Public Participation Summaries City of Richmond | E-1
Appendix E: Public Participation
Summaries
Contents
Appendix E: Public Participation Summaries ............................................. 1 May 19, 2022 Planning Commission Study Session Summary .................................................... 1 Community Engagement Summary .............................................................................................. 4 April 27, 2022 Housing Developer Interviews Summary ............................................................. 22 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 1 6th Cycle Housing Element Update,
Housing Equity Roadmap & Related
General Plan Amendments
City of Richmond
Planning Commission Study Session Summary
I
NTRODUCTION
O
n May 19, 2022, during its regularly scheduled meeting at 6 p.m., the Planning Commission held a study session on the Housing Element Update (HEU), Housing Equity Roadmap (HER), and related General Plan Amendments (i.e., Safety and Environmental Justice elements). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting was conducted as a virtual webinar with attendance available via Zoom and telephone. Notifications of this meeting were distributed by the City through its various email listservs to residents and other stakeholders in Richmond.
The m
eeting was recorded and posted on the City’s Planning Commis sion website so it may be viewed at any time. The City’s project contact information was included in the presentation to facilitate additional comments or questions being provided at any time via phone or email.
AT
TENDANCE
P
lanning Commission
• Jen Loy, Vice-Chair
• Bruce Brubaker, Secretary
• Jonathan Harrison, Commissioner
• Masoomeh Soofiani, Commissioner
C
ity Staff
• Lina Velasco – Director
• Andrea Villarroel – Planner
Lisa Wise C
onsulting, Inc.
• Jen Murillo – Director, Project Manager
Just
Cities Institute
• Margaretta Lin – Executive Director
Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-1
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 2
OVERVIEW
A
ndrea Villarroel, Jen Murillo, and Margaretta Lin gave a PowerPoint-supported presentation.
The presentation outline is provided below:
1. H
ousing Element Update Overview
2. Related General Plan Amendments
3. Preliminary Housing Data
4. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
5. Community Engagement
6. Housing Equity Roadmap Overview
7. Wrap Up & Next Steps
At the end of the pr
esentation, time was given to the Planning Commission to offer comments and ask clarifying questions. After the presentation, the Planning Commission provided an opportunity for public comment, although no public comments were given.
P
LANNING COMMISSION C OMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
The
bullets below provide a summary of topics raised during Planning Commissioner comments and questions.
• Ther
e is interest in strategies the City can use to attract private sector investment and hous
ing development to Richmond. Public private partnerships are a tool to facilitate hous
ing development, and financing strategies will be evaluated in the Housing Equity Roadmap work.
• The H
ousing Element will use State (i.e., California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD)) pre-certified demographic and employment data as well as HCD fair housing data. As new data becomes available (e.g., 2020 Census), it c
an be incorporated into the pre-certified data as appropriate. • The s
ites inventory and fair housing assessments will use ArcGIS for spatial analysis to s
upport the development of the updated Housing Element. This work is currently underway.
• The P
lanning Commission’s role is as the advisory body to the City Council. There will be a public workshop in the fall, and the Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend.
This will allow public input and feedback before the Housing Element is submitted to HCD.
• A
Planning Commission study session to discuss the Safety Element and Environmental Justice Element is planned for June. The environmental review (CEQA) for these el
ements and the Housing Element are anticipated to be aligned, but timing and c
oordination may be affected by the number of Housing Element reviews required by HCD.
• The H
ousing Element Update (HEU) is part of the General Plan and is more general in natur
e while complying with State mandates. The Housing Equity Roadmap (HER) is Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-2
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 3 more detailed and focused on implementation, timing, and resources to fulfill HEU programs and other housing objectives.
• The
application period for the Resident Advisory Council (RAC) has been closed, and the first meeting is anticipated to be in June.
• C
oncern was expressed with developments being modified or proposed at lower densities than originally approved. Interest was voiced about requiring a density floor for parcels that are in the Housing Element sites inventory. • A
s part of Housing Element law the City is required to submit annual progress reports (APRs) to HCD to report on the progress of the implementation of the programs in the H
ousing Element. This has included tracking all building permits issued based on i
ncome level, residential projects submitted through planning review, any projects that through the approval process resulted in fewer units, etc. The public can review these A
PRs and they are approved by the City Council before being sent to HCD. • Ther
e are economic conditions outside of the City’s control that affect housing pr
oduction (supply chain, material costs, availability of labor, etc.). While the City has generally achieved targets for lower income units, it has not achieved targets for moderate and above moderate-income units
.
