on the outskirts of Richmond in areas bordering higher-income cities. ● Segregation of Black/African American residents has declined o ver time as many have been displaced from Richmond.
F.4.1 Race and Ethnicity
Richmond’s demographics differ considerably from the Bay Area’s and have shifted over time. As Table F-4 shows, in 2019 Richmond had a far lower percentage of White and AAPI residents and a far higher percentage of Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African Am erican residents than the Bay Area as a whole. Additionally, between 2000 and 2019, Richmond’s racial demographics changed considerably. The percent of residents in Richmond who identify as Black/African American decreased by 17.5 (37% to 19.5%), and who identify as White decreased by 4.2 (22% to 17.8%), while who identify as Hispanic/Latinx increased by 15.1 (27.4% to 42.5%). The share of the population who identify as AAPI grew by 2.4 percent, but this m asks important differences by subgroup. In particular, between 2010 and 2015, the number of L aotian residents decreased by 54 percent, from 2,486 to 1,134, and the number of Asian Indian residents decreased by 49 percent, from 1,930 to 979 (ACS 5-Year Data, Table B01003).4 Areas of Richmond that have a predominant race or ethnicity can be seen on Figure F-4, which demonstrates patterns of segregation throughout the City by highlighting the racial/ethnic groups with the biggest share of the population in a given area. Black /African American residents live predominantly (over 50 percent) or sizeably (between 10 and 50 percent) in the neighborhoods south of Barret Avenue, Hilltop Village and Fairmede Hilltop. H ispanic/Latinx residents live predominantly in central Richmond neighborhoods, Parchester Vil lage, and the Hilltop District.
Additionally, White residents liv e predominantly in Point Richm ond, and a slim (less than 10 percent) or sizable gap in the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods.
4 Margins of error for population estimates for Laotian and Asia n Indian residents are large due to small sample sizes. As a result, estimates may be inaccurate. However, this data confirms the story that residents and community groups told about displacement of Laotians from Richmond.
F-26 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-4: Population by Racial Group, Richmond and the Region Richmond Contra Costa
County Bay Area
Race 2000 2019 %
Growth 2019 2019
AAPI 12,553 13.1% 17,073 15.5% +36.0% 193,534 17.0% 2,055,319 26.7% Black/Afr
ican
America
n
35,279 37.0% 21,465 19.5% -39.2% 95,892 8.4% 448,177 5.8% Hispanic
/Latinx 26,319 27.4% 46,664 42.5% +77.3% 292,298 25.6% 1,814,366 23.5% Native
America
n
351 0.4% 324 0.3% -7.7% 2,278 0.2% 18,088 0.2%
White 21,081 22.0% 19,569 17.8% -7.2% 500,592 43.8% 3,026,740 39.3% Other
Race or
Multiraci
al
400 0.4% 4,787 4.4% +1,096.8
% 57,657 5.1% 347,336 4.5%
Source: ABAG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-27
Figure F-4: Racial Predominance
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-28 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g
Neighborhood and Regional Racial Segregation
Segregation is measured according to the distribution of racial and ethnic groups across neighborhoods or cities. For example, a city or region is segre gated if it has high percentages of a specific race/ethnicity concentrated in one area and low percentages throughout the rest of the city. Figure F-5 offers a visual representation of where racial and ethnic groups live within Richmond, with the clustering of different colored dots in diff erent parts of the City indicating segregation. Figure F-5 also includes racial segregation infor mation from the neighboring communities of Pinole, Hercules, North Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Albany, and Berkeley.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-29
Figure F-5: Racial Dot Map, Richmond (2020)
Note: 1 Dot= 75. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
Source: ABAG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2002 Census of Population and Housing Table P002. HUD Data Exchange AFFH Tool, 2020
F-30 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g As shown in Figure F-5, large numbers of Black/African American residents still live in the areas that were only allowed to them due to housing discrimination du ring the mid-1900s. Areas in Richmond with concentrated populations of Black/African America n residents include Parkview and Iron Triangle (Table F-5). Hispanic/Latinx residents largel y live in central Richmond neighborhoods, with the highest concentrations in Atchinson Vil lage, Belding/Woods and Iron Triangle. AAPI residents predominantly live in the Richmond Ann ex and Hilltop neighborhoods, while White residents are most likely to live on the edges of t he City, including Point Richmond, Marina Bay, and eastern Richmond. The majority Black/African Am erican and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods are separated from areas with higher concentratio ns of White residents by the I- 80 and I-580 freeways (Figure F-5). Regionally, Richmond, Oakland, and southern San Francisco are predominantly Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx, while areas around Berkeley, San Francisco, San Rafael, and Walnut Creek are predominantly White.
Table F-5: Richmond Neighborhood Summary by Race and Income, 2020 Predominant Racial or Ethnic
Group(s)
Percent Low- to Moderate-Income
Population Neighborhoods
Asian American and Pacific Islander
(AAPI)
<25% Carriage Hills North, Carriage Hills
South, Greenbriar
25%-50% Hilltop Green, Hilltop Village
Black/African American
25%-50% Eastshore
50%-75% Parkview
Hispanic/Latinx 50%-75% Atchison Village, Belding/Woods White
25%-50% Point Richmond, Southwest Annex,
Greenridge Heights, Quail Hill
50%-75% Panhandle Annex
AAPI and White
<25%
El Sobrante Hills, May Valley
(western portion), Richmond
Heights (eastern portion)
25%-50%
Marina Bay, May Valley (eastern
portion)
Richmond Heights (western portion)
50%-75% Richmond Annex
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-31
Black/African American and AAPI 25%-50% Fairmede/Hilltop Black/African American and
Hispanic/Latinx
25%-50%
Coronado (southern portion),
Cortez/Stege (southern portion),
Parchester Village
50%-75%
Coronado (northern portion),
Cortez/Stege (northern portion),
Laurel Park, Pullman, Richmore
Village/Metro Square, Santa Fe,
Shields-Reid
>75% Iron Triangle
Hispanic/Latinx and White
25%-50% North and East (eastern and
northeastern portions)
50%-75% North and East (southwestern
portion), Park Plaza
Notes: Analysis is based on the census tract that the neighborhood is located in.
Source: ABAG analysis of 2020 U.S. Census Bureau data (predominant racial/ethnic group); HCD AFFH Data Viewer (low- to moderate-income population).
A method to measure segregation is the dissimilarity index (DI), which HCD requires jurisdictions to use in their analysis. The DI measures how any two groups are distributed across a geographic area. The DI score can range from 0 to 1, and can be interpreted as the percentage of one group that would have to move across neighborhoods to be distributed the same way as the second group to create perfect integration for these two groups. A score of 0 indicates conditions of total integration under which both groups are distributed in the same proportion across all areas, while 1 indicates conditions of total segregation. Although the DI va lues measure the level of segregation in Richmond between White residents and residents who are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, or AAPI, this measurement may be interpreted as problematic because it makes proximity to White people the standard against which segregation is measured.
Table F-6 shows DI values for Richmond and the Bay Area across three time periods. In 2020, Richmond had the highest amount of segregation between Black/Af rican American and White residents (0.50), followed by Hispanic/Latinx and White residen ts (0.48). The DI scores of 0.50 and 0.48 mean that 50 percent of Black/African American residen ts and 48 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents would need to move across neighborhoo ds to be proportionally represented geographically within the community. In the Bay Are a, Black/African American and White residents have a similar score to Richmond (0.46), while Hispanic/Latinx and White Residents are less segregated than in Richmond (0.30). In Richm ond, AAPI residents have a
F-32 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g score of 0.27 indicating that they are more evenly distributed than in the Bay Area where they have a higher score of 0.37.
Patterns of segregation have changed over time in Richmond and the Bay Area. Black/African American residents have become slightly less segregated from Wh ite residents, while AAPI residents have become more segregated in Richmond but remained relatively the same in the Bay Area. Segregation of Hispanic/Latinx residents has remained relatively the same in Richmond and the Bay Area. The decline of Black/African American segrega tion in Richmond follows the larger Bay Area trend, which is driven by outmigration of Black /African American people from historically Black/African American neighborhoods in Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco toward suburban cities that have historically had more heavily White populations and in-migration of other groups (C4 et al., 2019).
Table F-6: Racial Dissimilarity Index (DI) Values for Segregation, Richmond Richmond Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2010 2020
AAPI vs. White 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.38 0.37
Black/African
American vs.
