Attach 1_Exhibit B_HEU_Appendix A.pdf — Richmond City Council, January 24, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 The 2020 Decennial Census total population estimate is 116,448, and the California Department of Finance 2020 estimate from its 2022 data release is 115,894. 4 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Costa County residents and 6.9 percent of residents in the Bay Area experienced overcrowding.
 Household income in Richmond is lower than in Contra Costa Cou nty. In 2019, the County’s median household income of $99,716 was 46 percent high er than Richmond’s median household income of $68,472.
 In Richmond, 15 percent of the total population (14,712 reside nts) is below the federal poverty level, which is higher than the rate of Contra Costa County residents (9 percent).  A greater share of Richmond households are cost-burdened house holds compared to Contra Costa County. Of Richmond’s households, nearly half are cost-burdened, spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Among c ost-burdened households in Richmond, 20 percent are severely-cost burdened. In the County and the Bay Area, 36 percent of households are cost-burdened and 16 percent are severely cost- burdened.
 Renters in Richmond are typically more often cost-burdened tha n homeowners. Over half of renter households are cost-burdened, spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing, while around a third of households that own their home are cost-burdened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure A-1: Population Growth Trends

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

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

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

In Richmond, the median age in 2000 was approximately 32 years, and by 2019, the median age increased to around 36 years. The 2019 median age in Richmond was younger than in the County, which was 40 years.
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Index (1990 = 100)
Index
Richmond
Index
Contra Costa County
Index
Bay Area
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 7 Seniors (65 years and older) account for 13.4 percent of Richmond’s total population. Statewide, the population of seniors comprised approximately 21 percent of the total population. From 2000 to 2019, the Richmond senior population increased by 49.8 percent (Figure A-2).

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

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

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

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

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

0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Age 0-4 Age 5-14 Age 15-
24 Age 25-
34 Age 35-
44 Age 45-
54 Age 55-
64 Age 65-
74 Age 75-
84 Age 85+
Population
2000 2010 2019
8 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-3: Senior and Youth Population by Race, City of Richmond

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

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

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

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

4 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a fo rgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 11%
17% 18%
13%
20%
31%
42%
26%
9%
33% 37% 41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 0-17 Age 18-64 Age 65+
% Population
White (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Multiracial (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Black/African American
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Asian American and Pacific
Islander (AAPI) (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Native American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 9 Since 2000, the number of residents in Richmond identifying as White, Black/African American, and Native American has decreased, while residents identifying as Hispanic/Latinx, AAPI, and Multiracial have increased (see Table A-2). From 2000 to 2019, the White population in Richmond decreased by seven percent, the Black/African American populati on decreased by 39 percent, and the Native American population decreased by eight percent. During this same period, the AAPI population increased by 36 percent, the Hispanic/Latinx population increased by 77 percent, and the Multiracial population increased by 1,097 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

42%
26% 24%
20%
8%
6%
18%
44%
39%
16% 17%
27%
4% 5% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Population
Native American
Multiracial
Asian American and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latinx
10 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-2: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000-2019, City of Richmond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A community may offer employment for low-income workers but hav e few housing options for those workers, or the community may house residents who earn lo w wages but have few employment opportunities for them. A surplus of jobs relative t o residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import workers at that wage level , while conversely, surpluses of workers in wage groups relative to jobs means the community wil l export those workers to other -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172 0 1 8 Jobs
12 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, but over time , sub-regional imbalances may appear.

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

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

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

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

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

5.6k

11.4k

16.4k

8.8k

10.3k

3.9k

6.7k

11.5k

8.4k

12.0k
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Less than $9,999 $10,000 to $24,999$25,000 to $49,999$50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more Worker Population
Richmond Residents Workers in Richmond
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 3 Figure A-7: Jobs-Resident Worker Ratios, by Wage Group, City of Richmond

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

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

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

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

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

0.50 0.55

0.60 0.65

0.70 0.75

0.80 0.85

0.90 0.95

1.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172 0 1 8 Jobs-Resident Worker Ratio
Wages Less Than $1,250/Mo Wages $1,250-$3,333/Mo
Wages More than $3,333/Mo
14 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-8: Jobs-Household Ratio

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

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

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

0.91 0.98

1.47 0.60

0.70 0.80

0.90 1.00

1.10 1.20

1.30 1.40

1.50 1.60
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172 0 1 8 Jobs-Household Ratio
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 5 Figure A-9: Resident Employment by Industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.2%