• It i
s anticipated that most of the future housing units are going to be located at major sites like Campus Bay and Richmond Hilltop.
Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-3
Community Engagement Summary
This community engagement summary describes Just Cities’ engagement strategy, key takeaways from engagement, and describes the engagement activities from February to June 2022.
Problem/Opportunity Statement
Community engagement is critical in the planning process to hear the housing priorities and needs of Richmond residents. The traditional planning model has historically excluded lower income, people of color, and other marginalized groups in the community engagement process.
These groups are also harder to reach because they may face language barriers, time constraints, lack of access to information, or government distrust. Through our transformative planning framework and engagement strategy, we center the voices of those most impacted and meet them where they are at (i.e, community events, community meetings, multiple meetings to talk through issues and solutions, etc.).
Engagement Strategy
Key tenets of transformative community planning as elucidated by Urban Planning Professor Marie Kennedy (Kennedy 2018) include:
● Increasing community capacity for taking control over the kind of development projects and planning processes in their communities.
● Actively listening and respecting what people know, helping people acknowledge what they already know, and helping them back up this “common sense” and put it in a form that communicates convincingly to others.
● Challenging exclusionary thinking in planning processes and outcomes. ● Actively acknowledging the attitudes and biases of planners in a profession that has enacted and continues to enact racial exclusion and harm, including that in many instances the professional planner may only have one part of the answer and sometimes may not have a clue.
To carry out this transformative community planning approach, the City team engaged in various forms of community engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders and community members:
● Planning capacity building for Richmond residents through the formation of a Resident Advisory Council composed of Spanish-speaking, formerly incarcerated, unhoused, and other marginalized residents to ensure that community leadership 1 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-4
development occurred and key issues, data, and policy solutions identified in the draft Housing Element align with community concerns and lived experiences. ● Active listening sessions with residents normally excluded from government planning including over 50 unhoused people, Latina mothers, formerly incarcerated residents, and youth to understand barriers to housing and desired solutions. ● Active listening sessions with long-standing housing justice community-based organizations including 17 staff leaders who have been engaged in improving Richmond’s housing conditions to ground inquiry.
● Going to where the Richmond community shows up including six pop-up events where over 150 residents were interviewed about housing barriers and solutions and community education materials were distributed to increase awareness of the Housing Element process and housing issues in Richmond.
● Interviews with staff involved in fair housing at 10 local and regional organizations, including fair housing agencies, homeless service providers, housing and community development providers, public housing authorities, advocacy organizations, and regional centers.
● Ground-truthed assumptions, data, analysis, and language used in the Housing Element through an iterative feedback process with the Resident Advisory Council and community partners.
● Builds Upon Existing and Past Community Efforts: Just Cities values the existing and past work and research that community groups in Richmond have conducted related to housing and strives to build on these efforts rather than reinvent the wheel. The background materials listed below provide background information and critical insights on the history of Richmond, housing issues and policies in Richmond, and the experiences of underrepresented populations in Richmond such as Laotian Americans or formerly incarcerated.
● Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing report, Housing Authority of Contra Costa County Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg & Richmond Housing Authority, 2019
● Housing Policy and Belonging in Richmond, Othering Belonging Institute 2017 ● Housing and Community Reintegration in Contra Costa County, Safe Return Project, 2014
● Project PRISM Historic Context Statement, Page & Turnbull, inc., 2009 ● Speaking Truth on Coming Home, Safe Return Project, 2011 ● Richmond is Home: Preventing a Second Displacement of Laotian Americans, APEN 2020
2 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-5
Engagement Activities
From February to June 2022, we spoke with many community members, community based organizations, city and county staff, and businesses via the following activities:
● 27 stakeholder interviews
○ 3 Community listening sessions
● 6 community pop-ups
● 130 interview surveys with Richmond residents and constituents ○ 125 in-person interview surveys
○ 5 online interview surveys
These activities are described in this document further below.