White
0.55 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.46
Hispanic/Latinx
vs. White 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.30 0.30
People of Color
vs. White 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.30 0.29
Source: ABAG analysis of IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) U.S. Census Bureau data and ABAG/MTC UC Merced Segregation Report
Another way to measure segregation is the Isolation Index (II), as required by HCD, which identifies the likelihood that a person lives around others of their same racial or ethnic group. The II score can range from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate a particular racial or ethnic group is more isolated from other groups. In Richmond, Hispanic/Latinx r esidents have a score of 0.54, which means that the average Hispanic/Latinx resident lives in a neighborhood that is 54 percent Hispanic/Latinx (Table F-7). Hispanic/Latinx residents have the highest II of any racial group in Richmond, meaning they are the least likely to live around othe r racial groups in their neighborhoods. In the Bay Area, White residents have the highest score (0.43) among racial and ethnic groups, followed by AAPI residents (0.38), which means that they are the least likely to live around other racial and ethnic groups.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-33
Table F-7: Racial Isolation Index (II) Values for Segregation, Richmond Richmond Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2010 2020
AAPI 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.32 0.38
Black/African
American 0.45 0.32 0.24 0.14 0.12
Hispanic/Latinx 0.36 0.49 0.54 0.28 0.29
White 0.37 0.32 0.29 0.50 0.43
Source: ABAG analysis of IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) U.S. Census Bureau data.
In Richmond, between 2000 and 2020, segregation declined for Black/African American residents (whose average neighborhood changed from 45 percent to 24) and for White residents (37 percent to 29 percent). However, segregation increased for Hispanic/Latinx residents (36 percent to 54 percent) and for AAPI residents (16 percent to 21 percent ). In the Bay Area, II scores for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents have remai ned relatively the same since 2010, while scores for White residents decreased and scores for AAPI residents increased. In comparison to the Bay Area, II scores indicate that Black/Afric an American and Hispanic/Latinx residents are more segregated in Richmond, while White and AAPI Richmond residents are less segregated.
F.4.2 Income Status
Median household incomes in Richmond are considerably lower tha n Contra Costa County. For example, in 2020 the median household income in Richmond was $7 2,463 while the median household income for Contra Costa County was $103,997 (Table F- 8). From 2010 to 2015, the median household income in Richmond only rose slightly, by two percent, matching similarly slow countywide trends. Incomes grew rapidly in Richmond between 2015 and 2020, where the median household income increased by 32 percent from $55,102 to $72,46 3. This slightly outpaced countywide trends, where median income increased by 30 percent.
F-34 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-8: Median Household Income (2010, 2015, 2020)
Geography 2010 2015 2020
Richmond $54,012 $55,102 $72,463
Contra Costa County $78,385 $80,185 $103,997
Source: ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2016-2020), Table B19013.
The distribution of households in each category of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI), as shown in Table F-9, reveals the existence of income disparit ies in Richmond, with over 35 percent of households earning less than half the median income of the County and over 38 percent earning more than the median. Between 2010 and 2018 the distribution of households in each income category stayed relatively consistent. Therefore, it appears that as Richmond’s population changed from 2010 to 2018, it is likely that new Ric hmond residents include similar numbers of low-income residents and higher income earners. These new high-income residents are possibly drawn to Richmond by lower housing prices relative to other Bay Area cities. In addition, a large portion of low-income residents are likely Hi spanic/Latinx due to displacement from more expensive cities in the Bay Area as suggested through interviews with community- based organizations and residents (Section F.6.3).
In comparison to the Bay Area, Richmond had a far higher share of very-low income households (35 percent vs. 23 percent) and a far lower share of households with incomes above median income (38 percent vs. 55 percent). Figure-6 shows that househ olds that make more than the State’s Median Household Income of $87,100 live throughout Rich mond, however, households with incomes higher than $125,000 are concentrated in Point Ric hmond, Marina Bay, Hilltop neighborhoods, and El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-35
Table F-9: Households by Income Level (2010-2018)
Income Group Richmond Bay Area
Year 2010 2018 2010 2018
<50% HAMFI 33.1% 35.4% 24.3% 23.7%
50%-80% HAMFI 17.1% 14.9% 13.8% 12.3%
80%-100% HAMFI 11.8% 11.2% 9.4% 8.7%
>100% HAMFI 37.9% 38.4% 52.6% 55.3%
Notes: HAMFI is calculated based on median family income in Contra Costa County. HAMFI includes only households with related family members, whereas AMI includes all households.
Contra Costa County Median Family Income for 2014-2018 was $93,712 Source: Just Cities analysis of HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, 2006-2010 and 2014- 2018.
F-36 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-6: Median Household Income, Richmond 2015-2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-37
Figure F-6 shows Richmond neighborhoods with the highest concen tration of low to moderate income households (less than 120 percent AMI). These include th e Iron Triangle, with over 75 percent of households that are low to moderate income, and all of Central Richmond and areas of Richmond Annex east of I-580, where most neighborhoods are over 50 percent low to moderate income. These neighborhoods also have higher percentages of Bla ck/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents (see Figure F-4). Areas with the lowest concentration of low to moderate income households include Point Richmond, El Sobrante Hills nei ghborhoods, and south of Richmond Heights, where less than 25 percent of residents have low to moderate incomes. These neighborhoods are predominantly White and A/API. In contrast, t he adjacent cities of Tara Hills and El Cerrito have a low concentration (below 50 percent) of L ow to Moderate Income households. Notably, AAPI residents are the predominant populat ion in Tara Hills and White residents in El Cerrito (see Figure F-4).
For Figure F-6, HCD requires the use of regional median income in determining “low to moderate income” status, rather than Richmond median income. Since Richmond median income ($55,102 in 2015) is considerably lower than regional median income ($92,900 in 2015), from a Richmond resident perspective, this map may overstate areas with low to moderate income households.
F-38 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-7: Low to Moderate Income Population, Richmond (2011-2015) Note: Low- to moderate- income is based on Area Median Income (AMI includes all households, whereas HAMFI only includes family households)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-39
Income segregation across Richmond can be measured using the di ssimilarity and isolation indices, applied to income groups. As shown in Table F-10, betw een 2010 and 2015 citywide income segregation increased slightly, between households consi dered at or below low income (< 80% AMI) and the rest of Richmond (> 80% AMI), and also slig htly increased between households at or below very low income (< 50%) and those at or above high income (> 120% of AMI). Additionally, in 2015, income segregation between these g roups was much higher in Richmond than the average of all Bay Area communities.
Table F-10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values, Richmond Richmond Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs Above 80% AMI 0.30 0.33 0.20
Below 50% AMI vs Above 120% AMI 0.43 0.46 0.25
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data (2006-2010 and 2011-2015).
The II values for each income group also demonstrate the level of segregation based on income level in Richmond. As shown in Table F-11, very low-income hous eholds are by far the most segregated group in Richmond, with the average very low-income household living in a neighborhood where 49 percent of households are also very-low i ncome. Additionally, very-low income households are the only income group in Richmond to become more segregated between 2010 and 2015, with an II score increase of 0.8, while all othe r group decreased slightly. In comparison to the average for the Bay Area, very low-income hou seholds in Richmond are far more segregated (0.27 and 0.49 respectively), and above-moderat e households are much less segregated (0.51 and 0.33 respectively).
F-40 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-11: Income Group Isolation Index Values, Richmond Richmond Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50%) 0.41 0.49 0.27
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.19 0.18 0.15
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.24 0.19 0.18
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.35 0.33 0.51
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data (2006-2010 and 2011-2015).
F.4.3 Disability Status
The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as one of the followi ng: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-c are difficulty, and independent living difficulty. As shown in Table F-12, 12.6 percent of Richmond residents have a disability, which is slightly higher than that of the County (11.2 percent) and the Bay Area (9.6 percent). Additionally, Table F-12 shows a slight increase in the percent of Richmond r esidents who have a disability between 5-year periods of 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. Figure F-8 shows the population of persons with a disability by census tract in Richmond from 2015-2019. T he map reveals that most areas of Richmond have between 10 and 20 percent of their population living with a disability. There are slightly lower concentrations of residents with disabilities in Richmond Heights, Point Richmond, Richmond Annex, and the eastern neighborhoods of Castro Heights and Carriage Hills South, areas with higher percentages of White, AAPI, and high-income residents. However, the disability rate is also under 10 percent in the southeastern part of the Belding/Woods neighborhood, where many lower-income and Hispanic/Latinx residents live. Similarly, 10 to 20 percent of residents in adjacent cities also have disabilities.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-41
Table F-12: Population by Disability Status, Richmond (2010-2019) Percent with a Disability
Geography 2010-2014 2015-2019
Richmond 10.5% 12.6%
Contra Costa County 10.4% 11.2%
Bay Area 9.2% 9.6%
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2010-2014), (2015-2019), Table B18101.