7.7%

6.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020
% Labor Force that is Unemployed
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 7 Table A-4: Household Size, City of Richmond
Owner
Occupied
% Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
% Renter
Occupied
% of Total
Occupied
Housing
Units
1-person household 4,729 25.6% 4,685 25.2% 25.4%
2-person household 5,853 31.7% 4,768 25.6% 28.6%
3-person household 2,832 15.3% 3,233 17.4% 16.4%
4-person household 2,639 14.3% 3,230 17.4% 15.8%
5-or-more person household 2, 429 13.1% 2,690 14.5% 13.8% Total occupied housing units 18,482 100.0% 18,606 100.0% 100.0% Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Da ta (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.1%

3.5%

4.2%

3.3%

1.5%

2.7%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Occupied Households

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

3.9%

8.3%

2.0%

4.7%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
% Occupied Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 1 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.7%

11.8%

8.2%

6.7%

2.7%

4.0% 4.3%

3.5%

1.2% 1.5%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

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

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room 20 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-14: Overcrowding by Race, City of Richmond

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

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

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

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

21.1%

7.9%

3.3%

21.9% 21.2%

7.8%

2.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
More than 1.0 Occupants per Room
% Occupied Households
Native American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
Asian American and Pacific
Islander (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Black/African American
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Hispanic/Latinx
Multiracial (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
White
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 2 1

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

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

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

Contra
Costa
County
Area
Median
Income:

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

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

7 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 22 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment The concentration of high-income households in Richmond is lowe r than in the County and the region. In Richmond, 35.8 percent of households earn more than 100 percent of the County area median income (AMI), and 20 percent of households (7,329 househ olds) earn less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see F igure A-15). 8 Regionally, however, more than half of all households earn more than 100 pe rcent of AMI, and 13.5 percent earn less than 30 percent of AMI. Of Richmond’s total household s, 14.8 percent (5,445 households) are low-income (earning between 50 and 80 percent o f AMI), while around 12.1 percent of households in the County and 13.0 percent of househo lds in the Bay Area are low- income. In total, 19,474 households in Richmond earn less than 80 percent of AMI (52.3 percent of households). Households with multiple wage earners (including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals) can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.0% 13.5 14.7%

18.3%

11.3% 10.9%

14.8%

12.1% 13.0%

11.1%

9.4% 9.4%

35.8%

53.8% 52.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Occuiped Households
Greater than 100% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
0%-30% of AMI
24 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-16: Household Income Level by Tenure, City of Richmond

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

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

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

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

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Households
5-Person or More Household
3-4-Person Household
2-Person Household
1-Person Household
26 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-18: Household Size by Household Income Level, City of Richmond Note: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

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

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

Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are 18,591 units in Richmond, or 50 percent of all units in the City. Among units with three or more bedrooms, 30 percent (5,570 units) are renter-occupied and 70 p ercent (13,021) are owner- occupied (see Table A-8; Figure A-19). 5,119 households are con sidered large households in Richmond. Therefore, the housing mix in Richmond is considered adequate to accommodate larger household sizes. However, 42 percent of large households are low-income, and there may be a need to ensure that enough affordable large units (three o r more bedrooms) are available for these households.
20% 17%
18% 24%
14%
20%
11%
9%
37%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Families of 5+ Persons
% Households
Greater than 100% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
0%-30% of AMI
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 2 7 Table A-8: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, City of Richmond Number of Bedrooms Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
0 Bedrooms 117 790
1 Bedroom 499 4,553
2 Bedrooms 4,845 7,693
3-4 Bedrooms 12,355 5,376
5 Or More Bedrooms 666 194
Totals 18,482 18,606
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52%
67% 63% 68%
90%
48%
33% 37% 32%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
% Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 2 9 Female-headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of ho using insecurity, particularly female-headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Richmond, the largest proportion of households is Married-coupl e Family Households at 42 percent, while Female-Headed Households make up 17 percent of all households (6,470 households) (Figure A-21).

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

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

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

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

17% 12% 10%
7%
5% 5%
42% 55%
51%
7%
6%
9%
25% 22% 25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Households
Single-person
Households
Other Non-Family
Households
Married-couple Family
Households
Male-headed Family
Households
Female-Headed Family
Households
30 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-9: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status, City of Richmond

FHH with Children FHH with No Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.6% 11.2% 9.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Population

6.8%

5.4%

4.8%

3.5%

2.8%

2.1%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a hearing
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
% Adult Population Reporting Disability Type
32 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Dev elopmental disabilities are defi ned as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are un able to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after a n aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them. In Richmond, of the population with a development disability, children under the age of 18 make up 48.2 percent, while adults account for 51.8 percent (see Table A-10). The most common living arrangement for individuals with developmental disabilities in Richmond is the home of a parent, family, or guardian (see Table A-11).