Key Takeaways from Community Engagement
Housing Issues
● Top Issues: Housing affordability, homeownership, housing habitability, homelessness, and racial and income discrimination were among the issues Richmond residents shared they experience
● Impacted Populations: Immigrants, people of color, undocumented people, formerly incarcerated, seniors, and people with disabilities face discrimination and barriers to accessing housing
● Substandard Conditions: Residents reported experiences with mold, heating issues, flooding, pests, among other unsafe qualities of their homes. ● Tenant Harassment: Some tenants report instances of harassment and illegal actions by their landlord, as well as feeling taken advantage of for not being fully aware of their rights.
● Service Organizations Need Help: Direct aid and legal service organizations are under-resourced and over capacity.
● Implementation Barriers: The lack of City capacity and funding are a major barrier to implementation and enforcement of housing ordinances or programs. ● Hard to move to High Opportunity Areas: Affordable housing and voucher utilization is concentrated in lower income areas, affecting low income residents’ ability to move to high-opportunity areas
Housing Solutions
● Increase capacity of legal services organizations
● Increase outreach and education on fair housing, fair chance housing, and residents’ legal rights
● Protect renters with stronger tenant protections
● Implement and enforce source of income protections to prevent discrimination against voucher holders
● Increase services and housing accessfor unhoused, transitional youth, 3 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-6
undocumented people, and people with disabilities
● Create programs and opportunities for undocumented residents, including homeownership, accessible legal services, and prohibiting the need for social security numbers on applications
● Strengthen Fair Chance Housing and expand the policy beyond public housing ● Increase city capacity to enforce/administer existing housing programs and laws ● Build housing on vacant land
● Create a robust rental inspection and code enforcement program ● Create a city rent assistance program
● Support homeownership with first time home buyer programs, homeownership counseling
● Create housing repair programs
● Create and support community land trusts to facilitate community ownership of land and long-term affordability
● Create programs to prevent real estate speculation such as an anti-speculation tax ● Reform Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act
Lessons learned from community engagement
● People were more willing to participate in the interview surveys during community pop-ups when there was an incentive such as spinning a wheel for a prize or a fun, creative activity such as the community vision board.
● Listening sessions with the membership base of community organizations were effective ways to hear residents’ lived experiences and gain a deeper understanding of issues.
Members built on each other’s responses and felt more comfortable to speak because they were with their community.
● Populations identified as gaps in our engagement include low income elderly homeowners and emancipated or foster youth.
4 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-7
Engagement Activities
Stakeholder and Community Listening Sessions
Stakeholder Interviews
Between February and June, Just Cities conducted 27 stakeholder interviews consulting the diversity of the community including representatives from City and County departments, housing justice organizations, affordable housing developers, and businesses. Stakeholders include:
● Alliance of Californians for Community Environment (ACCE) ● Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
● Bay Area Legal Aid
● City of Richmond (Bill Lindsay, former City Manager; LaShonda White, Interim Library and Community Services Director)
● Contra Costa County Senior Legal Services
● Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
● Contra Costa Housing Authority
● Council of Industries
● Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP)
● Hello Fresh
● Kaiser
5 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-8
● Othering & Belonging Institute
● RYSE Center
● Region Center of the East Bay
● Richmond Community Development Department
● Richmond Community Foundation
● Richmond LAND
● Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services
● Richmond Progressive Alliance
● Richmond Rapid Response Fund
● Richmond Rent Program
● SOS (Safe, Organized Spaces) Richmond
● Safe Return Project
● Sims Metal
● The Richmond Promise
● West Contra Costa Public Education Fund
● West County Regional Group
Community Listening Sessions
Just Cities conducted three listening sessions with the membership of the following community organizations to hear their members’ lived experiences related to housing issues in Richmond and ideas for solutions.
● The Richmond Promise: 6 low income, first generation students of color in Richmond ● SOS Richmond: 15-20 unhoused residents in Richmond
● West County Regional Group: 20-25 Hispanic or Latinx parent and resident leaders in Richmond
Key Takeaways
The following issues were identified and discussed during stakeholder interviews and community listening sessions:
● Legal Barriers:
○ Direct aid and legal service organizations are under-resourced and over capacity ○ The burden is on tenants to file complaints. Tenants are afraid to pursue legal action because they fear retaliation.
