Richmond City Council
January 24, 2023

F-82 | 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-24: Cost Burdened Renter Households in Select Ethnic Enclaves, Richmond (2000-2019)
Area/
Neighborhood
Predominant
Racial or Ethnic
Group in 2000
2000 2015-2019
Percent
Change of Cost
Burdened
Households
Number of
Cost
Burdened
Household
Percent of
Cost
Burdened
Household
Number
of Cost
Burdene
d HH
Percent of
Cost
Burdened
HH
Citywide Black/African
American 6,856 42.5% 9,932 53.4% +44.9%
Atchison Village Hispanic/Latinx
and Black/African
American
591 45.8% 730 51.9% +23.5%
Belding/Woods Hispanic/Latinx 625 51.6% 846 58.6% +35.4% Iron Triangle Black/African
American and
Hispanic/Latinx
539 48.2% 612 59.5% +13.5%
Fairmede/Hilltop Black/African
American 442 47.0% 692 67.3% +56.6%
Hilltop District Black/African
American 635 46.4% 1578 54.6% +148.5%
Marina Bay Black/African
American 635 36.9% 716 52.0% +12.8%
Richmond Annex White 304 34.6% 345 39.6% +13.5%
Point Richmond White 251 33.2% 306 46.5% +21.9%
Notes: Predominant racial/ethnic groups are any groups over 30% of the overall area population. While AAPI are also an important group in Richmond, they tend to reside across many neighborhoods.

Source: Just Cities analysis of U.S. Decennial Census (2000 Table: T166), American Community Surveys (5-Year Estimates) (2015-2019 Table: A18002).

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-83

Figure F-22: Overpayment by Renters, Richmond (2010-2014)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-84 | 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-23: Overpayment by Renters, 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-85

Most neighboring cities have between 40 to 60 percent of renter households experiencing housing cost burden. The smaller cities of San Pablo and North Richmond have more areas where more than 80 percent of renters are cost-burdened. In contrast, El Cerrito only has two areas with less than 20 percent of renters experiencing cost burden. Minimal improvements were observed in the cost burden trend for renters from years 2010- 2014 and 2015- 2 019. However, cost burden in neighboring cities of El Cerrito has improved from 2010 to 2019.

Homeowners and Housing Cost Burden
Relative to renters. homeowners face lower levels of overpayment in Richmond and neighboring cities. As Figures F-24 and F-25 show, homeowners in Richmond experienced declining levels of overpayment in many neighborhoods between 2014 and 2019. The area where homeowners spent the highest percentage (more than 60 percent) of their in come on housing was in the Iron Triangle in 2014. However, by 2019, homeowners in Santa Fe, Coronado, and Cortez/Stege also faced increased overpayment. These are all neighborhoods that are predominantly Black/African American and Latinx/Hispanic.

Regarding neighboring cities, from 2014 to 2019, there is some decrease in cost burdened homeowners in San Pablo, Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Richmond, and El Cerrito (from the 40 to 60 percent range to 20 to 40 percent range categories in the map below).

F-86 | 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-24: Overpayment by Homeowners, Richmond (2010-2014)

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-87

Figure F-25: Overpayment by Homeowners, Richmond (2015-2019)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-88 | 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 Housing costs are rising for various reasons, but in interviews, community organizations and City agencies honed in on the lack of housing supply in Richmond and the Bay Area as the main contributing factor. In particular, there is a regional dynami c where lower income residents who are priced out of cities like San Francisco and later Oakland h ave moved to Richmond given its relative affordability. The Community Development Department e mphasized that the cost of construction - driven by the rising costs of materials and labo r - is the main barrier to building housing in Richmond. In addition, affordable housing developers identified other constraints such as the City permitting process and lack of sufficient City staff to work with them.

F.6.2 Overcrowding
Many residents mentioned that families - especially those who are Hispanic/Latinx - are crowding into homes as rents rise. Additionally, a local survey of Laotian residents found that overcrowding is the most reported outcome of rising rent (APEN 2020). Resear ch shows a strong association between overcrowded household conditions (defined as more peopl e living in a household than there are rooms, excluding kitchens and bathrooms) and worsened respiratory health, stomach cancer, psychiatric symptoms, mental illness, and other health conditions. Research shows that when there are more than 1.5 people per room, it can lead to wo rsened child mortality, reading and mathematical testing, and increased accidents (Bissell et al., 2018).

As with overpayment, overcrowding is more likely to affect rent ers. As shown in Table F-25, in 2020, 13 percent of Richmond renters lived in overcrowded house holds, compared to 6 percent of homeowners. While the percentage of overcrowded households remained relatively similar for both renters and owners between 2010 and 2020, analysis from the Othering & Belonging Institute found that between 2005 and 2015, overcrowding among Richmond r esidents decreased for homeowners but increased substantially for renters, with the nu mber of overcrowded renter households with one to 1.5 people per room nearly doubling from 2005 to 2015 (Bissell et al., 2018).

Table F-25: Overcrowded Households by Tenure, Richmond (2010-2020)

Tenure
2006-2010 2016-2020
Number of
Overcrowded
Households
Percent of
Overcrowded
Households
Number of
Overcrowded
Households
Percent of
Overcrowded
Households
Owner Occupied 994 5.2% 1,183 6.0%
Renter Occupied 2,072 12.7% 2,300 13.1%
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens).

Source: Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010 and 2016-2020), Table B25014.

Overcrowding also disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latinx re sidents. As Table F-26 shows, in 2020, Hispanic/Latinx residents were more than twice as likely to live in overcrowded households

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-89

than the citywide average (20 percent versus 9 percent, respect ively). Overcrowding can inflate median household income, masking the economic hardships faced by individual families and the negative experiences caused by overcrowding. Black/African Amer ican residents are the least likely to live in overcrowded households (2 percent). Additiona lly, between 2010 and 2020, the percentage of overcrowded households in each racial and ethnic group remained relatively constant.

Table F-26: Overcrowded Households by Race, Richmond (2010-2020)

Race/Ethnicity
2006-2010 2016-2020
Number Percent Number Percent
AAPI 474 9.4% 562 9.3%
Black/African
American 404 3.4% 185 2.1%
Hispanic/Latinx 1,948 21.8% 2,414 20.2%
Native American* 0 0.0% 35 16.0%
White 135 1.5% 345 3.7%
Other Race 596 18.2% 1,250 22.7%
Multiracial 92 10.0% 211 8.6%
Citywide 3,026 8.5% 3,483 9.3%
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens).

Source: Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010 and 2016-2020), Table B25014.

Figure F-26 shows the distribution of overcrowded households ac ross Richmond. Overcrowding is most severe in the Belding/Woods neighborhood, which has a v ery high percentage of Hispanic/Latinx residents. Overcrowding is also high in surrounding neighborhoods that have high percentages of Hispanic/Latinx residents such as Coronado and Santa Fe.

The neighboring communities of North Richmond and San Pablo als o have overall higher rates of overcrowding and high percentages of Hispanic Latinx residents. All other adjacent cities have lower rates of overcrowding (less than 8.2 percent).

F-90 | 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-26: Overcrowded Households, Richmond (2020)

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-91

In addition to being driven by rising rents, overcrowding may also in part be a function of mismatch between the size of Richmond’s families and the size of housing units in the rental housing stock.

As Table F-27 shows, while there are an approximately equal num ber of owner- and renter- occupied units in Richmond, renters occupy far more 0-2 bedroom homes than units with 3 or more bedrooms. The 2016 changes to Richmond’s Zoning Ordinance attempt to address this issue by creating incentives for low-income, very-low income, and extremely-low income housing projects with four or more bedrooms per unit, by providing a 35 percent density bonus where projects exceed the percentage of affordable units per househol d income groups (City of Richmond, 2021).

Table F-27: Size of Housing Units Occupied by Owners and Renters, Richmond (2015- 2019)

Number of Bedrooms Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
0 Bedrooms 117 790
1 Bedroom 499 4,553
2 Bedrooms 4,845 7,693
3-4 Bedrooms 12,355 5,376
5 Or More Bedrooms 666 194
Total 18,482 18,606
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B25042.

F.6.3 Gentrification and Risk of Displacement
Displacement of people, especially residents of color, occurs f or many reasons that can be voluntary or involuntary. However, as housing costs have skyroc keted in the Bay Area region, forced displacement of low-income residents has become a major issue, and high-income residents have been attracted to Richmond by relatively low housing prices. Given that California state law, the Costa Hawkins Act, allows for the resetting of rent prices to market rate levels when housing units become vacant, there is a financial incentive for housing providers to replace longer- term tenants with newer tenants who can afford higher rent prices.

In addition, forced displacement can occur either through direc t displacement, such as housing providers evicting tenants, or through indirect market force di splacement. The development of considerable numbers of above moderate income new housing units in areas that are undergoing gentrification can sometimes result in the increase of rents for those older housing units (Mundie and Associates, 2005). It is a function of rising comparative rents in an area.

F-92 | 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 Because Richmond remains relatively diverse, the City has a rar e opportunity to maintain a racially and economically diver se community. However, without s wift action, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Laotian residents, who are more likely to be low-income and rent their homes, are at heightened risk of displacement. The remain der of this section analyzes changing demographics and contributing factors to past and ongoing displacement.

Racial Demographic Change
Severe displacement of Black/African American, Laotian, and Asian Indian residents has already occurred in Richmond. As Table F-28 shows, between 2010 and 201 9, the percentage of Black/African American residents in Richmond decreased by almost 40 percent. Additionally, the percentage of AAPI residents increased by 36 percent over that same time period. However, within the AAPI community, between 2010 and 2015, the Laotian p opulation declined by 54 percent, from 2,486 to 1,134 residents, and the Asian Indian po pulation fell by 49 percent, from 1,930 to 979 residents (ACS 5-Year Data, Table B01003). Residen ts reported in interviews that many who are displaced move to lower-income cities in Contra Co sta County such as Antioch and Pittsburg or out of the Bay Area altogether.

Table F-28: Racial Demographic Change, Richmond (2000-2019) Race/Ethnicity 2000 2019
Percent Change
Number Percent Number Percent
AAPI 12,553 13.1% 17,073 15.5% +36.0%
Black/African
American
35,279

36.8%
21,465 19.5% -39.2%
Hispanic/Latinx 26,319 27.4% 46,664 42.5% +77.3%
Native American 351 0.4% 324 0.3% -7.7%
White 21,081 22.0% 19,569 17.8% -7.2%
Other Race or
Multiracial
400 0.4% 4,787 4.4% +1,096.8%
Source: ABAG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019).

As Black/African American, Laotian, and Asian Indian residents have been displaced from Richmond, a mix of new residents have moved in, including large numbers of Hispanic/Latinx and AAPI people. High rates of cost burden and overcrowding among H ispanic/Latinx residents, (Sections F.6), suggest that many of these new Hispanic/Latinx residents are low-income. Data from the Urban Displacement Project offers further evidence of this, finding that in 2015, Richmond and San Pablo were the top destination for low-income Hispanic/Latinx residents who

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-93

had been pushed out of more expensive cities, particularly in A lameda County (Urban Displacement Project and CHPC, 2019). Finally, income data (Sec tion F.4.2) and the insights of residents and community-based organizations suggest that high-i ncome residents, attracted by relatively low housing prices in Richmond, are also moving into the City and contributing to the market forces discussed above that result in rising land values and increased gentrification in some neighborhoods.

Examining racial demographic change at the neighborhood level offers additional insight into how groups have experienced displacement over time. Table F-29 shows racial demographics for the same eight ethnic enclaves analyzed in Section F.3.4.1 in 2000 and 2019. In line with citywide data, the percentage of Black/African American residents decrea sed in every neighborhood except Hilltop District, and decreased most dramatically in the Iron Triangle (by 74 percent). The percentage of Hispanic/Latinx residents increased in every neighborhood except Atchison Village (where there was a large increase in the AAPI population), and increased most in the Hilltop District (by 854 percent). The AAPI population increased in eve ry neighborhood, especially in Atchison Village (283 percent) and Hilltop District (259 percent). The most dramatic change in the White population was also in Hilltop District (182 percent incr ease), but it also declined considerably in Belding/Woods (34 percent decrease), Iron Trian gle (29 percent decrease), and Fairmede/Hilltop (41 percent decrease).

Table F-29: Racial Demographic Change in Select Ethnic Enclaves, Richmond (2000- 2019)
Area/Neighb
orhood
2000 2015-2019 Change Over Time
Number Percent Number Percent Percent
Change
Predominant
Racial or
Ethnic
Group(s)
City of
Richmond
Black/African
American 35,279 35.60% 21,465 19.50% -39.16% 2000:

Black/African
American
2015-2019:

Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 26,319 26.50% 46,664 42.50% 77.30%
AAPI 12,077 12.20% 16,716 15.20% 38.41%
White 21,081 21.20% 19,569 17.80% -7.17%
Atchison
Village
Black/African
American 2,540 33.40% 1,506 20.60% -40.71%
2000:

Hispanic/Latinx
and
Black/African
American
Hispanic/Latinx 3,864 50.90% 3,620 49.40% -6.31%
AAPI 344 4.50% 1,317 18.00% 282.85%

F-94 | 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 Area/Neighb
orhood
2000 2015-2019 Change Over Time
Number Percent Number Percent Percent
Change
Predominant
Racial or
Ethnic
Group(s)
White 636 8.40% 651 8.90% 2.36%
2015-2019:

Hispanic/Latinx
Belding/Wood
s
Black/African
American 1901 21.62% 1058 11.30% -44.35% 2000:

Hispanic/Latinx
2015-2019:

Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 5,241 59.61% 6,932 74.02% 32.26%
AAPI 552 6.28% 672 7.18% 21.74%
White 765 8.70% 505 5.39% -33.99%
Iron Triangle
Black/African
American 2,935 49.30% 777 12.40% -73.53% 2000:

Black/African
American and
Hispanic/Latinx
2015-2019:

Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 2,189 36.70% 4,581 73.40% 109.27%
AAPI 470 7.90% 719 11.50% 52.98%
White 158 2.70% 112 1.80% -29.11%
Fairmede/Hillt
op
Black/African
American 2,886 54.20% 1,572 29.40% -45.53% 2000:

Black/African
American
2015-2019:

Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 774 14.50% 1,928 36.10% 149.10%
AAPI 755 14.20% 993 18.60% 31.52%
White 698 13.10% 409 7.70% -41.40%
Hilltop District
Black/African
American 2,499 45.30% 3,196 19.41% 27.89% 2000:

Black/African
American
2015-2019:

Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 629 11.40% 6,001 36.44% 854.05%
AAPI 907 16.40% 3,255 19.77% 258.88%
White 1,212 22.00% 2,983 18.11% 146.12%
Marina Bay
Black/African
American 1,883 31.40% 1,399 23.60% -25.70%
2000:

Black/African
American Hispanic/Latinx 1,136 18.90% 1,368 23.10% 20.42%

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-95

Area/Neighb
orhood
2000 2015-2019 Change Over Time
Number Percent Number Percent Percent
Change
Predominant
Racial or
Ethnic
Group(s)
AAPI 959 16.00% 1,079 18.20% 12.51% 2015-2019:

None
White 1,732 28.90% 1,628 27.40% -6.00%
Richmond
Annex
Black/African
American 579 12.90% 285 5.80% -50.78%
2000: White
2015-2019:

White
Hispanic/Latinx 575 12.80% 880 18.00% 53.04%
AAPI 914 20.40% 1,203 24.70% 31.62%
White 2,149 47.90% 2,337 47.90% 8.75%
Point
Richmond
Black/African
American 224 7.70% 131 3.90% -41.52%
2000: White
2015-2019:

White
Hispanic/Latinx 266 9.20% 614 18.50% 130.83%
AAPI 96 3.30% 192 5.80% 100.00%
White 2,170 75.00% 2,264 68.00% 4.33%
Notes: Predominant Racial/Ethnic Groups are any groups over 30% of the overall area population. While AAPI are also an important group in Richmond, they tend to reside across many neighborhoods.

Source: Just Cities analysis of U.S. Decennial Census (2000 Table: RC2000SF1:P8), American Community Surveys (5-Year Estimates) (2015-2019 Table: B03002).

Despite Fair Rent and Just Cause protections, Richmond’s renter s can still be vulnerable to displacement for many reasons. For example, existing Fair Rent and Just Cause protections do not apply to all rental housing leaving some renters vulnerable to very high rent increases or aggressive eviction tactics. Additionally, renters are more lik ely to experience cost burden (Section F.6.1) and therefore more impacted by rent increases, job losses, or other negative economic changes than homeowners.

In Richmond, renters are more likely to be residents of color. In 2020, 56 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents, 59 percent of Black/African American residents, 43 percent of White residents, and 29 percent of AAPI residents rented their homes (ABAG, 2021). As Figure F-31 shows, renters are more likely to live in predominantly Black/A frican American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods in central and southern Richmond. High percentages of renters

F-96 | 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 live in Hilltop Village and the eastern part of Hilltop Di strict, which have a relatively high percentage of AAPI residents, and Southwest Annex, where large numbers of White and AAPI residents live. There are only three census tracts where less t han 40 percent of residents are renters, which include the more heavily White and affluent Rich mond Heights neighborhood, but also Belding/Woods and the western part of the North and East neighborhoods, which have high percentages of low-income and Hispanic/Latinx residents.

Tables F-28 and F-29 show racial demographic changes, in partic ular decreases in the Black/African American population. It is possible that renter s tatus increases vulnerability to the effects of gentrification and other contributing factors of dis placement. These factors are elucidated below.

Like Richmond, neighboring communities of North Richmond and San Pablo also have high rates of renter households. However, the percentage of renter househo lds is lower in El Cerrito.

Notably Hispanics are the predominant population in North Richm ond and San Pablo and White persons in El Cerrito (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-97

Figure F-27: Percentage of Renters, Richmond (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-98 | 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 The UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project (UDP) uses data-driven research to produce maps identifying sensitive communities that are at-risk of displacement (see Figure F-35). UDP defines sensitive communities as currently having “populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost.” Vulnerability is determined based on the following characteristics in census tracts:
● The share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent; an d ● The tract meets two of the following criteria:
o Share of renters is above 40 percent
o Share of people of color is above 50 percent
o Share of very low-income households that are severely rent bur dened households is above the county median
o Percent change in rent is above county median rent increase o Rent gap, which is the difference between tract median rent an d median rent for surrounding areas

UDP has identified sensitive communities throughout the City (F igure F-35). Areas not identified as sensitive communities include areas in the west (Point Richm ond) and east (Carriage Hills North, Greenbriar). Vulnerable communities have also been identified adjacent to Richmond (e.g., San Pablo, El Cerrito, Albany).

Residents and community organizations expressed concern about the challenges that are arising in Richmond as a result of these demographic shifts. Residents stated they were worried that the communities that they love will be fundamentally changed by con tinuing gentrification and displacement. Additionally, HACCC noted in an interview that in creasing housing prices create tensions between renters who are being displaced and homeowners who are finally seeing their home values rise. Some residents also mentioned rising tensions between Richmond’s Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx communities as forme rly majority Black/African American neighborhoods are becoming majority Hispanic/Latinx an d the relative political power of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents shifts as a result. Finally, the RYSE Center and APEN noted that it is hard to organize residents aro und housing issues because so many former residents have been displaced.

Contributing Factors to Displacement
Many factors have contributed to displacement in Richmond, but the most prominent include:
● The mid-2000s foreclosure crisis. Many residents recounted family and friends being displaced from Richmond during the foreclosure crisis because they could not afford their rising mortgage payments.
● Gentrification. Residents observed that while gentrification improved neighborh ood and housing quality in some parts of Richmond, it also led landlord s to charge higher rents, forcing long-time residents out of the City. One resident explained that “[in] areas that have

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-99

been restored or renovated, residents can’t stay any longer bec ause affordability decreases.”
● More affordable and higher quality housing in other cities. As one resident put it, “Rent [is] too high - why would people live here when they coul d live more cheaply elsewhere? That is why they are moving away.”
● Lack of affordable housing for moderate-income families. The Community Development Department explained that housing developers are not interested in building moderate-income housing in Richmond because it is not financial ly feasible. This is reflected by the fact that no moderate-income housing was permi tted during 2015-2022 (Table F-2). As a result, not only low-income families, but also moderate-income families, are facing displacement pressures due to lack of supply. ● An increase in speculative investment in Richmond during and after the foreclosure crisis. Speculative investment is when people or investment companies buy up homes even though they do not plan on living in them for the purpose of making a profit. This reduces housing supply and inflates the price of housing. Betwe en 2008 and 2012, the percentage of absentee owner purchases tripled, and while it fe ll to around 20 percent in 2016, it remains higher than pre-recession levels (Bissell et a l., 2018). House flipping in Richmond also spiked after the foreclosure crisis and remains h igher than pre-recession levels. Between 2000 and 2007, owners sold 589 Richmond properties within three years of purchasing them, whereas between 2008 and 2017, there were 3,593 properties resold within three years. A 2016 analysis by RealtyTrac found that housing in the Richmond zip code 94801, which includes Central Richmond, Point Richmond, an d unincorporated North Richmond, had the highest return on investment of any zip code in the Bay Area (Bissell et al., 2018).
● Crime and Safety. During community interviews, s ome residents mentioned crime and safety impediments to access to opportunity, pointing most ofte n to recent increases in crime and problems such as gun violence. Residents attributed t hese issues to a mix of over-policing of their communities, the end of COVID-19 economi c relief programs, and failure to meet young people’s needs. One resident also attribu ted youth becoming involved in selling drugs and violent crime to the lack of sports and recreation centers that used to serve the community. While Latina residents observed in a listening session that crime has decreased over time in some formerly high crime areas like the Iron Triangle, they also noted that the rise in homeless encampments is inducing fear for residents who live nearby. In addition, some residents have pointed to crime and violence as factors that have driven long-time residents of color to leave Richmond. ● COVID-19. During COVID-19, evictions were prohibited by federal, state, a nd local eviction protections, and as of July 2022, California’s COVID-1 9 Rent Relief Program distributed an average of $12,543 each to 2,787 Richmond households who could not pay their rent due to economic hardship (HCD, 2022). Many local org anizations noted that these laws were very effective in preventing evictions. However , both programs have

F-100 | 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 ended (the last of the emergency eviction protection law expire d in September 2021 and the Rent Relief Program stopped accepting applications in March 2022), and landlords have been allowed to start eviction proceedings since July 1, 2 022. Without these protections in place, renters who fell behind on rent during th e pandemic - who are disproportionately low-income, Black/African American, and Hisp anic/Latinx - are at increased risk of displacement. This fear is reflected in Censu s Pulse Survey data collected from June 29 to July 11, 2022, in which 40 percent of Contra Costa County adults who are not current on their rent or mortgage reported that the y are either very likely or somewhat likely to be evicted in the next two months (U.S. Cens us Bureau, 2022). That was the highest percentage recorded over the 33 weeks since Aug ust 2020 that this question has been asked in the survey.

