H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 1 Appendix C: Housing Constraints
Contents
Appendix C: Housing Constraints .............................................................. 1 Section C.1 Introduction and Summary .................................................................................... 2 C.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 C.1.2 Summary ............................................................................................................... 2 Section C.2 Governmental Constraints ..................................................................................... 3 C.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 C.2.2 Land Use Controls ................................................................................................. 3 C.2.3 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement ................................................... 24 C.2.4 Permits and Procedures ...................................................................................... 25 C.2.5 On and Off-site Improvements ............................................................................ 33 C.2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................. 33 Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints ........................................................................... 34 C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions ................................................................................. 34 C.3.2 Development Costs ............................................................................................. 35 C.3.3 Availability of Financing ....................................................................................... 36 C.3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................. 37 Section C.4 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints ..................................................... 38 C.4.1 Environmental Constraints .................................................................................. 38 C.4.2 Infrastructure Constraints .................................................................................... 39 C.4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................. 42
C-2 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Section C.1 Introduction and Summary
C.1.1 Introduction
This Appendix covers local governmental, non-governmental, and environmental and infrastructure constraints to housing production in Richmond.
C.1.2 Summary
City policies and regulations, such as the Zoning Code, and mar ket factors outside of the City’s control affect the quantity and type of residential development that occurs in Richmond. The following summarizes key governmental and non-governmental cons traints to housing development as detailed in this Appendix.
The design review process and subjective findings for approval , while limited in their applicability to housing developments due to State law (Housing Accountability Act), could result in uncertainty for developers and act as a constraint to housing production. Due to various legislative updates, certain zoning provisions are not consistent with State law (e.g., Low Barrier Navigation Centers, employee/farmworker housing, density bonus, etc.).
Zoning provisions for community/residential care facilities (e .g., separation requirements, permitted zones, etc.) are not compliant with State law. Economic conditions in Richmond reflect a competitive housing market for both for-sale and rental housing, although lower land costs facilitate more a ffordable housing development relative to the Bay Area.
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 3 Section C.2 Governmental Constraints
C.2.1 Introduction
Local policies and regulations can affect the quantity and type of residential development. Since governmental actions can constrain the development and the affo rdability of housing, state law requires the housing element to "address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and d evelopment of housing" (Government Code Section 65583(c)(3)).
The City’s primary policies and regulations that affect residen tial development and housing affordability include: the General Plan, the Zoning Code, development processing procedures and fees, on- and off-site improvement requirements, and the California Building and Housing Codes.
In addition to a review of these policies and regulations, an a nalysis of the governmental constraints on housing production for persons with disabilities is included in this Appendix.
C.2.2 Land Use Controls
This section provides an overview of the City’s land use contro ls and their relation to the City’s housing supply.
General Plan Land Use Designations
The City adopted the Richmond General Plan 2030 on April 25, 20 12. Element 3 of the General Plan is the Land Use and Urban Design Element, which directs th e location and form of future development in the city.
The General Plan includes 10 land use designations that allow a range of residential development types, at a variety of densities (see Table C-1).
Table C-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations General Plan
Designation Description
Residential
Hillside Residential
Includes attached and detached single-family housing on subdivided parcels and clustered multi-family residential on developable portions of hillside parcels below the 400- foot elevation. Hillside development should address key environmental challenges and constraints such as steep slopes and soil erosion. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes.
Low-Density
Residential
Includes attached and detached single-family residential development in level to moderately sloped areas. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes. Existing multi-family residential structures may remain and may be improved without increasing densities, or may revert to single-family residential uses.
C-4 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Table C-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations General Plan
Designation Description
Medium-Density
Residential
Includes single and multi-family housing types such as one to three-story garden apartments, historic bungalows and cottages on small lots, townhouses and stacked flats.
Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes.
Neighborhood Mixed-
Use
Includes residential and neighborhood-serving retail uses such as shops, markets, professional offices, boutiques, barber shops, beauty salons and restaurants. Residential development above ground floor commercial is strongly encouraged. Development is emphasized at neighborhood nodes.
Key Corridor
Medium-Density Mixed-
Use (Residential
Emphasis)
Includes mixed-use development with commercial uses encouraged at street-level along corridors. However, residential-only development is allowed and may include condominiums, townhouses or apartments. Commercial-only development is not allowed.
Projects with commercial components must also include a residential component. New development is required to have a pedestrian-oriented building design with minimal setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings.
Medium-Intensity
Mixed-Use (Commercial
Emphasis)
Includes mixed-use development with commercial or office/light industrial uses encouraged at street-level along corridors.1 This classification is distinguished from the Medium-Density Mixed-Use (Residential Emphasis) land use classification in that it allows residential-only or commercial-only development. Residential uses may include condominiums, townhouses or apartments and commercial uses may include small to large-scale retail or office. New development must have a pedestrian-oriented building design with minimal setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings preferred.
Activity Center
Medium-Intensity
Mixed-Use (Community
Nodes and Gateways)
Includes mid-rise mixed-use development at key community nodes and gateways with commercial uses strongly encouraged at street-level. Commercial development must have a pedestrian-oriented building design with setbacks allowing for public amenities and parking located behind buildings.
High-Intensity Mixed-
Use (Major Activity
Center)
Includes mid and high-rise mixed-use development at major activity centers to serve the community and region. Office, retail, entertainment and residential uses are allowed.
Areas with this designation are characterized by streets with minimal setbacks, wide sidewalks and public spaces that cater to pedestrians and transit riders. Medium-Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) is allowed within this land use designation.
Regional Commercial
Mixed-Use
Includes mid-rise mixed-use development characterized by compact and pedestrian- friendly environments. Office, retail and residential uses are allowed in mid-rise buildings.
Business and Industry
Live/Work
Includes lofts and apartments connected to small-scale production spaces as well as office and storefront retail in transitional areas where it can be demonstrated that the use does not conflict with adjacent uses.
Note: See discussion on Specific Plans in the following section. 1 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1808, residential uses are prohibited within the Transition Zone Overlay District (TZOD) as referenced on General Plan Map 3.2: General Plan Land Use.
Source: Richmond General Plan 2030, Land Use and Urban Design Element
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 5 Other Relevant Plans
Richmond has adopted several specific plans over the years to facilitate the orderly development of distinct sections of the City, including the Tricornia Estat e Specific Plan (1986), the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan (1993), and the City Center Sp ecific Plan (2001). During the 5th Cycle Housing Element update, approved specific plans accounte d for the majority of vacant sites appropriate for housing development. The plans relevant t o the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update are described briefly below. Additionally, the City is c urrently preparing a Hilltop Specific Plan with funding through a Priority Development Area Grant rec eived from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to accelerate and streamline ho using production near public transit.
Richmond Bay Specific Plan
The Richmond Bay Specific Plan (RBSP) was adopted in December 2016 to document the long- term vision for a 320-acre portion of Richmond’s Bay that was once home to the Kaiser Shipyards and associated industrial uses. Now home to University of Calif ornia, Berkeley’s Richmond Bay Campus, the RBSP area is envisio ned to eventually contain a ser ies of mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods that can accommodate over 5.6 million square feet of research and development uses, 720,000 square feet of retail and services, 84 acres of p ublic/nature open space, and over 4,000 housing units. The RBSP is implemented by several form-ba sed zones, all of which allow for residential and mixed-use development.
Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code
The Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code (RLC FBC) will implement a mixed-use vision for several of the City’s commercial corridors and surrounding areas consistent with the vision of General Plan 2030. Though originally intended to represent the first phase of a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, the RLC FBC is still in development as of Summer 2022. Upon adoption, the development standards associated with the FBC zoning districts will be incorporated into the Zoning Code as Series 400 (Form-Based Code Zoning Dist ricts). Several programs are proposed in the Housing Plan (Section IV) to codify portions of the RLC FBC and remove constraints, including programs to provide a variety of housing types and objective design standards.
Zoning Districts
The Zoning Code is Chapter 15.04 of the Richmond Municipal Code . The Zoning Code and Zoning Map are available on the City’s website consistent with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1)(B). A comprehensive update to the Zoning Code was adopted in 2016 to be consistent with the Richmond General Plan 2030. A primary objective of the update was to replace suburban and auto-oriented development standards with those that promote and facilitate mixed- use, higher density and transit-oriented developments.
C-6 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints This section analyzes the Zoning Code and the zones which allow residential development, as well as the Richmond Bay Specific Plan. Table C-2 lists the zon es that allow residential development, including mixed-use, with a description of each.
Table C-2: Zones that Allow Residential Development
Zone Description
Residential Districts
Single Family
Hillside Residential RH
Residential development comprised of single-family housing on developable portions of hillside lots below the 400-foot elevation. Development in this district must address key environmental challenges and constraints, such as steep slopes and soil erosion, and standards will ensure that development is compatible with hillside conditions and a rural environment.
Single Family Very
Low Density
Residential
RL1
Create, preserve, and enhance areas for very low-density single-family housing in outlying, undeveloped hillside areas. Standards will ensure that development is compatible with hillside conditions and promote clustered development to preserve open space.
Single Family Low
Density Residential RL2
Low density residential development with attached and detached single-family homes in level to moderately sloped areas. Dwelling types also may include small lot single unit development, duplexes, townhomes, cottages, bungalows, and second units. In addition to single-unit homes, this district provides for compatible, supportive uses, such as small family day care, park and recreation facilities, civic and institutional uses, including schools and places for community assembly that may be appropriate in a single-family residential neighborhood, and community gardens. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes identified by the Planning Commission. Existing multi-family residential structures may remain and may be improved without increasing densities, or may revert to single-family residential uses.