F-42 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-8: Population with a Disability, Richmond (2015-2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-43
The level of segregation for people with disabilities can also be measured by the type of residential setting. A segregated residential setting only includes people with disabilities, and an integrated setting has a mix of people with and without disabilities. In g eneral, home and independent/supported living settings tend to be the most integ rated residential setting, institutions and medical/rehabilitation/psychiatric settings ar e the most segregated, and community care facilities fall somewhere in the middle (C4 et al., 2019).
The majority of California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) clients (93 percent) live in home or independent/supported living settings, which are relatively integrated (Figure F-8). This may be due to DDS’s prioritization of integrated residential se ttings through a requirement that funded housing units must be in a development where less than 25 percent of units are for people with disabilities.
F.4.4 Familial Status
The Fair Housing Act (FHA), also bans discrimination based on "familial status." The FHA defines familial status discrimination as when someone is treated diffe rently by a landlord, property manager, real estate agent, or property owner treats because th ey are part of a family with one or more individuals who are under 18 years of age.
Richmond has a smaller share of married-couple family households (42 percent) than the County (55 percent) and the Bay Area (51 percent). 5 Areas of the City where children are less likely to live in married couple households are concentrated in the southeastern section of the City (Figure F-9) between I-580 and I-80, where less than 40 percent of chil dren live in married-couple households. Areas where children are more likely to live in mar ried couple households include Central Richmond, Point Richmond, Hilltop, and the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods. In the neighboring cities of North Richmond, San Pablo and Tara Hills, 20 to 40 percent of children live in households with married couples. In contrast, in most parts of El Cerrito, 80 percent of children live in married couple households.
Richmond has a higher percentage of both single female-headed and single male-headed family households (24.7 percent combined) than the County (17.1 percen t) and the Bay Area (15.2 percent). As Table F-13 shows, most of these households in Richmond are female-headed (17.4 percent). Figure F-9 shows that areas with the highest concentr ations of children living in non- married couple households are in the southeastern portion of the City between I-580 and I-80.
5 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5‐Year Data (2015‐2019), Table B11001
F-44 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-13: Familial Status (2015-2019)
Geography Female-
headed Family
Households
Male-
headed Family
Households
Married-
couple Family
Households
Single-person
Households
Other Non-
family
Households
Richmond 6,470 17.4% 2,712 7.3% 15,726 42.4% 9,414 25.4% 2,766 7.5% Contra
Costa
County
48,256 12.2% 19,180 4.9% 217,370 55.1% 86,232 21.8% 23,731 6.0% Bay Area 283,77
0 10.4% 131,105 4.8% 1,399,71
4 51.2% 674,58
7 24.7% 242,25
8 8.9%
Notes: 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 analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-45
Figure F-9: Children Living in Married-Couple Households, Richmond (2015-2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-46 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g F.4.5 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty or Affluence Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) and racially or ethnically concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) contribute to patterns of segregation by hindering mobility out of low-income neighborhoods and into higher-income neighborhoods. While there are no areas of Richmond that meet the official definition of a R/E CAP, there are areas that come close to meeting the definition.
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) R/ECAPs represent the cumulative effects of discrimination against people of color, and therefore deserve special attention. HUD defines a R/ECAP as a census tra ct with a majority non-White population and where 40 percent or more of individuals live at or below the federal poverty level, which was $27,750 for a family of four in 2022. Based on this definition, there are no R/ECAPs in Richmond in 2013. However, standards like R/ECAPs that utilize the federal poverty level, which does not account for geographic differences in housing costs an d incomes, are not accurate indicators of community conditions and needs in Richmond. Relatively few residents of Richmond have incomes below the federal poverty level, due to a higher c ost of living that drives higher incomes throughout the City and the rest of the Bay Area. As di scussed in Section F.4.2, 35 percent of all Richmond residents are very-low income, which is a designation that accounts for local median income levels and costs of living (Table F-9).
Several areas in Richmond come close to meeting the definition of a R/ECAP. According to 2015- 2019 ACS data, areas with the highest concentration of poverty in Richmond have a poverty rate between 20 and 30 percent (Figure F-10). The neighborhoods in t his category that also have a majority non-White population (see Figure F-4), and therefore are close to meeting the criteria of a R/ECAP include the Iron Triangle, Atchinson Village, Santa Fe, Coronado, Pullman, Park Plaza, Metro Square, Richmore Village/Metro Square, and Shields-Reid. Additionally, there is one R/ECAP adjacent to Richmond, north of the North & East neighbor hood in the City of San Pablo (see Figure F-4).
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-47
Figure F-10: Poverty Status
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-48 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Richmond has the potential for R/ECAPS to emerge in the future, which could be influenced by the following two factors:
Lack of City institutional capacity and funding for aggressive housing and community revitalization strategies. From 1945 to 2012, California had local redevelopment agencies (RDAs), which were designed to revitalize blighted neighborhood s and devoted 20 percent of allocated tax increment financing funds to affordable housing. Before the Great Recession of the late 2000s, the Richmond RDA was involved in the development of multifamily housing and below market rate housing for first-time homebuyers and other homeownership assistance programs, in addition to other non-housing investment projects (C4 et al., 2 019). In response to state budget concerns, then Governor Jerry Brown dissolved all RDAs in 2012, severely constraining local capacity to invest in housing and community revitalization initiatives in Richmond. In addition, due to past RHA management issues, the County currently administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs and HUD entitlement funding, including Communi ty Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME grants, for Richmond. The RHA has been e ngaging in disposition of its housing projects to nonprofit affordable housing developers and is currently in the disposition process of its remaining three housing projects.
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)’s funding formula disadvantages new housing in low-income neighborhoods. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), combined with local funding contributions, are the main source of funding for affordable housing.
The allocation of LIHTC credits to a potential housing project is based on various criteria determined by TCAC. In 2021, HCD, adopted changes to the criter ia to favor projects located in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (see Section F-5 Acces s to Opportunities) as designated by TCAC (California Treasurer, 2020). The changes to the criteria are intended to increase integration by incentivizing new housing in higher opportunity areas, but these changes potentially have the unintended effect of disincentivizing new housing in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty that are in severe need of additional hous ing investments. These changes may also have a negative impact on housing investments in Richm ond since there are no areas of the City that qualify as an area of High or Highest Resource (see Figure F-13).
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
Equally deserving of attention but less considered by public policy are racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs). Although HCD has not decided on a final m ethodology to define RCAAs, these areas are generally accepted as neighborhoods with both h igh concentrations of White residents and high household incomes. While the most recent HCD data does not officially recognize any RCCAs in Richmond, this may be attributed to use of regional census tract data rather than a local understanding of conditions. In Richmond, areas that are predominantly White are located in Point Richmond, Richmond Heights, and El Sobrant e Hills neighborhoods (see Figure F-4). These areas also have census block groups with median household incomes above $125,000 (see Figure F-6), which is almost 60 percent more than the citywide median income of $72,463.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-49
F.4.6 Location of Affordable Housing
The majority of affordable housing in Richmond is located in lo w-income neighborhoods, which contributes to patterns of segregation and concentrated poverty . While it is important to place affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods to meet the needs of low-income residents who cannot or do not want to leave their community, over-concentrat ing affordable housing in low- income neighborhoods makes it difficult for low-income resident s to access opportunities found in higher-income neighborhoods.
According to the Rent Program, over 20 percent of Richmond’s rental housing stock is considered “affordable housing." This includes approximately 2,925 units built with LIHTC and 789 units that receive HUD Project-Based Rental Assistance (Richmond Rent Program, 2021). As of July 2022, the City’s affordable housing stock also includes 1,739 households with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), with 558 landlords participating in the HCV program (HA CCC, 2022). Many units are under multiple affordable housing programs, for example, over h alf the City's LIHTC units also receive HUD subsidies (Richmond Rent Program, 2021).6
Affordable housing is predominantly concentrated in the lower-i ncome areas along MacArthur Blvd in Atchison Village, the Iron Triangle, Richmore Village/Metro Square, and along Cutting Blvd in southern Richmond (Figure F-11). These areas all have a median household income below the state median (see Figure F-6), and also align with the potentia l R/ECAP areas identified in this section. In Contra Costa County, affordable housing developments are most heavily concentrated in and around Richmond and Pittsbur g, which have higher percent ages of low-income, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latinx residents than othe r cities in the County (C4 et al., 2019). As one resident expressed during community engagement, “Any time there is new [affordable] housing being built, it is in the poorer, less favorable areas, so people are kept in the same circle. Housing should be accessible all across Richmond, not just in a certain area.”