Several efforts have been or are currently being made to prevent displacement in Richmond, but gaps remain. First, for covered units, Fair Rent and Just Cause protections help prevent displacement by ensuring that renters are not priced out of the ir homes or unfairly evicted.

According to the Rent Program, as of 2020, 8,996 rental units w ere fully covered by both Fair Rent and Just Cause protections, and an additional 11,914 units were covered by Just Cause only (Richmond Rent Program, 2021).

However, many units in Richmond are not covered by Fair Rent du e to the state Costa Hawkins law and single family home exemptions in the AB1482 Rent Caps law. Additionally, in accordance with Rent Board Regulation 202, affordable housing is exempt fr om rent stabilization but subject to Just Cause for eviction protections. To help address this gap, in February 2019, the Rent Board adopted a resolution that limits rent increases in certain LIHTC units to 5 percent annually to better protect low-income residents in these developments (Richmond Rent Program, 2021).

Second, two recent City ordinances are intended to help ensure that the benefits of new market- rate development in Richmond reach existing residents, especial ly those who are low-income.

First, the Richmond City Council passed an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2020 that requires developers of market-rate housing to include a certain percenta ge of affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee to the City that is dedicated toward developing aff ordable housing. Also in 2020, the City Council established a community benefits policy for Richmond. This policy establishes terms that project developers and related parties must comply with when working on any public-private project. These terms regulate hiring practices and employee com pensation, give Richmond- based businesses priority for awarded contracts, and require th e developer to make a financial contribution to a Community Benefits Fund. The Community Benefi ts Fund will be spent on improvements to the local community such as services provision, workforce development, and public space (City of Richmond, 2021b).

Finally, there are still sources of economic relief for Richmon d residents who fell behind on rent and mortgage payments during COVID-19. For renters, the Richmon d Rapid Response Fund (R3F) - a joint effort created during the pandemic by the City of Richmond, the Richmond Rent Program, West Contra Costa Public Education Fund, The RYSE Cent er, and Building Blocks for Kids - operates a Rent Assistance Program for Displacement and Homelessness Protection,

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-101

which provides financial assistance to individuals and househol ds at risk of losing their housing after eviction moratoria expire. R3F aims to raise $5 million f or the program (R3F, 2022).

Additionally, the California Mortgage Relief Program continues to provide federal funds to homeowners who fell behind on their home payments and/or proper ty taxes due to COVID-19.

As of July 2022, the program had provided an average of $36,811 per household to 199 households in Contra Costa County (California Mortgage Relief, 2022).

F.6.4 Homeownership
Many residents expressed concer n that homeownership is increasi ngly out of reach, especially for young adults. Residents view this as problematic because they see homeownership as offering important financial stability and protecting long-time residents against displacement.

The percentage of Richmond residents who owned their homes decr eased during the Great Recession and never recovered. In 2005, 61 percent of residents were homeowners, but in 2020, only 53 percent were homeowners (Bissell et al., 2018; ACS 5-Ye ar Data, Table B25003). The disproportionate targeting of Black/African American and Hispan ic/Latinx homebuyers for subprime loans in the 1990s and early 2000s was a key contribut ing factor to this decline.

Between 2007 and 2012, 6,300 residential properties in Richmond went into foreclosure.

Foreclosures were most likely to occur in the Iron Triangle nei ghborhood, which has high percentages of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and low -income residents (C4 et al., 2019).

Even after the recession ended, many Richmond homeowners remain ed at high risk of foreclosure. In 2013, the City estimated that 30 percent of homes in Richmond were financed with subprime loans (Bissell et al., 2018). As late as the end of 2013, when the number of foreclosures had dropped to pre-recession levels, more than one in four Rich mond homeowners owed more on their mortgage than the fair market value of the property. T his rate dropped to 4.4 percent by 2018., and as of August 2022, there are 68 foreclosed homes in Richmond (Bissell et al., 2018; RealtyTrac, 2022).

There are also racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership t hat stem from historical and ongoing discrimination in wealth and lending practices (Section F.2). According to census data, White and AAPI residents are more likely to be homeowners than Black/African American and Latinx/Hispanic residents. As Table F-30 shows, in 2020, 71 percent of AAPI residents, 67 percent of White residents, 44 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents, an d 41 percent of Black/African American residents owned their homes. Additionally, between 201 0 and 2020, the AAPI homeownership rate increased (from 60 percent to 71 percent), w hile the homeownership rate among Hispanic/Latinx households decreased (from 52 percent to 44 percent). The homeownership rate among Black/African American and White house holds remained relatively constant over that time period.

F-102 | 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-30: Homeownership, Richmond (2010-2020)

Race/Ethnicity
2006-2010 2016-2020
Number Percent Number Percent
AAPI 3,009 59.9% 4,270 70.5%
Black/African American 4,849 41.0% 3,518 40.6%
Hispanic/Latinx 4,609 51.6% 5,227 43.7%
Native American* 24 40.0% 130 59.4%
White 6,318 69.7% 6,308 67.0%
Other Race 2,119 64.9% 2,033 37.0%
Multiracial 539 58.5% 1,160 47.5%
Citywide 19,194 54.0% 19,841 53.0%
Source: Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010 and 2016-2020), Table B25003.

During a listening session, Latina residents noted that beyond the high cost of homeownership, the process of buying a home continues to be daunting for many first-time homebuyers, even when they qualify for loans. As one resident said, “If no one i n your family has owned a house, that process is scary and you don’t know where to begin.” F.6.5 Housing and Neighborhood Quality
High-quality housing is important for the health and safety of its occupants and for ensuring that homes and neighborhoods are a source of pride for their residen ts. During community engagement, residents reported that many homes in Richmond need repairs. Residents shared experiences of mold, heating issues, flooding, pests, and lead. However, homeowners noted that repair costs are often prohibitive, and that they were not aware of City programs to help with these costs. Community-based organizations cited various reasons why landlords are not held accountable for making necessary housing repairs for their tenants. BALA emphasized that many renters do not complain to their landlords due to fear of retal iation - a fear which Hispanic/Latinx residents noted is heightened for undocumented residents. Addit ionally, CCSLS mentioned that

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-103

HACCC is hesitant to call out landlords who rent to voucher hol ders for bad behavior because HACCC does not want to lose landlords’ participation in the program. And APEN noted that some Laotian immigrants are averse to complaining in general.

Residents also cited abandoned properties and illegal dumping as major issues in Richmond. As of August 2022, there were 170 vacant lots and 84 vacant proper ties in Richmond (Richmond Code Enforcement Division, 2022), which are an easy target for illegal dumping, are dangerous for children, attract criminal activity, and are a fire hazard. These vacant buildings, which the Richmond Code Enforcement Division inspects and may clean up, a re extremely costly for the City. Residents also complained about trash on the streets. How ever, others acknowledged that their neighborhoods are cleaner than they used to be.

Residents and community-based organizations explained that poor quality housing, vacant properties, and illegal dumping contribute to blight. As the Ho using Authority of Contra Costa County described it, when residents see blight in their neighbo rhoods, they think: “The City doesn’t care, so why should we?”
As Figure F-28 shows, between 2016 and 2021, the Code Enforcement Department increased its efforts to address blight in the City, with the number of code enforcement cases nearly doubling from 1,445 to 3,079. However, the number of cases fell by more than half in 2021, likely impacted by COVID-19 shelter in place rules.

Figure F-28: Code Enforcement Cases, Richmond (2013-2021)

Source: Transparent Richmond, Code Enforcement Cases.

As Table-31 shows, between 2013 and 2021, nearly half of code e nforcement cases were regarding property maintenance. Other types of cases that repre sented more than 10 percent of total cases were related to vehicle abatement, illegal dumping, or a vacant building or property (Transparent Richmond, 2022).

F-104 | 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-31: Types of Code Enforcement Cases, Richmond (2013-2021)

Case Type Number Percent
Property maintenance 8,421 44.9%
Vehicle abatement 2,678 14.3%
Multiple violations 2,576 13.7%
Illegal dumping 1,979 10.6%
Vacant building or property 1,872 10.0%
Zoning 630 3.4%
Nuisance 400 2.1%
Coinspection 136 0.7%
Health and safety 38 0.2%
Hoarder 28 0.1%
Notes: The “Vacant building or property” category includes cases listed as “CE vacant building,” “Vacant commercial,” “Vacant property,” “Vacant residential multi-unit,” and “Vacant residential single family.” The “Vehicle abatement” category includes cases listed as “CE vehicle abatement” and “Vehicle abatement.” The “Zoning” category includes cases listed as “CE Zoning” and “Zoning.”
Source: Just Cities analysis of Transparent Richmond Code Enforcement Records, 2013-2021.

During this time period, code enforcement cases were concentrat ed in the central Richmond neighborhoods of Iron Triangle, Shields-Reid, Richmore Village/ Metro Square, Belding/Woods, Coronado, Cortez/Stege, and Pullman; and in the northern areas of Parchester Village and Fairmede/Hilltop neighborhoods, all of which have high percenta ges of Black/African American

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-105

and Hispanic/Latinx residents. This information is shown in Fig ure F-29, a heat map that shows the concentration of City code enforcement complaints filed with the City from 2013 to 2021.

F-106 | 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-29: Code Enforcement Cases, Richmond (2013-2021) Source: Just Cities analysis of Transparent Richmond Code Enforcement Records, 2013-2021.

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-107

Residents and community groups expressed mixed opinions on the effectiveness of code enforcement. The percentage of respondents who rated code enfor cement as excellent or good in the Richmond Community Survey declined from 22 percent in 20 15 to 12 percent in 2021 (National Research Center and Polco, 2021), though this decline may have been influenced by COVID-19 rules regarding code enforcement inspections. However, CCSLS noted in an interview that Richmond does a better job of handling housing habitabilit y issues than other parts of the county because of its code enforcement program. To address rema ining shortcomings, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) noted in an in terview that it is crafting a more proactive rental inspection policy that it hopes the City will adopt.

The Richmond Community Foundation (RCF) is also engaged in effo rts to address blight in Richmond through home rehabilitation. The City of Richmond used to directly rehabilitate homes through the Richmond RDA, but stopped operating this program af ter the dissolution of state redevelopment agencies. In 2015, the Richmond City Council vote d to issue up to $3 million in Social Impact Bonds for the purpose of rehabilitating and repai ring abandoned residential properties in the City, an initiative that is facilitated by RC F through the Richmond Housing Renovation Program. RCF works wi th the Code Enforcement Division to identify the City’s most blighted properties for rehabilitation, and RCF acquires the pr operties (Mechanics Bank funded the entire bond series during the five-year pilot). RCF noted i n an interview that most of the rehabilitated properties were in the Coronado, Santa Fe, Iron T riangle, and southern Richmond areas. Once the homes are rehabilitated, families who participa te in SparkPoint Contra Costa, a local financial services program, are given the first opportuni ty to purchase the homes through the organization’s First Time Home Buyer Program. Buyers are ty pically moderate-income families. As of July 2022, the Richmond Housing Renovation Prog ram had completed and sold 23 properties to first-time homebuyers and reduced code enforce ment costs for the City by $44,000 per year (Richmond Community Foundation, 2022).

F.6.6 Access to Subsidized Housing
Richmond residents may receive federal housing assistance if they live in one of the 26 affordable housing developments in Richmond or if they are a recipient of a Section 8 HCV. However, far more residents meet the federal requirements to qualify for sub sidized housing than receive it.

HACCC’s waiting list for PBVs reopened in August 2022 for County residents ages 62 and older, but for younger residents and choice-based vouchers (which cons titute 80 percent of HACCC’s vouchers), the waiting list is currently closed and not accepti ng new applicants. Additionally, not all the available vouchers are being used. HACCC’s voucher utilization rate was 91.2 percent in August 2022. While this is far better than RHA’s performance wh en it controlled the City’s vouchers, there are still 808 families in Contra Costa County w ho are not a part of the program but are eligible (HUD, 2022).

For many residents, the inability to receive a voucher has majo r consequences. One resident noted that her parents became homeless and her friend stayed in a domestic violence situation

F-108 | 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 because they were unable to obtain a voucher. Additionally, as described in Section F.2 voucher recipients face many barriers to using them, especially in high er-opportunity neighborhoods, which include SOI discrimination, insufficient search time, and the value of the voucher being too low to afford high-quality housing.

Fortunately, affordable housing in Richmond is not generally at risk of converting to market-rate.

According to 2022 analysis by the California Housing Partnershi p Corporation, all subsidized affordable rental housing in Richmond is at low-risk of conversion to market-rate housing by 2033 except 10 units at Rubicon Homes that are at moderate risk. The restrictions on these units are set to expire by 2029 (CHPC, 2022).

F.6.7 Contributing Factors to Disproportionate Housing Needs Several key factors contribute to the disproportionate housing needs in Richmond discussed in this section. These include:
● Historic and ongoing discrimination. Discriminatory policies and practices have resulted in disparities in income and wealth that cause residen ts of color - especially Black/African American residents - to disproportionately feel t he effects of housing problems today.
● Rising housing unaffordability. As housing costs rise and wages remain stagnant, residents are increasingly unable to afford rent. This puts residents who are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Laotian, and low-income at increased risk of housing issues such as displacement, overcrowding, and inability to access homeownership. ● Lack of City capacity. Without a dedicated housing department or adequate staff in the Community Development Department, the City is unable to adequat ely administer and enforce many of the promising housing laws that the City Council has passed. ● Failure to address blight. Vacant properties are disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods and generate illegal dumping, crime, and safety hazards. ● Lack of housing subsidies. Many Richmond residents who meet the income requirements for federal housing subsidies cannot obtain them d ue to long waiting lists.

This forces many low-income residents to spend a high percentage of their income on rent and forgo other basic needs.
● Structural barriers to accessing housing benefits and protectio ns. There are loopholes and omissions in local, state, and federal laws that prevent residents from obtaining the housing support they need. At the local level, Ri chmond’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance does not adequately protect formerly incarcer ated residents from landlord discrimination. At the state level, Costa Hawkins is a major barrier to meaningful rent control. And at the federal level, prohibitions on using f ederal funds to serve undocumented people leaves Richmond’s undocumented residents with unmet needs.

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-109

● Community opposition. In an interview, the Community Development Department noted that the City often encounters community opposition when buildi ng new affordable multi- family housing that makes it more difficult to complete project s. The Community Development Department explained that NIMBY attitudes materiali ze in the form of opposition to new housing based on potential increases in traff ic or loss of open space.

For example, residents in the Hilltop area recently opposed a p roposed 100 percent affordable housing complex, instead favoring a mixed-income dev elopment. In addition, innovative strategies for housing Richmond’s unhoused populatio n, such as building tiny homes in a vacant lot in the City, have been defeated by resident opposition.

Section F.7 Housing Barriers Facing Other
Marginalized Groups
Several groups, including Richmond’s unhoused, undocumented, disabled, elderly, and LGBTQ+ residents, former foster youth, and single mothers with childre n also face additional housing barriers that warrant special attention. The rest of this secti on examines these barriers and the accessibility of related housing supports. Because there is limited government survey data on the housing needs of these populations in Richmond, data from local community-based organizations and from interviews with residents are also included.

F.7.1 Unhoused Residents
According to the 2022 Point-in-Time Count, which is a survey co nducted in every city across the country on one night of each year, Richmond is home to 632 unhoused residents - by far the most of any city in Contra Costa County. The number of Richmond unh oused individuals has nearly doubled since 2019 (Table F-32).9 Research, including Point in Time data from other jurisdictions, shows that Black/African American residents, formerly incarcerated residents, children, LGBTQ+ youth, seniors, and people with mental health conditions are di sproportionately affected by homelessness (Bissell et al., 2018).

9 Point-in-Time data is generally considered to undercount the actual unhoused population.

F-110 | 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-32: Unhoused People in Top 5 Contra Costa County Cities (2019 and 2022) City 2019 2022
Countywide 1,627 2,329
Richmond 333 632
Concord 350 436
Antioch 226 342
Pittsburg 128 221
Martinez 156 106
Source: 2022 Point-in-Time Count, Contra Costa Health Services.

Homelessness is an urgent concern for residents. As one unhouse d resident described it, “We are in a state of crisis.” During community engagement events, residents focused on rising homelessness as a key issue that the City should address. Likew ise, according to the 2021 Richmond Community Survey, 81 percent of respondents said increasing services to support the homeless population was an essential or very important priority for the City (National Research Center and Polco, 2021).

Residents and community-based organizations offered various exp lanations for the homelessness crisis. These include the lack of affordable housing in Richmond, economic fallout from COVID-19, the lasting economic impacts of the Great Recession, and stagnant wages. One unhoused resident stated that rising homelessness is a result of an “extraction process” in which the City favors businesses over people in order to maximize profit.

Community-based organizations also noted that “not in my backyard” (“NIMBY”) attitudes prevent practical solutions to homelessness. The Greater Richmond Inter faith Program (GRIP), which provides services to unhoused residents, described a recent inc ident when local residents stopped tiny homes from being placed on a vacant lot in Richmon d. As one unhoused resident said, “It seems like people want to care, but as soon as the he lp is near them, they change their minds.” A staff member at SOS! Richmond, a housing advocacy org anization led by unhoused residents, emphasized that NIMBYism persists because the lack o f interpersonal relationships between housed and unhoused people manifests in negative stereo types about unhoused people. SOS! Richmond is addressing this by showcasing the succ esses of unhoused people in the local media, including the organization’s efforts to bring water, showers, and plants to encampments and to help unhoused residents obtain their driver’s license.

Unhoused residents described many challenges associated with homelessness. They noted that being homeless is a trap because having an address and a stable home are critical to obtaining and keeping a job. Without a job, unhoused residents cannot aff ord housing and remain unhoused. Unhoused residents also described poor living conditi ons in encampments. One resident emphasized that unhoused people need somewhere safe to put their items during the

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-111

day while they are looking for em ployment and services so their belongings are not at risk.

Regarding the lack of basic safety that unhoused residents expe rience, she explained, “Living in fear is a horrible way to live.”
Support Services for Unhoused Residents
The Contra Costa County Department of Health and local communit y-based organizations offer programs and support for unhoused people in Richmond. Homelessn ess programs run by the Department of Health have relatively high success rates, but lack the resources to place enough people in permanently affordable housing. Between 2012 and 2016, Rapid Rehousing programs in the County placed clients in permanent housing 73 percent of the time and helped them avoid homelessness 93 percent of the time, and Permanent Supportive H ousing programs helped 96 percent of clients retain their housing (Contra Costa County Co nsortium (C4) et al., 2019).

However, in 2016, out of the approximately 8,500 homeless peopl e that come into contact with the Continuum of Care system annually, these two programs had only 218 beds and served about 1,000 people each. The system has the most difficulty placing p eople in permanent housing (Contra Costa County Consortium (C4) et al., 2019). However, wh en unhoused people are able to receive permanent housing, residents explained that it can b e transformative. As one beneficiary of Project Homekey, a State program that helps publ ic agencies develop housing for unhoused people, explained, the program “put me off the streets and got me a home, which allowed me to get a job.”
Key barriers to accessing homelessness services include:
● A potential mismatch between the types of shelters available an d the populations who need services. During the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s 2019 Housing Inventory Count, only 40 and 60 percent of Contra Costa County’s emergency shelter housing beds were full; but this may reflect a lack of options for certain populations rather than a lack of demand for shelter. For examp le, some shelters only accept families, formerly incarcerated people, or people of a certain faith. ● Inadequacy of homeless shelters. GRIP noted that the lack of privacy and strict rules in shelters deter some unhoused people from seeking out those services. ● A gap between available services and the people who need them. One unhoused resident explained that the general attitude toward obtaining s ervices is “I don’t know where to go.” Another said that they needed someone to “sit there and walk them through [how to access services] or it won’t happen.” And unhoused residents explained that even after initially accessing services, it can be difficult to continue going. They suggested that this could be addressed by bringing services to people rather t han asking people to seek them out.
● Lack of trust in institutions . Unhoused residents expressed having lost faith in City government and politicians to address their problems. According to one resident, asking for help can be “daunting” because previous experiences with th e City have traumatized unhoused residents. As a result, unhoused residents explained t hat when accessing

F-112 | 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 services, they need to be able to create relationships with people they can trust. This starts with having a caseworker who shows up for them consistently, bu t they said this has not been their reality.
● Unhoused residents noted that outside social influences, ment al health issues, and addiction are other reasons why people in their situation do not utilize available services.

Unhoused residents expressed a belief that to address their problems, leadership can and should start with themselves. They pointed to SOS! Richmond as a beacon of how to build relationships, trust, and leadership among unhoused residents so they can fight for policy changes.

F.7.2 Residents with Disabilities
Residents with disabilities face a variety of housing needs bas ed on the type of disability they have and their living situation. Data on the population served by the DDS offers a small sample of the living situations of people with disabilities. As Table F-33 shows, in Richmond, the vast majority (83 percent) of residents with developmental disabilit ies who receive DDS services live in their family’s home, 10 percent live in independent or suppo rted living settings, 5 percent live in community care facilities, and 1 percent live in a foster/family home.

Table F-33: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence, Richmond (2020) Residence Type Number Percent
Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 765 83.0%
Independent/Supported Living 90 9.8%
Community Care Facility 43 4.7%
Foster/Family Home 13 1.4%
Other 11 1.2%
Intermediate Care Facility 0 0%
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence, 2020.