Multi-family
Residential RM1
Single and multi-family housing types such as one to three-story garden apartments, historic bungalows and cottages on small lots, townhouses and stacked flats. In addition to residential uses, this district allows for a limited number of public and semi-public uses such as day care centers, public safety facilities, and residential care facilities that are appropriate in a medium density multi-family residential environment. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes identified by the Planning Commission. Small lot single unit and bungalow court development is allowed in the RM-1 District where it would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Multi-family High
Density Residential RM2
This district is intended for multi-family housing types including apartments, condominiums, townhouses, and group housing. In addition to residential uses, this district allows for compatible public and semi-public uses, including day care centers, public safety facilities, community assembly, residential care facilities, and transitional and supportive housing that are appropriate in a medium-high density residential environment. Neighborhood mixed-use development is allowed at neighborhood nodes identified by the Planning Commission.
Mixed-Use Districts
Commercial Mixed-
Use, Residential CM-1
Intended for mixed-use development with commercial uses at street-level along corridors. Residential-only development also is allowed and may include condominiums, townhouses or apartments. Commercial-only development is not allowed. Projects with commercial components must also include a residential component. New development is required to have a pedestrian-oriented building
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 7 Table C-2: Zones that Allow Residential Development
Zone Description
design with minimal front and street-side setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings.
Commercial Mixed-
Use, Neighborhood CM-2
Residential and neighborhood-serving retail uses, such as small stores, markets, professional offices, boutiques, barbershops, beauty salons, and restaurants.
Residential development above ground floor commercial is preferred, but not required. Standards will ensure that development at neighborhood nodes is appropriately scaled, so that the physical form relates to and does not overwhelm adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods.
Commercial Mixed-
Use, Commercial
Emphasis
CM-3
Mixed-use development with commercial or office/light industrial uses at street- level along corridors. This classification is distinguished from the CM-1 Commercial Mixed-Use, Residential, in that it allows residential-only or commercial-only development. Allowable residential uses include condominiums, townhouses or apartments, and commercial uses may include small to large-scale retail, business and personal services and, at street-level, offices serving a walk-in clientele. New development must have a pedestrian-oriented building design with minimal front and street-side setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings preferred.
Commercial Mixed-
Use, Gateway/Node CM-4
Mid-rise mixed-use development at key community nodes and gateways with commercial uses at street-level and offices or residential uses on upper floors.
Commercial development must have a pedestrian-oriented building design with setbacks allowing for public amenities and parking located behind buildings.
Commercial Mixed-
Use, Activity Center CM-5
Mid and high-rise mixed-use development at major activity centers to serve the community and residents and businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area. Office, retail, entertainment and residential uses are allowed. Standards for physical form will create an urban character as envisioned in the General Plan with streets with minimal setbacks, wide sidewalks and public spaces that cater to pedestrians and transit riders.
Commercial Districts
Regional
Commercial CR
Mid-rise mixed-use development and regional shopping centers (e.g., Hilltop, Pacific East Mall, and Target) characterized by intensive development of retail space in compact and pedestrian-friendly environments. Office, retail and residential uses are allowed in mid-rise buildings.
Source: Richmond Zoning Code, Series 200 (Base Zoning District Regulations)
Development Standards
Development standards can constrain new residential development if the standards make it economically infeasible or physically impractical to develop a particular lot, or there are not suitable parcels which meet the development criteria for buildi ng form, massing, height, and density in a particular zone.
Through its Zoning Code, the City enforces minimum site develop ment standards for new residential uses. Tables C-3 summarizes the basic standards for the City’s zones that allow residential development.
C-8 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Table C-3: Development Standards in Zones that Allow Residential Development Zone Max. Dwelling
Units/Acre
Min. Lot Size Min. Setbacks (ft) Max.
Height (ft)
Max.
Stories
Max. Lot
Coverage
Min. Open
Space/Unit (sf) Min.
Landscaping
Area (sf) Width (ft) Front Interior
Side
Street
Side Rear Private Common
RH 5 11,000 70 25 1 10 10 25 35 – 40% – – –
RL1 9 6,000 60 20 1 6 7.5 20 2 35 – 45% – – –
RL2 15 3,750 37.5 20 1 5 7.5 20 2 35 – 50% – – –
RM1 27 5,000 50 10 5 3 1 0 2 0 35 3 65% 75 150 15%
RM2 40 5,000 50 10 5 3 1 0 2 0 35 3 75% 60 120 15%
CM-1 50 5,000 50 0 5 0 20 45 4 4 5 – 75 200 10%
CM-2 30 5,000 50 0 0
Adj to R: 5 0 5
Adj to R: 10 45 4 4 5 – 75 200 15%
CM-3 50 5,000 50 0 0
Adj to R: 5 0 0
Adj to R: 10 55 6 5 7 – 60 200 15%
CM-4 82.5 5,000 50 0 0
Adj to R: 5 0 0
Adj to R: 10 55 6 5 – 60 200 15%
CM-5 135 5,000 50 5 0
Adj to R: 5 5 0
Adj to R: 10 135 6 12 – 60 200 15%
CR – 5,000
Corner: 6,000
50 Corner: 60
0 Adj to R: 5
0 Adj to R: 5 0 0
Adj to R: 5 55 – – – – –
sf = square feet | ft = feet | Adj = adjacent | R = Residential zone 1 Where the adjoining lots on the same block face have been improved with buildings, the minimum ground floor front setback requirement shall be the average of the actual front setback of these abutting improved lots on such block face or 20 feet, whichever is less. When the lot slope is 20 percent or more, the front setback may be reduced to 10 feet provided the garage door is setback 18 feet from the edge of the pavement.
2 In the RL2 and RL1 districts the rear setback may be reduced to 10 feet if the combined front and rear setback is at least 40 feet. 3 Where an RM District adjoins an RH or RL District, the building setback from an RH or RL District boundary shall be 10 feet for interior side yards. 4 Maximum building height is 35 feet when within 30 feet of a Residential District. 5 The top story of all four-story buildings in the CM-1 and CM-2 districts shall contain only residential uses and shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet from the story below. 6 Maximum building height is 35 feet within 50 feet of a Residential District. 7 For the CM-3 District along San Pablo Avenue, the maximum allowable number of stories is three when abutting a single-family residential zone.
Source: Richmond Zoning Code, Series 200 (Base Zoning District Regulations)
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 9 Development Standards Analysis
Richmond’s basic development standards are generally not a constraint to housing development.
For example, floor area ratio (FAR) limitations are not applied to residential developments or residential portions of mixed-use developments, and most zones do not have lot coverage/area standards. While the RM1 and RM2 zones have maximum lot area re quirements of 65 and 75 percent respectively, this amount of coverage does not pose an undue constraint on the development of housing in the City.
Parking Requirements
Required residential parking rates are shown in Table C-4.
Table C-4: Residential Parking Rates
Land Use Required Number of Spaces
Single Unit 2 per dwelling unit
Duplexes or 2 or more attached units 1.5 per dwelling unit ADU 1 per dwelling unit or bedroom, whichever is less
Junior ADU ‒
Multi-Unit Dwelling (except senior and long-
term care)
1-bed 1 per dwelling unit
2-bed 1.5 per dwelling unit
3-bed+ 2 per dwelling unit
Efficiency unit 0.5 per dwelling unit
Guest parking (for developments with 5+ units) 0.2 per dwelling unit Senior Housing 2
Resident parking 0.5 per dwelling unit; 1 per employee
Guest parking (for developments with 5+ units) 0.2 per dwelling unit Mobile Home Park 1 per mobile home
Residential Facility/Group Residential
Limited/Small (≤6 persons) ‒
General, Senior/Large 0.25 per bed
Supportive Housing 0.25 per bed
Transitional Housing 0.25 per bed
Live-Work 1 per dwelling unit
Domestic Violence Shelter 0.25 per bed
Emergency Shelters 0.25 per bed, plus 1 per 10 beds 1
1 The Zoning Administrator may reduce this parking requirement upon finding that the actual parking demand will be less than the standard assumes.
Source: City of Richmond Zoning Code, Article 15.04.607 (Parking and Loading Standards)
C-10 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Parking Requirements Analysis
The City typically requires two space per single residential dw elling unit, with reduced requirements for duplexes, ADUs, multi-unit dwellings, and uses that serve residents with low vehicle ownership rates (e.g., senior housing, community care facilities, etc.).
Section 15.04.607.030.F (Unbundled Parking) provides provisions for the sale or rental of parking spaces in new multi-unit residential buildings with 10 or more units, allowing the lease or sale of off-street parking spaces separately from the rental or purchas e fees for the dwelling units. This may result in lowering the cost of housing for non-car househol ds and reducing parking demand in the surrounding neighborhood by opening up surplus spaces fo r public use. The Zoning Administrator may grant an exception from these requirements fo r affordable units subject to financing conditions that require that costs for parking and housing be bundled together.
Covered parking (e.g., carport, roofed structure, or garage) is only required if parking is located in the front half of a lot or within 25 feet of the side street on a corner lot per Section
15.04.607.030.G (Garages/Carports/Uncovered Residential Parking), with exceptions for ADUs.
In addition to the standards in Table C-4, the City provides parking reduction strategies in Section
15.04.607.070 (Alternative Compliance with Parking Requirements ). For example, consistently available on-street parking may be counted towards all or a portion of the parking spaces required of each land use, provided the applicant funds an on-street par king inventory and occupancy study (or references one completed in the last two years). Addi tionally, alternative parking area design and loading plans may be allowed with a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission. Therefore, parking requirements are not a constraint to the development of housing.