6 The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) took over management of the City’s HCVs from the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) in 2018. According to the City of Richmond Community Development Department, this occurred because RHA had been labe led by HUD as a “distressed” public housing authority due to poor performance and financial insolve ncy. Since then, RHA has narrowed its efforts to owning and managing the City’s public housing develo pments. However, RHA has approved conversion of all of its public housing developments under HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program over the last several years. RAD was designed to promote the long-term financial viability of public housing and allows public housing to be converted to private ow nership while ensuring long-term affordability through contracts with developers. RAD effectivel y converts public housing to project-based vouchers (PBVs, which are part of the HCV program). This means that public housing in Richmond will come under the purview of HACCC and it will no longer be owned or managed by RHA. The last two RHA public housing developments, Nevin Plaza and Nystrom Village, h ave received RAD funding and began renovation in 2017 (Bissell et al., 2018).
F-50 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-11: Affordable Housing Developments in Richmond (2021)
Source: City of Richmond Rent Program Fiscal Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 Annual Report.
Residents who receive HCVs are able to use them anywhere on the private market, but their use is often concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods. In Richmond, recipients of HCVs are most likely to use them in the Iron Triangle, Atchison Village, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Pullman, Park Plaza, and Fairmede/Hilltop neighborhoods (between 15 to 30 percent) (Figure F-12). All of these neighborhoods have high concentrations of Black/African A merican, Hispanic/Latinx, and low-income residents except Fair mede/Hilltop (see Figure F-4). The neighboring cities of San Pablo and North Richmond, have low concentrations of housing choice voucher use. Tara Hills is the neighboring city with the highest rate of housing choice vo ucher usage (between 30 to 60 percent).
Factors contributing to the low use of vouchers in high income neighborhoods include SOI discrimination and insufficient HCV value to cover the cost of housing, as noted in interviews with HACCC and the West Contra Costa Public Education Fund. HACCC ha s attempted to address this issue by increasing the maximum allowable rent for vouchers in more expensive areas in the central and west part of the County.
Additionally, inadequate search time can prevent HCV participan ts from finding housing in high- demand markets such as Contra Costa County, and especially in c ompetitive higher-income neighborhoods. HACCC currently issues new vouchers with a 90-day search limit and second- move vouchers with a 120-day search limit, and extensions are limited. While longer search times
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-51
may not be preferable for public housing authorities due to bud get and resource constraints, allowing additional search time could help promote integration (C4 et al., 2019). In addition to the tenant-based vouchers, HUD allows public housing authorities to use 20 percent of their HCV allocation as project-based vouchers (PBVs), which attach the rental subsidy to a specific private housing unit. According to HACCC, PBVs are a very promising too l for deconcentrating poverty, because vouchers can be attached to housing units in higher-inc ome neighborhoods. Per HACCC, nearly all vouchers currently being used in higher-income areas of the County are PBVs tied to units owned by a non-profit developer. However, out of the 23 properties in Contra Costa County where HACCC offers PBVs, 11 are currently in Richmond (HACCC, 2022). While this may address the housing needs of lower-income Richmond residents, the lack of distribution of PBVs across the County entrenches patterns of segregation.
F-52 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-12: Housing Choice Vouchers, Richmond (2015-2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-53
F.4.7 Integration and Segregation Additional Factors
In addition to the R/ECAPs, RCAAs, and the location of affordab le housing, several other key factors also contribute to patterns of segregation in Richmond. These include:
● Historic discrimination. As described in Section F.2, today’s patterns of segregation are the result of discriminatory practices such as racially restric tive covenants, blockbusting, and segregated public housing. While these practices are now illegal, their legacy persists in the form of racial wealth disparities that contribute to Bla ck/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents reduced ability to afford to live in higher-income neighborhoods in Richmond.
● Zoning and land use laws. The financial constraints of building affordable housing typically means that affordable housing is built as multifamily housing, but Richmond remains mostly zoned for single family residences and industria l use. Areas zoned for multifamily residences lie in the center of the City, near Carlson Boulevard, Nevin Avenue, Ohio Avenue, Roosevelt Avenue, and the western side of I-80, where higher percentages of low-income, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latinx resi dents live (C4 et al., 2019).
● Lack of access to opportunity in low-income neighborhoods. Residents of low- income neighborhoods often lack access to high-performing schoo ls, environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and good jobs that promote upward econom ic mobility (Section F.5). This perpetuates poverty in low-income neighborhoods and makes it more difficult for low-income residents to move out of areas of concentrated poverty. ● Funding constraints. In an interview, the City Community Development Department explained that federal and state funding sources often come wit h requirements that they be used solely for housing unhoused or very-low income resident s, which can make it hard to create mixed-income, integrated housing.
Section F.5 Access to Opportunity
Where residents live can often determine their access to opportunities, including high-performing schools, good-paying jobs, clean air, and efficient public tran sportation. Furthermore, affordable housing is disproportionately located in low-opportunity areas, reinforcing concentration of poverty and patterns of segregation. HUD, HCD, and TCAC have cr eated methodologies to measure access to opportunities throughout California to identi fy these areas of low access to opportunity, or to examine patterns of discrimination and segregation in regards to opportunities.
However, current State policy that utilize TCAC indices in ways that discriminate against affordable housing projects in areas deemed “low-opportunity” ( such as the lack of access to grocery stores, better public schools, and major transit hubs), reinforce the legacy of racial discrimination against these neighborhoods. Instead, State pol icy should support both funding
F-54 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g for affordable housing in higher resource areas, and also in low income neighborhoods that people call home.
For this assessment, HCD’s TCAC Opportunity Indices are used in conjunction with data from local agencies and insights from community engagement activitie s. TCAC Opportunity Indices utilize educational, economic, and environmental data to assess “access to opportunity.” Economic indicators include: proportion of the population below 200% of the federal poverty limit, percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above, number of jobs filled by workers with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a given radius, and median home value. TCAC indicators of environmental opportunity consider common pollutants using C alEnviroScreen 3.0 data.
Educational indicators are explained in greater detail in F.5.2. Together, the composite scores are used to categorize neighborhoods into “Low,” “Moderate,” and “High” resource areas.
Key findings include:
● According to the TCAC Opportunity Maps which applies economic , environmental, and educational indicators, as described above, nearly all of Richm ond falls into the “Low Resource” category and most of Richmond’s residents live in these neighborhoods. There are no neighborhoods that are considered “High Resource” in Richmond. White and then AAPI residents are more likely to live in “Moderate Resource” areas than are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Native American residents. Howev er, RAC members raised that several neighborhoods deemed “Low Resource,” are co nsidered by residents to be middle class areas.
● Housing and school segregation in Richmond and Contra Costa C ounty produce concentrated poverty in Richmond public schools that undermine student success and school performance.
● Relatively low levels of educational attainment among Richmon d residents and a lack of living wage jobs make it more difficult for residents to afford rent. ● High levels of pollution in Richmond negatively affect reside nts of all races and incomes. ● A lack of public transit in the higher-income neighborhoods o n the outskirts of Richmond may make it more difficult for low-income residents and people with disabilities to live in those areas.
F.5.1 Overall Access to Opportunity
As shown in Figure F-13, nearly all Richmond residents live in areas identified as Low Resource in terms of overall access to opportunity. The only area identified as Moderate Resource is in the far eastern portion of Richmond, which includes Richmond neighb orhoods of El Sobrante Hills, Greenbriar, Carriage Hills North and South, and Castro Heights. In terms of demographics, the “Moderate Resource” areas have predominantly White (39 percent) and AAPI (24 percent) residents (Table F-14) with household incomes greater than $125 ,000 (see Figure F-6). The “Moderate Resource” areas of Richmond make up a small geographic area and also account for
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-55
less than 10 percent of the total population of Richmond. The “ Low Resource” areas of the City, which encompass nearly all of Richmond, have demographics that are more representative of Richmond as a whole.
As noted above, RAC members raised that several neighborhoods HCD deemed “Low Resource,” such as Marina Bay or Point Richmond, are considered better-res ourced areas from Richmond resident perspectives. As described above, the TCAC indicators for defining an area as “Low Resource” includes economic, environmental, and educational ind icators. It may be that environmental issues are considerable factors in the “Low Resou rce” classification. The City is working on an Environmental Justice Element to help address these issues.
It is worth noting that the moderate resource areas in sub-area 2 extend to portions of Hercules, Martinez, Orinda, Pinole, and Berkeley. It may be possible that the majority of moderate resources highlighted are not located in Richmond. Regionally, Richmond, Antioch, and Pittsburg have the lowest overall levels of opportunity in Contra Costa County (C4 et al., 2019). The adjacent cities of North Richmond, San Pablo and Tara Hills are also low resour ce areas, while the City of El Cerrito has multiple moderate, high and highest resource access areas.