Key barriers to housing for residents with disabilities include:
● Inadequate housing options in Richmond. Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (CCSLS) emphasized that the lack of very-low income housing in Richmond is problematic because some people with disabilities make very little money. Additionally, the number of individuals with psychiatric disabilities experiencing homeless ness, incarceration, or

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-113

residence in congregate facilities suggests that there is unmet need for supportive housing for that population (C4 et al., 2019).
● A lack of dedicated funding sources for housing people with dis abilities. According to RCEB, there is insufficient funding for housing for people w ith disabilities because federal Medicaid funding cannot be used for room and board and the only source of state funding is DDS. However, updates to the City of Richmond’s 2016 Zoning Ordinance were intended to create additional housing for people with disabilit ies. The City established additional concessions for development projects with housing un its affordable to low- income households and accessible to persons with disabilities (City of Richmond, 2021). ● Unmet in-home assistance needs. CCSLS noted that the shortage of caregivers providing in-home supportive services is problematic because pe ople with disabilities need caregivers to be able to live in their homes safely. RCEB also noted that overcrowding is a barrier to providing in-home supportive services. ● Barriers to independent living. It is likely that not all residents with disabilities who want to and are able to live in independent living settings have the opportunity to do so. First, CCSLS explained that disabled residents sometimes cannot take advantage of affordable housing subsidies because program rules prevent family members (who may be their caretakers) from moving in with them. Additionally, RCEB also n oted that residents with disabilities sometimes remain in their family home because the family is dependent on the disabled person’s Social Security Insurance (SSI) income to aff ord housing. In addition, supportive housing often consists primarily of one-bedroom apar tments, which is problematic for residents with disabilities who need a live-in aide with their own bedroom (C4 et al., 2019).
● Landlord discrimination. RCEB explained that while landlord discrimination is typically not a major problem for residents with physical disabilities, it is a barrier for residents with severe IDDs.

As a result of the combined effects of poverty and stress on physical and mental health, it appears that Black/African American Richmond residents may be more likely than residents of other racial and ethnic groups to have a disability, putting them at heighte ned risk for the disability-related housing barriers described above. In Richmond, 21 percent of Bl ack/African American residents have a disability, compared to 14 percent of White residents, 1 2 percent of AAPI residents, and 8 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents (Table F-34).

F-114 | 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-34: Disability Rate by Race and Ethnicity (2019) Race Richmond Contra Costa County
Asian American 12.1% 8%
Black/African American 20.8% 16%
Hispanic/Latinx 6% 9.5%
Native American*10 4.2% 21.2%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander

6.0% 9.6%
White 13.7% 12.6%
Other Race 5.2% 7.4%
Multiracial 14.7% 9.8%
Overall Disability Rate 10.2% 8.9%
Source: ABAG analysis of American Community Survey (2015-2019).

Despite heightened needs, Black/African American residents with disabilities may be less likely to receive the services they need. RCEB explained that because most of its funding sources support independent living, the organization has disproportionately served White people because they are more able to afford to live independently.

Two key agencies provide housing and other services to Richmond residents who have disabilities. Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services is responsible for coordinating the provision of supportive services, including housing, for residents with psychiatric disabilities in Contra Costa County. Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) coordinates the provision of supportive services for individuals with IDDs in the service area that includes Richmond.

F.7.3 Formerly Incarcerated Residents
According to the Safe Return Project, an organization that work s to build power for formerly incarcerated people in Richmond and across California, as a res ult of the “War on Drugs,” the massive effort launched in the early 1980s that led to increase d policing and incarceration, the rate of prison admissions grew 486 percent in Contra Costa County between 1970 and 2000 (Safe

10 Asterisks denote small sample size (<100) throughout this docu ment, meaning that the estimate has a high margin of error and may not be accurate.

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-115

Return Project, 2011). As a city with a majority of Black/Afric an American and Hispanic/Latinx residents, Richmond was disproportionately affected (Safe Return Project, 2011).

As Table F-35 shows, in 2020, 1,149,800 residents were incarcer ated in Contra Costa County jails, and there were no major racial disparities in incarceration rates.

Table F-35: Incarceration by Race, Jail Population in Contra Costa County (2020) Race Number Incarcerated
Percentage of
Incarcerated
Population
Percentage of County
Population
AAPI 180,761 15.7% 17.0%
Black/African American 103,467 9.0% 8.4%
Hispanic/Latinx 293,079 25.5% 25.6%
Native American 3,311 0.3% 0.2%
White 523,428 45.5% 28%
Multiracial 45,754 4.0% 5.1%
Source: Incarceration data from California Department of Finance, P-2D County Population by Total Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Race (2020). Population estimates from ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year data (2015-2019), Table B03002. .

Formerly incarcerated residents in Richmond face severe housing needs. According to self- reporting data from the 1,400 unhoused individuals served by Rubicon’s West County Economic Empowerment Services, between 2012 and 2016, 43 percent had been convicted of a crime and 39 percent had served time in prison or jail (Bissell et al., 2 018). And in a Safe Return Project survey of Richmond residents who were released within the previous 3 to 18 months, 70 percent of respondents were essentially homeless at the time of the survey. This included 34 percent who were staying with friends or family, 11 percent in short-term s helters, and 25 percent in halfway houses or residential programs. During the first three days aft er release, 22 percent of respondents reported that they could not find a safe place to s leep, and during the first month after release, nearly half stayed rent-free with family or friends, and one in five were homeless or stayed in short-term shelters. Additionally, one-third of respo ndents had lived in at least three different places since their release from prison or jail (Safe Return Project, 2014).

Formerly incarcerated residents are more likely to end up in un stable housing or unhoused for various reasons, including:
● Financial barriers. In the Safe Return Project survey described above, the most common challenge that respondents faced to accessing housing was finan cial, with 60 percent

F-116 | 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 reporting difficulties affording a credit check, deposit, and rent (Safe Return Project, 2014).

Affordability issues are exacerbated due to the limited employm ent options of formerly incarcerated residents that result from a lack of job experience and hiring discrimination. ● Barriers in the housing search process. The majority of formerly incarcerated residents do not receive any housing-related counseling or support prior to release. Additionally, one-third of Safe Return Project survey respondents said they h ad faced landlord discrimination (Safe Return Project, 2014). While the City’s Fa ir Chance Housing Ordinance was passed to combat discrimination against formerly incarcerated people after this survey was conducted, the Safe Return Project noted in an interview that discrimination persists because of loopholes in the ordinance. The City reports that it is still in the process of fully implementing the Fair Chance Hous ing Ordinance, which includes conducting outreach to affordable housing providers, c reating data collection systems, and creating an appeals process for tenants. However, the City acknowledges loopholes in the Ordinance and is currently working to improve and potentially expand it. ● Barriers to subsidized housing. Until the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance was passed, many individuals with a criminal record were expressly excluded from publicly subsidized housing and all other forms of housing. Additionally, many indi viduals who qualify for a Housing Choice Voucher lack support to navigate the affordable housing system and face long waiting lists after they apply (Safe Return Project, 2014). ● Barriers to accessing supportive and transitional housing. According to the Safe Return Project, homeless shelters often do not offer the supportive services that formerly incarcerated people need to achieve stability. Currently, the o nly transitional housing in the Richmond area is for individuals in recovery from substance abuse, which leaves no transitional housing options for formerly incarcerated people w ho do not face this issue (Safe Return Project, 2014).

F.7.4 Undocumented Residents
While specific data on undocumented residents in Richmond is no t available, other research suggests that they face severe barriers to housing. Undocumented and mixed legal status renter households are more likely than native-born households to exper ience housing cost burden (Allen, 2020). Additionally, a study of undocumented Mexican an d Central American immigrants found that undocumented immigrant households are far less likel y than documented immigrant households to be homeowners, and are more likely to live in overcrowded homes, report structural deficiencies with their homes, and express concern about the qu ality of public services and environmental conditions in their neighborhoods (Hall and Green man, 2013). Barriers to legally obtaining housing and a job also place undocumented residents a t higher risk of homelessness.

In fact, GRIP noted in an interview that most of the residents in its homeless shelter are undocumented.

Undocumented residents face numerous barriers to safe and affor dable housing. Residents explained that their undocumented friends and family cannot app ly to most rental housing or

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-117

obtain a mortgage to buy a home because they lack a Social Secu rity Number. Additionally, residents stated - and research confirms - that private landlor ds often refuse to rent to undocumented immigrants because they do not have provable streams of income, credit reports, or history of former rentals (Ayano, 2021). Residents also reported that undocumented residents are also more likely to face landlord abuse and unsafe living conditions because they are hesitant to complain due to fear of eviction or deportation. Likewise, G RIP explained that some undocumented residents do not seek out services because they are afraid they will get turned in to law enforcement.

Finally, undocumented immigrants are excluded from federal subs idies, including housing subsidies, Medicaid-funded supportive services, or services fro m organizations that accept federal dollars (like Bay Area Legal Aid). One resident noted t hat this was a particular challenge during COVID-19 because undocumented immigrants were not eligib le for federal stimulus checks or the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

F.7.5 Low-Income Seniors
As Figure F-30 shows, almost 61 percent of lower-income senior households in Richmond are cost burdened, meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing.

F-118 | 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-30: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level, Richmond (2013-2017)

Source: ABAG analysis of HUD, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

Many residents noted that rising rents especially hurt seniors because they are living on fixed incomes. Additionally, CCSLS emphasized in an interview that af fordable housing funded with Low Income Housing Tax Credits is not sustainably affordable for seniors unless it is coupled with project-based vouchers because seniors have static income but r ents continue to rise. CCSLS also noted that homelessness is an increasing problem for senio rs. CCSLS explained that Adult Protective Services in Contra Costa County used to have a grant to prevent homelessness for seniors, but it is “woefully under-resourced.”
F.7.6 LGBTQ+ Residents
Though local data is not available, national data suggests that Richmond residents who are LGBTQ+ face additional housing barriers due to the combined eff ects of housing discrimination (Section F.3.1.3.6) and employment discrimination. According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, LGBTQ+ people are 15 percent more likely than non-LGBTQ+ people to be poor, making it more difficult to afford housing. Additionally, 50 percent of LGBTQ+ adults own their homes, compared to 70 percent of non-LGBTQ adults. Disparities in homeownership exist among LGBTQ+ couples as well - 64 percent of same-sex couples own their homes, versu s 75 percent of different-sex couples. And LGBTQ+ elders are more likely to live alone than n on-LGBTQ+ elders, which can

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-119

create challenges with independent living and financial stability (Romera, Goldberg, and Vasquez, 2020).

LGBTQ+ youth are also at increased risk of homelessness. Studie s find that LGBTQ+ youth are more than twice as likely to be unhoused than heterosexual, cis gender youth (Chapin Hall and VOYC, 2017). Other studies have found that family rejection of LGBTQ+ youth is a major factor contributing to high levels of homelessness (Romera, Goldberg, and Vasquez, 2020). Unhoused LGBTQ+ youth and adults also face barriers when trying to acces s homeless shelters and services, including harassment and violence and staff who are n ot appropriately equipped to serve LGBTQ+ people. Additionally, sex-segregated facilities le ad many transgender people to go unsheltered rather than receive services (Chapin Hall and VOYC, 2017).

F.7.7 Former Foster Youth
When youth in California age out of the foster care system at a ge 21, they must find their own housing and lose access to resources like a monthly stipend, me ntal health care, and case management services. Additionally, challenges associated with being a foster youth lead to lower high school and college graduation rates, making it harder for former foster youth to find employment and afford housing. Lack of financial support from parents and mental health issues can exacerbate these challenges (Dion et al., 2022)
While specific data on Richmond is not available, research shows that former foster youth are at increased risk of housing instability. In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago’s Chapin Hall, more than one in four former foster youth in California e xperienced at least one night of homelessness in the previous two years. Nearly 30 percent of respondents said they had “couch surfed,” or slept at friends’ houses, because they did not have anywhere else to sleep (Courtney et al, 2020).

Richmond youth who are transitioning out of foster care can acc ess assistance through Contra Costa Health Services’ Transitional Living Program (TLP), which provides temporary housing for youth between the ages of 18 and 24 who are homeless or are exi ting the foster care system.

Youth in the TLP program receive case management services that prepare them to transition back home, into permanent supportive housing, or to living inde pendently (Contra Costa Health Services, 2022b). However, it is likely that some former foster youth do not receive the support they need.

F.7.8 Single Female Headed Households with Children
Finally, single mothers with children may struggle to afford ho using if they only have a single income. This is an acute challenge in Richmond, where a far hig her percentage of residents live in female-headed households (17 percent) than in Contra Costa C ounty (12 percent) or the Bay Area (10 percent). 1,351 female-headed households with children in Richmond live below federal poverty limits. As a result, children in single-parent househol ds are more likely to live in low-

F-120 | 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 income neighborhoods in Richmond with fewer educational and economic opportunities (Section F.3.2.4).

Section F.8 Analysis of Sites Inventory

The State of California requires potential new housing sites to be analyzed and evaluated in a manner consistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AB 686). The framework for this analysis utilizes fair housing indicators used throughout this assessment to see if the sites identified will improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity in Richmond. Where the analysis indic ates that Richmond does not have sufficient sites available to meet its RHNA goals in a man ner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, the Housing Element must include strategies to address this, such as making additional sites available. Appendix B identifies that there is sufficient capacity in the sites inventory to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

This analysis is based on information identified in August 2022:

1. 517 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) : Affordability level is based upon an ABAG regional analysis contained in Appendix B-3 Table B-2.

2. Housing projects that have been approved or are under constr uction “ Entitled and Approved Projects” with an anticipated total of 1,984 units, of which 1,486 may be above moderate income.

3. Housing projects that currently have preliminary permitting applications or applications under City review. “Preliminary Pipeline,” with an anticipated total of 1,984 units, of which 1,486 are above moderate income units.

4. Available land in Richmond to build new housing units “Site Inventory” with an anticipated total of 784 units of which 419 could be very low or low-income housing units.

The following Table F-36 provides a summary of the sites invent ory of units by anticipated affordability levels.

Table F-36: Richmond Housing Development Potential and RHNA Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
RHNA 2022-2031 See Very
Low 840 485
638 1,651 3,614
1,325

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-121

Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
ADUs See Very
Low 155 155 155 52 517
Entitled/Approved Projects* See Very
Low 172 136 519 2,683 3,510
Preliminary Pipeline* See Very
Low 280 132 86 1,486 1,984
Sites Inventory* See Very
Low/Low 419 167 198 784
Total 1,449 927 4,419 6,795
Surplus 124 289 2,768 3,181
*Considers net new units only.

The Preliminary Pipeline describes projects that are currently preliminary applications or under review by the Planning Division. The Entitled/Approved Projects describes projects that have been approved by the Planning Division or are under construction.

Source: City of Richmond, LWC, Just Cities, August 2022 The City projects a surplus of about 3,181 housing units toward s meeting its RHNA total goals, which includes a surplus of moderate (289) and very low and low income (124) units.

The sites inventory analysis includes entitled/approved projects (diamonds in the following maps), preliminary pipeline projects (squares in the following maps), and site inventory sites (circles in the following maps). The site analysis does not include ADUs since it is unclear where ADUs may be built, given that ADU development is now available to many property owners across the City.

Key Findings:

The following Key Findings are based on neighborhood and sub-ar ea analysis of projects and sites as of August 2022 that consider the potential effects on access to opportunity, segregation, and displacement risk and disproportionate housing needs. ● All sites identified in this analysis are vacant land. And on ly one pipeline project demolishes low-income units that it will replace with new low-income units. ● Affordable housing projects are already in development or cou ld potentially occur in low to moderate-income areas, including such as Iron Triangle, Beld ing Woods, Coronado, Park Plaza and Marina Bay.
● Affordable housing projects and potential sites are concentra ted in lower-income areas (sub-areas 3, 4, 5), rather than higher resource areas (sub-areas 1 and 2).

F-122 | 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 ● Above-moderate income projects and sites are located in multi ple neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement with increasing housing cost burdens ( s u c h a s Fairmede/Hilltop, Santa Fe, Coronado, Iron Triangle, East of Ma rina Bay and Southwest Annex areas).
● Despite RHNA goals being met, insufficient housing is propose d in overcrowded neighborhoods like Belding/Woods and Atchison Village.
● Neighborhoods in the central most part of the City are experi encing the highest rates of pollution burden and have the most housing sites and units in d evelopment or proposed.

This includes neighborhoods like Iron Triangle, Coronado, Richm ond Annex, and Hilltop District.

F.8.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation
Strategies to increase racial desegregation in segregated neigh borhoods, without exacerbating gentrification and displacement trends, requires efforts to inc rease affordable housing in higher income neighborhoods where White residents tend to reside. Howe ver, as seen in Table F-37, using HCD’s criteria for low-income housing sites, there are no vacant properties that qualify as a low-income housing site. The table does show that there are above moderate income sites and two proposed mixed income housing projects contemplated in the only neighborhood that is not majority people of color–the Point Richmond neighborhood.

Without intervening policies, such as the City’s Inclusionary H ousing Ordinance, housing development projects may perpetuate Richmond’s current patterns of racial segregation.

Recommended strategies include the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the recently amended Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in achieving desegregation and fair housing priorities.

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-123

Figure F-31: Percent of Total Non-White Population

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-124 | 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.8.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity

There are two main strategies through new housing development f or Richmond to increase resident access to opportunities: 1) increase affordable housing in higher income neighborhoods; and 2) increase economic, educational, and environmental invest ments in lower income neighborhoods.

Regarding the strategy of increasing affordable housing access in higher income neighborhoods, in reviewing information in Table F-37, none of the potential h ousing sites in higher-income neighborhoods meet HCD’s criteria for low-income housing sites; therefore, all anticipated sites in these high-income neighborhoods are shown as above-moderate income housing sites, with the exception of one potential low-income housing site in Marin a Bay and a few mixed income potential projects in Point Richmond and Southwest Annex. Usin g HCD’s criteria alone, these anticipated housing development projects appear to perpetuate the lack of access of low-income households to high opportunity areas, where higher income households reside.

Recommended strategies include evaluating Richmond’s amended Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in creating affordable housing opportunities in highe r income neighborhoods through the production of on-site affordable housing units in market ra te projects. In addition, since the City’s identification of approximately 120 vacant small parcel sites suitable for 1-2 units of housing are predominantly in higher income neighborhoods, the City can engage in strategic partnerships with affordable housing developers that develop smaller units t ypes, including single-family and duplex units, to align objectives of creating affordable housin g opportunities in higher income neighborhoods. Regarding the strategy of improving conditions i n lower income neighborhoods, as reflected in Figure F-35, neighborhoods in the central most part of the City, including Iron Triangle and Coronado, Pan Handle Annex and Fairmede/Hilltop ar e experiencing the highest rates of pollution burden, and have the most new potential hous ing sites and projects. This strategy builds upon Richmond’s i nnovative integration of healt h and wellness in land use planning, including the adoption of a Community Health and Well ness Element in its General Plan, and Health in All Policies Ordinance, one of the first in the nation (Community Health and Wellness, Richmond General Plan 2030). As part of Richmond’s health equity approach, the City has engaged in place-based planning efforts and the investment of new climate resilience and infrastructure projects in lower income neighborhoods, includin g Iron Triangle, Santa Fe, and Coronado. Projects include, but are not limited to, the Yellow Brick Road Walkable Neighborhood Plan, Rumrill Blvd/13th Street Complete Street, Resilience Road map, Unity Park, and Harbour- 8th Park.

For example, Phase 3 of the Yellow Brick Road Project (YBR) in Richmond's Iron Triangle neighborhood will install human-scale street lighting, litter a batement facilities, wayfinding and placemaking signage, and public art elements to 8th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. The Project also proposes decorative fencing at the two parks that bookend the YBR route (Elm Playlot and Harbour-8 Park) as well as a litter abatement and public ar t maintenance campaign 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-125

residents who live within a 1/4-mile of the project site. This project will clean and beautify the project site and place-making elements to complete the community's vision to create clean, green and safe streets for biking and walking in the Iron Triangle neighborhood.

F-126 | 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-32: Percent of Low-Moderate Income 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-127

Figure F-33: Environmental Justice Communities

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-128 | 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.8.3 Potential Effects on Displacement Risk and Disproportionate Housing Needs
All new housing sites identified in this analysis are vacant la nd. Only one pipeline project demolishes existing low-income units that will be later replace d with new low-income units.

However, this does not negate the existence of market force displacement and the fact that most of the new market rate units identified in the sites inventory, using HCD’s established methodology, are in areas considered vulnerable to displacement.

Sites Inventory: As mentioned in Table F-36, the City has identified available sites suitable to potentially accommodate 198 above moderate housing units. With the exception of one parcel, these sites are small vacant parcels suitable for developing 1-2 housing units. There is one parcel suitable for accommodating around 34 units, located in Fairmede /Hilltop. As seen in Figure F- 35, many of these parcels identified as potential above-moderat e income housing are in neighborhoods considered vulnerable to displacement by the UC B erkeley Urban Displacement Project. With the exception of the Fairmede/Hilltop parcel, given the small unit types anticipated and the dispersed nature of the above-moderate income sites, th ere may be less impact on the displacement risk of Richmond’s residents with disproportionate housing needs. The information in Table F-37 highlights that above moderate-income projects an d sites are also located in neighborhoods experiencing high housing cost burdens like Santa Fe, Coronado, and Fairmede/Hilltop.

Entitled/Approved Projects: As provided in Table F-37, there are 3,510 approved and unde r construction units, 76 percent of which are identified as producing above-moderate income units (2,683 units). These above-moderate income housing units are mostly in larger housing projects that range from 68 units to 1,193 units (Point Molate Mixed Use Development Project).

The above-moderate income projects are primarily located in dis placement vulnerable neighborhoods. These anticipated projects appear to potentiall y have considerable impacts on the displacement risk of Richmond’s residents with disproportionate housing needs, as identified above. However, given that these projects have already been ap proved, City action on these sites is limited.

Preliminary Pipeline Projects: As provided in Table F-40, there are 1,984 anticipated new units in the preliminary pipeline, 75 percent of which are identified as potentially above-moderate income units. As seen in Figure F-36, with the exception of th e Quarry Redesign preliminary pipeline project located in Point Richmond, all the above-moder ate income preliminary pipeline projects are in neighborhoods considered vulnerable to displacement by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project. These projects range from 85 to 349 housing units.

These anticipated projects appear to potentially have considerable impacts on the displacement risk of Richmond’s residents with disproportionate housing needs, as identified above.

Recommendations: Given the seriousness of the fair housing implications of the new proposed above-moderate income housing projects, the City should engage in a Fair Housing, socio-

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-129

economic impact and displacement assessment of each new above-m oderate income housing project over a certain unit size, such as 10 units, as part of its review process (see Mundie and Associates, 2005, for an example). Pursuant to the assessment findings, strategies to prevent displacement, rather than traditional mitigation approaches, should be implemented. The City can partner with affordable housing developers to transform identif ied available sites into affordable housing, including homeownership opportunities and require on-s ite affordable housing units be provided as part of above moderate income sites. The current In clusionary Housing ordinance exempts market-rate development, north of I-580, from the requi rements to provide inclusionary units on-site or pay the in-lieu fees because a recent financia l feasibility study showed that unsubsidized housing was financially infeasible. This temporary exception was established to incentivize housing production in these areas. As a recommende d strategy, the City should complete a new financial feasibility study to determine if adju stment to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance should be made.