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

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

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

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

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

Table A-12 Poverty Status

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

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

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

10 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place : A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
34 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-24: Poverty Status by Race, City of Richmond

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

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

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

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

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

20.7% 18.9%

16.0%

13.0%

8.8%

6.7%

2.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
Multiracial
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic/Latinx Black/African
American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and Non-
Hispanic)
White Asian American
and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Native American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
% Households in Racial / Ethnic Group
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 3 5 far outside their communities for work. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that farmworkers commute 75 miles on average.

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

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

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

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

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

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

730
1,874
578
1,295
509
1,540
450
860
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Permanent Seasonal
Farm Workers
2002 2007 2012 2017
36 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-13: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
2016-17 0 0 4,630
2017-18 0 0 4,607
2018-19 0 0 4,075
2019-20 0 0 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Note: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 https://cchealth.org/press-releases/2022/0516-Rise-in-Homelessness-During-Pandemic.php 38 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-15: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year Richmond Contra Costa
County Bay Area
2016-17 442 2,116 14,990 2017-18 413 2,081 15,142 2018-19 486 2,574 15,427 2019-20 387 2,209 13,718 Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14.5%

3.1%

33.8%

45.0%

3.7%

0.5%

17.2%

8.7%

55.8%

17.7%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
Native American
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Asian American
and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Black/African
American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
Multiracial
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
% Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population 40 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-27: Hispanic/Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Note: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

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

16.6%

83.4%

25.4%

74.6%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Latinx
% Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 1 Figure A-28: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richmond
Endeavor
501 9th Street,
Richmond

Overnight lodging and meals for 12
persons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Richmond, 13.5 percent of residents five years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for Contra Costa County (Figure A-29). Throughout the region, the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 7.8 percent. 44 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment In Richmond, this includes a variety of non-English speakers such as Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, etc.), Vietnamese, and others.13
Figure A-29: Population 5 Years and Over Who Speak English "Not well" or "Not at all"

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

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

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

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

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

13.5%

6.4% 7.8%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Population 5 Years and Older
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 5 Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not ha ve housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 18.0 percent of households in Richmond live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs (see Appendix F, Affirmatively Furthe ring Fair Housing, for a map of these areas and a discussion of displacement risk).

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

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

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

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

1,803
4,547
6,024
3,702
1,794
7,271
3,903
1,877
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Susceptible to or
Experiencing
Displacement
At risk of or Experiencing
Gentrification
Stable Moderate/Mixed
Income
At risk of or Experiencing
Exclusion
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
46 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Section A.4 Housing Stock Characteristics
A.4.1 Housing Type and Vacancy
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across California consisted of single- family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some hou seholds are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing,” including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may op en up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age in place.

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

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

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

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

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

In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated or repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to repre sent a large portion of the “other Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 7 vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitti ng in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.

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

Figure A-31: Vacant Units by Type

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

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

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

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

Figure A-33: Housing Tenure by Housing Type, City of Richmond\ Universe: Occupied housing units
71%
47%
12% 15%
100%
29%
53%
88% 85%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Detached Single-
Family Homes
Attached Single-
Family Homes
Multi-Family Housing Mobile Homes Boat, RV, Van, or
Other
% Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
50%
66%
56%
50%
34%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 4 9 Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032)

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

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

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

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also reveal certain housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, se nior homeowners seeking to 50 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing marke t. In Richmond, 71 percent of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 2 4 percent of householders over 65 rent their home (see Figure A-34).

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

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

Because a large share of Richmond’s 6th Cycle RHNA housing allocation is for above moderate- income housing (approximately 45.7 percent of the City’s total RHNA allocation, or 1,651 units), the City’s housing plan contains additional programs and polici es to increase the representation of very low, low, and moderate-income units permitted.
8%
21%
36%
50%
62% 61%
74% 79% 80%
92%
79%
64%
50%
38% 39%
26% 21% 20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 15-
24 Age 25-
34 Age 35-
44 Age 45-
54 Age 55-
59 Age 60-
64 Age 65-
74 Age 75-
84 Age 85+
% Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 1 Table A-19: Housing Permitting, City of Richmond
Income Group Number of Units
Above Moderate-Income Permits 527
Moderate Income Permits 0
Low Income Permits 160
Very Low-Income Permits 266
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Note: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the County in which the jurisdiction is located.