Design Standards and Guidelines
Design standards and guidelines are evaluated as they have the potential to increase development costs and extend the permitting process. The Housin g Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) limits jurisdictions’ ability to deny or reduce the density of a housing development project that complies with applicable objec tive zoning and development standards. The City provides design standards for single family homes in Section 15.04.201.040 (Design Standards for Single Family Housing). The section inclu des objective standards relating to entrances, building articulation, exterior siding, and more. Section 15.04.201.070 (Design Standards for Multi-Family Housing) identifies similar objectiv e standards for entrances, building length, pedestrian access, and more. For mixed-use districts, S ection 15.04.202.040 (Supplemental Regulations) objective standards for entrances, building articulation, windows, and more are provided.
Outside the Zoning Code, the Residential Design Guidelines for Additions to Heritage Homes (2008) provide a series of guidelines on the appropriate scale and location of additions and alterations to existing single-family dwellings as a complement to the Zoning Code’s design review procedures. Unlike the design standards for base zoning distric ts referenced above, the
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | C - 1 1 Residential Design Guidelines include a mixture of objective massing standards and architectural recommendations.
Design standards and guidelines are generally objective and are not a constraint to housing production. However, see analysis of the design review process in Section C.2.4 for streamlining recommendations.
Provisions for a Variety of Housing
The City has adopted provisions in its Zoning Code that facilit ate a range of residential development types. Table C-5 provides a list of housing types a nd the zones in which they are permitted, require a conditional use permit, or are not permitted.
C-12 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Table C-5: Housing Types Permitted by Zone
Housing Type
Residential Districts Mixed-Use Districts Commercial
Districts
RH RL1 RL2 RM1 RM2 CM-1 CM-2 CM-3 CM-4 CM-5 CR
Single Family, Attached C 1 P P P P P P P A A 2 ‒
Single Family, Detached C 1 P P P P ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ A
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) P P P P P P P P P P ‒
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
(JADU) P P P P P P P P P P ‒
Duplex ‒ A 3 A 4 P P ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Multi-Unit Dwelling C 5 ‒ ‒ P P P P 6 P P 6 P 6 P 7
Supportive Housing P P P P P P P P P P 2 ‒
Transitional Housing P P P P P P P P P P 2 ‒
Emergency Shelter P 8 P 8 P 8 P 8 P 8 P 8 C P / C 9 ‒ P 2 ‒ Group Residential
Congregate Housing P P P P P C C C ‒ C 2 ‒
Senior Group Residential P P P P P C C C ‒ C 2 ‒
Planned Residential Groups C C C C C C ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Residential Facility
Residential Care, Limited (≤6
persons) P P P P P P P P P P 2 P 7
Residential Care, General (>6
person) ‒ ‒ ‒ C C C ‒ C C C 2 P 7
Residential Care, Senior ‒ ‒ ‒ C C C C C ‒ C 2 P 7
Hospice, Limited (≤6 persons) P P P P P P P ‒ ‒ ‒ P 7
Hospice, General (>6 persons) ‒ ‒ ‒ C C C C ‒ ‒ ‒ P 7
Key
P = Permitted Use; A = Administrative Use Permit required; C = Conditional Use Permit required; – = Not Permitted/Not Specified
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-13 Table C-5: Housing Types Permitted by Zone
Housing Type
Residential Districts Mixed-Use Districts Commercial
Districts
RH RL1 RL2 RM1 RM2 CM-1 CM-2 CM-3 CM-4 CM-5 CR
Notes
In the Live-Work (LW) Zone, ADUs/JADUs, Duplexes, and Live-Work units are permitted.
Emergency shelters are also permitted in the General Commercial (CG) Zone. See discussion below.
1 Only attached and detached single-family housing on subdivided parcels and clustered multi-family residential are allowed with design review on developable portions of hillside parcels below the 400-foot elevation. Hillside development standards and density controls in Section 15.04.201.100 (Hillside Subdivisions) apply. 2 If not within the Industrial Buffer Zone.
3 Allowed with an administrative use permit on lots 7,500 square feet or larger. 4 Allowed with an administrative use permit on lots 5,000 square feet or larger. 5 Up to 10 units allowed with a conditional use permit in a neighborhood mixed-use development at a neighborhood node. 6 Permitted above the ground floor or behind an allowed ground floor use, but not within the Industrial Buffer Zone. 7 Permitted above the ground floor or behind an allowed ground floor use, otherwise, a conditional use permit is required. 8 Permitted with 10 or fewer beds only.
9 Up to 25 beds permitted; for more than 25 beds, a conditional use permit is required.
Source: Richmond Zoning Code, Series 200 (Base Zoning District Regulations)
C-14 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Multi-Family
The City defines multi-family dwellings as housing three or mor e dwelling units within a single building or within two or more buildings on a site or parcel, i ncluding garden apartments, senior housing developments, and multi-story apartment buildings. This classification includes transitional housing in a multiple-unit format and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing units.
Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the RM1, RM2, CM-1, CM- 2, CM-3, CM-4, CM-5, and CR zones.
In the RH Zone, multi-family developments with up to 10 units are allowed with a conditional use permit in a neighborhood mixed-use development at a neighborhood node. Additionally, duplexes are allowed by-right in the RM1 and RM2 zones, and in the RL1 a nd RL2 zones with an administrative use permit on lots larger than 7,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet, respectively.
The City regulates condominium conversions in Section 15.04.711 .020 (Condominium, Community Apartment, and Stock C ooperative Conversion Regulatio ns) for the purposes of maintaining an adequate supply of rental housing and reducing t he displacement of long-term residents. These provisions prohibit existing residential renta l properties from being converted into condominiums unless all provisions of the City’s Code are complied with. Conversions are allowed subject to application, tenant notification, and reloca tion requirements, including right of first refusal for current tenants.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are permitted by-right in all Residential and Mixed-Use districts. They must be must be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the standards of Section 15.04.610.020 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units). These standards were updated in November 2020 to reflec t recent amendments to State law and include a provision that, if any portion of Section15.0 4.610.020 conflicts with State law, the applicable provision of State law shall control.
However, Government Code Section 65852.2(e) requires ADUs to be permitted ministerially in all mixed-used zones where residential uses are allowed. The CR dis trict permits “multi-unit dwellings” above the ground floor or behind an allowed ground floor use, but does not allow ADU or JADUs. Though State law would already control in this case, to provide additional clarity, Program 2.E is proposed to explicitly permit ADU and JADUs in the CR district.
Applicants for an ADU must submit an application for zoning com pliance review to the Zoning Administrator for ministerial approval (or as part of a building permit application). No discretionary review is permitted, in compliance with State law. Additionally , the City’s Planning Division provides both an info sheet and checklist to assist homeowners in the construction of compliant ADUs and JADUs. Also provided is a handout explaining the relationship between ADUs and the City’s rent control and just cause regulations.
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-15 Emergency Shelters/Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Emergency shelters containing any number of beds are permitted by-right on commercial parcels zoned CM-1. Additionally, emergency shelters are permitted by-r ight on commercial parcels zoned CM-5 and not within the Industrial Buffer Zone. Shelters with any number of beds are conditionally permitted on parcels zoned CM-2. In the CM-3, CG, and CR zones, emergency shelters with up to 25 beds are permitted by-right; shelters wi th 25 or more beds require a CUP.
Emergency shelters with 10 or fewer beds are permitted by-right in all Residential zones.
The City has adopted supplemental standards addressing operatio nal and design criteria (consistent with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)) contained in Municipal Code Section
15.04.610.180 (Emergency Shelters), which include the following:
Shelters must be a minimum of 300 feet from each other. Shelters must include an outdoor courtyard/waiting area, on-si te management during hours of operation, and exterior lighting at all building entra nces and outdoor activity areas.
Shelters may provide common facilities, including child care, a commercial kitchen, a dining area, laundry, a recreation room, and support services ( e.g., training, counseling).
No more than 10 beds shall be provided in any single emergency shelter located in a Residential zoning district and no more than 25 beds shall be p rovided in any single emergency shelter located within a Mixed-Use zoning district, except in response to a disaster or as authorized by a CUP.
At least one parking space shall be provided for every four be ds, and one additional parking space for every 10 beds. The Zoning Administrator may r educe this parking requirements upon finding that the actual parking demand will b e less than the standard assumes.
At least one bicycle space shall be provided for every five be ds.
The minimum separation requirement of 300 feet is allowed by St ate law, which prohibits any separate requirement greater than 300 feet (Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(v)).
Although the number of required parking spaces for an emergency shelter is lower compared to that required for multi-family (see Table C-4), it does not ref lect the parking necessary to only accommodate shelter staff. Therefore, these requirements will be amended to be consistent with State law, which requires sufficient parking for emergency shelter staff, provided that it is not more parking than is required for other residential or commercial us es within the same zone (Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)).
According to the 2022 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, there were an estimated 632 persons experiencing homelessness in Richmond. Available housing sites in the CM-1 and CM-5 zones, which allow emergency shelters by right (without discretionary review), have a maximum capacity
C-16 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints of 1,151 units (see Appendix B, Sites Inventory and Methodology ). Additionally, the CM-3 Zone, which also allows emergency shelters with up to 25 beds without discretionary review, has a maximum unit capacity of 78 units with no housing site having a maximum capacity over 11 units.
Therefore, these zones provide sufficient capacity for emergenc y shelters that could house the current PIT Count estimate of 632 persons. The Zoning Code does not address low barrier navigation centers (LBNCs), defined as Housing First, low-barri er, service enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provide te mporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing (Government Code Section 65660). State law requires LBNCs to be permitted by-right in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresid ential zones permitting multi- family uses provided they are sat isfying the provisions establi sh by AB 101 (see Government Code Section 65662). Program 4.G is included to permit Low Barr ier Navigation Centers in the CM1, CM2, CM3, CM4, CM5, and CR zones.
Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing
In addition to emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing are used to further facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. They can serve those who are transitioning from rehabilitation or other types of tem porary living situations (e.g., domestic violence shelters, group homes, etc.). Transitional ho using can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and mu lti-family apartments, and typically offers case management and support services to return people to independent living (usually between six and 24 months). Transitional housing is defined in Government Code Section 65582(j) as buildings configured as rental housing development but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and re circulation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months.
Supportive housing is defined in Government Code Section 65582(g) as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
AB 2162 (Government Code Section 65650-65656) requires supporti ve housing to be allowed by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones that allow multi-family uses, if the proposed development meets certain criteria (e.g., deed restricted for 55 years to lower income households, serving “ta rget population” of homeless individuals, minimum area dedicated for supportive services, etc.).
In Richmond, transitional and supportive housing are allowed in all zones that allow residential uses and are subject to the same development standards that app ly to other residential uses of a similar type within these zones. They are also allowed by-rig ht in all zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted, with the exception of the CR Zone. Because the CR
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-17 district permits “multi-unit dwellings” above the ground floor or behind an allowed ground floor use, transitional and supportive housing should be permitted in the same fashion.
The Housing Element includes Program 4.H to amend the Zoning Code to permit transitional and supportive housing by-right in the CR Zone.
Farmworker (Employee) Housing
State law provisions related to farmworker housing (also called employee housing) derive from Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 and Section 17021.6 . Section 17021.5 generally requires employee housing for six or fewer persons to be treated as a single-family structure and residential use. Section 17021.6 generally requires that employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters designed for use by a single family or household to be treated as an agricultural use. No conditional use permits, zoning varianc es, or other zoning clearance are to be required.
The Zoning Code does not explicitly allow farmworker (employee) housing in any zone and has not been amended to comply with State law. As shown in the Need s Assessment (Appendix A, Table A-10), there are 319 City residents employed in the Agriculture & Natural Resource industry, well under one percent of all job holders. This indicates low d emand for this housing type.
However, Program 4.I has been included for the City to amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing consistent with State law.
Single-Room Occupancy (SROs)
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units are included in the City’s definition of “multiple-unit dwelling” as stated in Section 15.04.104.020 (Definitions). Municipal Cod e Section 15.04.610.390 (Single Room Occupancy Housing) provides supplemental standards for SROs, addressing requirements for room size/amenities, common areas, facility management, and more. None of these standards are likely to constrain the development of SROs. In fact, an SR O which contains a common kitchen that serves all residents is entitled to a 20 percent d ensity bonus above the maximum allowed by the base zoning dist rict. A new 17-unit SRO was appr oved in 2020 and began construction in 2021.
Manufactured and Mobile Homes
Mobile and manufactured homes can be an important source of hou sing choice and affordability As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Table A-16), the number of mobile homes in Richmond is very low (163 mobile homes) and has not changed in the past decade. Mobilehome parks require a CUP granted by the Planning Commission and subs equent approval by City Council within 30 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, a s described in Section 7.76.020 (Conditional Use Permits – Required). Further supplemental park and lot standards are provided outside the Zoning Code in Chapter 7.76 (Mobilehome Parks).
Government Code Section 65852.3 requires cities to allow and pe rmit manufactured and mobile homes on a permanent foundation in the same manner and in the s ame zone as a conventional
C-18 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints stick-built structure, subject to the same development standards that a conventional single-family home on the same lot would be subject to. As manufactured homes that meet certain requirements must be permitted in mobile home parks and are fre quently regulated by jurisdictions together, they are discussed here jointly.
Manufactured homes on a foundation are included as part of the City’s definition of “single unit dwelling, detached” and “accessory dwelling unit” as stated in Section 15.04.104.020 (Definitions).
Development standards for manufactured homes are also described in Section 15.04.610.260 (Manufactured Homes). They are treated as a conventional single -family home consistent with Government Code Section 65852.3 and in compliance with State law.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. This classification includes facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide permanent living accommodations and 24 hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of dail y living. It includes hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug addictions.
The City ensures that new housing developments comply with California building standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) and federal requirements for accessibility.
Health and Safety Code Section 1502 defines community care faci lities as “any facility, place, or building that is maintained and operated to provide nonmedical residential care, day treatment, adult daycare, or foster family agency services for children, a dults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, the physically handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children.” This definition includes a w ide variety of facilities, including foster family homes, small family homes, and group homes.
Health and Safety Code Section 1569.2 defines residential care facilities for the elderly as “a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of a ge or over, or their authorized representative, where varying levels and intensities of care an d supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are prov ided, based upon their varying needs, as determined in order to be admitted and to remain in the facility. Persons under 60 years of age with compatible needs may be allowed to be admitted or r etained in a residential care facility for the elderly.”
State law requires local governments to treat both facility typ es with six or fewer residents as a residential use and subject to the same development standards a s a single-family dwelling.
Furthermore, no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or oth er zoning clearance shall be required of a community/residential facility that serves six or fewer persons that is not required of
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-19 a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. The residents and operators of a residential care facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to the residential use of property. However, “six or fe wer persons” does not include the operator, operator’s family, or persons employed as staff.
The City defines a “Residential Facility” as those that provide permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living. This classification includes several sub-types, including:
1. Residential Care, Limited. A Residential Facility licensed by the State of California providing care for six or fewer persons;
2. Residential Care, General. A Residential Facility licensed by the State of California and providing care for more than six persons;
3. Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person, w here residents are 60 years of age or older and where varying levels of care and supe rvision are provided as agreed to at the time of admission or as determined necessary a t subsequent times of reappraisal. This classification includes continuing care retir ement communities and life care communities licensed for residential care by the State of California;
4. Hospice, Limited. A facility that provides residential living quarters for up to six terminally ill persons; and
5. Hospice, General. A facility that provides residential living quarters for more than six terminally ill persons.
As shown in Table C-5, the “Residential Care, Limited” sub-type is permitted by-right in all zones allowing residential uses. However, several other Zoning Code p rovisions are not in compliance with State law, including:
Section 15.04.610.360 (Residential Facility) requires such fac ilities to be separated by a minimum distance of 300 feet from any other residential facil ity and at least 20 square feet of common open space for each person who resides th ere. These constitute development standards not required of a single-family dwelling of the same type in the same zone (for those facilities serving six or fewer persons). “Residential Care, Senior” does not delineate between faciliti es serving six or fewer persons and more than six persons. For such facilities serving six or fewer persons, they must be permitted by-right in the same manner as “Resident ial Care, Limited” (i.e., in all zones allowing residential uses).
“Hospice, Limited” facilities must be permitted by-right in th e CM-3, CM-4, and CM-5 zones.
C-20 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints These changes are included in Program 3.E, which also requires that community/residential care facilities, regardless of type or size, are only subject to obj ective standards (non-discretionary review).
Lastly, the Zoning Code defines a “family” as “one or more persons, related or unrelated, living together as a single housekeeping unit.” This definition does n ot require relation by blood or by marriage, and therefore does not unnecessarily limit the operation of community/residential care facilities.
Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modificati ons or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodat ions may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabiliti es to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is rea sonable depends on the circumstances.
Article 15.04.809 (Waivers) establishes a formal procedure for individuals with disabilities seeking equal access to housing to request a reasonable accommodation a nd criteria to be used when considering such requests. The Code allows a reasonable accommo dation request to be made by any person with a disability or their representative when th e rules, standards, and practices required for housing acts as a barrier to fair housing opportun ities. The following factors are required to be considered prior to a decision on a reasonable accommodation request:
Physical attributes of the property and structures.
Alternative reasonable accommodations which may provide an equ ivalent level of benefit.
Whether the reasonable accommodation would require a fundament al alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning. Whether the subject housing will be used by a person with a di sability. Whether the request is necessary to make specific housing avai lable to a person with a disability.
These are reasonable factors for the City to consider in approv ing a reasonable accommodation request. The finding of whether the request would require a fun damental alteration in the nature of a City program or law allows the City to evaluate whether modifications to City regulations are appropriate to facilitate processing of reasonable accommodation requests. The City has not had any reasonable accommodation requests over the last planning pe riod, and a program is proposed to raise awareness of reasonable accommodations to increase the number of requests filed and approved by the City.
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-21 Density Bonus and Incentives for Affordable Housing
The City’s density bonus provisions and incentives are located in Article 15.04.602 (Affordable Housing Density Bonus). There have been changes to State densi ty bonus laws since these provisions were adopted in 2018 (e.g., allowance for up to 50 p ercent density bonuses via AB 2345). Therefore, though Section 15.04.602.020 (General Provisi ons) affirms that State law governs in the event of a conflict, this article should be upda ted to reflect current State law, as proposed in Program 3.D.
Subsection C provides incentive standards that the City has determined would not have a specific, adverse impact. These incentives are:
A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning requirements or design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Standards Commission including, but not limited to, reduced minimum setbacks, increased maximum lot coverage, reduced on-site parking standards, etc. Other incentives proposed by the developer or the City that re sult in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions, including, but not limited to expedited "fast track" processing of development applications, waiver of filing or processing fees. use of public financing, etc.
The number of incentives or concessions allowed varies from one to three depending on the level of affordability, the type of housing unit, and the percentage of total units they represent.