F-130 | 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-34: Sensitive Communities (Displacement Risk)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
Figure F-35: Percent of Renter Households Experiencing Cost Burden

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-131

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-132 | 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-37: Entitled/Approved Development Projects

Address Project
Name/
Description
Neighbor
hood
Status Vacant/ Existing
or Previous Use
Units by Income Level
Very
Low1 Low1 Moderate1 Above
Moderate
Total Net
New2
Barrett
Ave.

New SRO
Multi-Family
Development
Belding/
Woods
Under
constru
ction
Vacant 17 - - - 17
1390 S.
49th St.

Campus Bay
Mixed Use
Project –
Phase I
East of
Marina
Bay
Approv
ed
Vacant - - 290 710 1,000
2100
Stenmark
Dr.

Point Molate
Mixed Use
Development
North of
Point
Richmond
Approv
ed
Vacant - - 67 1,193 1,260
1500
Dornan
Dr.

Terminal 1
Residential
Project
Point
Richmond
Approv
ed
Former Terminal
1 Wharf
- - - 316 316
1300
Roosevelt
Ave.

Hacienda
Senior
Apartments
Iron
Triangle
Approv
ed
Vacant Building 148 - - 2 150
S. 47th St. Miraflores
Residential
Development
Park Plaza Approv
ed
Former Nursery - 38 152 - 190
2301
Columbia
Blvd.

Cherry
Blossom Row
Residential
Project
Southwest
Annex
Approv
ed
Vacant - - 10 90 100 Colusa
Ave.

TBV: Villas at
Renaissance
Apartments
- Approv
ed
Vacant 7 98 - - 105

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-133

Address Project
Name/
Description
Neighbor
hood
Status Vacant/ Existing
or Previous Use
Units by Income Level
Very
Low1 Low1 Moderate1 Above
Moderate
Total Net
New2
3900
Giant Rd.

Richmond
Country Club
Residential
Development
Hilltop
District
Approv
ed
Vacant - - - 94 94
3151
Garrity
Way
Garrity Way
Apartments
Hilltop
District
Approv
ed
Vacant - - - 98 98
3080
Hilltop
Mall Rd.

Hilltop
Apartments
Hilltop
District
Approv
ed
Surface Parking
Lot
- - - 180 180
Entitled/Approved Subtotal 172 136 519 2,683 3,510
Source: City of Richmond, August 2022

Table F-38: Preliminary Pipeline Sites

Address
Project Name/
Description
Supportive
and Family
Apartments
Neighbor
hood
Status
Under
review
Vacant/
Existing
or
Previous
Use
Vacant
Building
Units by Income Level
Very
Low
1 Low1 Moderate1 Above
Moderate
Total Net
New2

F-134 | 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 100 38th
St.

Supportive and
Family
Apartments
Park
Plaza
Under
review
Vacant
Building 95 38 - 2 135
1135
Canal
Blvd.

Quarry
Redesign
Point
Richmond
Under
review Vacant - - 8 68 76
1101-
1221
Macdonal
d Ave.
12 th &
Macdonald
Iron
Triangle
Under
review Vacant - - 69 278 347
Portola
Ave.

Metrowalk
Phase II
Belding/W
oods
Under
review
Surface
Parking
Lot
46 104 - - 150
5620
Central
Ave.

Central SB35 Richmond
Annex
Under
review Vacant 39 - - 349 388
Brickyard
Cove
Road
PG&E Site
Subdivision
Point
Richmond
Under
review Vacant - - 9 85 94
2400
Nevin
Ave.

Nevin Plaza
New
Construction
North and
East
Prelimin
ary Vacant - 90 - 2 92
Maine
Ave.

Nystrom
Village Coronado Prelimin
ary
100 Low-
Income
Units
100 -100* - 303 303
Marina
Way
Marina Way
South
Coronado
or Marina
Bay
Incompl
ete Vacant - - - 399 399
Preliminary Pipeline Subtotal 280 132* 86 1,486 1,984
1 Any low or moderate units are or will be deed restricted to the identified income level. 2 Only counts net new units (i.e., subtracts existing units that are being demolished as part of the new housing development).
*Subtracts the 100 existing low-income units to be demolished in Nystrom Village.

Source: City of Richmond, August 2022
F.8.4 Sites Inventory Analysis
The following section is the detailed site inventory analysis b y sub-area and neighborhood that was summarized above in the potential effects of housing sites and projects on patterns of segregation (F.4.2), access to opportunity (F.4.3), or displace ment risk and disproportionate housing need (F.4.4). This section includes several tables (Tab le F-39 and F-40) and maps highlighting fair housing indicators (Figures F-3 to F-4) as we ll as sites inventory,

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-135

entitled/approved projects and preliminary pipeline projects. T he tables highlight the lowest to highest values in a purple gradient for twelve data points required by the State as part of the sites inventory analysis. There are several factors to consider regar ding the Sites Inventory Analysis, which include:
● The analysis does not include ADU units.
● There are multiple census tracts that are part of more than on e neighborhood in this analysis.
● There are some neighborhoods located within two sub-areas such as Iron Triangle (Sub- Areas 3 and 5), and Coronado (Sub-Areas 5 and 6).
● There are a few geographic labels that are not a neighborhood. These geographies are marked with an asterisk (*) in the TCAC analysis tables. These include North of Point Richmond, East of Marina Bay, Northwest of Greenridge Heights and Southwest of Greenbriar.
● There are no R/ECAPS in the City, and therefore, will not be i ncluded in the sites inventory analysis, however, Section F.4.5 performs an analysis of potential future R/ECAPS in the City.
● The following two sites were not mapped or included in the TCA C analysis below:
o TBV: Villas at Renaissance Apartm ents, Approved, Currently Vacant, 105 units (7 very low and 98 low units)
o Marina Way South, Incomplete, Currently Vacant, 399 above mode rate income units
● The required State indicators are described using estimates, w hich are not exact conditions of the demographics of Richmond. For example, overcrowding data may underestimate the number of overcrowded households because some households may fear that sharing this information could put them at risk of eviction or potential deportation for undocumented residents.

The following analysis is based on the 6 sub-areas and their ne ighborhoods that include census tracts or block groups with site inventory (sites), preliminary pipeline and entitled/approved projects on them.

Citywide Overview
● Sites are located across the City, but concentrated in distri cts 3, 4, 5, and 6. These sites account for 29 percent (784 units) of the anticipated developme nt potential. A majority of these units are low income. Pipeline or Entitled/Approved projects account for 75 percent (5,090 units) of the anticipated development potential. Except for subarea 2, these projects can be found in all subareas. A majority of these units are above-moderate income. ● Above-moderate income sites are distributed across the City. Their location in neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement with increasi ng housing cost burdens may negatively impact existing households in neighborhoods such as Iron Triangle, Coronado, East of Marina Bay and Southwest Annex.

F-136 | 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 ● Low and Moderate sites are concentrated in Sub-Areas 3, 5, an d 6. These Sub-Areas are vulnerable to displacement, have a large share of low to modera te income households who are also experiencing cost-burden, have high percentage of non-White population, and have a low-resource score for access to opportunity. ● Neighborhoods such as El Sobrante Hills and Green Briar (Sub- area 2), which are the only two neighborhoods in the City with moderate resources, cou ld have the opportunity to integrate more low and moderate sites if there were availabl e vacant sites that could accommodate such housing.

Sub-Area 1
● The sites and projects in this sub-area, which includes Point Richmond, Shields-Reid, Parchester Village and the Hilltop District neighborhoods, are clustered around Parchester Village, Shields-Reid, and Point Richmond. Eight percent (63) of site units and 42 percent (2,118) of project units are located in this sub-area. The majo rity of sites include small buildings with above moderate income units with only a handful of moderate income units.

The majority of projects are larger buildings with above-moderate income units. ● This area has a high non-white population, rates of children living in married couples in the City and some of the lowest rates of children female-headed households. ● This area has smaller percentages of low to moderate income h ouseholds than other areas of the City. For example, north of Point Richmond and Poi nt Richmond both have the highest concentrations of projects, smallest percentage of low to moderate income households and very little overcrowding.
● Some specific clusters of sites in Sub-Area 1 have limited ac cess to environmental opportunities, including those in Parchester Village and Hilltop District, which score above the 80th percentile statewide for poor environmental outcomes. These neighborhoods are also vulnerable to displacement, as they have concentrations of marginalized groups such as minority population (72 percent in Shields-Reid and Hilltop neighborhoods), renter households experiencing cost burden, and other vulnerable group s such as disabled populations (less than 13 percent).
● Prioritizing above moderate sites here would further segregat e high income residents into these areas, and further displace residents already suffering from rent burden.

Sub-Area 2
● This sub-area, which includes the El Sobrante Hills neighborh oods, Fairmede/Hilltop, Greenbriar, and Greenridge Heights, accounts for seven percent (51) of site units, all of which are above-moderate income. There are no preliminary pipeline or entitled/approved projects. These sites can produce 1 to 34 units per parcel. ● Sites in this sub-area are located in neighborhoods with some of the lowest concentrations of low-moderate income households, pollution burden, overcrowdi ng (4 percent), and owner housing cost burden.

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-137

● However, thirteen percent of the population is disabled, a ma jority of renters experience cost burden (56 percent), and households living in Southwest of Green Briar and Fairmede Hilltop are vulnerable to displacement.
● This sub-area has the only two neighborhoods in Richmond with moderate resources, yet it does not have any sites at different income levels that coul d help integrate residents of all income groups. There is an opportunity to integrate more lo w and moderate income sites if there were available vacant or other opportunity sites that could accommodate such housing.

Sub-Area 3
● Sites in one of the smallest sub-areas account for nine perce nt (74) of units in central Richmond, which covers Belding Woods, Iron Triangle, and part o f Richmore Village and cover a range of income levels. The majority of sites are locat ed in Iron Triangle, which are moderate, mixed, and above-moderate, and sites in Richmore Village are low, mixed, and moderate. The preliminary pipeline and entitled/approved pr ojects in this sub-area account for six percent (317) of citywide units with a majority low income in Belding/Woods and Iron Triangle.
● All neighborhoods in the sub-area are vulnerable to displacem ent. This sub-area has the largest minority population, high rates of renters experiencing cost burden, and households in this sub-area have the highest overcrowding rates (18-19%) and pollution burden in the City.
● Homeowners near projects in this sub-area experience the lowe st rate of housing burden across all other areas.
● Affordable housing is integrated in both lower and moderate i ncome areas. ● The City should focus on strategies to alleviate overcrowding in neighborhoods like Belding Woods through increasing new affordable housing development.

Sub-Area 4
● This sub-area that covers North and East Richmond and Richmon d Heights has six percent (49) of site units, which are moderate, mixed, and above-moderate income. There is only one preliminary pipeline project (Nevin Plaza New Construction) in this sub-area; which accounts for two percent (92) of citywide units. Ninety of these units are low-income. ● Households in this sub-area experience overcrowding and rent burden (over 52 percent) while having a large proportion of low-moderate income households, minority and disabled populations.
● All neighborhoods in this sub-area are vulnerable to displace ment except for a part of North and East Richmond.
● The addition of moderate income sites in this sub-area may help increase integration of income groups in these neighborhoods.

Sub-Area 5

F-138 | 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 ● Sites in this sub-area account for 18 percent (143) of units, in Atchison Village, Santa Fe, Coronado, Pullman, Metro Square, and Park Plaza, cover a range of income levels and are distributed throughout the sub-area. A majority of low and moderate income unit sites are concentrated here and in one other sub-area. Preliminary pi peline and entitled/approved projects in this sub-area account for twenty- one percent (1,075) of citywide units and are located in Coronado, Iron Triangle and Park Plaza neighborhoods.

These units are almost evenly split between above moderate (583 ) and lower and moderate income (492) units.
● All neighborhoods in the sub-area are vulnerable to displacem ent. This sub-area has a large minority and disabled population (15 percent), one of the highest rates of children in married couple households, high rates of low-to-moderate income households and housing cost burden, particularly in the Santa Fe and Coronado neighborhoods. ● Households west of the railroad tracks have high overcrowding rates and pollution burden compared to the eastern section of the sub-area.
● The potential distribution of low, moderate and above sites i n this sub-area can aid in the integration of affordable housing.
● The City should focus on strategies to alleviate overcrowding in neighborhoods like Iron Triangle through increasing new affordable housing development.

Sub-Area 6
● This sub-area, which includes Marina Bay, Cortez/Stege, Laure l Park, Eastshore, Parkview, Panhandle Annex, and Richmond Annex, have a concentration of sites on the north and east side of I-580. Sites account for 52 percent of citywide units (404 units total with 344 of these units from the Marina Bay site) and range from low to above-moderate, with a higher number of above moderate sites. Twenty-nine perce nt (1,468) of project units are in this sub-area in the following neighborhoods: East of Marina Bay, Richmond Annex and Southwest Annex. These projects are majority above mo derate income housing units.
● All neighborhoods in this sub-area are vulnerable to displace ment with households experiencing rent burden and high pollution burden. At the same time, this sub-area has low rates of owner housing cost burden (38 percent) and overcro wding when compared to other sub-areas.
● The sub-area has a large minority population and the highest rate of female headed households across the City. A little over half of the household s are low to moderate income.
● Since this area has many residents who are displacement vulne rable and may be subject to fair housing disparities, the City should consider strategie s to ensure that the potential housing sites are used for affordable rental and homeownership projects.

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-139

Table F-39: Preliminary Pipeline and Entitled/Approved Sites Analysis Summary Table

F-140 | 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-40: Sites Inventory Analysis Summary Table

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-141

F-142 | 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

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-143

F-144 | 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

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-145

Figure F-36: Percent of Overcrowded Households

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-146 | 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-37: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty

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-147

Figure F-38: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-148 | 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-39: Percent of Children in Female-Headed 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-149

Figure F-40: Percent of Population with a Disability

Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool

F-150 | 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 Section F.9 Contributing Factors to Fair Housing
Issues and Meaningful Actions
AB 686 mandates the identification and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues related to segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated are as of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within Richmond, including displacement risk and segregated living patterns. Contributing factors may include public actions and private actions at the local, regional, state, or federal level, including thos e beyond the City’s ability to control or influence but must still be identified as part of its affirmatively furthering fair housing assessment.

Consistent with HCD guidelines, the contributing factors listed below are identified based on data analysis and review of related research, as provided throughout the AFFH section; critical community feedback and engagement, including from a Resident Ad visory Council; and the analysis of available sites for new housing development. While HCD requests the listing of contributing factors in order of significance, most contributing factors are inter-related rather than linear. These contributing factors form the basis for the devel opment of the meaningful actions that the City of Richmond will take during the next seven years to break the cycle of racism and other forms of exclusion in access to fundamental human rights to housing. The City’s meaningful actions are summarized below in Table F-41.

1. Historic and ongoing discrimination
The structural roots of Richmond’s current fair housing problem s reside in both the history and current existence of racial discrimination in housing, land use , and related economic and educational systems. Very few meaningful changes can occur wit hout recognizing and addressing this reality. As described throughout the AFFH appe ndix, policies such as racially restrictive covenants, blockbusting, segregated public housing, and lending discrimination created the patterns of segregation that persist in Richmond today. These patterns of segregation result in the concentration of poverty within communities of color and unequal access to resources and amenities such as high-perfo rming schools, good jobs, and c lean streets. Additionally, the consequences of historic and ongoing discrimination in housing, employment and education result in racial wealth disparities with many lower income Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and AAPI residents less able to afford to live in higher-income neighborhoods in Richmond. The racial wealth gap also makes it more difficult for residents of color to take advantage of educational and economic opportunities and to afford basic needs such as food, transportation, and healthcare. It is a cyclical and self-perpetuating crisis.

Today, people of color in Richmond and across the country conti nue to face discrimination by housing providers and lending institutions. Undocumented residents are at a further disadvantage because some federal agencies explicitly bar their access to re sources and services funded by those agencies. Additionally, limitations in the current Fair C hance Ordinance prevent formerly incarcerated residents from meaningful access to all forms of housing.

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-151

Addressing the legacy of historic and ongoing racism requires a nti-racist policy-making that accounts for existing disadvantages, remedies historic injustic es, and honors the leadership of Richmond’s communities of color. Anti-racist policymaking can b enefit all of Richmond’s residents, regardless of racial or ethnic background, because i t can create broadly shared opportunity and prosperity–it is the true tide that can lift all boats.

Policy solutions listed in Table F-41 adequately begin to addre ss the structural roots of racism include the following meaningful actions: funding the City Hou sing Department, developing a Neighborhood and Land Stabilization policy, creating Anti-Displacement Zones, investing in race- specific strategies for Richmond’s long-time Black/African Amer ican residents, an Equitable Public Lands policy, comprehensive anti-displacement services, new public financing strategies, and prioritizing the specific needs of marginalized groups. Sol utions also include reforming the City’s community engagement processes to address the historical exclusion of the voices of residents of color in housing and land use decisions.

2. Market force displacement with rising rents out of reach for low- to moderate- income renters
With many residents wages unable to keep up with rising rents, low- and moderate-income residents - who are disproportionately Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Laotian - are increasingly unable to afford housing in Richmond. This places low-income residents at increased risk of displacement, which many Black/African American and Lao tian residents have already experienced. Rising rents also increase the risk of living in households that are overcrowded and pose hazards to human health. Rent is especially high in higher -opportunity neighborhoods, making it harder for low-income residents to access critical ed ucational and economic opportunities. Additionally, because housing is even more expen sive in other parts of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area, low-income residents have been p ushed into Richmond from nearby cities, creating regional disparities in access to opportunity.

Various factors contribute to rising housing costs and resultin g displacement in Richmond. First is a lack of housing supply at all income levels, but especiall y for low- and moderate-income residents. Housing supply is constrained by factors such as high construction costs, burdensome regulatory requirements for building new housing, and zoning and land-use laws that make it more difficult to build multi-family housing. While Richmond has his torically done better at meeting its housing goals for very-low and low-income housing than most other Bay Area cities, the City has performed poorly in meeting its moderate-income housing goals. Additionally, other cities’ failure to meet their housing goals has increased pressure on rental prices in Richmond.

Structural barriers also contribute to displacement. Meaningful rent control at the local level is not possible due to Costa Hawkins, a state law that effectively exempts single-family homes from rent control and allows landlords to reset the rent on rent-stabiliz ed units when the former tenants move out. Additionally, many residents who meet the income requ irements for federal housing

F-152 | 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 subsidies cannot obtain them due to long waiting lists, forcing low-income residents to spend a high percentage of their income on rent and forgo other basic needs.

In addition, as discussed in section F.6.3, Gentrification and Displacement, the development of new market rate housing projects in lower income neighborhoods can exacerbate current conditions of rising housing costs.

Various policy solutions can address market force displacement and rising rents. These include the following meaningful actions identified: enhancing and exp anding the pipeline of properties and funding for land trust programs to provide permanently affo rdable homeownership opportunities, a public land policy that prioritizes affordable housing development, piloting a Fair Housing Impact Assessment to determine if a policy would be app ropriate, and developing a potential local preference policy that prioritizes current or d isplaced Richmond residents for new affordable housing.

3. Lack of City capacity to address housing issues
The legacy of and current racism is also manifested in the hist ory of public and private disinvestment of public instituti ons, especially local governme nts in California. Structural financing inequities including California’ Proposition 13 and t he recent demise of State redevelopment funding have resulted in insufficient funding for City of Richmond Housing staffing.

Without a dedicated housing division and adequate staff in the Community Development Department, the City is unable to effectively conduct outreach for and enforce federal and state fair housing laws. The City is also limited in its ability to p roactively address housing needs and implement AFFH meaningful actions listed in Table F-41.

Richmond meaningful action to address this structural financing inequity will include evaluating new public financing options tied to funding City Housing staff and priority fair housing actions.

4. Lack of historic public investments in specific neighborhood s As described throughout the AFFH appendix, the history of racial housing covenants and redlining created the foundation for today’s neighborhood based racial an d ethnic disparities. In addition, the City's aging housing stock presents risks for human health and contributes to blight, and there are few dedicated resources available to help homeowners make r epairs and upgrades. Illegal dumping, crime, and other safety hazards often occur on vacant and abandoned properties in Richmond, which tend to be concentrated in low income neighborhoods of color.

To address underinvestment in low-income neighborhoods, the Cit y will review and track outcomes of the recently enacted Community Benefits Policy (which is intended to bring economic benefits of new market-rate housing to the surrounding communit y) and the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (which requires developers to include affordable unit s in new market-rate housing projects or pay a fee). Additionally, to address the City’s aging housing stock, the City will expand its Proactive Rental Inspection policy to address housing habitability and health issues.

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-153

Through its Community Health and Wellness Element implementatio n efforts, the City of Richmond has targeted once redlined neighborhoods, especially in the City Center (Iron Triangle, Santa Fe, and Coronado neighborhoods) for new investments in in frastructure improvements including tree plantings, green infrastructure, pedestrian and bike path, and park improvements.

Regarding fair housing issues, these neighborhoods have disprop ortionate housing needs and are also vulnerable to displacement. A complementary place base d investment that prioritizes some of the proposed meaningful actions in these neighborhoods may help prevent displacement as these neighborhoods improve and become more attractive to higher income residents.

5. Lack of educational and economic opportunity
Richmond residents lack access to high-performing schools that contribute to good-paying jobs, making it harder to afford rent or become homeowners. The small handful of WCCUSD schools in Richmond with above average ratings on GreatSchools are all charter schools, the majority of which are located in higher income neighborhoods, whose applica tion processes can serve as a barrier to low-income families. Additionally, WCCUSD’s school a ssignment boundaries replicate patterns of neighborhood segregation. This leads to segregated schools and concentrated poverty that create barriers to academic success for students o f all backgrounds. As a result, Richmond residents are far less likely to graduate from high sc hool and obtain higher education than other Contra Costa County and Bay Area residents, making it more difficult to obtain a good- paying job and afford housing.

To address these issues, the City will re-start its collaborati on with WCCUSD to develop a first time homebuyer’s program dedicated for teachers, in order to su pport teacher stability, an essential ingredient for student academic success.