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

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

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

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

Figure A-36: Substandard Housing Issues

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

0.5% 0.5%

1.0%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%
Kitchen Plumbing
% Units Lacking Amenity
Owner Renter
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 3 Note: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

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

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

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

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

15 The NCHH estimate is based on data from the 2018 U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey. 54 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-37: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)

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

For more current home prices, see Zillow estimates (Figure A-37). $1,077,233
$772,413
$641,530
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
Bay Area Contra Costa County Richmond
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 5 Figure A-38: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units

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

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

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

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

Census data, in 2019 the largest share of rental units in Richm ond (32 percent) were rented for 12%
7% 6%
45%
29%
16%
34%
27%
23%
6%
15%
20%
2%
13%
18%
0%
5%
8%
0%
3%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Owner Occupied Units
Units Valued Less than $250k Units Valued $250k-$500k Units Valued $500k-$750k Units Valued $750k-$1M Units Valued $1M-$1.5M Units Valued $1M-$2M Units Valued $2M+
56 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment between $1,000 and $1,500 per month, and 25 percent of units re nted for between $1,500 and $2,000 per month (see Figure A-39). 16 Conversely, the largest share of rental units in both the County and the region rented at $1,500 to $2,000 monthly, at 30 percent and 23 percent respectively.

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

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

16 Census-reported rents may be gen erally lower than asking rents , particularly in cities with rent- stabilization ordinances like Richmond. The American Community Survey provides data on self-reported rents, which are likely accurately reported, but may not represent prices for vacant apartments since rents are generally lower for longer-term tenants in rent-stabilized units. 17 Since U.S. Census data often lags behind market rates, Zillow rental data was obtained to provide more current market rates. Zillow dat a shows typical observed rent p rice at approximately $2,300 per month in August 2021.
9%
5% 6%
16%
10% 10%
32%
24%
19%
25%
30%
23%
14%
17% 17%
3%
7%
12%
1%
6%
13%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Rental Units
Rent less than $500 Rent $500-$1000 Rent $1000-$1500
Rent $1500-$2000 Rent $2000-$2500 Rent $2500-$3000
Rent $3000 or more
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 7 Figure A-40: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Note: For unincorporated areas, the median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

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

A.5.3 Overpayment
A standard measure of housing affordability can be determined by comparing the cost of market- rate housing to the price residents can afford to pay for housi ng based on their income levels. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents a re the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. When a household is overpaying for housing costs, the household has less disposable income for other necessities, including health care, food, and clothing. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low- income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. In the event of unexpected circumstances, such as loss of employment and health problems, lower-income households with burdensome housing costs are more likely to bec ome homeless or be forced to live with other households.
$1,381
$1,686
$1,849
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
58 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Cost Burden Severity
Richmond has a larger proportion of cost-burdened households co mpared to Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. Among Richmond’s households, nearly ha lf (44 percent; 16,232 households) are cost-burdened, spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Among cost-burdened households in Richmond, 20 percent (7,346 househo lds) are severely-cost burdened. In the County and the Bay Area, 36 percent of househo lds are cost-burdened and 16 percent are severely cost-burdened. During outreach for the Housing Element update, 46 percent of people interviewed said they struggle with housing affordability.

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

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

Renters are typically more often cost-burdened than owners. Whi le the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners oft en have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. Data for cost-burdened households by tenure in Richmond shows that over half of renter households (53 percent; 9,932 households) are cost-burdened, spending 30 percent or more of t heir income on housing, while around a third of households (34 percent; 6,300 households) tha t own their home are cost- burdened. Additionally, 25 percent of renters (4,742 households ) are severely cost-burdened, while 14 percent (2,604 households) of owners are severely cost-burdened. 54%
61% 62%
24%
20% 20%
20% 16% 16%
2% 3% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
% Households
Not Computed
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
0%-30% of Income
Used for Housing
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 5 9

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

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

Cost-burdened household rates vary across income categories (se e Figure A-43). Among low- income Richmond households (earning 80 percent of AMI or less) 68 percent (13,070 households) are cost-burdened, and 36 percent (6,850 households) are severely cost-burdened. 62 percent (4,385 households) of households earning less than 3 0 percent of AMI are severely cost-burdened, while households earning more than 100 percent o f AMI, just 0.8 percent (100 households) are severely cost-burdened, and 90 percent (11,870 households) of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing. 66%
42%
20%
28%
14%
25%
<1% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
% Households
Not Computed
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
0%-30% of Income
Used for Housing
60 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-43: Cost Burden by Income Level, City of Richmond Universe: Occupied housing units
Note: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