Inclusionary Housing
In 2001, the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IH O) which modified the City’s requirements for the provision of affordable housing by builders of new residential projects. During the 5th Cycle Housing Element Update in 2014, affordable housing advocates expressed concerns as to whether the City’s inclusionary housing in-lieu fee was a dequate to assist in increasing the supply of affordable housing in the City. To address these concerns, two specific Housing Element programs related to the IHO were added in the 5 th Cycle and adopted by the Council in 2015. In the following years, three studies (a financial feasibility ana lysis and two nexus studies) were prepared to support consideration of updates to the City’s affo rdable housing requirements. In 2020, a substantially reorganized and expanded IHO was adopted, repealing and readopting Article 15.04.603 (Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Linkage Fee).
Section 15.04.810.060 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements for Re sidential Development Projects) establishes requirements for the inclusion of afforda ble housing in all new housing developments of 10 or more units in both entirely residential p rojects and in the residential components of mixed-use projects. Developers can meet the City’ s inclusionary housing requirement by:
Making seven percent of the dwelling units in a for-sale resid ential development project available at a price affordable to low-income households;
C-22 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Making 10 percent of the dwelling units in a for-sale resident ial development project available at a price affordable to moderate-income households; Making nine percent of the dwelling units in a rental resident ial development project available at a rent affordable to very low-income households; or Making 10 percent of the dwelling units in a rental residentia l development project available at a rent affordable to low-income households.
Alternately, except for for-sale residential developments propo sed south of Interstate Highway 580 (I-580) and on the Point San Pablo peninsula, the above inc lusionary requirements may be satisfied by the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City’s Afford able Housing Fund described in Section 15.04.603.130 (Affordable Housing Fund). Other alternative compliance options include:
The inclusionary housing requirement for for-sale residential developments may be satisfied by providing 10 percent of the dwelling units in deve lopment at a rent affordable to very low-income households (which may be later so ld at a similarly affordable price and kept affordable for a 45-year term); The construction of inclusionary units on another site in Rich mond; or The dedication of property to the City, provided the number of affordable units to be constructed on the property is at least 10 percent greater than the number of inclusionary units otherwise required and a viable financing plan is in place.
Inclusionary housing requirements may increase development cost s. However, the City offers developers the following incentives and concessions to offset such costs:
Allowing a density bonus according to the provisions of Articl e 15.04.602 (Affordable Housing Density Bonus);
Allowing the concentration of inclusionary units within a port ion of the building or site if required by a funding source or other legal requirements (ot herwise prohibited by Section 15.04.603.050.C); and
Allowing the construction of inclusionary units that are of a different type or smaller size than market rate units within the same project, provided t he differences provide adequate housing and will result in at least five percent more affordable units than required.
Continued affordability must be maintained at a price affordabl e to the targeted income level for 45 years for for-sale units and 55 years for rental units. The affordability term is outlined in an Inclusionary Housing Agreement recorded with the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder’s Office and is binding upon any future owners for the duration of the term.
Inclusionary Housing Analysis
The City has implemented inclusionary housing requirements sinc e 2001. Since that time, Richmond has continued to experience new development and housin g production, with 3,544
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-23 units (nine percent of the City’s housing stock) built since 20 00. Between 2015 and 2019, 953 housing units were issued permits in the City; of these, 527 we re above moderate-income units, none were moderate-income units, 160 were low-income units, and 266 were very low-income units (see Appendix A, Housing Needs Assessment, Table A-18). T his is an average of 238 residential units permitted per year. The City has achieved all of its very low income 5 th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 438 units, but has not yet met the 5th Cycle RHNA in the low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income categories. The City’s progress is 70 percent of low income, zero percent of moderate income, and 63 percent of above moderate income.1 The recent amendments to the IHO reduced the City's inclusionary requirements to make it more feasible to construct housing, especially north of I-580, where most housing construction was found to be infeasible. However, for-sale projects south of I-5 80 are required to construct inclusionary units rather than pay in-lieu fees to disperse the City's affordable housing stock and to ensure that inclusionary units will be built. The amendments also authorize the City Council to impose linkage fees on non-residential development. While the r evised fees are modest, over time the City anticipates that it will accumulate substantial f unds to assist in the construction of affordable housing.
Other Local Ordinances
Short-Term Rental Ordinance
To maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods, the City has adopted a brief short- term rental ordinance in Section 15.04.610.030 (Accessory Short-Term Rentals (“Home-shares”)).
Adopted in 2020, these regulations allow accessory short-term rentals of one or two bedrooms in Residential and Commercial Mixed-Use zoning districts, provided the primary use of the dwelling remains residential. The rental of ADUs or JADUs for a period of less than 30 days is prohibited, and a resident must occupy the dwelling unit for at least 200 d ays during each calendar year, living in one of the bedrooms on-site.
Richmond Hills Initiative
The Richmond Hills Initiative (RHI), a voter initiative that re stricted residential development in an area of the El Sobrante Hills, was adopted in 2017. The RHI are a is approximately 430 acres, comprised of 38 parcels, and located north and east of Wildcat Canyon Regional Park and southwest of San Pablo Dam Road. Pursuant to the RHI, development in this area is not permitted if it would reduce the quantity or quality of wetlands or water and/or native vegetation in a stream corridor. The RHI includes minimum lot sizes, limited development envelopes, and maximum floor area of all buildings with certain exceptions. A transferable d evelopment credit program was included to ensure no net loss in residential capacity under the RHI. Under this program, density
1 HCD, APR Dashboard, July 2022.
C-24 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints may be transferred to the CM-4 and CM-5 zoning districts, again , ensuring no net loss in residential capacity citywide.
SB 9
Effective January 2022, Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), mandates local jurisdictions to ministerially approve up to two residential units and/or a two-lot subdivision in single-family residential zones if specific objective criteria are met. SB 9 projects are exempt from discr etionary review if the project is consistent with objective zoning, design standards, and subdivi sion standards. The City has not yet passed an ordinance related to SB 9, but provides applicati ons and checklists for SB 9 dwelling units or lot splits on its website.
Other Ordinances
The City does not have other ordinances, such as a growth contr ol ordinance or other growth control measures that directly impact the cost and supply of re sidential development. A ban on the use of natural gas in new construction is described in Sect ion C.2.3 (Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement).
C.2.3 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement
Richmond has adopted by reference the 2019 California Building Standards Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24) as the Building Code of the City of Rich mond. All codes that constitute the 2019 Building Standards Code are referenced in Article 6 (Building Regulations) of the Municipal Code. The standards may add material and labor costs but are necessary minimums for the safety of those occupying the structures.
In many cases, amendments to the State Code have been incorpora ted to reflect issues of local concern in Section 6.02.030 (Amendments, Additions, and Deletio ns). For example, in 2021 the City amended the 2019 California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) to require all newly constructed buildings be All-Electric Buildings, no n atural gas or propane plumbing installed and uses electricity for space heating, water heating , cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. Exceptions are included for scientific labor atories, publicly-owned emergency centers, non-residential buildings containing a for-profit restaurant (by request). These standards may increase initial construction costs, but over time will benefit the health, welfare, and resilience of current and future residents.
The City’s Code Enforcement Division is responsible for monitor ing Code compliance. Code enforcement practices occur on both a proactive and complaint-d riven basis. Proactive inspections occur equitably based on the City’s knowledge of housing structures most in need of repair and life safety conditions. The following describes the City’s standard code enforcement procedure:
1. Residents or City staff submit a complaint to Code Enforceme nt via telephone or email;
2. A code enforcement officer is assigned and investigates the complaint;
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-25
3. A notice of abatement is prepared and filed with the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office;
4. If the property is vacant, an invoice or work order is prepa red and the property is abated;
5. If the property is occupied, the City Attorney’s Office obta ins a forcible entry warrant prior to abatement;
6. The property is re-inspected to determine compliance and nee d for further action; and
7. If the property owner files an appeal, all abatement activit y are ceased until Board of Appeals renders a decision.
In 2021, 728 code enforcement cases were opened, and 748 cases were closed. To prevent the relocation of lower-income tenants while resolving Code violati ons, the City offers relocation services and rehabilitation loan assistance to absentee landlords through Municipal Code Chapter
11.102 (Relocation Requirements for Tenants of Residential Rental Units).
Additionally, the City implements a Residential Rental Inspecti on Program (RRIP) (Municipal Code Section 6.40) to safeguard and preserve the housing stock of decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling units and protect persons entering or residing in them by providing a regular and comprehensive system of inspection and correction of substandar d conditions. Under this program, the City conducted 2,898 total inspections of 1,543 re ntal units in 2021. Of these, 833 were self-inspections, and 2,065 were audit inspections. 2021 was a lower than typical inspection year due to timing of registrations and the COVID-19 pandemic.
C.2.4 Permits and Procedures
The time required to process a project varies greatly from one entitlement to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal, as well as the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process. Tables C-6 and C-7 identifies a pprovals and/or permits that could be required for planning entitlements, their corresponding approval body, and the typical or estimated approval timeline. It should be noted that each proje ct would not have to obtain each permit/approval.
C-26 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Table C-6: Permit/Procedure and Approval Authority
Permit/Approval Type
Approval Authority
Recommendation Decision Appeal
Zoning Compliance
Review ‒ Zoning Administrator Planning Commission
Administrative Use Permit ‒ Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Minor Design Review ‒ Zoning Administrator Design Review Board Major Design Review ‒ Design Review Board Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit ‒ Planning Commission City Council Variance ‒ Planning Commission City Council
Source: City of Richmond
Table C-7: Estimated Approval Timelines
Permit/Approval Type Approval Authority Estimated Approval Timelines 1 Zoning Compliance Review (ADU/JADU) Zoning Administrator 1 month Minor/Administrative Design Review Zoning Administrator 1 – 2 months Design Review Board ‒ 6 – 18 months
Planning Commission ‒ 6 – 24 months
Building Plan Check
ADU and Single-Family/Duplex Zoning Administrator 1 – 3 months Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Administrator 2 – 6 months Notes
All permit/approvals are assumed to be subject to a Mitigated Negative Declaration/Negative Declaration or lower-level environmental review.