6. Concentration of affordable housing in low-income neighborho ods Affordable housing in Richmond is largely concentrated in low-i ncome neighborhoods, perpetuating patterns of segregation. This makes it harder for low-income residents - who are disproportionately Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Laotian - to move out of areas of concentrated poverty and into higher-opportunity neighborhoods. The reasons affordable housing developments are concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods inc lude high demand for affordable units in low-income neighborhoods, as well as the hi gher cost of land, single-family zoning laws, and resistance to affordable housing from residents in high-income neighborhoods.

Additionally, HCV recipients may struggle to use their vouchers in higher-income neighborhoods because the value of the voucher is too low, the limits on sear ch time are too short, or landlords may discriminate against voucher holders.

To address these issues, the City will assess on-site affordabl e housing units in market rate projects developed in higher-income neighborhoods as part of its Inclusionary Zoning Policy.

7. Disproportionate access to meaningful community engagement i n land use and planning processes

F-154 | 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 There are racial and income disparities in terms of which commu nity members are actively engaged in City planning and land use processes, including determining what kind of projects are developed in their neighborhoods. Many lower income residents are working multiple and/or inflexible jobs that do not enable them to take the time needed to attend multiple City meetings.

Other participation barriers include language access, available information that non-planners can understand, childcare/food at meetings, and also trust of government. The City of Richmond has an existing official structure of Neighborhood Councils for res idents to engage directly with the City. However, it is unclear which Neighborhood Councils funct ion effectively, include lower income residents of color, and engage in housing project development processes.

The City will review the structure, participation, and roles of its existing Neighborhood Councils and may alternatively create new community engagement bodies to provide critical feedback about new proposed housing projects and other land use decisions.

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-155

Table F-41: Contributing Factors & Meaningful Actions

HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Disproportionate housing needs including cost burden and risk of displacement Contributing Factors:
● History of and current racism in land use, access to financia l resources, housing, employment and education ● Direct and market force displa cement with rising rents out of reach for low to moderate income renters. ● Insufficient new affordable housing development in low to mod erate income neighborhoods at risk of displacement. ● Disproportionate access to healthy and habitable housing, and adequate resources to maintain homes. ● Systemic issues contributing to disproportionate housing needs such as discrimination against undocumented applicants, formerly incarcerated residents, LGBTQ+ residents, families with multiple children, and source of income. ● Future problem of potential ma rket force displacement due to new market rate housing projects in neighborhoods currently at risk of displacement. ● Lack of high functioning Housing Department and focused leade rship on housing priorities ● Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations ● Program 2.A:

Inclusionary Housing
● Program 4.F:

Homelessness
Strategic Plan
● Program 4.J:

Funding for
Emergency,
Transitional, and
Supportive Housing
Assess Richmond’s housing staffing needs based upon
the programs and objectives identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, Homelessness Strategic Plan, and
Housing Equity Roadmap (HER).

By Q4 2023

Citywide
Increased dedicated City of
Richmond Housing staffing and
funding on housing priorities,
including the implementation of
AFFH Meaningful Actions.

Hire one new staff member and augment staffing with
contract services (3 contractors minimum) to implement
priorities identified in the HER and AFFH meaningful
actions.

By Q2 2024

Citywide

F-156 | 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 HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
● Program 5.A: Monitor
At-Risk Affordable
Housing Units
● Program 5.B:

Assistance for At-
Risk Affordable
Housing Units
● Program 5.F: Code
Enforcement for
Residential
Neighborhoods
● Program 5.G:

Residential Rental
Inspection Program
● Program 6.A:

Community Land
Trust
● Program 6.D:

Enforcement of Just
Cause for Eviction
Ordinance
● Program 6.G:

Housing Equity
Roadmap
● Program 6.H:

Increased Housing
Staffing
Prioritize programming to meet highest needs and align
with available funding. Ensure staffing aligns with
programming priorities.

By Q2 2024

Citywide

Identify long-term funding for staff and programming. By Q4 2026 Citywide Identify potential funding sources and include in the
HER. By Q4 2023 Citywide Identified potential regional, State, Federal, and private
funding resources for the
implementation of identified AFFH
Meaningful Actions.

Secure a minimum of $300,000 of new funding.

By Q3 2024

Citywide

Evaluate a minimum of two public financing options for
voter consideration that will not result in displacement of lower income homeowners, such as amending the real
estate transfer tax or vacant properties parcel tax;
included in the HER.

By Q4 2023

Citywide

Evaluated new public financing
options that can be dedicated for
City Housing Division staffing and
identified meaningful actions.

Create a process for including the most viable public
financing option in the 2026 election. By Q3 2026

Citywide

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-157

HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
● Program 6.I: AFFH
Housing Funding
● Program 6.J: Public
Financing Options
● Program 6.K:

Neighborhood Land
Stabilization Program
● Program 6.L: SB
1079
● Program 6.M: Anti-
Displacement Zones
● Program 6.N: Local
Preference and Right
to Return Policies
● Program 6.O: Fair
Housing Impact
Assessment Policy
● Program 6.P:

Housing Reparations
Fund
● Program 6.Q: Basic
Income Program
● Program 6.R:

Equitable Public
Land Policy
Create a database of abandoned, deteriorated, vacant,
and tax delinquent properties, as well as habitability
violations.

By Q2 2023

Citywide

Developed a Neighborhood and
Land Stabilization Program
(NLSP) that will provide financial,
legal, and administrative
resources for property owners to
maintain their properties to
advance anti-displacement
priorities. If prevention of
displacement is not feasible, then
the NLSP available for acquisition
of privately-owned vacant and
distressed properties with serial
habitability violations by qualified
affordable housing developers
and Community Land Trusts to
rehabilitate and convert to
permanent affordable housing.

Investigate Revenue and Taxation Code Chapter 8 tax
defaulted program design. By Q3 2023

Citywide
Evaluate current Housing Receivership Program
impacts. By Q3 2023
Citywide

Initiate community engagement. By Q3 2023 Citywide
Enact the NLSP. Begin adoption phase. Begin Q3 2023 Citywide Pilot at least one acquisition for community land trust (either vacant or develo ped property) to benefit a
minimum of two low-income family households.

By Q4 2026

Citywide

Complete feasibility analysis. By Q4 2023 Citywide

F-158 | 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 HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
● Program 6.S: Anti-
Displacement
Services
● Program 6.T: Renter
Policies
● Program 6.U: Senior
Resident Housing
Needs
● Program 6.V:

LGBTQ+ Housing
Issues
● Program W: Formerly
Incarcerated
Resident Housing
Needs
● Program 6.X: Re-
Entry Housing
● Program 6.Y:

Undocumented
Resident Housing
Needs
● Program 6.Z: Castro
and Rydin
Encampment
Projects
Assist two units annually if determined to be feasible. Begin Q1 2026 Citywide Examined the use of SB 1079 (2020), which created a new
foreclosure sale process for 2-4
unit buildings that allows qualified
parties a means to purchase
property in foreclosure, subject to
certain requirements.

Study legal and programmatic feasibility of anti-
displacement zone strategies, including: Research best
practices for incorporating neighborhood level median
income for defining “AMI” levels for affordable housing being built in ADZs while still complying with TCAC and HCD definitions for subsidized projects; Evaluate
existing local laws regarding demolition of rent stabilized buildings and potential ability to require one for one
replacement (no net loss) in the new units in compliance with state legislation.

By Q4 2023

Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable

Created Anti-Displacement Zones
(ADZ) that implemented anti-
displacement strategies for
proposed market rate
development projects in
displacement vulnerable
neighborhoods.

Targeted new anti-displacement
strategies and resources in the
ADZs including legal services,
community outreach and
assistance, housing counseling,
and financial assistance.

Identify and provide at leas t $150,000 annually for
community education and outreach efforts of existing
anti-displacement resources targeted in displacement
vulnerable areas. Begin Q1 2024
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable

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-159

HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
● Program 6.AA:

Tenant, Community,
and Government
Opportunity
(TOPA/COPA/GOPA
) to Purchase
Ordinance
● Policy 6.4:

Resources Alignment
● Policy 6.5: Lower
Income Family
Needs

Develop outreach materials about existing anti-
displacement resources and conduct annual outreach to
300 residents in displacement vulnerable areas.

Begin Q4 2024
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Developed local preference and
right to return policies for new
affordable housing units,
services, and financial assistance
in compliance with state
legislation and funding source
requirements.

Once new expanded anti-displacement resources are
available, conduct annual outreach to 1,000 residents in displacement vulnerable areas.

Begin Q1 2026
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Research the legal and public policy framework for
conducting a Fair Housing Impact Assessment and local
preference and right to return policies; to be included in the HER.

By Q4 2023

Citywide
Piloted the use of a Fair Housing
Impact Assessment policy and
evaluate its utility in guiding City
informed decision-making and
public knowledge of the impacts
of new development projects. Pilot the use of a Fair H ousing Impact Assessment Policy (beginning with public property) to benefit a
minimum of 100 households.

Begin Q4 2024

Citywide

F-160 | 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 HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Produce annual reports on the performance of the
Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Linkage
Fee Ordinance and Community Benefits Agreement
Ordinance. For the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
evaluate the rate of onsite unit development versus
payment of the in-lieu fee.

Begin Q1 2024

Citywide

Assessed the effectiveness of the
City’s current Inclusionary
Housing and Affordable Housing
Linkage Fee and Community
Benefits Ordinances at producing
affordable housing units.

Design a Housing Reparations program, with robust
community engagement to aid Richmond’s long-time
Black/African American residents impacted by
displacement and/or structural racism in compliance with Proposition 209. The program may include a right of
return, affordable housing preference policy, and/or
other forms of economic assistance.

By Q2 2024

Target in ethnic
enclaves identified
as displacement
vulnerable
Established a Housing
Reparations Fund for both
homeowners and tenants
Identify and obtain at least $250,000 to fund the
program. By Q1 2025
Implement program. By Q1 2026
Adopt policies as part of the R3F strategic plan and
governance structure development.

By Q2 2023 Citywide Evaluated creation of a basic
income program (e.g., through
Richmond Rapid Response Fund
(R3F)); the target population for
the program should be identified
with input from the community.

Serve a minimum of four households per year over the
planning cycle.

Begin Q1 2024

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-161

HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Conduct spatial inventory of publicly owned land. By Q4 2022 Citywide Designed and enacted an Equitable Public Land policy, in
compliance with the Surplus Land
Act, with guidelines and
preferential criteria for the
disposition or use of publicly
owned land.

Conduct robust community engagement, including
engaging a minimum of 300 residents from Richmond’s
lower income neighborhoods.

By Q4 2023
Low income
neighborhoods
Adopt new Equitable Public Land policy Community
Land Trusts, Limited Equity Cooperatives, and other
non-profit entities t hat prioritize permanently affordable housing while supporting homeowner equity attainment
and renter stabilization; o r immediate and long-term
housing solutions for unhoused residents.

By Q1 2024

Citywide
Issue annual Notice of Availab ility, for 1-2 parcels that should provide a minimum of 6 units. Begin Q3 2024 Citywide Connect with a minimum of 20 female headed
households with children for educational workshops and
access to services annually.

See anti-displacement zone objectives.

Begin Q1 2024
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Provided new anti-displacement
services, including proactive and
affirmative enforcement to
prevent discrimination against
single female headed households
with children who are at high risk
of eviction.

See anti-displacement zone objectives. See anti-
displacement
zone timeline

F-162 | 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 HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Assess and design potential new tenant anti-
displacement policies such as discrimination based on
credit scores, eviction hist ory, source of income, and income level requirements (i.e. requiring income three
times or more of the rent costs), as part of the HER.

By Q4 2023
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Evaluated new renter policies to
protect renters from the long-term
collateral consequences of the
COVID19 pandemic.

For seniors, conduct assessment and design new
programming and/or policies through community
surveys, analysis of mor tgage and rent burden, and
tailored community forums to inform housing assistance
services and additional policies.

By Q1 2024
Target areas where
lower income
seniors with
housing cost
burden
Assessed housing needs of
senior residents, particularly
lower income senior renters and
homeowners.

Provided new housing services
for low income senior residents. Serve a minimum of 50 low income senior residents annually. Begin Q1 2025 Citywide
Hold two annual forums (2024 and 2025) with a
minimum of 25 participants at each. Produce publicly
available report summarizing anonymized feedback on
LGBTQ+ housing issues and proposed solutions with
additional opportunity for community engagement and
feedback.

By Q4 2025

Citywide
Partnered with local organizations
to hold forum on LGBTQ+
housing issues with community
organizations. Coordinated with
community-led efforts to better
understand the needs of the
LGBTQ+ community.

Complete assessment of community needs. By Q3 2027 Citywide

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-163

HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Produce City staff report on the outcomes of the current Fair Chance Housing Ordinance; evaluate landlord
compliance and tenant experience of the current law.

By Q4 2023

Citywide
Prioritized the housing needs of
formerly incarcerated residents
through: 1) Completed
implementation of current Fair
Chance housing and 2)
Considered expansion of the Fair
Chance Housing law to apply to
all forms of housing and eliminate
the entire use of criminal records
(similar to the cities of Berkeley
and Oakland)

Preserved at risk re-entry housing
units.

Integrated re-entry housing and
supportive housing priorities into
larger housing plans.

Review implementation of the cities of Berkeley and
Oakland Fair Chance Housing Ordinances and work
with the City Attorney and the community, including re- entry service organizations to draft an expanded
ordinance for City Council review and adoption.

By Q1 2024

Citywide
Work with Rubicon Homes to preserve 10 assisted re-
entry housing units at moderate risk of converting to
market rate units during planning period.

By Q4 2028

At risk units census
tract locations
Integrate re-entry housing priorities into City housing plans, including Homelessness Strategic Plan and HER.

Advocate with the County for similar actions.

Begin Q4 2023 Citywide
Create referral list of legal services available to serve undocumented residents and at least 50 undocumented
residents served annually.

By Q2 2023

Citywide
Prioritize the housing needs of
undocumented residents through:

F-164 | 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 HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
City Attorney’s office to collaborate with legal advocacy organizations to conduct legal research and review of
the City’s legal authority to combat housing
discrimination against undocumented residents.

Evaluate City powers to reduc e barriers of entry for
undocumented tenants without social security numbers
(SSN) to apply for subsidized housing.

By Q4 2024

Citywide
Established referral list of non-
Legal Service Corporation (LSC)
funded organizations for
undocumented tenants.

Enacted City policy that removes
discriminatory barriers against
undocumented residents in
access to City funded housing
units, services, and financial
assistance.

Complete strategic Homelessness Plan that includes
discussion of the City’s potential housing plans such as a safe parking pilot program, scattered sites housing,
and other housing choices for the City to address the
housing needs of Richmond’s unhoused residents
strategically and effectivel y. Apply for forthcoming
California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal
ICH) NOFA to implement future programs.

By Q4 2022

Citywide
Completed Strategic
Homelessness Plan
Completed Castro and Rydin
encampment projects.

Designed housing first program to
address the housing needs of
unhoused residents throughout
the City.

Conduct biannual resident engagement forums at
encampment sites. Begin Q4 2022 Encampment
locations

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-165

HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Provide alternative housing opportunities, including
supportive services, for approximately 130 residents at Rydin and Castro encampments based on individual
need assessments and program funding.

By Q4 2023
Encampment
locations
Used available land, including
public land, for immediate and
dignified housing solutions.

Identified public financing for
permanent supportive housing for
unhoused residents.

Provide counseling, behavioral health, drug
rehabilitation, job related training and support, health services, and housing pathways to approximately 130
residents living in encampments.

Begin Q4 2023
Encampment
locations
Assess City’s current code enforcement systems on
tenant housing habitability conditions, including potential expansion of the Residential Rental Inspection program.

Goal of increasing property management compliance
with code requirements by 10%.

By Q4 2023

Citywide
City expanded enforcement
options within the Residential
Rental Inspection program and to
integrate anti-displacement
strategies to address non-
compliance of housing habitability
and health impacts from unsafe
living conditions.

Develop database of health and safety code
enforcement complaints including non-compliant
property owners.

By Q3 2023

Citywide
Research enforcement options for motivating property
owner compliance and cooperation such as a Rent
Escrow Account Program and develop policy
implementation plans for expanded enforcement.

By Q1 2024

Citywide

F-166 | 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 HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Assess the unit size production of publicly subsidized
units to determine need. By Q4 2023 Citywide Aligned target unit sizes of publicly funded and also private
development projects with the
needs assessment of lower
income families with children.

Identify potential policies to incentivize developers to produce larger units (3-bedroom and larger) that are also affordable; in the HER.

By Q4 2023
Citywide
Collaborate with local jurisdictions including Oakland
and Berkeley to learn from their experiences designing
TOPA/COPA/GOPA policies that would cover a wider
array of buildings outside of foreclosure, including rental housing with expiring federal and /or state subsidies
and/or affordability protections. Require purchasers to preserve units as permanently affordable. Include these findings and best practice policy implementation
information in the HER.

By Q4 2023

Citywide
Implemented a local tenant/
community and government
opportunity to purchase
(TOPA/COPA/GOPA) ordinance.

Ensured adequate legal and
organizational support so that
tenants can avail themselves of
the TOPA/COPA/GOPA process
when it becomes available. Refine the City’s proposed TOPA/COPA/GOPA Ordinance for City Council review and potential
adoption.

By Q3 2026

Citywide
Seek to preserve a minimum of 2 units annually upon
implementation. Begin Q3 2026 Citywide
Disproportionate access to opportunities in underserved communities (racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty).

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-167

HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Contributing Factors:
● History of and current racism in land use, access to financial resources, housing, employment and education ● Lack of historic public investments in specific neighborhoods including services and amenities ● Limited local public funding for investments in housing, education, and other services ● Program 2.A:

Inclusionary Housing
● Program 2.C: Affordable
Housing Assets Fund
● Program 2.E: ADUs and
JADUs
● Program 2.G: Pre-
Approved Small Lot
Home Plans
● Program 6.AB: Public
Improvements and
Affordable Housing in
Low-Income
Neighborhoods of Color
Assessment of any identified changes to the City’s
recently enacted Inclusionary Zoning and Community
Benefits ordinances in ord er to result in on-site
affordable units in above moderate income
neighborhoods, rather than in-lieu fee payments; to be
included in the HER.

By Q4 2023

Target above
moderate income
neighborhoods
Assisted affordable housing
providers to build new affordable
housing in above moderate
income neighborhoods.

Developed first-time homebuyers’
program dedicated to low-income
residents and families.

Identified place-based strategies
for new affordable housing and
fair housing investments in low
income areas with new City
infrastructure improvements.

At least 25 affordable housing units developed in higher income neighborhoods. Begin Q4 2027 Higher income
neighborhoods
At least 25 affordable units constructed on-site as part of market rate housing projects. Begin Q4 2027 Citywide
At least $5 million for public improvements in low income neighborhoods of color, coupled with new affordable
housing and fair housing strategies.

By Q4 2031
Low income
neighborhoods

F-168 | 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 HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
For potential ADU production and single family home
development on the identified va cant sites inventory, in order to support lower income homeowners, produce
first set of floor plans and then update annually through planning cycle. The City to provide free or discounted pre-approved floor plans and guides for development on
small lots.

By Q1 2024

Citywide

Increased ADU and single family
home development for lower
income homeowners.

Permit a minimum of 7-10 ADU units annually. Begin Q1 2024 Disparities in community engagement in land use and planning decisions Contributing Factors:
● History of racial exclusion in government
● Lack of accessible forums
● Lack of knowledge about public and community meetings and how to meaningfully engage ● Lack of trust in government"
● Program 6.E: Housing
Access and
Discrimination Protocols
and Monitoring
● Program 6.AC: Resident
Planning Councils

Best practice review of resident planning councils in
other cities, including staffing, funding sources, interface with government to be included in the HER.

By Q4 2023
City considered strategies to
center neighborhoods at high risk
for displacement in the
development of democratic
resident planning councils for
anti-displacement priorities.

If deemed feasible, potential design of pilot resident
planning council, that would review and provide
feedback to the City on proposed development projects
in their neighborhoods and policies that may impact
resident health and displacement, completed.

By Q4 2024

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-169

HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Process to include robust community engagement
process
City sponsored training program
including on how City planning
and approval processes work, the
history of land use discrimination;
land use terminology and major
policies; the role of residents in
land use decisions.

Funding of at least $150,000 for new resident planning
council pilot, including ongoing coordination, training program, resident stipends, program evaluation
identified and secured.

By Q2 2025

Pilot new resident planning council launched and
evaluated. By Q1 2026

F-170 | 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 References
“AFFH Data Viewer.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, accessed July 28, 2022, https://affh-data-resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/. “AFFH Segregation Report: Richmond.” UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021 (unreleased).

Allen, Ryan. “The Relationship Between Legal Status and Housing Cost Burden for Immigrants in the United States.” 2022. Housing Policy Debate, vol. 32, issue 3, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2020.1848898?casa_token=GUDQr4Dq PoUAAAAA%3AOkvznI02cWb1BrPatb0HnStn4T1HnCrSc0sy33PBAzQZL3QrvZp55EVRiaREV zlwRLH8pKHMc2XeKXI.

Ayano, Mekonnen Fire. “Tenants Without Rights: Situating the Experiences of New Immigrants in the U.S. Low-Income Housing Market.” 2021. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, vol. 28, issue 2, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/ wp-content/ uploads/ sites/25/2021/07/159-Ayano-Tenants-Without-Rights.pdf.

Bissell, Evan and Eli Moore, with Heather Bromfield, Sarah Brundage, William Edwards, DeAndre Evans, Ciera-Jevae Gordon, Sasha Graham-Croner, Noe Gudino, Affiong Ibok, Diana Perez-Domencich, Satina Shaw, and Eloy Toppin. “Housing Policy and Belonging in Richmond.” Othering & Belonging Institute. 2018.
https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_housingandbelongingrichmond _psprint_jan11.pdf.

C4 (Contra Costa County Consortium), Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg, and Richmond Housing Authority. “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.” 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7196/2020- 2025-Analysis-of- ImpedimentsAssessm.
“CA COVID-19 Rent Relief.” California Department of Housing and Community Development , accessed July 29, 2022, https://housing.ca.gov/covid_rr/dashboard.html. “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, updated October 20, 2021, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. “California Mortgage Relief.” California Mortgage Relief, accessed July 29, 2022, https://camortgagerelief.org/programstatistics/.