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

19%
27%
54%
74%
90%
18%
43%
38%
23%
9%
62%
30%
8% 3% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
% Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 6 1 Cost Burden by Race
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically ex cluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

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

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

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

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

48%
67%
53%
68%
52% 47%
18%
16%
21%
18%
27% 31%
35%
16%
24%
13%
19% 22%
1% 1% 1% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Native
American
Asian American
and Pacific
Islander (AAPI)
Black/African
American
White Multiracial Hispanic/Latinx
% Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed 62 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Cost-Burdened Large Families
In Richmond, 27 percent of large family households are cost-bur dened, and 16 percent of households are severely cost-burdened. 22 percent of households with fewer than five persons are cost-burdened and 20 percent are severely cost-burdened (see Figure A-45).

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

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

Cost-Burdened Senior Households
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house pay ments or pay rent, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost- burdened is of particular importance due to their special housi ng needs, particularly for low- income seniors. 51 percent of seniors making less than 30 perce nt of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing (990 households). For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, 87 percent are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing (2,695 households) (see Figure A-46). In total, 39 perc ent of all senior households are cost-burdened (3,445 households), while 32 percent of low-incom e senior households are cost- 58% 57%
22% 27%
20% 16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Family 5+ persons
% Households
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
0%-30% of Income
Used for Housing
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | 6 3 burdened (2,835 households). Community members also commented t hat seniors with fixed incomes are priced out of their homes as rent increases.

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

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

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

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

33% 37%
54%
80%
87%15%
36%
32%
17%
11%
51%
28%
14%
3% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
% Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
64 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-20: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Income Group 0%-30% of Income Used
For Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing % Cost Burdened
0%-30% of AMI 640 295 990 14.6%
31%-50% of
AMI 585 570 445 11.5%
51%-80% of
AMI 625 375 160 6.1%
81%-100% of
AMI 810 175 30 2.3%
Greater than
100% of AMI 2,695 345 60 4.6%
Totals 5,355 1,760 1,685 39.1%
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

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

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

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

Table A-21: 2021 Contra Costa County Ability to Pay for Housing and Fair Market Rent and Purchase Prices Number of Persons in Household
1 2 3 4
Extremely Low (0-30% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $27, 450 $31,350 $35,250 $39,150
Monthly Income $2,28 8 $2,613 $2,938 $3,263
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $686 $784 $881 $979
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $117,026 $133,653 $150,280 $166,906 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $138,922 $158,660 $178,397 $198,135 Very Low (30-50% Area Median Income)
Annual Income Limit $45,700 $52,200 $58,750 $65,250
Monthly Income $3,808 $4,350 $4,896 $5,438
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,143 $1,305 $1,469 $1,631
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $194,831 $222,543 $250,467 $278,178 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $231,284 $264,180 $297,329 $330,224 Low (50-80% Area Median Income)
Annual Income Limit $73,100 $83,550 $94,000 $104,400
Monthly Income $6,092 $6,963 $7,833 $8,700
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,828 $2,089 $2,350 $2,610
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $311,645 $356,196 $400,747 $445,085 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $369,953 $422,839 $475,726 $528,359 Median (100% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $83,450 $95,350 $107,300 $119,200
Monthly Income $6,954 $7,946 $8,942 $9,933
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $2,086 $2,384 $2,683 $2,980
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $355,770 $406,503 $457,449 $508,182 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $422,333 $482,558 $543,036 $603,261 Moderate (80-120% Area Median Income)
Annual Income Limit $100,15 0 $114,450 $128,750 $143,050 Monthly Income $8,34 6 $9,538 $10,729 $11,921
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $2,504 $2,861 $3,219 $3,576
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $426,966 $487,931 $548,896 $609,861 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $506,850 $579,221 $651,592 $723,963 120-150% of Area Median Income
Annual Income Limit $125,17 5 $143,025 $160,950 $178,800 Monthly Income $10,43 1 $11,919 $13,413 $14,900
66 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-21: 2021 Contra Costa County Ability to Pay for Housing and Fair Market Rent and Purchase Prices Number of Persons in Household
1 2 3 4
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $3,129 $3,576 $4,024 $4,470
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $533,655 $609,754 $686,173 $762,272 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $633,500 $723,837 $814,554 $904,891 150-180% of Area Median Income
Annual Income Limit $150,21 0 $171,630 $193,140 $214,560 Monthly Income $12,51 8 $14,303 $16,095 $17,880
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $3,755 $4,291 $4,829 $5,364
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $640,386 $731,705 $823,408 $914,727 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $760,199 $868,604 $97 7,464 $1,085,869 180-200% of Area Median Income
Annual Income Limit $166,90 0 $190,700 $214,600 $238,400 Monthly Income $13,90 8 $15,892 $17,883 $19,867
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $4,173 $4,768 $5,365 $5,960
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $711,540 $813,005 $914,897 $1,016,363 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $844,666 $965,116 $1, 086,072 $1,206,521 Notes:
1 30% of income devoted to maximum monthly rent or mortgage payment, including utilities, taxes, and insurance 2 Assumes 95% loan (i.e., 5% down payment) @ 2.875% annual interest rate and 30-year term 3 Assumes 80% loan (i.e., 20% down payment) @ 2.875% annual interest rate and 30-year term Source: LWC, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: 2021 Contra Costa Area Income Limits.