1 Typical approval timeline is from date of application submittal. Applicant work periods to provide a complete application or other applicant delays that are not within the City’s control are reflected in these timelines.
Source: City of Richmond
Additionally, the time lapse between project approval and build ing permit issuance varies. This variation depends on many factors, including the project’s comp lexity, which can affect the time to prepare a full set of construction plans. Recently, the City has been observing a lapse ranging from approximately three months to over one year between projec t approval and building permit submittal for multi-family and mi xed-use projects. For example, a 100-unit multi-family development at 2301 Columbia Boulevard was approved on November 18, 2021 and submitted for building plan check on February 23, 2022. Other projects ha ve seen lapses of approximately one year. For example, a single-family development of 94 units at 1 Markovich Lane was approved on December 22, 2020 and submitted for building plan check on November 2, 2021.
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-27 Design Review
The City’s design review process is outlined in Article 15.04.8 05 (Design Review). Generally, all single-story residential additions, single-family homes, and duplexes not exceeding 1,200 square feet and no taller than 15 feet are reviewed by the Zoning Admi nistrator (minor or administrative design review). All larger single-family and multi-family resid ential structures, as well as mixed- use projects of over 1,000 square feet that abut a residential zoning district, are reviewed at a public hearing by the Design Review Board (major design review).
The review authority must consider the criteria described in Se ction 15.04.805.040 (Design Review Criteria) prior to approval of a design review application, including:
1. The overall design of the project, including its scale, mass ing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping, reflects design integrity and the relationship of form and function in a coherent manner; and
2. The project design evidences a sense of place; does not over whelm or adversely impact adjoining properties; and respects prevailing setbacks and the scale of neighboring buildings and how they relate to the street.
The Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board may also impose reasonable conditions of approval to ensure projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
The subjectivity of the design review criteria highlighted above could lead to a protracted approval process and potentially a denial based on interpretation. This conclusion is supported by input received from both for-profit and nonprofit housing developers that work in Richmond, who also note that Design Review Board requirements seem to change over the course of the entitlement process, adding time and expense. As noted previously, Senate Bill 330 (Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5) precludes jurisdictions f rom denying or reducing the permitted density of a housing development based on subjective development and design standards. Program 3.A is proposed to update design review find ings for housing developments in order to reduce subjectivity in the design review process. Additionally, this Program includes a legal training session to be held with the Design Review Board and City staff regarding State law provisions (e.g., Housing Accountability Act, SB 330) including limited purview, number of public meetings, and timeframes for project reviews.
Use Permits
The City’s use permit process is described in Article 15.04.806 (Use Permits). This includes both administrative use permits and conditional use permits. As shown in Table C-5, a limited number of higher intensity mixed-use and commercial zoning districts require an administrative use permit for single-family dwellings, as higher density and mixed-use development is encouraged in these areas. Duplexes require an administrative use permit to facilit ate their development in lower- density residential zones (RL1 and RL2 districts). Administrative use permits are reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. In select cases, a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for single-family
C-28 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints and multi-family dwellings, as well as emergency shelters and v arious facilities for persons with disabilities. The Planning Commission must review all CUPs at a public hearing and make standard findings to ensure compliance with applicable City requirements before approval.
An estimated approval timeline of up to 24 months for Planning Commission review is lengthy and indicates a need to streamline the process. Although few residential developments would be subject to a use permit, Program 3.A proposes actions to stream line the use permit process for residential uses.
SB 35 Processing
Before an SB 35 application can be made, an application must su bmit a notice of intent in the form of a preliminary application provided by the City that inc ludes the information required by Government Code Section 65941.1. The City must then notify Cali fornia Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area of the site to determine if they wish to engage in a scoping consultation. An SB 35 application cannot b e made until the notice and scoping consultation is complete and either an agreement is rea ched or no tribe elects to participate in a scoping consultation. A separate application f orm and checklist have been prepared by the City for SB 35 applications. The City processes SB 35 applications in compliance with State law and HCD guidelines. As of August 2022, one SB 35 project has been conditionally approved and two are under review.
Permit and Development Fees
The City requires payment of applic ation fees for entitlement p rocessing and development fees at time of building permit issuance. City fees are based on the City’s costs of providing services and are reviewed and adjusted periodically. The City’s permit and development fees are available on the City’s website consistent with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1)(A).
Planning Fees
Table C-8 lists the City’s Planning Fees.
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-29
Table C-8: Planning Fees
Service/Permit Type Fee Amount
Environmental Review
Preliminary CEQA Review $211
Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30% of tota l contract cost Environmental Impact Report 30% of total contract cost Consultant Environmental Work $11,000 deposit
Consultant Technical Studies $2,700 deposit
Subdivision Review
Tentative Parcel Map (0 to 4 lots) $6,500 deposit
Tentative Subdivision Map (5 to 25 lots) $7,500 deposit Tentative Subdivision Map (26 to 100 lots) $9,500 deposit Tentative Subdivision Map (101 to 200 lots) $14,000 deposit Tentative Subdivision Map (201+ lots) $18,000 deposit
Preliminary Plan $4,000 deposit
Zoning Compliance Review
ADU (attached/detached) $1,186
ADU (conversion) $947
JADU $711
Use Permit Review
Administrative Use Permit $2,161
Conditional Use Permit $5,000 deposit
Residential Design Review - Minor/Administrative
Single-Family Unit or Duplex (501 to 1,200 sf under 15 ft.) $2, 431 Residential Design Review - Major (Design Review Board) Single-Family Unit or Duplex (1,201 sf or more) $4,400 deposit Multi-family Project (3 to 10 units) $8,500 deposit
Multi-family Project (10 to 25 units) $10,500 deposit
Multi-family Project (26 to 100 units) $12,500 deposit
Multi-family Project (100+ units) $15,500 deposit
Legislative Actions
General Plan or Zoning Amendment $13,000 deposit
Specific Plan Amendment $13,000 deposit
Variance/Waiver Review
Variance - Residential $3,500 deposit
Source: City of Richmond, 2022 Planning Division Fee Schedule
C-30 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Development Fees
Development fees are applicable to newly constructed buildings and additions, or whenever a change of use within an existing building creates additional impacts. Fees cover the costs of City services and facilities. The City collects the Subregional Tran sportation Mitigation Program (STMP) fee on behalf of the West Contra Costa Transportation Ad visory Committee. The City does not otherwise collect fees for outside agencies, but does verify their payment prior to permit issuance, including the West Contra Costa Unified School Distri ct (WCCUSD), the West County Wastewater District (WCWD), and East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD).
Table C-9 lists the City’s Development Fees.
Table C-9: Development Fees
Impact Type Fee Amount1
State and Regional Impact Fees
WCCUSD Fee $4.08/square foot
Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) Fees Single-family $5,881/unit
Multi-family $2,897/unit
Senior Housing $1,588/unit
City Fees
Park/Open Space Impact Fee
Single-family $6,950/unit
Multi-family $5,707/unit
Sewer Impact Fee
Single-family $3,625/unit
Multi-family $2,934/unit
Traffic Impact Fee
Single-family $1,968/unit
Multi-family $1,573/unit
Community/Aquatic Centers Impact Fee
Single-family $1,667/unit
Multi-family $1,368/unit
Storm Drainage Impact Fee
Single-family $710/unit
Multi-family $386/unit
Library Impact Fee
Single-family $1,883/unit
Multi-family $1,883/unit
Police Facilities Impact Fee
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-31 Table C-9: Development Fees
Impact Type Fee Amount1
Single-family $391/unit
Multi-family $208/unit
Fire Facilities
Single-family $476/unit
Multi-family $179/unit
Mitigation Administrative Fee 3% of the total project impact fees Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee (per non-inclusionary unit) $0 – $12/square foot Park Land Dedication Fees
Single-family $432
Duplex $372/unit
Condominiums and clusters $300/unit
Apartments (7+ units) $216/unit
Public Art Fee (10+ units only) 1% of building development cost Water and Wastewater Connection Fees
WCWD Service Connection Fee
Single-family $10,244
Multi-family $7,350/unit
Sewer Connection Fee $2,950
EBMUD System Capacity Charge
Single-family $11,700 – $21,250
Multi-family $7,390/unit >500 square feet
$5,850/unit ≤500 square feet
Source: City of Richmond, WCWD, WCCUSD
C-32 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Fee Analysis
Table C-10 shows total estimated planning and development fees for single-family and multi- family units.