● Lack of city capacity: The lack of City capacity and funding are a major barrier to implementation and enforcement of housing ordinances or programs. ● Discrimination:
○ Many people do not understand their rights when they experience housing discrimination, especially immigrants, undocumented people, and people with disabilities.
○ Despite protections, source of income discrimination persists ○ There is discrimination aganist tenants who are monolingual Spanish-speaking ○ Racial discrimination is more difficult to prove in court ○ Majority of fair housing cases are disability-related. 6 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-9
○ Fair housing outreach to seniors is hard because they are not online and senior centers have been largely closed during the COVID-19 pandemic ● Affordability
○ The cost of land and real estate has increased in Richmond, and community organizations such as Richmond Community Foundation or Richmond LAND cannot compete with outside investors to create housing with long-term affordability.
○ Seniors with fixed incomes are priced out of their homes as rent increases ○ Increasing housing prices create tension between renters who are being displaced and homeowners who are finally seeing their home values rise ○ Communal ties and the lower cost of housing in Richmond compared to other cities in the Bay Area are major points of attraction for Richmond Promise students. However if costs continue to increase, many don’t see themselves staying.
● Displacement: People are being displaced and moving out of Richmond to east Contra Costa County because of rising housing costs
● Segregation and Integration:
○ High-opportunity neighborhoods have higher rents and housing costs, and therefore inaccessible to lower-income people.
○ Affordable housing and voucher utilization is concentrated in lower income areas. ○ High-opportunity areas are inaccessible to voucher recipients despite SOI protections, thus affecting residents’ ability to move to areas with better resources such as high-performing schools.
○ Higher-income areas tend to be further from transit, which creates an issue with putting low-income housing there
● Homelessness
○ The lack of affordable housing drives homelessness.
○ There is a lack of emergency/interim, supportive, and permanent housing unhoused people.
○ NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) creates barriers for housing solutions for unhoused populations.
● Formerly incarcerated people face barriers to housing because of criminal background checks
● Undocumented people are more vulnerable to homelessness because they do not qualify for Section 8 and face barriers in renting or homeownership. Barriers include application requirements for a social security number, provable streams of income, credit reports, or history of former rentals. There is a lack of legal or housing programs that serve undocumented people.
● Richmond Employers care about affordable housing and housing equity, but they don’t know what they can do to help. They need easy, effective ways to plug into this work.
Tension between Richmond’s business community and the City that must be resolved in order for private employers to cooperate with efforts to advance housing equity. 7 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-10
The following ideas and opportunities were identified and discussed during stakeholder interviews and community listening sessions:
● Increase capacity of legal services organizations
● Increase outreach and education on fair housing, fair chance housing, and residents’ legal rights
● Increase services for unhoused, transitional youth, and undocumented people ● Create programs and opportunities for undocumented residentsto rent and purchase homes such as accessible legal services and prohibiting the need for social security numbers on applications
● Implement and enforce source of income protections to prevent discrimintaion against voucher holders
● Strengthen Fair Chance Housing and expand the policy beyond public housing ● Require affordable housing developments to include units for people with intellectual or developmental disability
● Increase housing access for people with disabilities and expand it to their family members who serve as caretakers
● Support more integrated housing models for people with disabilities ● Connect housing programs & policies to community groups that serve residents ● Create a right to return policy
● Engage residents for buy-in to create safe encampments and emergency housing locations
● Provide basic services in homeless encampments
● Maintain affordability for senior housing by pairing LIHTC housing with Project Based Vouchers (Section 8 based on income rather than AMI)
● Maintain affordability for Project Based Vouchers with 20-year contracts with owners with a 20-year extension option.