Table F-14: Racial Disparities in Access to Resource Areas, Richmond (2020) Asian
American and
Pacific
Islander
Black/African
American
Hispanic/Latinx Native
American
White Other Race
or Multiple
Races
Proportion
of Overall
Population
15% 18% 44% <1% 18% 9%
Low
Resource or
High
Segregation
and Poverty
Area
14,673 14% 20,132 19% 46,479 45% 330 <1% 17,565 17% 4,295 4% Moderate
Resource
Area
1,688 24% 674 10% 1,467 21% 12 <1% 2,766 39% 444 6%
High/
Highest
Resource
Area
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Source: Just Cities Analysis utilizing ABAG analysis of California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD) Opportunity Maps (2020); ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
F-56 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-13: TCAC Neighborhood Resource Levels, Richmond (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-57
F.5.2 Educational Opportunity
The TCAC Education Index indicates that access to proficient school opportunities throughout the City are not available, as all of Richmond scores under 0.5 (Figure F-14). This index is based on indicators for 3rd and 4th grade math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty. The Hilltop and El Sobrante Hills neighborhood s have the highest scores in the entire City (.33 and .40 respectively). These neighborhoods hav e median household incomes above $125,000, and the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods are pre dominantly White, while the Hilltop neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic/Latinx (see Fi gure F-3). The education opportunity score of the neighboring cities of North Richmond a nd San Pablo, education opportunity score is similar to a majority of Richmond’s score (less than .25). Further north east cities like Pinole and Hercules score a little higher than Rich mond (between .25 and 5) while El Cerrito Albany and Berkeley score higher than Richmond overall (.5 and higher).
F-58 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-14: TCAC Education Score, Richmond (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-59
It is important to note that academic achievement gaps are not the result of any inherent deficiencies of students of color, but rather a function of ine quitable access to educational opportunities. During community engagement events, parents and students expressed disappointment in the quality of Richmond public schools. Of th e 35 schools in the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) that are located in Rich mond, only eight are rated average (5/10) or higher on GreatSchools, a popular website tha t ranks schools according to a formula that accounts for student academic progress, college readiness, equity, and test scores.7.
Five of these higher-rated schools are charter schools located in the higher-income neighborhoods of Marina Bay and Hilltop District, which are home to higher percentages of White, AAPI, and higher-income families in comparison to the rest of Richmond. Additionally, all eight of those higher-rated schools are charter schools (GreatSchools, 2 022). Three of the eight higher- rated charter schools (Leadership Public Schools: Richmond, Ric hmond College Preparatory School, and Caliber Beta Academy) are located in lower-income neighborhoods, but low-income families are more likely to lack the time and information to na vigate complex charter school application processes (Knight, n.d.). In response to the low pe rformance of public schools, EdFund West and several students reported in interviews that some families in Richmond transfer their children to higher-performing public schools in other cities like El Cerrito or to private schools.
Richmond’s low TCAC Education Index scores are a result of several factors:
Housing segregation perpetuates educational inequities because where students live largely determines the quality of the school they can attend. As a resu lt of discriminatory policies and practices that have concentrated poverty in Richmond, low-incom e students are often placed in low performing schools and do not have the financial means to m ove to areas outside of Richmond that have higher-performing schools (Figure F-15). WCC USD school assignment zones further segregate low income students due to the way that these boundaries are drawn.
Additionally, as discussed above, HCV recipients cannot use their vouchers as a means to live in neighborhoods with higher-performing schools due to the high cost of housing in these areas.
7 WCCUSD serves the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Rich mond, and San Pablo and the unincorporated areas of Bayview-Montalvin Manor, East Richmond Heights, El Sobrante, Kensington, North Richmond, and Tara Hills.
F-60 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-15: Student Proximity to High-Performing Schools, Richmond (2015)
Source: HUD analysis of Great Schools (proficiency data, 2013-14); Common Core of Data (4th grade school addresses and enrollment, 2013-14); Maponics (attendance boundaries, 2016).
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-61
Housing instability among students. Housing instability has direct effects on academic success and school performance. Students who experience housing instabi lity are more likely to have a lower GPA, less likely to graduate from high school, and more likely to be chronically absent from school (Cunningham and MacDonald, 2012). Thus, high levels of o vercrowded households and housing cost burden in Richmond (see Figure F-26) serve as barr iers to student success.
Academic challenges are even more prevalent for unhoused students, which have increased from 908 students in 2010 to 1075 students in 2018 (KidsData, 2022). Unhoused students in WCCUSD receive services from the federal McKinney Vento program and fr om WCCUSD’s Families in Transition program. Additionally, the Richmond Rapid Response F und (R3F), which was formed as a wraparound initiative to meet the immediate and ongoing ne eds of the community during COVID-19 and beyond, is centering the intersection of housing, homelessness, and education as one of its focus areas.
Housing affordability challenges make it difficult to retain high-quality teachers. According to a WCCUSD survey, 70 percent of school employees who rent the ir homes have considered leaving because of high housing costs (C4 et al., 2019). To com bat this issue, in the 2020-2021 school year, the WCCUSD board increased teachers’ compensation by at least 10 percent, and Richmond’s teachers went from being the lowest paid to the high est paid in the County, which may help offset housing costs. (Davis, 2022).
Insufficient and inequitable school financing makes it more dif ficult to adequately serve students. WCCUSD is currently operating with a budget deficit of over $16 million and is expected to run out of funding during the 2023-2024 school year unless i t can make the appropriate cuts (Taub, 2022). California’s Proposition 13, which severely limit s property tax revenue for public services, including public education, has negatively impacted p er-pupil spending. As of 2018, California ranked 43rd of all states in per-pupil spending, whi ch negatively affects educational outcomes (Rancaño, 2018). Prior to the passage of Proposition 1 3 in 1978, California ranked among the highest in the nation regarding per-pupil spending and educational attainment.
Another factor that has contributed to WCCUSD’s budget constrai nts is the increase in charter school enrollment (8 percent in 2014 to 17 percent in 2019) (IT PI, 2019), which takes funding away from public schools. As a result, a study found that charter schools add $27.9 million a year to WCCUSD’s costs of running its non-charter schools, which amo unts to $978 less per year in per pupil funding (ITPI, 2019).
F.5.3 Economic Opportunity
Nearly all of Richmond is in the lowest category of economic ou tcomes according to the TCAC Economic Index, which includes indicators for poverty, percent of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree, employment, and distance from jobs. Only Point Richmond and the portion of Richmond Heights to the east of I-80 score in the top half of economic outcomes (Figure F-17), both of which have high percentages of higher-income White residents. The Economic Opportunity score of the neighboring City of El Cerrito (between .25 and .75) is higher than Richmond. Whereas the scores of adjacent cities - North Richmond, San Pablo and Tara Hills - are similar to the overall score of the City of Richmond (less than .25).
F-62 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-16: TCAC Economic Score, Richmond (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-63
Several factors contribute to the relatively low economic outcomes in Richmond. These include:
● A general shortage of employment opportunities . As shown in Figure F-17, there are fewer jobs in Richmond than occupied households (the jobs-household ratio is less than
1.0). In Contrast, there are more jobs in the Bay Area than occupied households (the jobs- household ratio nears 1.5). Additionally, employment only grew 17 percent in Richmond between 2010 and 2020, compared to 30 percent in the Bay Area ( City of Richmond, 2020b). During conversations with residents, many attributed th is discrepancy to the lasting economic fallout of the Great Recession.
Figure F-17: Jobs-Household Ratio (2002-2018)
Source: ABAG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Longit udinal Employer-Household Dynamics; Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) Files (Jobs) 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-S (Households). ● Low wages and growing wage inequality make it difficult to affo rd basic needs, including housing. The Richmond City Council voted in 2017 to raise the minimum wage to $15.44 by January 1, 2022. However, according to the Insigh t Center’s Family Needs Calculator, the wage needed for a single adult working full-tim e with an infant child to be self-sufficient in Contra Costa County in 2021 is $47.93 per ho ur (Insight Center 2021).
During interviews, residents stressed that they struggle to aff ord housing because their jobs do not pay living wages, and several mentioned having to w ork multiple jobs to pay rent. Additionally, between 2009 and 2017, most of the new jobs that opened in the East Bay were either very low-wage or very high-wage jobs. The incom e inequality generated by this type of economic growth contributes to the housing crisis by allowing higher-income residents to consistently outbid lower-income residents for ava ilable housing (Bissell et al., 2018).
F-64 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● Relatively low levels of educational attainment. Many Richmond residents likely do not qualify for available good-paying jobs because educational atta inment levels are considerably lower in Richmond than in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. More than one-fifth of Richmond residents have less than a high school degree, which is double the rate of the County and the Bay Area (Table F-15), partially because Richmond lacks adequate educational opportunities for its students (Section F.5.2). Without a high school degree, many residents can only acquire low-paying jobs that ma ke it difficult to pay for rent.