California History. “Junípero Serra,” August 12, 2004.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040812151444/http://www.californiahistory.net/4_PAGES/missio ns_junipero.htm.

California Treasurer. “California Tax Credit Allocation Committ ee Regulations Implementing the Federal and State Low Income Housing Tax Credit Laws, California Code of Regulations, Title 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-171

Division 17, Chapter 1.” 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov /ctcac/programreg/2021/20210616/2021-regulations-clean.pdf Chang, Alvin. “We can draw school zones to make classrooms less segregated. This is how well your district does,” Vox, August 27, 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/16822374 /school- segregation-gerrymander-map.

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and VOYC (Voices of Youth Count). “Missed Opportunities: Youth Homelessness in America.” 2017. https://voicesofyouthcount.org/ wp- content/uploads/2017/11/VoYC-National-Estimates-Brief-Chapin-Hall-2017.pdf Chetty, Raj, and Nathaniel Hendren. “Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I:

Childhood Exposure Effects.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 133, issue 3, 2018, https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/3/1107/4850660.

CHPC (California Housing Partnership Corporation). “Risk Levels for Affordable Rental Housing.” Received March 2022.

City of Richmond. “2021 Richmond Housing Element Annual Progress Report.” Received March 2022.

City of Richmond. “City of Rich mond Economic Development Plan.” 2020. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/57856/HRA-Advisors-Richmond- Economic-Development-Action-Plan-Proposal.

City of Richmond. “Chapter 15.04: Community Benefits Policy.” 2021. https://pub-richmond. escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?documentid=43811.

City of Richmond. “Community Health and Wellness: City of Richmond General Plan Element

11.” 2012. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8579/Health-and- Wellness- Element.

City of Richmond. “Local Roadway Safety Plan.” 2022. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/ View/61771/Local-Roadway-Safety-Plan-Draft-2022-4-6?bidId= City of Richmond. “Richmond Bicycle Master Plan.” 2011. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2739/Bicycle-Master-Plan

City of Richmond. “Richmond Complete Streets Safety Assessment.” 2021. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/ View/61379/Richmond-Complete-Streets-Safety-Assessment-Report?bidId= City of Richmond. “Richmond Livable Corridors Form Based Code.” 2022. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2965/Form-Based-Code

F-172 | 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 City of Richmond. “Richmond Pedestrian Plan.” 2011.
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2738/Pedestrian-Plan
City of Richmond. “Richmond Resilience Roadmap.” 2019.
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3907/Richmond-Resilience-Roadmap City of Richmond. “Rumrill Blvd. / 13th St. Complete Streets Study” 2015. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3161/Rumrill-Blvd-13th-St-Complete-Streets-St City of Richmond. “Urban Greening Master Plan.” 2017.
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2858/Urban-Greening-Plan
City of Richmond. “Yellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Walkable Neighborhood Plan.” 2012. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3162/Yellow-Brick-Road
“Code Enforcement Cases - Last 12 Months.” Transparent Richmond, accessed July 30, 2022, https://www.transparentrichmond.org/dataset/Code-Enforcement-Cases-Last-12-Months/7qfn- j6c8.

Contra Costa Consortium, Housing Authority of Contra Costa County Housing, Housing Authority, of the City of Pittsburg, and Richmond Housing Authority. “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.” June 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final- BOS-Approved-AI-6-11-19
Contra Costa Health Services (unreleased). Received from the City of Richmond June 9, 2022.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority. “Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan.” 2020. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Richmond-CBTP-Final-Plan-2020.pdf.

Courtney, Mark E., Nathanael J. Okpych, Justin Harty, Huiling Feng, Sunggeun (Ethan) Park, Jenna Powers, Melanie Nadon, Dale J. Ditto, and Keunhye Park. “Findings from the California Youth Transitions to Adulthood Study (CalYOUTH): Conditions of Youth at Age 23.” 2020.

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. https://www.chapinhall.org/wp- content/uploads/CY_YT_RE1020.pdf.

Craigslist, “Richmond ‘No Section 8’”, accessed July 30, 2022, https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search /apa?query=richmond+%22no+section+8%22&min_price=&max_price=&availabilityMode=0&sa le_date=all+dates.

Cunningham, Mary, and Graham MacDonald. “Housing as a Platform for Improving Education Outcomes among Low-Income Children. Urban Institute, 2012, https://www.urban. org/sites/default/files/publication/25331/412554-Housing-as-a-Platform-for-Improving-Education- Outcomes-among-Low-Income-Children.PDF.

Damiano, Tony, Jason Hicks, and Edward G. Goetz. “Racially Conc entrated Areas of Affluence:

A Preliminary Investigation.” 2017. University of Minnesota, Humphrey School of Public Affairs. https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/192356.

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-173

Davis, Aaron. “Richmond teachers go from being among the lowest to the highest salaries in Contra Costa.” East Bay Times, 6 Jul. 2022, https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/15/ richmond-teachers-go-from-lowest-paid-to-highest-paid-in-contra- costa/#:~:text=The%20district%20approved%20numerous%20agreements,the%202020%2D20 21%20school%20year.

Dion, Robin, Amy Dworsky, Jackie Kauff, and Rebecca Kleinman. “ Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care.” 2014. U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/youth_hsg_main_report.pdf.

Dremann, Sue. “The Muwekma Ohlone Have Been Here for More than 2,000 Years. The Government Says They’re Not a Tribe.” Palo Alto Online, April 4, 2022. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/04/08/the-muwekma-ohlone-have-been-here-for- more-than-2000-years-the-government-says-theyre-not-a-tribe?utm_source=express-2022-04- 08&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express.
“Frequently Asked Questions.” R3F (Richmond Rapid Response Fund), accessed July 29, 2022, https://www.richmondresponsefund.org/faqs.

Friedman, Samantha, Angela Reynolds, Susan Scovill, Florence R. Brassier, Ron Campbell, and McKenzie Ballou. “An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples. 2013. U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal//publications/pdf/Hsg_Disc_ against_SameSexCpls_v3.pdf.

GreatSchools, “Richmond, CA Public Schools,” accessed July 5, 2 022, https://www.great schools.org/california/richmond/schools/?st%5B%5D=public_charter&st%5B%5D=public&st%5 B%5D=charter.

Hall, Matthew, and Emily Greenman. “Housing and neighborhood qu ality among undocumented Mexican and Central American immigrants.” 2013. Soc Sci Res., vol. 42, issue 6, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860281/.
“Homeless Public School Students.” KidsData, accessed July 5, 2022, https://www.kidsdata. org/topic/230/homeless-students/map#loct=950&fmt=355&loc=212&tf=64&center=- 13616969.989701,4574459.7332087&zoom=5.
“Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Data Dashboard.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, accessed July 5, 2022, https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_ indian_housing/programs/hcv/dashboard.
“Housing Needs Data Workbook: Richmond.” Association of Bay Area Governments/ Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021 (unreleased).

ITPI (In the Public Interest). “The cost of charter schools for the West Contra Costa Unified School District.” 2019. https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_ WCCUSD_Charters_May2019.pdf

F-174 | 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 Kennedy, Marie. “Transformative Community Planning for Community Development, Part One:

Moving from Advocacy Planning to Transformative Planning.” Planners Network, 2018, https://www.plannersnetwork.org/2018/11/transformative-planning-for-community-development- part-one-moving-from-advocacy-planning-to-transformative-planning/.

Khansouvong, Brandy, Sary Tatapoporn, Sasha Graham, and Evan Bissell. “Richmond is Home: Preventing a second displacement of Laotian Americans.” 2020. Richmond LAND and Asian Pacific Environmental Network. http://apen4ej.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ Richmond-is-Home-Zine.pdf.

Knight, Heather. “Is desegregation dead?” San Francisco Chronicle, n.d., https://www.sfchronicle.com/schools-desegregation/.

Levy, Diane K., Doug Wissoker, Claudia Aranda, Brent Howell, Ro b Pitingolo, Sarale H. Sewell, and Robert Santos. “A Paired-Testing Pilot Study of Housing Dis crimination against Same-Sex Couples and Transgender Individuals.” 2017. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/paired-testing-pilot-study-housing-discrimination- against-same-sex-couples-and-transgender-individuals.

Lin, Margaretta, Kalima Rose, Lin Chin. “A Roadmap Toward Equi ty: Housing Solutions for Oakland, California.” 2015. City of Oakland and PolicyLink . https://www.policylink.org/ sites/default/files/pl-report-oak-housing-070715.pdf
“Low Income & Low Access Layers 2019.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, accessed June 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ f o o d - access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/.

McArdle, Nancy, and Dolores Acevedo-Garcia. “Consequences of Se gregation for Children’s Opportunity and Wellbeing.” Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2017, https://www.j chs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/a_shared_future_consequences_of_segregation_for_children .pdf.

Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin. “Is There Systematic Meaningful Eviden ce of School Poverty Thresholds?” National Coalition for School Diversity, 2018, https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED603709.pdf.

Mordechay, Kfir, and Jennifer Ayscue. “School Integration in Ge ntrifying Neighborhoods:

Evidence from New York City.” 2019. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5c63w88j.

Mundie and Associates, The Proposed Wood Street Project: Planni ng & Policy Framework, A Report to the City of Oakland Community Economic Development Agency Planning Division (San Francisco, CA: Mundie and Associates, 2005). http://www2.oaklan dnet.com/ oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak046596.pdfA

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-175

National Research Center and ICMA. “The National Citizen Survey : Richmond, CA Technical Appendices.” 2017. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter /View/44218/The- NCS- Technical-Appendices-Richmond-DRAFT-2017?bidId=.

National Research Center and Polco. “Richmond, CA: The National Community Survey.” 2021. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/59800/The-NCS-Report---Richmond-CA- 2021.
“On-Demand Shuttle: Richmond Moves.” City of Richmond, accessed July 28, 2022, https:// www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4199/On-Demand-
Shuttle#:~:text=Rides%20are%20able%20to%20be,free%20for%20students%20and%20senior s.
“Projections.” California Department of Finance, accessed July 5, 2022, https://dof.ca.gov/ Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/.

Rancaño, Vanessa. “How Proposition 13 Transformed Neighborhood Public Schools Throughout California.” KQED, 25 Oct. 2018, https://www.kqed.org/news/11701044/ how-propositi on-13- transformed-neighborhood-public-schools-throughout-california. “Regional Center Overview: Regional Center of the East Bay,” California Department of Developmental Services, accessed July 5, 2022, dds.ca.gov/rc/dashboard/overview/. “Richmond Assisted Households.” Received from the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, July 14, 2022.

Richmond Code Enforcement Department (unreleased). Received from the City of Richmond August 3, 2022.

Richmond Planning Department. “Project PRISM Historic Context Statement.” 2009. https:// www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7082/Project-PRISM---Historic-Context- Statement?bidId=.
“Richmond, CA Foreclosures & Foreclosed Homes.” RealtyTrac, accessed August 4, 2022, https://www.realtytrac.com/foreclosures/richmond-ca/?centerLat=- 122.36952199999996&centerLong=37.95359415431007&zoomLevel=11. “Richmond Housing Renovation Program.” Richmond Community Foundation, accessed June 15, 2021, https://www.rcfconnects.org/community-initiatives/restoring-neighborhoods/ richmond- housing-renovation-program/.

Contra Costa Health Services. “The Richmond Health Equity Report Card.” n.d. https://cchealth.org/health-data/pdf/Richmond-Health-Equity-Report-Card-Full.pdf.

Quillian, Lincoln, Devah Pager, Ole Hexel, and Arnfinn H. Midtboen. “Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time.” 2017. PNAS, vol. 114, issue 41, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706255114.

F-176 | 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 Rent Program. “Fiscal Years 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 Annual Report.” 2021. https:// www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/59562/FY19-20-and-FY-20-21-Annual-Report- Final.

Romera, Adam P., Shoshana K. Goldberg, and Luis A. Vasquez. “LG BT People and Housing Affordability, Discrimination, and Homelessness.” 2020. UCLA Sc hool of Law, Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-housing-instability/.

Rothstein, Richard. “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government segregated America.” 2017. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation.

Safe Return Project. “Speaking the Truth on Coming Home: Research Findings and Recommendations on Reentry in Richmond.” 2011. https://pacinst.org/wp-content/ uploads/2011/07/reentry_report3.pdf.

Safe Return Project. “Housing and Community Reintegration in Contra Costa County.” 2014. htt ps://www.safereturnprj.org/_files/ugd/78f578_fa0711ea74414fda8f203fb6de40e707.pdf.

Sharkey, Patrick. “Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality.” 2013. The University of Chicago Press.

Sun, Hua, and Lei Gao. “Lending practices to same-sex borrowers.” Biological Sciences, vol. 116, issue 19, 2019, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903592116.

Taub, Madeline. “WCCUSD passes budget to stave off insolvency and state takeover.” Richmond Confidential, 30 Jun. 2022, https://richmondconfidential.org/2022/06/30/ wccusd- budget-insolvent-deficit/.

Taylor, Jamila. “Racism, Inequality, and Health Care for African Americans.” 2019. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/racism-inequality-health-care-african- americans/?agreed=1
“Transitional Living Program.” Contra Costa Health Services, accessed July 18, 2022, https://cchealth.org/h3/transitional-living.php.

Tulane. “History of Law: The Fourteenth Amendment,” July 9, 2017. https://online.law.tulane.edu/articles/history-of-law-the-fourteenth-amendment.

Urban Displacement Project and the California Housing Partnership. “Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area.” 2019. https://www.urbandisplacement. org/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/bay_area_re-segregation_rising_housing_costs_report_2019.pdf.

Wagner, Jennifer K., Joon-Ho Yoo, Jayne O. Ifekwunigwe, Tanya M. Harrell, Michael J.

Bamshad, and Charmaine D. Royal. “Anthropologists’ views on rac e, ancestry, and genetics.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 162, issue 2, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/.

H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s City of Richmond | G-1 Appendix G: Housing Resources
Appendix G: Housing Resources ................................................................. 1 Section G.1 Financial and Administrative Resources ............................................................... 2 G.1.1 Local Resources .................................................................................................... 2 G.1.2 Regional Resources .............................................................................................. 4 G.1.3 State Resources .................................................................................................... 7 G.1.4 Federal Resources .............................................................................................. 10 Section G.2 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ............................................................... 12 G.2.1 GRID Alternatives ................................................................................................ 13 G.2.2 Contra Costa County ........................................................................................... 13 G.2.3 Marin Clean Energy Resources........................................................................... 14 G.2.4 Pacific Gas and Electric Resources .................................................................... 15 G.2.5 State Energy Resources ..................................................................................... 15 G.2.6 Federal Energy Resources .................................................................................. 16

G-2 | City of Richmond H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s Section G.1 Financial and Administrative Resources
G.1.1 Local Resources
Affordable Housing Fund
Per Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.05.603.120, all in-lieu fees, linkage fees, or other funds collected under Article 15.04.603, Inclusi onary Housing and Affordable Housing Linkage Fee, are deposited into the City Affordable Housing Fund. These funds are used on activities that provide affordable housing to extremely low- income, very low-income, lower- income, and moderate-income households and special needs popula tions, including land acquisition, predevelopment costs, rehabilitation of existing u nits to extend their useful life and add affordability restrictions, and construction of new residential units, and for administration and compliance monitoring of the affordable housing program. The Ci ty collected $803,055 of inclusionary housing in-lieu fees during the 2020 calendar year and $677,194 during the 2021 calendar year. During 2020 and 2021, $69,165 of expenditures for the fund were made to support legal services for inclusionary housing ordinance amendments.

Public Housing Program
The Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) is a public entity charter ed by the City in 1941 as a separate legal entity under the provisions of the Housing Act of 1937. It is funded by the Federal Government and is subject to the rules and guidelines of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). RHA provides decent affordable hou sing for low and very low- income residents of Richmond through federally funded housing programs.

RHA owns and manages two developments: Nevin Plaza and Nystrom Village.  Nevin Plaza. This 142-unit high-rise houses seniors (62 or old er) and disabled households.
 Nystrom Village. This 102-unit scattered site development hous es families, including seniors and disabled households.

The formula used in determining the Total Tenant Payment (TTP) is the highest of the following, rounded to the nearest dollar:
 10 percent of monthly income
 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income (annual income less deductions allowed by the regulations)
 A $50 minimum rent set by the RHA.

Working with HUD, the 2019 Public Housing Authority Recovery an d Sustainability (PHARS) agreement delineates performance outcomes, timelines, and repor ting requirements focused on the repositioning of the RHA Public Housing portfolio.

H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s City of Richmond | G-3 Richmond Housing Renovation Program
On June 2, 2015, the Richmond City Council voted to issue up to $3 million in Social Impact Bonds for the purpose of rehabilitating and repairing abandoned residential properties in Richmond. RCF Connects (previously known as Richmond Community Foundation) facilitates the program from acquisition to sale of the properties. Impacts of the Richmond Housing Renovation Program include:
 19 properties completed and sold to first-time homebuyers  22 total households served (households earn between 80 and 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI))
 $6.5 million in local spending
 $123,485 in permit fees paid to the City
 $205,583 in Neighborhood Stabilization Program City property a cquisitions paid to the City  $799,350 repaid in code enforcement liens and property taxes  $350,000 reduction in Code Enforcement costs for the City Furthermore, RCF Connects is using EPA Brownfields grants and leveraging funding through the City’s Housing Renovation Social Impact Bond to clean up and re develop abandoned and foreclosed properties into homes for low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers.

Richmond Rent Program
As a division of the City, Rent Program staff provide remote co unseling services by phone or Zoom. The Rent Program can guide Richmond residents and propert y owners through local and State rent assistance resources.

ECIA Community Grant Program
The Chevron Environmental and Community Investment Agreement (ECIA) includes investments in community programs, a scholarship program, competitive community grants, community-based greenhouse gas reduction programs, and a photovoltaic solar far m. ECIA grant funds are awarded on an annual basis and all Richmond-serving 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations that did not receive an ECIA grant award of more than $10,000 during the previous grant cycle are eligible to apply for funding. For the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 grant cycle, grants will be awarded to projects or programs in the following areas:
 Youth programs (through age 21)
 Youth sports programs (through age 21)
 Community-focused programs
Examples of eligible projects or programs include but are not limited to:
 Youth enrichment projects
 Summer camps
 Youth sports programs
 Programs that support health and wellness and eliminate health disparities  Bike and pedestrian pathway enhancements and construction proj ects

G-4 | City of Richmond H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s  Programs that support students and parents at Richmond schools  Service-learning programs
 Gardening and urban greening projects
G.1.2 Regional Resources
Catholic Charities East Bay
Catholic Charities assists residents of Contra Costa County in rental payments, utilities, and security deposits. Catholic Charities also administers Housing Problem Solving, a program started in 2021 that offers tenant advocacy, mediation, relocation with family and other homelessness prevention strategies to keep families in their homes.

Chronicle Season of Sharing Fund (CSSF)
Chronicle Season of Sharing Fund provides housing, food, and me dication support in the Bay Area. CSSF delivers assistance through a network of 150 community partners throughout the Bay Area. CSSF helps Bay Area households who are striving to overco me an unexpected challenge by providing assistance with housing (rent or mortgage, first and last month’s deposit) as well as other critical needs like utility payments. Assistance is provided in the form of direct payments to the supplier of services, such as a landlord or utility company. Applicants must provide proof that in the months following receiving assistance, they will have the means to cover their housing and living expenses.

Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC)
The CHDC is a full-service housi ng development corporation that provides home-buyer counseling to assist home buyers in preparing for home ownershi p. Services include housing counseling, credit repair, debt reduction, budgeting and saving s planning, pre-qualification analysis and buyer education. In addition, CHDC develops and markets new affordable housing.

CHDC develops single-family homes; multi-unit affordable rental projects; and mixed-use projects with commercial as well as residential opportunities.

Contra Costa County
 Measure X: Measure X is a countywide 20-year, half-cent sales tax approve d by Contra Costa County voters on November 3, 2020. Collection of the tax began on April 1, 2021. The intent of Measure X is to keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers, emergency response; sup port crucial safety- net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential County services. Measure X also includes funds for a local housing trust fund and permanent supportive housing.
 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program: The MCC Program is a homebuyer assistance program. The MCC provides qualified first-time homebuyers with a federal

H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s City of Richmond | G-5 income tax credit. Income tax credits reduce an individual’s ta x payment(s) by an amount equal to the credit. Under the MCC program, the maximum tax credit available is equal to 20 percent of the annual interest paid on the borro wer’s mortgage. By reducing the borrower’s federal tax liability, the tax credit e ssentially provides additional income which can be used for mortgage payments. Cont ra Costa County MCC authority can be used in all cities as well as the unincorp orated areas of the County. The Contra Costa County Community Development Departmen t will administer the program.
 Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP): The purpose of the Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP) is to eliminate conditions that may be detrimental to health, life, property, and/or public welfare. To achieve this, NPP provides financial assistance to low-income homeowners for home rehabilitation pro jects. This support results in homes being brought up to current building codes, th e elimination of blight, energy efficiency improvements, accessibility improvements, and the enhancement of older housing stock to promote future investment and the growth of economically integrated communities.
 SparkPoint Contra Costa: Part of the United Way of the Bay Area, SparkPoint Contra Costa has three centers in Contra Costa County, with one in Ric hmond. Each center is a collaboration of multiple nonprofit and government entitie s that work with low- income individuals and families long-term, looking at all aspec ts of their financial health, with the goal of achieving financial prosperity.

Eden Council for Home and Opportunity, Inc. (ECHO Housing) ECHO Housing offers various programs including classes on how t o find, qualify for and buy a home; debt and financial education and counseling; and a Rental Assistance Program (RAP) that assists with move-in costs or delinquent rent due to a temporar y financial setback. They also provide tenant-landlord counseling and fair housing services to assist Richmond renters remain in their homes.

Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
 Mainstream Voucher Program: HACCC administers 55 vouchers under HUD’s Mainstream program. The program is targeted to households with at least one non- elderly disabled family member who is homeless, at-risk of homelessness, coming out of an institutional facility or at-risk of entering an institut ional facility due to lack of housing. HACCC partners with an array of supportive services o rganizations that provide appropriate services to program participants.
 Public Housing: The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa administers 1,168 public housing units from as far West as San Pablo to as far East as Brentwood.

Please note that the City of Richmond administers its own public housing program.