● Increase city capacity to enforce/administer existing housing programs and laws ● Create a Housing Department with funding for enforcement ● Build housing on vacant land
● Utilize vacant sites for temporary housing or encampments ● Create a robust rental inspection and code enforcement program ● Create a city rent assistance program
● Support homeownership with first time home buyer programs, homeownership counseling
● Create housing repair programs
● Connect public housing with public transportation
● Expand housing rehabilitation and acquisition efforts ● Acquire small sites/single family homes as affordable rental housing ● Apply for three EPA grants to provide funding to nonprofits to assess brownfield sites and remediate those sites for nonprofit developers
● Continue effective services and policies: Richmond Rent Program, CC County Behavioral Health Services, Just Cause, Rent Control
● Increase value of vouchers so families can live in or nearhigh-opportunity neighborhoods
● Build affordable housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods ● Create and support community land trusts to facilitate community ownership of land and long-term affordability
8 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-11
● Create programs to prevent real estate speculation such as an anti-speculation tax ● Reform Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act
● Invest in low-income schools
● Create new units to support tenants.
○ This includes a hearings unit that administers the rent adjustment petition process. If there is a reduction in space or quality is deteriorating, tenants can get a retroactive rent refund or decreased rent. Landlords can do the same to offset increased maintenance or capital improvements.
○ Billings and enrollment unit that collects regulatory fees; has ability to prohibit rent increases and evictions if landlords are out of compliance Community Pop-Ups
Just Cities seek to engage hard-to-reach populations who have not traditionally been part of planning processes by holding community pop-ups and meeting people at local events.
Community pop-ups of the month were advertised on the City website and City Manager’s Weekly Report at the beginning of each month.
9 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-12
As of June 30, 2022, Just Cities has conducted 6 community pop-ups in Richmond and interviewed 125 Richmond residents or constituents. Pop-ups were held in the following community events:
● 4/22 Earth Day at Contra Costa College
● 4/23 Earth Day with Urban Tilth at Unity Park
● 4/30 Park Rx Day at Nicholl Park
● 5/14 Spring Family Day at Richmond Art Center
● 5/21 Willie Mays Day at Nicholl Park
● 6/18 Juneteenth Family and Festival Day at Nicholl Park ● 5 online surveys (no event)
Activities conducted at pop-ups include:
● Interview Survey: Just Cities staff held conversations with Richmond residents and community members to learn about their perspectives on or lived experiences related to housing issues in Richmond and ideas for solutions. An online survey was also available in English and Spanish. The online survey was advertised via the City website and on postcards/flyers passed out at pop-ups..
● Community Vision Board: Passersby were encouraged to respond to the community vision board. Questions included:
○ What is your favorite part about living or visiting Richmond? ○ If there was one thing you could change about Richmond to make it a better place for you, your family, and friends, what would it be? ● Prize wheel: Participants that completed the interview survey could spin the wheel to receive a prize. Prizes included hand sanitizer, tissues, chapstick, and candy. ● Resource distribution: Flyers with information about the housing element update were distributed to participants and passersby. Brochures with phone numbers to city resources or services were made available to participants. COVID-19 test kits were distributed on the 6/18 Richmond Juneteenth Family and Festival Day pop-up.
Just Cities staff members conducted Interview surveys with the following question:
1. When did you/your family arrive in Richmond?
2. Where were you living before?
3. What neighborhoods have you lived in?
4. What’s your favorite memory of Richmond?
5. Have your family members struggled with housing problems (affordability, quality, overcrowding, displacement)? If so, what have been your major problems?
6. How do environmental issues impact housing quality or access in Richmond? (ie. air quality, proximity to highways, building condition)
7. Do you feel like there is housing discrimination in Richmond? If so, which groups do you believe are most impacted?
8. Have you tried living in other neighborhoods in Richmond and if so, did you experience any barriers, such as housing access and affordability?
9. What housing solutions would you like to see in Richmond?
10. Anything else you would like to share?
10 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-13
Key Takeaways
The following issues were identified and discussed during the community pop-ups:
● Housing affordability:
○ Out of 130 interviews, 59 people (45.38%) brought up housing affordability as something they struggled with.
○ Rent is increasing at a rate that many Richmond tenants can’t keep up with, especially low income seniors with fixed incomes.
● Homeownership is inaccessible to many Richmond residents, especially low-income and young people. Homeowners are also having difficulty affording utilities. ● Homelessness: Out of 130 interviews, 14 people (10.77%) brought up homelessness as something they struggled with personally or believed was an issue for Richmond.