Table F-15: Educational Attainment (2019)
Education Level Richmond Contra Costa
County
Bay Area
Less than High School 21.6% 10.5% 11.2%
High School Graduate 21.2% 17.3% 15.9%
Some College 29.1% 29.9% 25.0%
Bachelor’s Degree 18.3% 26.3% 27.7%
Graduate Degree 10. 0% 16.1% 20.2%
Notes: Educational attainment is among population age 25+. High school graduate includes equivalency. Graduate school includes master’s, professional school, and doctorate degrees.
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B15003. ● Many residents live far away from available jobs. Living far away from available jobs can make finding employment more difficult due to increased tim e and transportation costs. According to the Jobs Proximity Index, which measures th e accessibility of a neighborhood as a function of its distance to all employment lo cations within the area, all of Richmond except Point Richmond and Marina Bay have low to mo derate proximity to jobs (Figure F-18). The areas that rank lowest include the lower-income neighborhoods of Richmore Village/Metro Square, Belding/Woods, and North and East neighborhoods, and the higher-income Richmond Heights, Hilltop District, Hilltop V illage, Fairmede/Hilltop, Hilltop Green, May Valley, El Sobrante Hills, and Greenbriar. A ccording to Figure F-18, the Job Proximity Score of neighboring cities - North Richmond, Tara Hills and parts of El Cerrito - is similar to that of lower-income neighborhoods of Richmond. However, the City of San Pablo's Job Proximity Score is the lowest of these cities.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-65
Figure F-18: Jobs Proximity Index, Richmond (2014-2017)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-66 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● High unemployment among some groups of residents. The unemployment rate among Black/African American and Native American residents and Multiracial residents is nearly twice that of Hispanic/Latinx and White residents, while the AAPI unemployment rate falls in the middle (Table F-16). The high Black/African American unemployment rate is the result of a variety of factors, including persistent hir ing discrimination against Black/African American people (Quillian et al. 2017).
Table F-16: Unemployment Rate by Race and Ethnicity (2019) Racial/Ethnic Group Richmond Contra Costa
County
Bay Area
Total Population 6.0% 5.3% 4.5%
AAPI 6.2% 4.2% 3.9%
Black/African
American
9.6% 10.5% 9.4%
Hispanic/Latinx 4.7% 6.0% 5.0%
White 4.4% 4.3% 4.0%
Native American 10.8% 8.5% 8.4%
Multiracial 11.2% 10.3% 6.0%
Some Other Race 4.4% 6.0% 4.7%
Notes: Unemployment rate is among people aged 16-64 in the civilian labor force.
Source: ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C23002.
Other groups also face higher unemployment rates and barriers t o employment. For example, the unemployment rate among disabled residents in Rich mond is 11 percent, which is nearly twice that of the overall unemployment rate of Richmond (ABAG, 2021).
Additionally, in a survey of Richmond residents who were releas ed from incarceration within the previous 3 to 18 months, 78 percent of respondents w ere unemployed, a rate that is nearly seven times that of the State (Safe Return Proje ct, 2014). Finally, undocumented residents cannot legally work, which forces them t o work in lower-paying jobs that lack benefits.
F.5.4 Access to Transportation
As Table F-17 shows, the vast majority of Richmond residents (77 percent) drive to work as their main mode of transportation. Only 12 percent use public transportation, and just two percent use active transportation as their main mode of transportation. How ever, these numbers may
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-67
underestimate usage of public transportation and active transportation if residents commute using a combination of transportation modes. This data demonstrates t he transportation needs of Richmond residents, although constraints may prevent some residents from using their preferred mode of transportation.
Table F-17: Commuting to Work, Richmond (2015-2020)
Residence Type Number
Car, truck, or van - drove alone 63.2%
Car, truck, or van - carpooled 13.7%
Public transportation 12.2%
Walked 1.6%
Bicycle 0.7%
Other means 0.7%
Worked at home 6.9%
Note: Universe includes workers 16 and over.
Source: Contra Costa Health Services analysis of ACS 5-Year Estimates (2015- 2020), Table S0801
Despite a heavy reliance on driving for commuting purposes, som e areas of Richmond have far lower rates of vehicle ownership than others. These areas inclu de the central Richmond neighborhoods of Iron Triangle, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Santa Fe, Coronado, and Cortez/Stege, and the southern Richmond neighborhoods between I -80 and I-580, including Laurel Park, Eastshore, and Southwest Annex (Figure F-20). All of these are low- to moderate- income areas (see Figure F-7). However, according to an intervi ew with the City of Richmond Transportation Department, these neighborhoods are better served by BART and AC Transit than some areas of the City with higher rates of vehicle ownership.
Richmond is served by BART, Amtrak, and AC Transit for bus serv ice, and also has relatively extensive biking and walking options. These options make Richmond easier to live in for disabled residents, who are more likely to rely on public transportation to travel. However, access to non- vehicular transportation is uneven across the City. Central Ric hmond has strong connectivity to transit and biking options, due to recent City investments in w alking and biking in central Richmond and the waterfront area. However, traveling without a car is difficult for residents who live in the northern and northeastern parts of the City. Some of these underserved neighborhoods, such as Parchester Village, have many low-income residents that may rely on non-vehicular
F-68 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g transit options. According to RCEB, the lack of public transit in higher opportunity areas in north and northeast Richmond complicates the prospect of housing peop le with disabilities in these areas. The Transportation Department also noted that the lack o f public transit in these areas make them less desirable for affordable housing developments.
The Low Transportation Cost Index estimates how much money resi dents spend on transportation, measured at the census tract scale and compared to the rest of the nation. The higher an area’s index score, the lower the cost of transportation. Scores are influenced by factors such as public transit access, proximity to employment centers and services, and housing density.
In Richmond, scores range from 78 to 94, with neighborhoods in Central Richmond having the highest scores and therefore lowest transportation costs (HUD, 2020). These areas are greater served by public transit and are also where Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents are more likely to live. The area with the highest transportation costs covers the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods and have a score of 78, meaning costs are lower t han 78 percent of the nation.
This is due to higher vehicle usage and less connectivity to transit.
Public transit in Richmond is more effective at helping low-income Richmond residents get to jobs.
As shown in Table F-18, 33 percent of households earning less than $50,000 per year have jobs within a half mile of frequent rush-hour transit, more than the citywide (21 percent) and countywide (15 percent) share.
Table F-18: Jobs in Proximity to Transit (2017)
Richmond Contra Costa County
Type of Transit All Households Households earning
under $50,000
All Households Households earning
under $50,000
Jobs within a half mile of
frequent full-day transit
13.6% 20.4% 11.6% 11.5%
Jobs within a half mile of
frequent rush-hour transit
21.4% 33.1% 15.4% 14.4%
Source: AllTransit, 2017.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-69
Figure F-19: Low Transportation Cost Index, Richmond (2020)
Source: HUD Data Portal, 2020
F-70 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Many residents continue to face transportation challenges, in a 2021 survey, only 47 percent of respondents stated that the ease of travel by public transporta tion was excellent or good, 37 percent stated that the ease of travel by bicycle was excellent or good, and 32 percent stated that the ease of walking was excellent or good (National Research Ce nter and Polco, 2021).
Additionally, in the Richmond Community-Based Transportation Pl an, feedback from residents across the City were safety issues for pedestrians and bikers, unreliable bus routes, and lack of bike connectivity.
To address gaps in Richmond’s access to transportation, particu larly for neighborhoods that are underserved by other mobility options, the City of Richmond and Via launched Richmond Moves in April 2022. This is a public shuttle service that enables re sidents to easily connect with key transit hubs in the region without a personal vehicle. Riders c an book an on-demand ride, which directs them to a “virtual bus stop” within a short walking dis tance. The fleet includes all plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to reduce energy consumption (City of Richmond, 2022).
F.5.5 Environmental Health
When discussing their favorite things about Richmond, residents often highlighted Richmond’s nature, including parks and beaches, and emphasized that they w ant to see these things preserved. However, residents cited pollution, food access, and safety as key environmental concerns. As described below, the City has been engaged in impr ovements to environmental health as part of its nationally innovative place-based strategies, including the Community Health and Wellness Element.
According to he TCAC Environmental Score, which ranks the envir onmental health of neighborhoods according to pollutant exposure indicators and en vironmental effects indicators,8 conditions vary considerably across Richmond. Neighborhoods on the west side of the railroad tracks and neighborhoods in Point Pinole have the lowest environmental index scores (less than
0.25), while neighborhoods such as North and East, Fairmede Hilltop, Greenridge Heights, Quail Hill, and the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods have the highest environmental scores (more than
0.75) in Richmond (Figure F-20). This reveals the sharp divide in environmental conditions in the City, as areas of lowest resources and high segregation and pov erty have lower environmental scores, and the higher income areas have better environmental scores.