Table C-10: Planning and Development Fees for Single-Family and Multi-Family Fee Type Single-Family 1 Multi-Family (50 units,
market rate) 2, 3
Multi-Family (100 units,
affordable) 2, 3
Planning and Development Fees
Residential Design Review $4,400 $12,500 $12,500
WCCUSD Fee $14,280 $204,000 $408,000
Subregional Transportation Mitigation
Program (STMP) Fees
$5,744 $141,450 $282,900
Park/Open Space Impact Fee $6,950 $285,350 $570,700
Sewer Impact Fee $3,625 $146,700 $293,400
Traffic Impact Fee $1,968 $78,650 $157,300
Community/Aquatic Centers Impact Fee $1,667 $68,400 $136,800 Strom Drainage Impact Fee $710 $19,300 $38,600
Library Impact Fee $1,883 $94,150 $188,300
Police Facilities Impact Fee $391 $10,400 $20,800
Fire Facilities $179 $15,050 $30,100
Mitigation Administrative Fee $521 $21,540 $43,080
Park Land Dedication Fees $432 $10,800 $21,600
Public Art Fee N/A $99,090 $198,180
WCWD Service Connection Fee $10,244 $367,500 $735,000 Sewer Connection Fee $2,950 $2,950 $2,950
Total Fees $42,750 $1,574,880 $3,137,260
Total Fees per Unit $42,750 $31,498 $31,373
Development Cost
Total Estimated Development Cost $1,423,170 $23,481, 143 $41,537,623 Total Estimated Development Cost per
Unit
$1,423,170 $469,623 $415,376
Estimated Fee Cost as a Portion of Total
Development Cost
3% 7% 8%
1 Assumes a 3,500 square foot house with a 2-car garage. 2 Assumes 1,000 square foot units.
3 Assumes public art requirement is provided on-site.
Note: EBMUD fees not included in fees calculation due to meter size and geographic thresholds.
Source: City of Richmond, WCWD, WCCUSD
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-33 Planning and development fees add to the cost of housing and ca n constrain housing development if the cost of development exceeds the threshold fo r financial feasibility. The Park/Open Space Impact Fee, WCWD Service Connection Fee, and WCCUSD Fee are the most substantial fees on residential development in Richmond. Howeve r, as reviewed by the Terner Center in a March 2018 report, development fees typically represent reasonable costs.2 On a per-unit basis, fees on development in Richmond are higher for single-family development than multi-family. However, development fees make up a greater portion of market-rate multi- family development costs because single-family houses are much larger than multi-family units as per-unit fees incentivize larger unit sizes. Therefore, the City will evaluate refining fees to be applied on a per square foot basis rather than per unit to enco urage the development of smaller housing units (Program 2.B).
C.2.5 On and Off-site Improvements
New development is required to provide public improvements to serve its new residents consistent with City standards. Required improvements are described in Art icle 15.04.709 (Improvements) and Article 15.04.710 (Design Standards). Public improvement ob ligations include providing sidewalks, bikeways, street trees, storm drainage, sanitary sew ers, water connections, utility services, fire hydrants, walls, and fences. Required street right-of-way widths are based on street classification and range from 40 feet (local street) to 112 fee t (auto arterial) as described in Section 15.04.710.050.C (Street Cross-Sections and Dimensional Standards). The City allows deviations from these standards for special cases, such as hill side development. While these types of requirements result i n additional development costs, t hese improvements provide the necessary facilities and services for a safe and quality living environment.
C.2.6 Summary
Governmental constraints to the production of housing in Richmo nd are limited to the design review process and zoning provisions inconsistent with State law, including the permitting of Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNCs), community/residential care facilities, etc. Programs are included in the Housing Plan (Section IV) to remove these constraints and ensure regulations that apply to a variety of housing types are objective.
2 UC Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation. “It All Adds Up: The Cost of Housing Development Fees in Seven California Cities”. March 2018.
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/Development_Fees_Report_Final_2.pdf
C-34 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
Market factors over which a local government has only limited a bility to control can influence the jurisdiction’s capacity to develop more housing. These market-r elated constraints include land cost, construction cost, and the availability of financing. An assessment of these non- governmental constraints can inform the development of potential actions that can ameliorate its impact.
C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions
Market Overview: For-Sale
As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-39), the Region’s home values have increased significantly since 2011, when they had reached a low point following the Great Recession (2009-2011). From 2011 to 2020, the median home value in the Bay Area increased by 117 percent. Since 2011, the typical home value in Richmond has increased 159 percent, from $247,317 to $641,530.
Following the recovery from the Great Recession and until 2020, interest rates remained at low levels of 3.5 to 4.5 percent. When interest rates are low, capi tal investment and housing production generally increase, and more buyers are likely to ta ke out a mortgage than when interest rates are higher. In addition, consumers are able to b orrow more money for the same monthly payment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, national 30-year mortgage rates dropped to even lower levels, declining to as low as 2.65 percent in Janua ry 2021. However, interest rates began to increase in early 2022, to 5.3 percent by May 2022, th e highest rate since June 2009.3 The increase in home borrowing rates may impact the performance of the home buying market, but the severity of these impacts is uncertain due to the unusual conditions during the pandemic- recovery, including a shortage of housing supply, increased sav ings and significant changes to how many Americans work and live.
Market Overview: Rental
As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-41 and Figure A-42), Richmond rents have risen alongside rents in Contra Costa County and are higher than those across the Region.
According to U.S. Census data, the median rent in Richmond in 2019 was $1,381 per month and had increased by 37.1 percent in the past 10 years. In the same time period, median rent increased by 45.2 percent in Contra Costa County and 54 percent in the Region.
Per the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-44), homeowners are less cost-burdened than renters, who bear the brunt of an overall rise in housing costs without the benefit of fixed-rate
3 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), Primary Mortgage Market Survey®
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-35 mortgages. When looking at cost burden across tenure in Richmond, 28 percent of renters spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 20 percent of those that own. Additionally, 25 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing and are considered severely cost-burdened, while 14 percent of homeowners are severely cost-burdened. In total, 34 percent of homeowners and 58 percent of renters experience some level of cost burden in Richmond.
C.3.2 Development Costs
Land Costs
To estimate the price of land in Richmond, comparable sales wit hin the past two years (2020– 2022) were reviewed. Individual lots ranged from $21 to $54 per square foot, or about $925,926 to $2,352,240 per acre. Lot sizes ranged from approximately 2,5 00 to 5,227 square feet.
Residential multi-family land in and near Richmond is estimated to cost an average of $37 per square foot, or about $1,603,233 per acre. Land is not consider ed a constraint to development, as there is availability of vacant land for future housing cons truction as identified in the sites inventory.
Construction Costs
According to a March 2020 report published by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, construction costs for multi-family housing in California have climbed 25 percent between 2009 and 2018.4 This increase is in part due to the higher cost of building ma terials, such as lumber, concrete, and steel, as well as prevailing wage requirements. A ccording to RSMeans, construction costs (including materials and labor but excluding soft costs such as fees) for a small apartment complex in the Richmond area ranged between $185 to $215 per square foot in 2022.
Construction costs can vary depending on the type of development, ranging from more expensive steel-frame Type I construction to more affordable wood-frame Type V. Due to the smaller scale, single-family homes tend to be more expensive to construct on a per square foot basis than larger, multi-family developments. This cost can fluctuate depending on the type and quality of amenities to the property, such as expensive exterior and interior finish es, outdoor spaces, fireplaces, swimming pools, etc.
Soft costs are the costs that are not directly incurred by the physical construction of the development. These costs include services for architectural, en gineering, environmental assessments, landscape design and legal services, as well as permitting requirements and impact fees. They generally range from 15 to 30 percent of total devel opment costs but fluctuate depending on local fees and exactions. Please refer to the Permit and Development Fees section
4 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, The Hard Costs of Constr uction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California, March 2020
C-36 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints for a discussion of the City’s required permit and development fees; this section (Section C.2.4) also discusses the time lapse between approval and building permit submittal.
Lastly, see Appendix B, Section B.2.3 for a discussion of proje cts being proposed at densities below the maximum allowed, with the Quarry Redesign project discussed as an example of lower density requested based on difficulty obtaining financing for condominium projects.
C.3.3 Availability of Financing
The availability of financing has a large impact on rates of ho meownership. The ability to secure financing can be influenced by creditworthiness, debt-to-income ratio, and the restrictiveness (or leniency) of mortgage lending standards. Reviewing data collect ed through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveals the influence of the lending mark et on local home sales. Home purchase loans in 2020 are summarized in Table C-11 below.
In the City’s zip codes, over 80 percent of traditional home lo an applications in 2020 were for conventional loans and just below 20 percent for government-bac ked loans, for a total of 1,614 home loan applications across both types. This disparity could be driven by high home values in Richmond, as government-backed l oan programs typically have a m aximum loan amount. The approval rate for conventional loans was 73 percent.
In competitive housing environments, where purchasing a new hom e may be out of reach for some, home renovations can be a desirable and more affordable way to add value to a property.
There were 297 loan applications for home improvement in 2020. The approval rate for these types of applications was 42 percent.
Table C-11: Total Home Loan Applications
Loan Type Total Applications
Government-backed 268
Conventional 1,346
Refinancing 7,265
Home Improvement 297
5+ Units 25
Non-occupant 941
Source: HMDA, 2020
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-37 Figure C-1: Home Loan Application Disposition
Source: HMDA, 2020
C.3.4 Summary
Despite lower for-sale prices and comparable market rents to th e region, other economic conditions, particularly relatively lower land costs, are favor able for attracting new housing development in Richmond. While more new construction is expecte d to be for above-moderate income households, housing projects affordable to moderate and lower-income households are also being constructed (see Appendix B, Table B-3 for Entitled and Proposed Developments). 68%
73%
63%
42%
88%
61%
13%
9%
13%
41%
8%
16%
20% 18%
25%
18%
4%
23%
Government-backed Conventional Ref inancings Home Improvement 5+ Uni ts Non-occupant % Approved % Denied % Withdrawn or Incomplete
C-38 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Section C.4 Environmental and Infrastructure
Constraints
C.4.1 Environmental Constraints
Environmental Conditions
Richmond is located at the northwestern corner of Contra Costa County. Richmond’s land mass forms a promontory that stretches into San Francisco and San Pa blo Bays, with a shoreline that defines a significant portion of the City’s borders to the nort h, west, and south. The cities of El Cerrito, San Pablo, and Pinole (as well as several unincorporated communities) border Richmond to the north and east, and the Berkeley Hills, San Pablo, and S obrante ridges frame the eastern edge of Richmond. Surrounded by the East Bay hills and a 32-mil e shoreline, Richmond offers 6,300 acres of parks and open space. The region is subject to a range of natural hazards, including changes to local and regional weather patterns, risin g bay water level, changes in salinity and tidal patterns of San Francisco and San Pablo bays, coastal erosion, water restrictions, vegetation changes, and disrupted species migration patterns and extinctions.5 Historic land use associated with the City’s industrial and mar itime past has altered much of the landscape in Richmond and surrounding communities. However, wat er and transportation- dependent industrial activities established in 1900 still opera te along the Santa Fe Channel located on the City’s southern shoreline.