Seniors with fixed incomes, undocumented, and formerly incarcerated people face additional barriers to securing housing and are therefore vulnerable to homelessness. ● Displacement of longtime residents is caused by unaffordability, evictions, and foreclosures. Children of longtime residents are moving away from their home city due to the expensive prices of housing. Some residents reported having to relocate within Richmond multiple times to afford housing. Residents mention family members moving to Bay Point, Antioch, or Pittsburg to afford housing.
● Overcrowding: Some residents cannot find or afford a home that fully accommodates their family size. Some residents and their families are overcrowding in order to afford housing.
● Quality & Unsafe Living Conditions: Residents reported experiences with mold, heating issues, flooding, pests, among other unsafe qualities of their homes. ● Landlord Harassment: Some tenants report instances of harassment and illegal actions by their landlord, as well as feeling taken advantage of for not being fully aware of their rights.
● Discrimination: Out of 154 interviews, 54 people (41.22%) brought up racism and 24 people (18.32%) brought up income as types of housing discrimination existing in Richmond.
● Environmental Impact on Housing: Housing closer to the Chevron refinery or contaminated areas are cheaper, but they are lower quality and are areas with less resources. People shared concerns on health impacts because of proximity to the Chevron refinery, especially for children and individuals with asthma.
The following ideas and opportunities were identified and discussed during the community pop-ups:
● Develop affordable housing for low-income residents, especially on sites that are vacant. Support Section 8 and shorten waitlist periods
● Protect renters with rent control, stronger tenant protections, and promoting tenant services like rental assistance and tenant unions
● Create assistance and education programs for (first-time) homebuyers, emphasizing residents who are from the community
11 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-14
● Create more housing opportunities for unhoused people by making housing more affordable
● Remove requirements that deny access to housing during the application process for renting and buying homes, especially for formerly incarceratedand undocumented people.
● Invest in more social services that transition unhoused people to permanent housing ● Subsidize and financially support homeowners performing housing upgradesso that people can afford to live in healthy homes
● Utilize space more efficiently, creating housing opportunities where there are vacant lots ● Build up and increase density
● Ensure that neighborhoods of all incomes receive city maintenance and investment in quality housing development
● Improve city safety and clean streets
● Preserve Richmond’s parks
● Continue community events that celebrate culture such as Cinco de Mayo parade and Juneteenth
Demographics
Table 1. Engagement by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Count Percent
Asian American 12 9.2%
Black/African American 32 24.6%
Caribbean Islander 0 0.0%
Native American/
Indigenous or Alaska Native 5 3.8%
Hispanic or Latinx
(non white or Black) 51 39.2%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander 1 0.8%
Multiracial 5 3.8%
Middle Eastern 0 0.0%
White/European 17 13.1%
Other 2 1.5%
*Note: Total Count and Percent is above 100% due to some participants marking multiple options
Table 2. Engagement by Age
12 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-15
Age Count Percent
12-17 16 12.3%
18-24 9 6.9%
25-34 17 13.1%
35-44 18 13.8%
45-54 12 9.2%
55-64 12 9.2%
65+ 11 8.5%
Decline to state 35 26.9%
Total 130 100.0%
Table 3. Engagement by Gender
Gender Count Percent
Female 67 51.5%
Male 40 30.8%
Non-binary 5 3.8%
Transgender 1 0.8%
Decline to State 17 13.1%
Total 130 100.0%
Table 4. Engagement by Housing
Housing Count Percent
Rent 44 33.8%
Own 51 39.2%
Temporary with Friends/Family 4 3.1%
Shared housing with family/
roommates/partner 14 10.8%
Mobile housing/unhoused 3 2.3%
Temporary (in shelter, hotel) 1 0.8%
Decline to state 18 13.8%
13 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-16
Total 135 103.8%*
*Note: Total Count and Percent is above 100% due to some participants marking multiple options
Table 5. Engagement by Disability
Disability Count Percent
A mobility impairment 4 3.1%
A mental health disorder 4 3.1%
A sensory impairment
(vision or hearing) 4 3.1%
A learning disability
(e.g., ADHD, dyslexia) 5 3.8%
Other 5 3.8%
None 26 20.0%
Decline to State 86 66.2%
Total 134 103.1%*