The neighboring cities of San Pablo, Tara Hills and El Cerrito have environmental scores higher than the western-most neighborhoods in Richmond (Figure F-20). Overall, the environmental health of Richmond is poor compared to neighboring cities.
CalEnviroScreen, a statewide risk assessment tool that maps sou rces of pollution, offers more detail on the types of pollution in the neighborhoods with the lowest TCAC environmental scores
8 Environmental indicators included in the environmental score include Ozone, PM2.5, Diesel PM, Drinking Water, Pesticide Use, Toxic Releases from Facilities, Traffic Density, Cleanup Sites, Groundwater Threats, Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities, Impaired Water Bodies, and Solid Waste Sites and Facilities.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-71
(CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022). All of these neighborhoods rank above the 80th percentile statewide in exposure to diesel particulate matter (PM), cleanup sites, h azardous waste, and impaired waters. Additionally, the Iron Triangle, Atchison Village, Rich more Village/Metro Square, Santa Fe, Cortez/Stege, and Coronado neighborhoods rank above the 85t h percentile statewide in exposure to toxic releases and lead from housing. Other polluta nts that rank above the 80th percentile in Richmond include groundwater threats in southern Richmond, traffic in the neighborhoods between I-80 and I-580 in southern Richmond, and solid waste in Parchester Village.
One major reason for Richmond’s poor environmental conditions i s pollution from nearby oil refineries, chemical plants, superfund sites, highways, and rai l yards. In particular, the Chevron and Phillips 66 oil refineries, which are located in Richmond, emit large amounts of toxic chemicals. Many residents noted air pollution as a major issue and expressed concerns that affordable housing is often located near refineries. Health outcomes are notably worse for people of color, and Black/African American residents have the worst h ealth outcomes of all residents, which may reflect higher poverty levels, lower rates of health insurance coverage, and the health impacts of intergenerational trauma related to racism (C4 et al., 2019; Taylor, 2019). In particular, residents reported difficulties accessing healthcare in Richmon d due to a lack of hospitals in the area. As one resident explained, “The Kaiser is too small to ac commodate the people here. We need another hospital to help people’s health, especially people who don’t have rides.” Additionally, housing problems in Richmond directly impact residents’ health. First, since much of the City’s housing stock is old (with the largest proportion built between 1940 and 1959), housing habitability problems like lead, mold, asbestos exposure, and i nadequate seismic bracing are major causal or contributing factors to resident health issues (ABAG, 2021; City of Richmond, 2012). Lead poisoning is of particular concern - approximately 46 percent of children with elevated blood lead levels in the County live in the Richmond/San Pablo Area (C4 et al., 2019). Second, the lack of quality affordable housing may compromise resident health by forcing tenants to reside in substandard housing, overcrowd into homes, and overspend on rent. Residents residing in substandard housing are at increased risk for health risks such as fires, electrical injuries, lead poisoning, rodent infestation, mold, childhood asthma and other illnesses and injuries.
Overcrowded housing conditions can contribute to higher mortali ty rates, infectious disease, inhibited childhood development, and stress. In a cyclical pattern, housing cost burden contributes to mental stress, hunger, and overcrowding (City of Richmond, 2012).
F-72 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-20: TCAC Environmental Score, Richmond (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-73
F.5.6 Food Access
Many residents of Richmond lack opportunities to access fresh, healthy, and affordable food, with about one third living in “critical food access areas”, also kn own as food deserts. Figure F-21 shows areas with limited access to food in Richmond, based on a nalysis conducted by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Green census tracts show areas where annual family income is at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ( $55,500), and a considerable share of residents must travel more than one mile to reach a grocery store. These areas are on the outskirts of the City in Hilltop District, Parchester Village, May Valley, El So brante Hills, Greenbriar, and Marina Bay, which are all higher-income areas relative to the rest of Richmond. However, based on the City’s Environmental Justice Map Atlas and Baseline Report, much of central Richmond also has food access issues, as nearby grocery stores in these areas hav e limited fresh produce (City of Richmond, 2022). Furthermore, yellow census tracts indicate are as where the nearest grocery store is more than a half mile away, and residents have limited access to vehicles. These areas include most of central Richmond, the area between I-580 and I- 80 in southern Richmond. With the exception of Hilltop District and the southernmost part of the City, all of these areas have high percentages of low- to moderate-income residents. Residents of these areas that rely on public transit or walking may have extra difficulty accessing fresh food.
F-74 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-21: Grocery Store Access, Richmond (2019)
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 2019.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-75
F.5.7 Barriers to Access to Opportunity
Based upon both research, data, and community engagement inform ation, several key factors contribute to disparities in access to opportunity in Richmond. These include:
● Concentrated poverty. Policies that segregated Richmond and disinvested in communities of color have concentrated poverty in certain parts of the City (Section F.3.2.5). Concentrated poverty makes it more difficult for resi dents to take advantage of educational and economic opportunities, to afford transportatio n and healthcare needs, and to live in higher-income areas of Richmond. Additionally, c oncentrated poverty increases the scale of the barriers facing the City and its residents, making problems more expensive and complicated to solve.
● High cost of housing. The rising cost of housing makes it more difficult for low-inco me residents to afford housing (Section F.3.4.1). High housing costs also force residents into overcrowded and substandard housing, which can be hazardous to health and can affect success in school and work.
● Lack of high-performing schools. Very few schools in Richmond are high-performing.
This is a function of housing and school segregation, housing i nstability among students, high housing costs making it difficult to retain high-quality teachers, and insufficient school funding. Low education outcomes in Richmond mean that residents are not adequately prepared for success in the labor market.
● Lack of good-paying jobs. Job growth in Richmond has not risen as fast as it has in the region, making it harder for residents to find and commute to their jobs. This is particularly problematic because in recent years, wages have been stagnant w hile housing prices have been rising. Several larger employers in Richmond identif ied a recent business tax measure, Measure U, as influencing their potential decision to relocate their businesses. ● Lack of access to public transportation on the outskirts of Ric hmond. The northern Richmond neighborhoods of Fairmede/Hilltop, Hilltop Green, Hill top Village, and Parchester Village are home to large numbers of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, AAPI, and low-income residents but lack sufficient public trans it options, making transportation more difficult to access and afford. Additionall y, the lack of public transit in the higher opportunity May Valley, Carriage Hills North, Carria ge Hills South, and Greenbriar neighborhoods in northeast Richmond may complicate e fforts to subsidize housing in these areas if low-income residents do not own a car.
Section F.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Richmond residents are impacted differently by housing issues, including affordability, overcrowding, displacement, homeownership access, and housing a nd neighborhood quality.
F-76 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g This section examines these differences and highlights existing governmental and community efforts addressing disproportionate needs.
Key findings include:
● Citywide data shows that housing has become more affordable s ince 2010, but this data masks rising cost burden in particular neighborhoods and does n ot reflect the lived experiences of many residents.
● Neighborhoods with high percentages of Hispanic/Latinx reside nts have the highest rates of overcrowded households. Overcrowding is likely a symptom of hou sing unaffordability and a shortage of rental housing stock with three or more bedrooms. ● Displacement has impacted Black/African American, Laotian, an d Asian Indian residents most, but Hispanic/Latinx residents are also highly vulnerable. Ongoing displacement is a result of the 2000s foreclosure crisis, the economic consequenc es of COVID-19, gentrification, lack of affordable housing, and speculative investments. ● The rate of homeownership fell during the Great Recession and never recovered, and large racial and ethnic disparities remain.
● Much of Richmond’s housing stock suffers from unsafe living c onditions and requires repairs.
Blight is also concentrated in low-income neighborhoods.
F.6.1 Housing Affordability
When speaking with residents about housing barriers in Richmond, the lack of affordable housing came up most often. In a listening session, a resident emphasi zed that “even families with two working parents can’t afford the rent.” The impacts of housing unaffordability are far-reaching.
During community engagement events, residents said that high ho using costs force people to relocate within Richmond or to move out of Richmond altogether. Additionally, when households cannot afford rent, they are more likely to live in overcrowded or substandard housing Local surveys reflect residents’ concerns about affordable hous ing. In the 2017 National Citizen Survey, only 39 percent of Richmond residents said they were “n ot experiencing housing cost stress” (National Research Center and ICMA, 2017). Additionally, the percentage of respondents who rated the availability of affordable quality housing as exc ellent or good in the Richmond Community Survey declined from 25 percent in 2015 to 18 percent in 2021 (National Research Center and Polco, 2021). In a 2019 survey of Laotian residents in the Richmond area conducted by APEN, 70 percent of respondents reported spending over half of their monthly income on rent.
While 70 percent of respondents said they like where they live, 57 percent said the cost of housing made them want to leave Richmond (APEN, 2020).