Flooding Constraints
Flooding is given special attention when accommodating new deve lopment in Richmond. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has i dentified several portions of Richmond’s shoreline which may be affected by sea level rise. A changing climate could affect or alter natural bayland habitats, infrastructure, and other st ructural uses located along Richmond’s shores, and human health may be affected by heat wav es, diminished air quality, and vector borne disease.
For the Bay Area as a whole, 11 inches of sea level rise (measu red at Mean Higher High Water, or MHHW) over current levels are projected by 2050 (with a range of 5 to 24 inches) and 36 inches by 2100 (with a range of 17 to 66 inches by 2100). The Contra Costa County ART Project mapped these sea level rise scenarios, as well as higher Bay water ele vations ranging from 77 to 108 inches above MHHW. These higher levels are above current predic tions for sea level rise likely to occur before 2100, but they illustrate short-term flooding t hat could occur in that time frame when extreme tides are coupled with sea level rise. The 2016 Ri chmond Bay Specific Plan
5 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030, April 2012, p. 8.5.
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-39 identifies the flooding vulnerabilities of the area as it rests along the shoreline, finding the area as particularly susceptible to sea-level rise. 6 To facilitate redevelopment, Richmond Bay Specific Plan includes a sea level rise vulnerability assessment. This a ssessment will inform and guide the location and design of projects along this stretch of the City’s shoreline.
Richmond addresses the need to protect and manage low-lying areas that are likely to be affected by sea level rise and storm surges in the Richmond General Plan 2030.7 All new construction and substantial improvements in Special Flood Hazard Areas are requ ired to comply with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 12 .56). Development standards are intended to meet, if not exceed, minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) criteria for requirements for floodplain management regulations , including raising residential buildings and using flood-resistant building materials.
Other Environmental Constraints
The City has taken measures to prepare for and mitigate impacts from its other main environmental hazards, including w ildfires, seismic activity, a nd environmental contamination.
These measures include analyzing land use and transportation impacts, providing policy direction for protecting energy resources, conducting studies on local an d regional environmental issues, and responding to climate change. Furthermore, the City is upda ting the Safety Element to address evacuation routes for residential areas with limited access. None of these environmental hazards are considered a constraint that would significantly af fect the production and maintenance of housing. Additionally, though the Campus Bay and Terminal 1 housing developments (see Appendix B, Table B-3) are located on brownfi eld sites, both have approved Remedial Action Plans to address areas with significant environmental constraints.
C.4.2 Infrastructure Constraints
Water
The East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) provides wate r for the City of Richmond, as well as surrounding incorporated and unincorporated areas withi n Alameda and Contra Costa counties. EBMUD owns and manages approximately 29,000 acres of land and water surface in the East Bay, including portions of the watershed lands that fe ed EDMUD’s local reservoirs.
Approximately 90 percent of the raw water entering EBMUD’s syst em originates from the Mokelumne River watershed. The remaining 10 percent originates as runoff from the protected watershed lands in the East Bay area.
6 City of Richmond, Climate Action Plan, October 2016, p. 16. 7 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030, April 2012.
C-40 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints EDMUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) assesses water supplies against expected water demands for a 30-year planning horizon and outli nes actions to deal with future uncertainties. Projected water demand for lower income single-family and multi-family residential housing are included in this analysis. The 2020 UWMP found that EBMUD will be able to provide sufficient water supplies to meet the projected water demands o f its customers, including during a five-year consecutive drought period. Therefore, housing deve lopments on sites identified in the sites inventory (Appendix B) would not require expansion or improvement of existing water facilities.
Sewer and Stormwater
Richmond is served by three primar y sanitary sewer districts an d two waste treatment facilities, interfacing with EBMUD sewer systems and treatment plants during extreme winter storm events and wet weather overflow. Veolia Water North America and the City, through its subsidiary district, the Richmond Municipal Services District, provides wastewater s ervices to central Richmond (approximately 13.5 square miles, or 24 percent of the City’s land area), and also processes and treats the leech water from the County landfill. The West Count y Wastewater District (WCWD) serves the northern portions of the City, while the Stege Sanitary District (SSD) provides services to a portion of the City along the west side of Interstate 580 adjacent to the City of El Cerrito. The City does not provide wastewater service to any parcels outside its corporate boundaries.
In 2011, the Richmond Municipal Services District and Veolia Water prepared the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), a comprehensive wastewater collection s ystem master plan. The City’s existing sewer collection system is comprised of approxi mately 187 miles of active gravity sewer pipelines with sizes ranging from 4 to 66 inches in diameter, 15 miles of pressure pipelines, and 14 pump stations. According to the 2011 SSMP, several neede d improvements were identified, including improving and determining a relocation si te for wet weather flows and addressing eight project areas where the water surface or hydra ulic gradeline exceeded the ground surface elevation. 8 The SSMP provides a Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Program, a recommended Capital Improvement Program, and additio nal next steps to address these issues.
The WCWD prepared a comprehensive study of the public system in 2021. WCWD operates a 258-mile network of collection system piping (252 miles of grav ity sewer mains and six miles of force mains), and a treatment plant that processes an average o f 6.9 million gallons per day.
WCW is responsible for the collection and treatment of wastewater from unincorporated areas of El Sobrante, portions of the City of Pinole and the City of Ric hmond, as well as the entire City of San Pablo. According to the 2021 SSMP, the District’s collectio n system is performing well and
8 West Yost Associates, Inc., City of Richmond Sewer Collection System Master Plan, November 2011, p.
ES-8.
H o u s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s City of Richmond | C-41 best maintenance practices are reflected in the extended servic e life of many of the assets. 9 However, there were several issues noted, and many of the asset s will be in need of renewal during the next two decades.
The SSD prepared a master plan of the public system in 2022. Th e present service area of the District comprises 5.3 square miles and includes the communitie s of El Cerrito, Kensington, and the portion of Richmond Annex west of El Cerrito and south of P otrero Avenue. The sewage collection system includes 148 miles of collection lines and two small pump stations. The primary elements of this collection system are the public main sewers a nd the private sewer laterals.
According to the SSD’s 2021 Performance Report, the District ex periences 4.8 sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) per 100 miles, well below the California and Bay Area averages of 24 and 24.8, respectively. The number of severe SSOs and the volume of sewage overflow per capita are also well below State and regional averages. 10 Though this seems to indicate the District possesses capacity to handle increased service demand from new housing de velopment, it is worth noting the 2022 Master Plan states that the only areas of expected gro wth are through the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area Development and on vacant parcels.11 In January 2022, a portion of the City’s collection system, the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer and interceptor, was determined to have severe internal corrosion, sand deposits, defective laterals, buried manholes, and limited maintenance access. Current condit ions indicate pipe failure is an imminent possibility that would be exacerbated by additional connections and/or increased use of the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS). The KBSS was identified in the 2011 Sewer System Management Plan as needing critical, high-priority repairs, as the pipe is submerged and failure would discharge raw sewage directly into San Francisco Bay. On January 18, 2022, the City Council issued Urgency Ordinance No. 01-22 N.S., imposing a 45- day moratorium on the issuance and approval of all building permits that would require a new sewer collection. Although the moratorium is expected to end in 2024, no housing sites hav e been identified in the Keller Beach area.
Therefore, the City’s sanitary sewer districts have adequate ca pacity to treat wastewater for the service area to accommodate anticipated future development.
Dry Utilities
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Marin Clean Energy (MCE) pr ovide electricity services in Richmond. Natural gas services are provided solely by PG&E. In the case of new development in the area, telephone wires are laid concurrently with PG&E lines . Additional dry utilities include cable TV/internet (Bay Cablevision and Western Audio-Video, Bay Cablevision, and Comcast
9 West County Wastewater, Sewer System Management Plan, May 2021, p. 8-2. 10 Stege Sanitary District, Calendar Year 2021 Performance Report, January 2022, pp. 3-6. 11 Stege Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, March 2022, p. 3.
C-42 | City of Richmond Housing Constraints Cable) and weekly garbage service (Republic Services, Inc.). So lid waste services are provided by Richmond Sanitary Service, an affiliate of Republic Services , Inc, and is taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill in the City of Pittsburg, located northeast of Richmond.
Overall, dry utility infrastructure is adequate to accommodate anticipated future development during the planning period.
C.4.3 Summary
Though Richmond must contend with numerous environmental challe nges related to sea level rise, geologic and seismic hazards, and more, the City has take n measures to prepare for and mitigate impacts from these hazards in its General Plan and oth er planning documents.
Richmond’s infrastructure is also subject to the challenges man y Bay Area cities face, but its water supply remains adequate to accommodate additional growth as per capita usage declines and best management practices are implemented to maintain and/o r improve existing infrastructure. When a crisis emerges, as it has with the Kelle r Beach Sanitary Sewer, the City takes swift, appropriate action to conduct critical repairs and limit the likelihood of worsening conditions.