*Note: Total Count and Percent is above 100% due to some participants marking multiple options
Table 6. Engagement by Personal Annual Income
Annual Personal
Income Count Percent
$0 - $10,000 14 10.8%
$10,001 - $20,000 7 5.4%
$20,001 - $30,000 10 7.7%
$30,001 - $40,000 3 2.3%
$40,001 - $50,000 11 8.5%
$50,001+ 40 30.8%
Decline to state 45 34.6%
Total 130 100%
Table 7. Engagement by Sexual Orientation
14 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-17
Sexual Orientation Count Percent
Heterosexual 73 56.2%
Bisexual 7 5.4%
Gay 2 1.5%
Lesbian 2 1.5%
Other 2 1.5%
Decline to State 44 33.8%
Total 130 100%
Table 8. Engagement by Experience with Mass Incarceration Mass Incarceration Count Percent
I am formerly incarcerated 6 4.6%
I am a family member of
someone
who is currently incarcerated 5 3.8%
I am a family member of
someone
who is formerly incarcerated 14 10.8%
None 23 17.7%
Decline to state 85 65.4%
Total 133 102.3%*
*Note: Total Count and Percent is above 100% due to some participants marking multiple options
Resident Advisory Council
A Resident Advisory Council (RAC) was formed to engage a diversity of perspectives, deep listening, partnership not token engagement for input and feedback on housing needs, constraints, and ideas for improving housing conditions and affordability in the Housing Element Update. Stipends of $50 per meeting were provided to each RAC member.
As of June, the RAC has convened once to get to know each other, better understand the Housing Element process and their role. Just Cities will have RAC feedback on specific housing constraints, needs and policies at the next meetings.Recruitment process. 15 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-18
Applications for the RAC were open from March 1st to May 8th. Promotional materials for the RAC were made available in English and Spanish and were posted on the City website and City Manager’s Weekly Report. Promotional materials were shared with the city’s planning department, city council members, and community organizations to help circulate the opportunity and encourage Richmond residents to apply. 20 applications were received.
RAC Demographics
Selected by an interview committee from Just Cities, the City, and Richmond LAND that balanced important diversity considerations, the members of the RAC are: Anna Johnson, Diana Diaz-Noriega, Gina Holguin Garcia, Havah Aisha Isary, Kathryn Sibley, Lea Murray, Malaika Khan, Scott Littlehale, Tomasa Espinoza, and Yolanda Williams. They come from diverse backgrounds and neighborhoods across Richmond including the following:
● Hard to reach communities: People from communities that planning processes traditionally have excluded including Asian American, Black or African American, Latinx or Hispanic, multiracial, people with disabilities, undocumented, and people who speak little to no English.
● Neighborhood diversity: Belding Woods, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Hilltop, North and East, and Coronado.
● Age diversity: People at different stages of their lives to ensure varied knowledge and experiences.
● Diversity of gender and sexual orientation: To ensure women’s, non-binary, and LGBTQ+ perspectives are included in this process.
● People who work and live in Richmond. Seven members of the RAC are Richmond residents, two members work in Richmond and are heavily involved in the Richmond community, and one member is a former resident that currently works in Richmond. 16 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-19
Category** # %
Low-income person 6 60%
Tenant/Renter 5 50%
Homeowner 5 50%
Limited or non-English speaker 1 10%
Person with disabilities 2 20%
LGBTQ+ person 3 30%
Senior 1 10%
Youth 2 20%
**The 10 RAC members meet 1 or more of the categories listed above.
Residency # %
Lives in Richmond 7 70%
Former resident, works in Richmond 1 10%
Works in Richmond 2 20%
RAC Meeting Schedule
The RAC will meet 6 times between June and September.
17 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-20
Meeting Description
1 Introduction to Housing Element (HE), Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), and Housing Equity Roadmap (HER).
The first meeting focused on providing information and context to help the RAC members fully understand what each of the housing components are, how they work together, and their role in the project. RAC members discussed community agreements to set expectations for how RAC members and Just Cities staff will show up, interact, and work together for the upcoming sessions. 2 Community Engagement This session will be to provide findings from our community engagement pop ups and listening sessions. RAC members will provide feedback on the findings.