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

Acquired assisted units, particularly older units, may also require rehabilitation to update the units and extend the life of their use. The estimated costs for acqui ring and rehabilitating at-risk units are shown in Table A-25. According to recent California Tax Cre dit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) applications in Contra Costa County, the average per-un it cost for acquisition and rehabilitation is $418,307. The total cost to acquire and rehab ilitate the 10 at-risk units would be $4,183,072.
70 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-25: Estimated Acquisition and Rehabilitation Costs Project Name City
CTCAC
Application
Year
Units
Total
Development
Cost
Cost per
Unit
Barrett Terrace Apartments Richmond 2021 115 $78,329,328 $681,1 25 Hacienda Richmond 2020 150 $73,929,316 $492,862
Hilltop Commons Apartments San Pa blo 2020 324 $152,540,519 $470 ,804 Villa Medanos Antioch 2019 112 $36,495,870 $325,856
Willow Glen Apartments Hercules 2019 84 $29,824,711 $355,056 Marina Heights Apartments Pitts burg 2019 200 $58,992,556 $294,9 63 Hidden Cove Apartments Bay Poin t 2019 88 $30,706,915 $348,942 Coggins Square Apartments Walnu t Creek 2019 87 $47,056,209 $540 ,876 Clayton Villa Apartments Concor d 2018 80 $39,267,896 $490,849 Montevista Senior Apartments S an Pablo 2018 82 $25,364,921 $309 ,328 Antioch Scattered Site Renovation Antioch 2018 56 $16,907,622 $ 301,922 Hookston Senior Apartments Pleas ant Hill 2018 100 $40,710,327 $ 407,103

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

Source: CTCAC, 2022.

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

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

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

Source: CTCAC, 2022.

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

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

Qualified Entities to Acquire and Manage Affordable Housing There are several non-profit and for-profit organizations in th e region that could facilitate the acquisition and management of assisted units. HCD maintains a l ist of pre-approved organizations that are interested in the acquisition and manage ment of assisted units. As of December 2021, there are 16 qualified organizations in Contra Costa County (Table A-28). 72 | City of Richmond A ppendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Table A-28: HCD Qualified Entities in Contra Costa County Organization Address City
Rubicon Programs, Inc. 250 0 Bissell Ave Richmond
East Bay NHS 2320 Cutting Blvd Richmond
Community Housing Development Corp. 1535 Fred Jackson Way Ste A Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services of the East Bay 2320 Cutting Blvd . Richmond Affordable Housing Associates 1250 Addison St., Ste. G Berkeley Satellite Housing Inc. 2526 Martin Luther King., Jr Way Berkele y Northern California Land Trust, Inc. 3122 Shattuck Avenue Berk eley Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael
Anka Behavioral Health 1850 Ga teway Blvd., Suite 900 Concord Alameda County Allied Housing Program 224 W. Winton Avenue, Roo m 108 Hayward East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation 310 Eighth Street, Suite 200 Oakland Pacific Community Services, Inc. 329 Railroad Ave, P.O. Box 139 7 Pittsburg ROEM Development Corporation 165 0 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara ACLC, Inc 315 N San Jo aquin St Stockton
Rural California Housing Corp 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento L + M Fund Management LLC 187 4 Palmer Ave Westchester Source: HCD, 2022.

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

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

Richmond City CouncilJanuary 24, 2023

Richmond City Council
January 24, 2023