This section presents affordability data at the regional, city, and neighborhood levels, with a focus on how tenure, race, and ethnicity have affected residents’ abi lity to pay for housing over time.
Despite relatively low housing costs in Richmond, residents face higher levels of cost burden than
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-77
the Bay Area region. While there have been improvements in hou sing affordability citywide and for all racial and ethnic groups over time, housing cost burden has increased in some neighborhoods and renters and residents of color disproportionately experience cost burden.
Analysis of Housing Cost Burden
Despite lower housing prices relative to the region, a higher p ercentage of Richmond residents struggle to afford housing than in Contra Costa County or the Bay Area. As Table F-19 shows, 45 percent of Richmond residents experience housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of income on housing) versus 37 percent in the County and 36 pe rcent in the Bay Area.
Additionally, 20 percent of Richmond residents face extreme cost burden (spending more than 50 percent of income on housing) compared to 17 percent of County residents and 16 percent of Bay Area residents.
Table F-19: Regional Housing Cost Burden Severity (2019)
Location
0%-30% of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Richmond 19,891 55.1% 8, 886 24.6% 7,346 20.3%
Contra Costa County 242,570 62. 7% 80,625 20.8% 63,787 16.5% Bay Area 1,684,831 61.7% 539,135 19.7% 447,802 16.4%
Notes: 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 analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091.
Within Richmond and as of 2019, renters are more likely than ow ners to experience affordability challenges, though this was not the case in 2010. As Table F-20 shows, in 2010, a similar percentage of owner-occupied households and renter-occupied households were cost-burdened (50 percent and 55 percent, respectively). However, between 201 0 and 2019, the number of owner occupied households experiencing cost burden decreased. T he percent of renter households experiencing cost burden remained almost constant at 56 percent. The percentage of extremely cost-burdened owner and renter households followed a similar pattern over time.
F-78 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-20: City-Wide Housing Cost Burden by Tenure, Richmond (2010-2019)
Tenure
2006-2010 2015-2019
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
30%-50% of
Income Used for
Housing
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner Occupied 5,204 27.1% 4,391 22.9% 3,696 20.1% 2,604 14.1% Renter Occupied 4,419 27.0% 4,614 28.2% 5,190 29.3% 4,742 26.8% Total 9,623 27.1% 9,005 25.3% 8,886 24.6% 7,346 20.0%
Notes: 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 analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Tables B25070 and B25091; Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010), Tables B25070 and B25091.
Housing affordability can also be measured by the percent of median household income required to afford the average cost of housing. According to this metric, housing affordability improved for renters citywide between 2015 and 2020. As Table F-21 shows, in 2015, Richmond renters making the median household income of $40,355 needed to pay 60 percent of their income towards the average rent of $2,022. However, in 2020, the media n household income for Richmond renters increased to $55,128, while the average rent i ncreased 16 percent to $2,345.
In 2020, renters making the median household income needed to pay 51 percent of their income to afford the average rent, a nine percent decline from 2015.
Based upon the citywide data alone it is difficult to determine if the increase in affordability for renters is the result of changing demographics, or improved eco nomic conditions, or a combination of the two. The citywide increase in affordability for renters since 2015 may be caused by higher income residents moving to Richmond and overcr owded households inflating household income, rather than increased income of long-time res idents. As detailed in previous sections, there are patterns of displacement of lower income re sidents and in-migration of new residents. It is difficult to determine the correlation between citywide increases in median income, the displacement of low-income residents, and the arrival of new residents.
Community knowledge shared duri ng community engagement and the analysis of eight ethnic enclave neighborhoods later in this section help us better unde rstand the disparate housing affordability experiences.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-79
Table F-21: Percent of Income Spent on Rent, Richmond (2011-2020)
Citywide 2011-2015 2016-2020 Percent Change
Median Household Income
for Renters $40,355 $55,128 +36.6%
Average Annual Rent
$2,022 $2,345 +16.0%
Percent Unaffordability 60.1% 51.1% -15.1%
Notes: Average Annual Rent includes rents from studios, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 4 bedroom, and 4 bedroom apartments. Average Annual Rent between 2011-2015 only includes data from December 2014 - December 2015.
Source: Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-year estimates, 2016-2020 (household median income data), and Zumper Rent Research as of June 2022 (median rent data).
In 2017, 53 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents were cost-burdened, compared to 45 percent of Black/African American residents, 32 percent of AAPI residents, and 31 percent of White residents (Table F-22). Following the citywide trend of increasing housing affordability over time, between 2010 and 2017, housing affordability improved for every racial and ethnic group, with the biggest decreases in cost burden occurring among AAPI residents (45 percent to 32 percent) and Black/African American residents (55 percent to 45 percent) . However, this improvement in affordability may be due to higher income Black/African American and AAPI residents moving in, rather than a sign of economic improvements for long-time residents, or potentially a combination of both situations. The analysis of eight ethnic enclave neighb orhoods later in this section demonstrates the racially disparate housing experiences by neighborhood level.
F-80 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-22: Housing Cost Burden by Race, Richmond (2010-2017) 2006-2010 2013-2017
Race/Eth
nicity
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent AAPI 1,185 23.8% 1,045 21.0% 830 16.1% 845 16.3%
Black/Afri
can
American
3,195 27.2% 3,215 27.4% 1,930 21.3% 2,230 24.7%
Hispanic/
Latinx 2,470 27.6% 2,900 32.4% 3,365 30.7% 2,435 22.2%
Native
American* 0 0.0% 10 71.4% 15 17.9% 29 34.5%
White 1,870 20.6% 1,345 14.8% 1,750 18.6% 1,200 12.8%
Other
Race or
Multiple
Races
190 22.6% 165 19.6% 480 27.0% 350 19.7%
Notes: 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 analysis of HUD, Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; Just Cities analysis of HUD, Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2006-2010 release.
Neighborhood Analysis
Renters and Housing Cost Burden
Figures F-22 and F-23 show the percentage of cost-burdened rent ers across Richmond in 2014 and 2019. Areas that experienced a decrease in cost burden over that time period include the lower-income neighborhoods of Atchison Village, Iron Triangle, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Belding/Woods, Laurel Park, Eastshore, Parkview, Richmond Annex , Southwest Annex, and Panhandle Annex; and the higher-income neighborhoods of May Valley, Castro Heights, Carriage Hills South, with Richmond Annex experiencing the most dramatic decrease.
The only neighborhood where cost burden increased is the higher-income area of Marina Bay.
Despite reductions in cost burden for renters in some neighborh oods, Figure F-23 also shows that, in 2019, more than 40 percent of renters were cost-burdened everywhere except the higher-
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-81
income neighborhoods of Richmond Annex, western May Valley, Car riage Hills North, Carriage Hills South, and Castro Heights.
There are also racial disparities regarding housing cost burden , as seen in Figures 22 and 23.
The neighborhoods with over 60 percent renter households who ar e cost-burdened are predominantly low income Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods (Shields- Reid, Santa Fe, Coronado, Cortez/Stege, and Belding/Woods), wit h the exception of Fairmede/Hilltop, a higher-income but racially diverse neighborhood.
The percent of income spent on rent in each neighborhood in 2019 is summarized in Table F-23.
Table F-23: Summary of Renter Cost Burden by Richmond Neighborhood (2019) Percent of
Income Spent
on Rent
Neighborhoods
20%-40% Carriage Hills North, Carriage Hills South, May Valley (western portion), Richmond Annex, Quail Hill, Greenridge Heights
40%-60% Atchison Village, Beldi ng/Woods, Coronado (southern portion), Cortez/Stege (southern portion), Eastshore, El Sobrante Hills, Greenbriar, Hilltop Green, Hilltop Village, Iron Triangle, Laurel Park, Marina Bay, May Valley (eastern portion), North and East, Panhandle Annex, Parchester Village, Park Plaza, Parkview, Point Richmond, Pullman, Richmond Heights, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Southwest Annex
60%-80% Coronado (northern port ion), Cortez/Stege (northern portion), Santa Fe, Southwest Annex Notes: Analysis is based on the census tract that the neighborhood is located in.
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer.
In order to better understand the extent of racial disparities in housing affordability, Just Cities conducted an analysis of the change in affordability in a sample of eight neighborhoods that were ethnic enclaves in 2000 (Table F-24). Between 2000 and 2019, the percentage of cost burdened households increased in all eight neighborhoods, demonstrating that the decrease in citywide housing cost burden, as discussed above, masks increasing cost burden in some neighborhoods.
The increase in cost burden was considerably larger in Hilltop District (148 percent) than in any other neighborhood analyzed. Data suggests that this may be bec ause housing construction did not meet new demand associated with the large population increa se in the Hilltop District that occurred over this time period (see Table F-29).