3 AFFH. We will get the RAC’s input on some of the conclusions made on the AFFH analysis. Their lived experiences will allow us to corroborate our findings or add new information.
4 AFFH Identified Issues. This session will be to provide feedback on the identified issues and meaningful actions identified by JC and the City. 5 Housing Element. Obtain input on the HE programs and actions. 6 HE Public Review Draft. Session to guide RAC members in navigating the public review process.
18 Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-21
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 1 6th Cycle Housing Element Update -
Housing Developer Interviews Summary
City of Richmond
Housing Developer Interviews Summary
Overview
On April 27, 2022, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) conducted an hour-long group interview of both for-profit and nonprofit housing developers that work in Richmond as part of the public engagement process for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The stated purpose of the meeting was threefold:
1. D
iscuss housing opportunities and constraints
2. Gain deeper understanding of available resources
3. Gather policy and program recommendations
LWC
began the meeting with a PowerPoint-supported presentation on the purpose, mandates, and components of the Housing Element and the update process, followed by a facilitated discussion on questions as follows:
1. What are the unique challenges with building housing in Richmond? a. What are the unique challenges with building affordable housing in Richmond?
2. Are there any specific constraints with residential development standards and/or approval procedures in Richmond?
3. What are the most in demand types of housing products in Richmond, and how do you s
ee those needs changing over the next few years?
a. What can the City do to facilitate these types of housing developments?
4. Where (geographically) do you see opportunities for housing in Richmond? a. Which of these areas would provide the best opportunities for affordable housing?
5. Which of these areas would provide the best opportunities for affordable housing? Participants were encouraged to respond verbally, and the chat function was also available to capture written input. The meeting was held without City staff present to encourage open dialogue. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and confidential, with all notes being reported out in aggregate, and not tied to any one individual.
The
City invited approximately 18 housing developers via email on April 15, 2022 and followed up with the relevant Zoom link on April 22, 2022. A total of nine individuals participated in the scheduled meeting; the City and Consultant team sent follow up emails April 28 and May 4, 2022 to solicit additional feedback, but received no response.
Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-22
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Richmond | 6th Cycle Housing Element Update | 2 Summary and Feedback
The following is a summary of input received from the interview participants. Comments are listed in no particular order, and being listed below does not indicate group consensus on any topic or recommendation.
• The Design Review Board requirements are unclear and seem to change during the enti
tlement process.
• The Design Review Board may hold several meetings to review a project and oftentimes requires significant changes. The Design Review process in Richmond is mor e
c
umbersome than in other jurisdictions, adding time and expense. • Ther
e is a lack of clarity regarding the development process. Sometimes housing pr
ojects have to go to a subcommittee, then the Design Review Board, then Planning C
ommission. It would speed up the process if Design Review Board review were to happen c
oncurrently.
• Discretionary review prolongs the entitlement process, sometimes causing developers to r
isk missing funding deadlines (e.g., TCAC Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, etc.). • Staff and the City Council work efficiently. Current staff provide an open line of c
ommunication with developers.
• The Rent Control Board assesses annual fees (i.e., tens of thousands of dollars) even on pr
ojects for 100 percent affordable housing. This increases operational costs for affordable projects.
• The Arts Committee collects a portion of the development fees and provides input on certain housing projects. This is another layer to the entitlement process that adds time and ex
pense.
• B
uilding Department fees can be much higher in Richmond than other jurisdictions for similarly sized projects; however, the permitting process is very smooth, especially as compared to other cities. The third-party review has a quick turnaround time. • Sometimes new codes that are adopted are not posted online in a reasonable ti
meframe.
• City staff makes themselves available to meet with developers regularly to answer questions.
• Staff should explain the streamlining limits on the allowed number of meetings per SB 330
to reviewing commissions/committees.
• Business licenses in Richmond are several times more expensive than in other cities in the r
egion; this can disincentivize low- or moderate-income would-be business owners from opening a business in and living in Richmond.
Public Participation Summaries
City of Richmond | E-23