G-6 | City of Richmond H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s  Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Housing: The Project-Based Voucher Program (PBV) is designed to encourage property owners to construct new or upgrade substandard rental housing for low-income families. A housing a uthority may choose to provide Section 8 PBV rental assistance for up to 20 percent of its units under the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP). Initial rents in PBV pro perties must not exceed 110% of the Housing Choice Voucher Program Existing Fair Market Rents (FMRs). HACCC provides 631 units of Project-Based Voucher assis tance, including 135 units assisted under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urb an Development (HUD)’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program.
 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP): Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC).

HACCC receives federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housin g and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the voucher program. Effective July 1, 2019, the HACCC assumed the management responsibilities for Housing Choic e Vouchers (HCV) formerly administered by the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA). The transfer was completed to improve the level of customer service to parti cipating voucher holders, landlords, and applicants, while also providing access to additional housing choices for program participants. Approximately 1,700 units in Richmond are home to Housing Choice Voucher participants, including the project-based vouchers.  Section 8 VASH Program: Similar to the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Voucher Program helps homeless veterans lease safe, affordable housing. VASH is a partnership between the Veterans Administration (VA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Participating veterans receive case manageme nt and clinical services provided by the VA to help them maintain healthy, productive lives.  Shelter Plus Care – McKinney Homeless Assistance Act: Shelter Plus Care is designed to promote permanent housing with supportive service t o persons with disabilities coming from the streets and emergency shelters. Shelter Plus Care grants require a supportive services match equal to, or greater than, the Section 8 rental assistance award.

Lao Family Community Development (Lao Family)
Lao Family’s comprehensive approach strives to meet the immedia te basic, long-term, and special needs of affected community members. Customized and holistic service plans incorporate workforce, education, housing and support services, including h ealth, income and savings, to foster positive outcomes. As of 2021 more than 600 individuals had secured permanent housing and more than 6,500 individuals were provided with wrap-around case management, leading to self-sufficiency and increased well-being.

H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s City of Richmond | G-7 Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services (RNHS)
Since 1981, Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. has wo rked to strengthen low- income families and neighborhoods through the promotion of affo rdable housing by providing affordable rentals to families and financial literacy. Their mi ssion is to ensure that East Bay and County residents (specifically Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo and Pinole) have access to affordable housing and rents. They have developed, acquired and/or rehabilitated over 400 single family homes to either sell, or manage as affordable homes to p urchase or rent for low-income families.

SHELTER, Inc.

SHELTER Inc. currently serves Contra Costa, Solano, and Sacrame nto counties and offers housing, support services, and resources to families and indivi duals. In Contra Costa County, SHELTER Inc. provides rental assistance for renters struggling to make payments and move-in assistance for residents who are unhoused or fleeing a dangerous situation.

G.1.3 State Resources
 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC):

Administered by the Strategic Growth Council, this program prov ides grants and/or loans to fund land-use, housing, transportation, and land prese rvation projects that support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  CalHome: HCD provides grants to local public agencies and non-profit hou sing developers to assist first-time homebuyers become or remain hom eowners through deferred-payment loans. Funds can also be used to assist in the development of multiple-unit homeownership programs.
 California Emergency Solutions and Housing (CESH): This program provides funds for a variety of activities to assist persons experiencin g o r a t r i s k o f homelessness, such as housing relocation and stabilization serv ices (including rental assistance), operating subsidies for permanent housing, flexibl e housing subsidies, emergency housing operating support, and homeless delivery systems.  California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA): CalHFA offers a variety of low-cost loan programs to support the development of affordable multi-fa mily rental housing, mixed-income housing, and special needs housing.
 California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Mortgage Credit Cer tificate Program: The MCC program is a homebuyer assistance program designed to h elp lower-income families afford home ownership. The program allows home buyers to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for a portion of mortgage interest paid per y ear, up to $2,000. The remaining mortgage interest paid may still be calculated as an itemized deduction.

G-8 | City of Richmond H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s  California Self-Help Housing Program (CSHHP): Provides grants for sponsor organizations that provide technical assistance for low and moderate-income families to build their homes with their own labor.
 Elderlink: A senior care referral service licensed by the Department of Public Health.

This organization provides independent and free personalized se nior care placement services to fully screened and approved nursing home, board and care, and assisted living facilities.
 Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF): This $93 million fund provides low-cost financing aimed at supporting the creation and preservation of affordable housing across the state. GSAF makes up to five-year loans to developer s for acquisition or preservation of affordable housing.
 Homekey: Homekey provides grants to acquire and rehabilitate a variety o f housing types, such as hotels and residential care facilities, to serve people experiencing homelessness or who are also at risk of serious illness from COVID-19.  Housing for a Healthy California (HHC) Program: This program provides funding to deliver supportive housing opportunities to developers using th e federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations for operating reserve gr ants and capital loans. The HHC program is intended to create supportive housing for individuals who are recipients of or eligible for health care provided through the California Department of Health Care Services’ Medi-Cal program.
 Housing Navigator’s Program: This grant program allocates funding to counties for the support of housing navigators to help young adults aged 18 to 21 years secure and maintain housing, with priority for individuals in the foster care system.  Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG): This program promotes infill housing development by providing grant funding, in the form of gap assi stance, for infrastructure improvements required for qualifying multi-famil y or mixed-use residential development.
 Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant (FWHG) Program: This program provides deferred payment loans for both owner-occupied and ren tal housing for agricultural workers, with a priority for lower income households.  Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program: This program provides matching funds to local or regional housing trust funds for the creation, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing, transitional housing, or emergency shelters.  Mills Act: The Mills Act is an economic incentive programs for the restora tion and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private propert y owners. It grants local governments the authority to enter into contracts with owners o f qualified historic properties who actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic

H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s City of Richmond | G-9 properties while receiving property tax relief. In 2005, the Richmond City Council voted unanimously to become a participant in the Mills Act program, which furthers housing affordability by reducing property taxes and preserving existing housing stock.  Mobilehome Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program ( MPRROP):

This program provides financing to support the preservation of affordable mobilehome parks through conversion of the park to ownership or control by resident organizations, nonprofit housing sponsors, or local public entities.
 Multifamily Housing Program (MHP): This program provides deferred payment loans for the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households.  No Place Like Home Program: This program invests in the development of permanent supportive housing for persons who are in need of men tal health services and are experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or who are at risk of chronic homelessness.
 National Housing Trust Fund: This program provides deferred payment or forgivable loans for the construction of permanent housing for extremely low-income households.

The required affordability covenant is for 55 years.
 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program: This program provides a permanent source of funding to all local governments in Califor nia to help cities and counties implement plans to increase affordable housing stock. Funding for this program is provided through a $75 recording fee on real estate transactions.  Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP): This program provides financing to cover pre-development costs to construct, preserve, or rehabilitate assisted housing.  Supportive Housing Multifamily Housing Program (SHMHP): This program provides low interest deferred loan payments to developers buil ding affordable rental housing that contain supportive housing units.
 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Program: This program provides low-interest loans as gap financing for higher density affordab le rental housing within one-quarter mile of transit stations. Grants are also available to localities and transit agencies for infrastructure improvements necessary for the deve lopment of specified housing developments or to facilitate connections between these developments and the transit station. The maximum total award amount for a single project is $15 million.  Transitional Housing Program (THP): This program provides funding to counties for child welfare services agencies to help young adults aged 18 to 25 years find and maintain housing, with priority given to those formerly in the foster care or probation systems.

G-10 | City of Richmond H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s  Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program (VHHP): This program supports the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and pre servation of affordable multi-family housing for veterans and their families.

G.1.4 Federal Resources
 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA): In 2021, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to address the impacts of COVID-19. The City of Richmond was allocated $27.7 million in relief funds. To date the City has committed $10.5 million from these funds; the Richmond City Council is conducting an as sessment, which includes community engagement, to invest these funds to address the immediate need of impacted local residents and businesses. Funds may be used for the following:
o Replace lost public sector revenue, using this funding to prov ide government services up to the amount of revenue lost due to the pandemic o Respond to the far-reaching public health and negative economi c impacts of the pandemic, by supporting the health of communities, and helping households, small businesses, impacted industries, nonprofits, and the public sec tor recover from economic impacts
o Provide premium pay for essential workers, offering additional support to those who have and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical sectors
o Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, making n ecessary investments to improve access to clean drinking water, to support vital wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and to expand affordable access to broadband internet
Funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024, and spent by December 31, 2026.  Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): Federal funding for housing programs is available through the U.S. Department of Housing an d Urban Development (HUD). CDBG funds may be used to provide a suitable living environment by expanding economic opportunities and providing d ecent housing to low-income households (80 percent AMI). The City is a member of the Contra Costa CDBG Urban County which is allocated annual federal CDBG funds which the County directs to housing, economic development, infrastructure improv ements, public facilities, and public service projects designed to meet the needs of very low- and low- income persons. Richmond has been benefited from CDBG funds in several ways, including the currently underway rehabilitation of Hacienda Apa rtments, a 150-unit affordable housing complex that has been vacant since 2015.

H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s City of Richmond | G-11  Continuum of Care (CoC) Program: The Continuum of Care (CoC) Program is designed to promote communitywide commitment towards ending hom elessness. It provides funding to nonprofits, state, and local governments to provide shelter and services to people experiencing homelessness.
 Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program: This program provides funding for cities, counties, and states to engage homeless individuals and families living on the street; improve the number and quality of emergency shelters for homeless individuals and families; help operate these shelters; provide essential se rvices to shelter residents; rapidly rehouse homeless individuals and families; a nd prevent families/individuals from becoming homeless.
 HOME Program: Participating jurisdictions may use HOME funds for a variety of housing activities, according to local housing needs. Eligible uses of funds include tenant-based rental assistance; housing rehabilitation; assistance to homebuyers; and new construction of rental housing. HOME funding may also be us ed for site acquisition, site improvements, demolition, relocation, and oth er necessary and reasonable activities related to the development of non-luxury housing. Funds may not be used for public housing development, public housing operating costs, or for Section 8 tenant-based assistance, nor may they be used to provide non- federal matching contributions for other federal programs, for operating subsidies for rental housing, or for activities under the Low-Income Housing Preservation Act. C ontra Costa County (as the Urban County representative), and the Cities of Antioch , Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek, together form a Consortium for purposes of pa rticipation in the HOME program.
 Low-Income Housing Preservation and Residential Home Ownership Act (LIHPRHA): This program requires all eligible HUD Section 236 and Section 221(d) projects at risk of conversion to market-rate rentals from mort gage pre-payments be subject to LIHPRHA incentives, which include subsidies to guarantee an eight percent annual return on equity.
 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Administered through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) subsidizes the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable housing by providing a tax credit to construct or rehabilitate affordable rental housing for low- income households.
 Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: Allows CDBG entitlement jurisdictions to leverage their annual grant allocations to access low-cost fina ncing for capital improvement projects. Eligible activities include housing, econ omic development, public facility, and infrastructure. This program is often used to catalyze private investment in underserved communities or as gap financing.

G-12 | City of Richmond H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s  Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program: Provides an interest- free capital advance to cover the costs of construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of very low-income senior housing. The program is available to pri vate, nonprofit sponsors; public sponsors are not eligible for the program.  Section 811 Project Rental Assistance: HUD offers long-term project-based rental assistance through a NOFA published by the California Housing F inance Agency (CalHFA).
 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Housing Programs: These programs provide homeownership opportunities for individuals and below m arket-rate loans/grants to public and nonprofit organizations for new cons truction, preservation, or rehabilitation of farmworker/rural multi-family rental housing.  Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Program: HUD-VASH is a collaborative program between HUD and VA combines HUD housing v ouchers with VA supportive services to help veterans who are homeless and their families find and sustain permanent housing. See Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa Resources for more information.

Section G.2 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
The cost of energy can greatly impact housing affordability, as energy costs can constitute a significant portion of total housing costs. High energy costs a lso particularly impact low-income households that are less likely to have the ability to cover increased expenses.

The City encourages energy conservation in all projects consist ent with the California Building Standards Code and has specific adopted amendments to the California Energy Code (known as “reach codes”, since the amendments exceed the requirements of the California Energy Code) to require solar panels on all new nonresidential and high-rise re sidential buildings (see Municipal Code Section 6.02.030 for more information). Additionally, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which contains additional measures for the City to conserve energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and prepare for the impacts of climat e change on public health, infrastructure, ecosystems, and public spaces. Progress toward reaching the CAP’s energy conservation goals is monitored in the City’s Climate Action Pl an Open Data Dashboard, accessible on the City’s website.

The City also promotes other various energy conservation programs on its website, including the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) Home+ Energy Upgrade program and CaliforniaFIRST Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. BayREN is a collaboration of the nine counties that comprise the San Francisco Bay Area a nd is led by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). BayREN provides regional-scale ene rgy efficiency programs, services, and resources and is funded by utility ratepayer fund s through the California Public

H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s City of Richmond | G-13 Utilities Commission and other sources. Specifically, the BayRE N Home+ Energy Upgrade program helps single-family homeowners identify ways to improve their home’s energy efficiency by teaching homeowners how heating, air conditioning, insulation, water, and other home systems are working together and which improvements will most effective ly improve the home’s comfort and reduce energy consumption. Rebates and incentives are avail able for home improvements that include air sealing, duct sealing, attic insulation, high- efficiency furnaces, cooling systems, water systems, and wall insulation. PACE is a mechanism for pro perty owners to finance renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water conservation imp rovements to their properties and repay the loan via an annual assessment on the owner’s prop erty tax bill. Unlike traditional forms of credit that are dependent on individual credit rating, PACE financing is primarily based on a property owner’s equity in the building. The CaliforniaFIR ST PACE program offers up to $250,000 for homeowners to put toward renewable energy and ener gy efficient home improvements. Eligible projects under the program may include, but are not limited to, air sealing, wall and roof insulation, energy efficient windows, tankless wa ter heaters, solar electricity and low-flow toilets.

G.2.1 GRID Alternatives
The City of Richmond and GRID Alternatives provide free solar s ystems to income-qualifying homes in Richmond. To date, the partnership has serviced over 4 70 homes in Richmond and provided millions of dollars in energy cost savings to the community. This new initiative will provide more than $2.5 million in energy cost savings for families and prevent more than 5,700 tons of greenhouse gases over the systems' lifetimes. It will also prov ide more than 15,000 hours of job skill-building in solar installation for community volunteers and job trainees.

To qualify, Richmond residents who own and live in their own ho me and make less than 80 percent of area median income may be considered to receive sola r through GRID Alternatives.

For example, a four-person household in Richmond with an income of $65,500 or lower would qualify.

G.2.2 Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County offers a Weatherization Program which is a Federal and State-funded program whose purpose is to assist low and/or fixed income peop le in making their homes more energy-efficient. The program is available regardless of whether you own or rent, live in a house, apartment, or a mobile home. The Weatherization Program will te st residents’ gas appliance(s) to determine if they are operating properly and safely. Any gas appliances that fail the inspection will be repaired or replaced. In addition to the appliance insp ection, the inspector will conduct an evaluation of the home to determine what energy-saving measures are needed.

G-14 | City of Richmond H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s G.2.3 Marin Clean Energy Resources
Since 2013, the City of Richmond has partnered with Contra Cost a County's community-based electricity provider, Marin Clean Energy (MCE), to provide incr eased access in affordable and renewable electricity for Richmond residents, resulting in lower emissions in our community. MCE is a public agency and not-for-profit electricity provider that gives customers the choice of having 50 percent to 100 percent of their electricity supplied from clean, renewable sources such as solar, wind, bioenergy, and hydroelectric at competitive rates. MCE pr ovides electricity service and innovate programs to more than one million residents and busine sses across the four Bay Area counties: Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, and Solano. MCE has several programs designed to serve low-income customers, including:
 Arrearage Management Plan (AMP): The AMP will forgive 1/12 of eligible debt (up to $8,000) each time an on-time payment is submitted.
 CARE (California Alternate Rates for Energy): The CARE program offers up to a 35 percent discount on electricity bills and a 20 percent disco unt on natural gas bills consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 739.1. This program is eligible to qualified low- or fixed-income households and housing facilities.  FERA (Family Electric Rate Assistance): The FERA program offers an 18 percent discount on electric bills to qualifying low to middle-income households.  Medical Baseline Allowance: The Medical Baseline Allowance program allows residential customers who are medically dependent on electricity to receive more gas and electricity at the lowest residential rate.
 CAPP (California Arrearage Payment Program): CAPP is a state program to help pay customers’ eligible past due energy bills that increased du ring the COVID-19 pandemic. CAPP reduces qualified unpaid energy bills by directl y applying a credit to their bill.
 MCE's Home Energy Savings Program: MCE’s Home Energy Saving Program helps qualifying single-family homeowners and renters save money and energy by providing a free energy-saving gift box, virtual home energy assessment, and free home energy upgrades
 MCE's Multifamily Energy Savings & LIFT Program: Multifamily property owners can receive rebates up to $1,000 per unit as well as free comprehensive assessments and consultations for energy and water saving measures. Plus, i ncome-qualified multifamily property owners and renters can receive an extra $1,200 per unit for energy and water savings measures from MCE’s Low Income Families & Ten ants (LIFT) Program.

H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s City of Richmond | G-15 G.2.4 Pacific Gas and Electric Resources
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides gas and electricity se rvices for Richmond. PG&E assists low-income, disabled, and senior citizen customers thro ugh several programs and community outreach projects, including:
 CARE (California Alternate Rates for Energy): See CARE under Marin Clean Energy Resources, above.
 FERA (Family Electric Rate Assistance): See FERA under Marin Clean Energy Resources, above.
 Energy Partners Program: The Energy Partners Program provides qualified low- income customers free weatherization measures and energy-effici ent appliances to reduce gas and electricity usage.
 Medical Baseline Allowance: See Medical Baseline Allowance under Marin Clean Energy Resources, above.
 Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH): This is a one- time energy-assistance program sponsored by PG&E and administer ed through the Salvation Army from 170 offices in Northern and Central Califor nia. Those who have experienced an uncontrollable or unforeseen hardship may receive an energy grant of up to $300. Generally, recipients can receive REACH assistance only once within a 12-month period, but exceptions can be made for seniors, the ph ysically challenged, and the terminally ill.

G.2.5 State Energy Resources
 California Department of Community Services & Development Progr ams Low- Income Weatherization Program (LIWP): California’s Low-Income Weatherization Program (LIWP) provides low-income households with solar photov oltaic (PV) systems and energy efficiency upgrades at no cost to residents. LIWP is the only program of its kind in California that focuses exclusively on s erving low-income households with solar PV and energy efficiency upgrades at no c ost. The program reduces greenhouse gas emissions and household energy costs by saving energy and generating clean renewable power. LIWP currently operates three program components: Multi-Family, Community Solar, and Farmworker Housing. According to CDS’s Nov. 2020 Low-Income Weatherization Program Impact Report , LIWP has received $212 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund si nce 2014. Note:

The multi-family energy efficienc y and renewables program compo nent is estimated to end in June 2022.
 California Public Utilities Commission Energy Savings Assistanc e Program (ESAP): ESAP provides no-cost weatherization services to low-income hou seholds

G-16 | City of Richmond H o u s i n g R e s o u r c e s who meet the CARE income guideli nes. Services provided include attic insulation, energy efficient refrigerators, energy efficient furnaces, weat herstripping, caulking, low-flow showerheads, water heater blankets, and door and building envelope repairs which reduce air infiltration.

G.2.6 Federal Energy Resources
 Federal Housing Administration Energy Efficient Mortgage Program (EEM): This program helps families save money on their utility bills by ena bling them to finance energy efficient improvements with their FHA-insured mortgage. The EEM program recognizes that an energy-efficient home will have lower operat ing costs, making it more affordable for the homeowners. Cost-effective energy impro vements can lower utility bills and make more income available for the mortgage payment.  Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): The program is funded by the federal government and the State Department of Community Services & Development (CSD) administers LIHEAP. The federal Department of H e a l t h a n d Human Services distributes funds to states annually to assist w ith energy bills and offset heating and/or cooling energy costs for eligible low-inc ome households.

California’s annual share is approximately $89 million which CS D distributes to contracted community energy service providers. Active. During M arch 2020, the CARES Act allocated California an additional $49 million to sup plement its LIHEAP program, which totaled $203 million for Federal Fiscal Year 2019-2021.

11/3/2022 1

DISCLAIMER: This document is to assist cities and counties that may adopt a housing element before January 31, 2023 and before receiving HCD approval of the proposed Housing Element. To be in substantial compliance with state law, a housing element must contain all of the provisions mandated by state housing element law. The table below lists the statutory requirements in the left column, and the jurisdiction can indicate in the right column where in the Housing Element the requirement is satisfied, by page number, for instance. Jurisdictions should consult with their legal counsel to determine whether the table, along with a response to each of HCD’s comments (if the jurisdiction has received comments) should be incorporated into the resolution adopting the housing element.

City of Richmond
Housing Element Statutory Provisions Checklist
Section 65583
Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Main Body:
• Section 2:

Projected Housing
Need
• Section 4: Goals,
Policies, and
Programs

Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment

Appendix G
• Section G.1:

Financial and
Administrative
Resources

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

2 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory and
Methodology
• Section B.3:

Adequacy of
Residential Sites
in meeting RHNA
The element shall contain all of the following: See below (a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following:

Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
Appendix G: Housing
Resources
(a)(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections
Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.2:

Population
Characteristics
• Section A.2.1:

Population
• Section A.2.4:

Employment
(a)(1) A quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 50105 and Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low income households allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as extremely low income households. The local agency may either use available census data to calculate the percentage of very low income households that qualify as extremely low income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low income households qualify as extremely low income households. The number of extremely low income households and very low income households shall equal the jurisdiction’s allocation of very low income households pursuant to Section 65584.

Main Body:
• Section 2:

Projected Housing
Need

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory and
Methodology
• Section B.3:

Adequacy of
Residential Sites
in Meeting RHNA

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

3 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay,
Appendix A: Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3:

Household
Characteristics

• Section A.5:

Housing Costs and
Affordability
(a)(2) housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.2:

Overcrowding
(a)(2) housing stock condition. Appendix A: Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.4:

Housing Stock
Characteristics
(a)(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory and
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant Sites
• Section B.3:

Adequacy of
Residential Sites
in Meeting RHNA
Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.8:

Analysis of Sites
Inventory

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

4 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
[Note that AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022) amended Section 65583(a)(4). It does not apply to ABAG-area housing elements unless the first draft of the housing element is submitted to ABAG after January 31, 2023 or a draft is submitted after April 1, 2023. Therefore the sections below include the statutory provisions of Section 65583(a)(4) effective in 2022. Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why AB 2339 is not applicable to them.]

(a)(4)(A) The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls

(a)(4)(A) If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element.

The local government may identify additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
• Table C-5
(a)(4)(A) The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
Main Body:
• Section 4: Goals,
Policies, and
Programs,
Program 4.G

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

5 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(4)(A) Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all of the following:
(i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility.
(ii) Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. (iii) The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas. (iv) The provision of onsite management.
(v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
(vi) The length of stay.
(vii) Lighting.
(viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

Main Body:
• Section 4: Goals,
Policies, and
Programs,
Program 4.G

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(4)(B) The permit processing, development, and management standards applied under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be discretionary acts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(4)(C) A local government that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department the existence of one or more emergency shelters either within its jurisdiction or pursuant to a multijurisdictional agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with the zoning requirements of subparagraph (A) by identifying a zone or zones where new emergency shelters are allowed with a conditional use permit.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(4)(D) A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances that comply with this paragraph shall not be required to take additional action to identify zones for emergency shelters. The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances, policies, and standards are consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(5) An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and [Note: The types of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1) include multifamily rental housing, factory- built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.] Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

6 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(5) for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), Appendix C: Housing Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(5) including land use controls, Appendix C: Housing Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(5) building codes and their enforcement, Appendix C: Housing Constraints
• Section C.2.3:

Building and
Housing Codes
and Enforcement
(a)(5) site improvements, Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.5: On
and Off-site
Improvements
(a)(5) fees and other exactions required of developers, Appendix C: Housing Constraints
• Section C.2.4:

Permits and
Procedures
(a)(5) local processing and permit procedures, Appendix C: Housing Constraints
• Section C.2.4:

Permits and
Procedures
(a)(5) and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2:

Governmental
Constraints

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

7 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(5) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584
Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
• Section C.2.4:

Permits and
Procedures
(a)(5) and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7).

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(6) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing,
Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.3: Non-
Governmental
Constraints
• Section C.3.1:

Housing
Supply/Conditions
• Section C.3.3:

Availability of
Financing
(a)(6) the price of land, Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.3.2:

Development
Costs – Land
Costs
(a)(6) the cost of construction, Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.3.2:

Development
Costs –
Construction
Costs

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

8 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(6) the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, Appendix B: Sites
Inventory and
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(6) and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.4:

Permits and
Procedures
(a)(6) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.4:

Permits and
Procedures
• Section C.3:

Nongovernmental
Constraints
(a)(7) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs
(a)(7) elderly; Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

9 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(7) persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code;
Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs
(a)(7) large families; Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs
(a)(7) farmworkers; Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs
(a)(7) families with female heads of households; Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs
(a)(7) and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs
Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

10 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions.

Appendix A:

Demographics Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs
Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter may be reduced by the number of supportive housing units that are identified in an adopted 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified to allow construction during the planning period.

Noted
(a)(7) An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services.

Appendix A: Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.3.4:

Special Housing
Needs
(a)(8) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects.

This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system.

Main Body:
• Section 3.E:

Opportunities for
Energy
Conservation
(a)(9) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. “Assisted housing developments,” for the purpose of this section, shall mean multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section 65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. “Assisted housing developments” shall also include multifamily rental units that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915.

Appendix A: Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.5.4: At-
Risk Housing
Assessment

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

11 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(9)(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by project name and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality’s low-income housing stock in each year during the 10- year period. For purposes of state and federally funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need only contain information available on a statewide basis.

Appendix A: Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.5.4: At-
Risk Housing
Assessment
(a)(9)(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from low- income use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for each five-year period and does not have to contain a project-by-project cost estimate.

Appendix A: Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.5.4: At-
Risk Housing
Assessment
(a)(9)(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the local government that have legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing developments.

Appendix A: Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.5.4: At-
Risk Housing
Assessment
(a)(9)(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs that can be used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing authority operating within the community. In considering the use of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify the amounts of funds under each available program that have not been legally obligated for other purposes and that could be available for use in preserving assisted housing developments.

Appendix A: Housing
Needs Assessment
• Section A.5.4: At-
Risk Housing
Assessment
(b)(1) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

12 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(b)(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing units by income category, including extremely low income, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period.

Main Body:
• Section 4.B:

Quantified
Objectives
(c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c) through the administration of land use and development controls, Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c) the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c) the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available,
Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c) and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code).

Main Body:

Section 4.A: Goals,
Policies, and Programs,
Program 2.C
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the following:

See below

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

13 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(1) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory and
Methodology
Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c)(1) Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing Appendix B: Sites Inventory and
Methodology
Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.8:

Analysis of Sites
Inventory
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

14 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(1) and to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.8:

Analysis of Sites
Inventory
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions
Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
(c)(1) factory-built housing, See above
(c)(1) mobilehomes, See above
(c)(1) housing for agricultural employees, See above
(c)(1) supportive housing, See above
(c)(1) single-room occupancy units, See above
(c)(1) emergency shelters, See above
(c)(1) and transitional housing. See above

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

15 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(1)(A) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, for jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element planning period pursuant to Section 65588, shall be completed no later than three years after either the date the housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65585 or the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65585, whichever is earlier, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to subdivision (f). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.

N/A
(c)(1)(B) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2.

The identification of sites shall include all components specified in Section 65583.2. Note:

Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory and conformance with subdivision (h).

N/A
(c)(1)(C) Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for farmworker housing, the program shall provide for sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits farmworker housing use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of the development of farmworker housing for low- and very low income households.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
– Farmworker
Housing

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs,
Program 4.I

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

16 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households.

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c)(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels
Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c)(3) and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.

Main Body:
• Section 4.A Goals,
Policies, and
Programs,
Program 4.C
(c)(3) Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
– Transitional and
Supportive
Housing
Main Body:
• Section 4.A Goals,
Policies, and
Programs,
Program 4.H

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

17 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(3) Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650).

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
– Transitional and
Supportive
Housing

Main Body:
• Section 4.A Goals,
Policies, and
Programs,
Program 4.H
(c)(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private action.

Main Body:
• Section 4.A Goals,
Policies, and
Programs
(c)(5) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.

Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions
(c)(6) Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a).

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs,
Program 5.A, 5.B
(c)(6) The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available.

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs,
Program 5.A, 5.B

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

18 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(6) The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance.

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs,
Program 5.A, 5.B
(c)(7) Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2.\ Appendix B: Sites
Inventory & Methodology
• Section B.2.1:

Accessory
Dwelling Units

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use Controls
– ADUs and Junior
ADUs

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs,
Program 2.E
(c)(8) Include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals.

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c)(9) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.

Main Body:
• Section 1.E:

Summary of
Public
Participation

Appendix E: Public
Participation Summaries

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

19 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(10)(A) Affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following components:

Appendix F: AFFH
(c)(10)(A)(i) A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction Appendix F: AFFH (c)(10)(A)(i) and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity.

Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.3: Fair
Housing
Enforcement and
Outreach
Capacity
(c)(10)(A)(ii) An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.4:

Patterns of
Integration and
Segregation
(c)(10)(A)(ii) racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, Appendix F: AFFH • Section F.4.5:

Racially or
Ethnically
Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
or Affluence
(c)(10)(A)(ii) disparities in access to opportunity, Appendix F: AFFH • Section F.5:

Access to
Opportunity
(c)(10)(A)(ii) and disproportionate housing needs, Appendix F: AFFH • Section F.6:

Disproportionate
Housing Needs

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

20 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(10)(A)(ii) including displacement risk. Appendix F: AFFH • Section F.6.3:

Gentrification and
Risk of
Displacement
(c)(10)(A)(ii) The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction.

Appendix F: AFFH

(c)(10)(A)(ii) and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) and Section 65008.

Appendix F: AFFH
(c)(10)(A)(iii) An assessment of the contributing factors, including the local and regional historical origins
Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.2.3:

Lasting Effects of
Historic
Discrimination
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions
(c)(10)(A)(iii) and current policies and practices, for the fair housing issues identified under clauses (i) and (ii).

Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

21 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(10)(A)(iv) An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance,
Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions
Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c)(10)(A)(iv) and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved.

Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions
Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c)(10)(A)(v) Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions Main
Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

22 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(10)(A)(v) and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity,
Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory & Methodology
Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.8:

Analysis of Sites
Inventory
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions
(c)(10)(A)(v) as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing,
Appendix F: AFFH
• Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions Main
Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs,
Program 6.AB

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

23 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(10)(A)(v) and protecting existing residents from displacement. Appendix F: AFFH • Section F.9:

Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
and Meaningful
Actions
Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals, Policies,
and Programs
(c)(10)(B) A jurisdiction that completes or revises an assessment of fair housing pursuant to Subpart A (commencing with Section 5.150) of Part 5 of Subtitle A of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as published in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, Number 136, page 42272, dated July 16, 2015, or an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice in accordance with the requirements of Section 91.225 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect before August 17, 2015, may incorporate relevant portions of that assessment or revised assessment of fair housing or analysis or revised analysis of impediments to fair housing into its housing element.

Appendix F: AFFH
(c)(10)(C) The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to housing elements due to be revised pursuant to Section 65588 on or after January 1, 2021.

Appendix F: AFFH
(d)(1) A local government may satisfy all or part of its requirement to identify a zone or zones suitable for the development of emergency shelters pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one year-round emergency shelter within two years of the beginning of the planning period.

Noted
(d)(2) The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element.

See above
(d)(3) Each member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement shall describe in its housing element all of the following:

See above
(d)(3)(A) How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction’s emergency shelter need. (d)(3)(B) The jurisdiction’s contribution to the facility for both the development and ongoing operation and management of the facility.
(d)(3)(C) The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction contributes to the facility.

See above

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

24 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(d)(4) The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating jurisdictions in their housing elements shall not exceed the actual capacity of the shelter.

See above
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to this article that alter the required content of a housing element shall apply to both of the following: [Note that this provision is applicable to AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022), which amended Section 65583(a)(4). Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why this amendment is not applicable to them.] Noted
(1) A housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when a city, county, or city and county submits a draft to the department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90 days after the effective date of the amendment to this section.

See above
(2) Any housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and county fails to submit the first draft to the department before the due date specified in Section 65588 or 65584.02.

See above
(f) – (j): Not applicable N/A
Section 65583.1(a)
Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a) The Department of Housing and Community Development, in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for substantial compliance with this article, … may also allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units based on the number of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section
B.2.1:

Accessory
Dwelling
Units
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a military base undergoing closure or conversion as a result of action pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526), the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), or any subsequent act requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be identified as an adequate site if the housing element demonstrates that the housing units will be available for occupancy by households within the planning period of the element. No sites containing housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or conversion to nonresidential uses shall qualify as an adequate site.

N/A

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

25 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
Note: If communities are using the provisions of Section 65583.1(c), which allow RHNA credit for conversion of non-affordable to affordable housing and for preservation of existing affordable housing at risk of loss, the applicable provisions need to be added to this table.

N/A
Section 65583.2
Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a) A city’s or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with paragraph (10) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583, Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3:

Adequacy of
Residential
Sites in
Meeting
RHNA
(a) that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584. As used in this section, “land suitable for residential development” includes all of the following sites that meet the standards set forth in subdivisions (c) and (g):

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3:

Adequacy of
Residential
Sites in
Meeting
RHNA
(a)(1) Vacant sites zoned for residential use. Appendix B: Sites Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Tables

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

26 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a)(2) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development. Appendix B: Sites Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Tables
(a)(3) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Tables
(a)(4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, rezoned for, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

N/A
(b) The inventory of land shall include all of the following: See below (b)(1) A listing of properties by assessor parcel number. Appendix B: Sites Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Tables
(b)(2) The size of each property listed pursuant to paragraph (1), and the general plan designation and zoning of each property.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Tables

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

27 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(b)(3) For nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property. Appendix B: Sites Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Tables
(b)(3) If a site subject to this paragraph is owned by the city or county, the description shall also include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the city or county will comply with Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Tables
Main Body

• Section 4.A:

Goals,
Policies, and
Programs,
Program 1.J
(b)(4) A general description of any environmental constraints to the development of housing within the jurisdiction, the documentation for which has been made available to the jurisdiction. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.4.1:

Environmental
Constraints
Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

28 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(b)(5)(A) A description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.4.2:

Infrastructure
Constraints

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
(b)(5)(B) Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development. This paragraph does not impose any additional duty on the city or county to construct, finance, or otherwise provide water, sewer, or dry utilities to parcels included in the inventory.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.4.2:

Infrastructure
Constraints
Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
Main Body:
• Section 1.G:

Other
Statutory
Requirements
(b)(6) Sites identified as available for housing for above moderate-income households in areas not served by public sewer systems. This information need not be identified on a site- specific basis.

N/A
(b)(7) A map that shows the location of the sites included in the inventory, such as the land use map from the jurisdiction’s general plan, for reference purposes only.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3.2:

Housing Sites
Map

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

29 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c) Based on the information provided in subdivision (b), a city or county shall determine whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period, as determined pursuant to Section 65584. The inventory shall specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate- income housing.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Table
(c) A nonvacant site identified pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) in a prior housing element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality’s housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current housing element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. An unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) shall not be subject to the requirements of this subdivision to allow residential use by right.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Table

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals,
Policies, and
Programs,
Program 1.K
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning pursuant to this subdivision shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.

N/A

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

30 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c) The analysis shall determine whether the inventory can provide for a variety of types of housing, including multifamily rental housing,
Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints
• Section C.2.2:

Land Use
Controls
(c) factory-built housing, mobilehomes, See above
(c) housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, See above (c) single-room occupancy units, See above
(c) emergency shelters, and See above
(c) transitional housing See above
(c) and whether the inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing . See above (c) The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:

See below

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

31 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(1) If local law or regulations require the development of a site at a minimum density, the department shall accept the planning agency’s calculation of the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density. If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Table

Main Body:
• Section 4.A:

Goals,
Policies, and
Programs,
Program 1.I
(c)(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583,
Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Table
(c)(2) the realistic development capacity for the site, Appendix B: Sites Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.3.3:

Housing Sites
Table

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

32 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(2) typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction,
Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions
(c)(2) and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
(c)(2)(A) A site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
& Table B-7
(c)(2)(B) A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.

N/A
(c)(2)(B) For purposes of this subparagraph, “site” means that portion of a parcel or parcels designated to accommodate lower income housing needs pursuant to this subdivision.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
(c)(2)(C) A site may be presumed to be realistic for development to accommodate lower income housing need if, at the time of the adoption of the housing element, a development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for development on the site.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
(c)(3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph (2), a city or county shall do either of the following:

See below

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

33 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(c)(3)(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.:

Future
Residential
Development
Potential
(c)(3)(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households:
(i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre.
(iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
– Phase 3
(4)(A) For a metropolitan jurisdiction: See below
(4)(A)(i) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing, but not more than 100 units per acre of housing.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3.1:

Summary
(4)(A)(ii) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for above moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.3.1:

Summary
(B) The allocation of moderate-income and above moderate-income housing to sites pursuant to this paragraph shall not be a basis for the jurisdiction to do either of the following:
(i) Deny a project that does not comply with the allocation. (ii) Impose a price minimum, price maximum, price control, or any other exaction or condition of approval in lieu thereof. This clause does not prohibit a jurisdiction from imposing any price minimum, price maximum, price control, exaction, or condition in lieu thereof, pursuant to any other law.
(iii) The provisions of this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law with regard to the allocation of sites pursuant to this section.

Noted

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

34 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
i(C) This paragraph does not apply to an unincorporated area. See above (D) For purposes of this paragraph: See below
(i) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.

Noted
(ii) “Unit of housing” does not include an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that could be approved pursuant to Section 65852.2 or Section 65852.22 or through a local ordinance or other provision implementing either of those sections. This paragraph shall not limit the ability of a local government to count the actual production of accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units in an annual progress report submitted pursuant to Section 65400 or other progress report as determined by the department.

Noted
(E) Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude the subdivision of a parcel, provided that the subdivision is subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land.

Noted
(d) For purposes of this section, a metropolitan county, nonmetropolitan county, and nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area shall be as determined by the United States Census Bureau. A nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area includes the following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada, Tehama, and Tuolumne and other counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future.

Noted
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, in which case it shall be considered metropolitan. A county, not including the City and County of San Francisco, shall be considered suburban unless the county is in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case the county shall be considered metropolitan.

Noted
(2)(A)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a county that is in the San Francisco-Oakland- Fremont California MSA has a population of less than 400,000, that county shall be considered suburban. If this county includes an incorporated city that has a population of less than 100,000, this city shall also be considered suburban. This paragraph shall apply to a housing element revision cycle, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 65588, that is in effect from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2028, inclusive.

Noted
(2)(A)(ii) A county subject to this subparagraph shall utilize the sum existing in the county’s housing trust fund as of June 30, 2013, for the development and preservation of housing affordable to low- and very low income households.

Noted

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

35 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(2)(B) A jurisdiction that is classified as suburban pursuant to this paragraph shall report to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, the Senate Committee on Housing, and the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding its progress in developing low- and very low income housing consistent with the requirements of Section 65400. The report shall be provided three times: once, on or before December 31, 2019, which report shall address the initial four years of the housing element cycle, a second time, on or before December 31, 2023, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle, and a third time, on or before December 31, 2027, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle and the cycle as a whole. The reports shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 9795.

Noted
(f) A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements for “suburban area” above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is less than 25,000 in which case it shall be considered suburban.
(g)(1) For sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) [non-vacant sites], the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites
(g)(1) The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites
(g)(1) the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development,
Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

36 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(g)(1) the current market demand for the existing use, Appendix B: Sites Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites
(g)(1) an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites
(g)(1) development trends, Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites
(g)(1) market conditions, Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.3:

Assumptions
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

37 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(g)(1) and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

Appendix B: Sites
Inventory &
Methodology
• Section B.2.4:

Methodology
• Section B.2.5:

Suitability of
Nonvacant
Sites
(g)(2) In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

N/A
(g)(3) Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2), sites that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low income, subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or occupied by low or very low income households, shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site.

Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915.

N/A

(h) The program required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 shall accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for very low and low-income households allocated pursuant to Section 65584 for which site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) on sites that shall be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households during the planning period.

N/A
(h) These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least
N/A
(h) 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), N/A

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

38 Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(h) shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c)
N/A
(h) and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b).

N/A
(h) At least 50 percent of the very low and low-income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the very low and low- income housing need on sites designated for mixed uses if those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.

N/A
(i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583, the phrase “use by right” shall mean that the local government’s review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act.

Noted
(i) A local ordinance may provide that “use by right” does not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

Noted
(i) Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.

Noted
(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, within one-half mile of a Sonoma- Marin Area Rail Transit station, housing density requirements in place on June 30, 2014, shall apply.

N/A

Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program

39 Section 65583.3
Government Code Provision Housing Element
Compliance
(a) For a housing element or amendment adopted on or after January 1, 2021, the planning agency shall submit to the department an electronic copy of its inventory of land suitable for residential development developed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and subdivision (b) of this section with the copy of its housing element or amendment submitted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 65585. The local government shall ensure, to the best of its knowledge, that the inventory of land submitted to the department is true and correct.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 65301, each local government shall prepare the inventory required under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 using standards, forms, and definitions adopted by the department.

Noted

1 Attachment 2

Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR
(available from: www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030)

1 Attachment 1

PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 23-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ADDENDUM TO THE RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH#2008022018), REPEAL THE GENERAL PLAN 2015 -2023 HOUSING

ELEMENT, AND ADOPT THE RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE FOR THE 2023-2031 (6TH CYCLE) PLANNING PERIOD (PLN22-130).

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 requires each city and county jurisdiction to ad opt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical development of the county and/or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65302 lists the housing element as one of the general plan elements mandated by the State of California; and

WHEREAS, in May 2015, the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Richmond (the “City”) adopted the Richmond Housing Element Update for the 2015-2023 planning period, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found that the Housing Element Update substantially conformed with State law; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65588 requires the City to update its general plan housing ele ment every eight years as a jurisdiction within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (the Association of Bay Area Government s (“ABAG”)) that adopted a Sustainable Communities Strategies in compliance with SB375; and

WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law ( Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City adopt a Housing Element for the eight -year period 2023 - 2031 to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation (“RHNA”) of 3,614 housing units, comprised of 840 very-low income units, 485 low-income units, 638 moderate-income units, and 1,651 above moderate-income units; and

WHEREAS, the City has prepared the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update for the 2023-2031 (6
th Cycle) planning period (the “proposed Richmond Housing Element Update”), which is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A to this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of a housing element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community; and

2 WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach beginning in February 2022, as described in detail in Appendix E of the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b), on October 21, 2022, the City posted the draft Richmond Housing Element Update and requested public comment for a 30-day review period; and

WHEREAS, on December 2, 2022, the City posted a revised draft Richmond Housing El ement Update responding to public comments and on December 9, 2022, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to HCD for its review; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutory requirements set forth in State Housing Element Law , the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update contains an assessment of existing and projected housing needs, an inventory of sites available for housing development, an analysis of constraints to local housing production, an assessment of fair housing practices, and a set of specific housing programs designed to meet identified housing needs and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the City’s RHNA; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update meets all of the applicable guidelines set forth in the State of California General Plan Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update was reviewed and found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Richmond Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, once adopted and certified , the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update will supersede and replace the existing 2015- 2023 Housing Element of the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Richmond Housing Element is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Qualit y Act, as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 -21178), and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) (collectively, “CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the Council adopted the CE QA Findings of Fact, Statement of Significance, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , and certified the Environmental Impact Report, for the Richmond General Plan 2030 (SCH#2008022018) (the “Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR”); and

WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the Council adopted the Richmond General Plan 2030 document; and

3 WHEREAS, the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update is considered an amendment to the Richmond General Plan 2030; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has prepared an Addendum, which is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B to this Resolution, affirming that the analysis contained in the Richmond General P lan 2030 EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update; and

WHEREAS, the addendum was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Richmond Guidelines and Procedur es for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; and

WHEREAS, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the State C EQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred; specifically:

a. There have not been any substanti al changes in the project that require major revisions of the EIR because of new signi ficant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

b. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and

c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not know n and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Final EIR was certified that shows any of the following: (a) the project will ha ve one or more significant effects not discussed in the Final EIR; (b) significant eff ects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Final EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more signific ant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; and

WHEREAS, the proposed addendum demonstrates that the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update does not contemplate an amount of housing unit development above what was already considered in the Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requir ing the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred; and