A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-1
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
Contents
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) .......................... 1 Section F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 F.1.1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Richmond ............................................... 4 F.1.2 Community Engagement Efforts ........................................................................... 4 F.1.3 Data and Analysis Considerations......................................................................... 5 F.1.4 Richmond Neighborhoods and Subareas ............................................................ 7 Section F.2 Barriers to Fair Housing in Richmond .................................................................... 8 F.2.1 Regional Impacts on Racial and Income Diversity in Richmond ........................... 9 F.2.2 Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Housing Policy ............................................ 13 F.2.3 Lasting Effects of Historic Discrimination ............................................................ 15 Section F.3 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ............................................. 16 F.3.1 Existing Fair Housing Laws and Regulations ...................................................... 17 F.3.2 Activities and Capacity of Agencies and Organizations ...................................... 19 F.3.3 Housing Discrimination and Harassment ............................................................ 20 Section F.4 Patterns of Integration and Segregation .............................................................. 24 F.4.1 Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................................. 25 F.4.2 Income Status ..................................................................................................... 33 F.4.3 Disability Status ................................................................................................... 40 F.4.4 Familial Status ..................................................................................................... 43 F.4.5 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty or Affluence ..................... 46 F.4.6 Location of Affordable Housing ........................................................................... 49 F.4.7 Integration and Segregation Additional Factors .................................................. 53 Section F.5 Access to Opportunity ......................................................................................... 53 F.5.1 Overall Access to Opportunity ............................................................................. 54 F.5.2 Educational Opportunity ...................................................................................... 57 F.5.3 Economic Opportunity ......................................................................................... 61 F.5.4 Access to Transportation ..................................................................................... 66
F-2 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g F.5.5 Environmental Health .......................................................................................... 70 F.5.6 Food Access ........................................................................................................ 73 F.5.7 Barriers to Access to Opportunity ........................................................................ 75 Section F.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs......................................................................... 75 F.6.1 Housing Affordability ........................................................................................... 76 F.6.2 Overcrowding ...................................................................................................... 88 F.6.3 Gentrification and Risk of Displacement.............................................................. 91 F.6.4 Homeownership ................................................................................................ 101 F.6.5 Housing and Neighborhood Quality................................................................... 102 F.6.6 Access to Subsidized Housing .......................................................................... 107 F.6.7 Contributing Factors to Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................. 108 Section F.7 Housing Barriers Facing Other Marginalized Groups ........................................ 109 F.7.1 Unhoused Residents ......................................................................................... 109 F.7.2 Residents with Disabilities ................................................................................. 112 F.7.3 Formerly Incarcerated Residents ...................................................................... 114 F.7.4 Undocumented Residents ................................................................................. 116 F.7.5 Low-Income Seniors .......................................................................................... 117 F.7.6 LGBTQ+ Residents ........................................................................................... 118 F.7.7 Former Foster Youth ......................................................................................... 119 F.7.8 Single Female Headed Households with Children ............................................ 119 Section F.8 Analysis of Sites Inventory ................................................................................ 120 F.8.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation ..................................................... 122 F.8.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity ....................................................... 124 F.8.3 Potential Effects on Displacement Risk and Disproportionate Housing Needs . 128 F.8.4 Sites Inventory Analysis .................................................................................... 134 Section F.9 Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues and Meaningful Actions ............... 150
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-3
Section F.1 Introduction
Enacted in 2018, California Assembly Bill (AB) 686 establishes new requirements for all public agencies, including cities, to affirmatively further fair housi ng (AFFH). Modeled after President Obama Administration’s federal AFFH Rule implemented in 2015, A B 686 requires public agencies to go beyond prohibiting housing discrimination and take specific proactive steps to (1) replace patterns of segregation with inclusive integrated commu nities; (2) address disparities in housing needs; (3) and promote access to opportunity. The law is intended to address disparities based on race, ethnicity, sex, disability, and other characteri stics protected by federal and state law (Gov. Code § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1)).
AB 686 also created new requirements for all Housing Elements b eginning January 1, 2021 including:
● An assessment of fair housing enforcement and outreach capaci ty, patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), access to opportunity, and disparities in housing needs, based on avai lable federal, state, and local knowledge.
● An analysis of the relationship between available sites for h ousing and the resource level of the surrounding area.
● An assessment of contributing factors to fair housing issues and prioritization of factors that limit or deny fair housing choice, access to opportunity, fair housing or civil rights. ● Concrete strategies and actions to affirmatively further fair housing.
In addition, Richmond’s AFFH appendix analyzes how barriers to fair housing in Richmond are shaped by historic and ongoing discrimination, differ between g roups, and the strengths and shortcomings of the City of Richmond’s efforts to meet the hous ing needs of residents. Most of the analysis is based on governm ent survey data and an extensiv e community engagement process undertaken to inform the Housing Element.
While AFFH is contained as a separate section in the Housing El ement, considerations of fair housing drive the analysis and priorities contained in all other sections of the Housing Element.
Information in this Appendix is organized to comport with State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidance, and is not based upon an order of priorities. Findings from the assessment of fair housing issues are used to identify meaningful actions that the City will undertake. Taken together, these actions are intended to affirmatively fur ther fair housing by ensuring that all Richmond residents have equitable access to a ffordable, safe, and dignified housing and to opportunities that promote economic well-being.
F-4 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g F.1.1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Richmond AFFH mandates public agencies to take active steps to replace p atterns of segregation with inclusive communities that are integrated, address disparities in housing needs, and promote access to opportunity. According to HCD’s AFFH guidance, “Fair housing choice means that individuals and families have the information, opportunity, and options to live where they choose without unlawful discrimination and other barriers” (HCD AFFH G uidance). Some residents may want to move to areas that currently offer higher levels of opportunity, but others may want to stay in their communities, where they have familiar and beneficial s ocial, cultural, and economic ties.
In order to secure fair housing choice for diverse people, it is important that both high-opportunity neighborhoods are accessible to all and also that low-income co mmunities of color are transformed into places of increased opportunity.
Additionally, while unhoused, undocumented, and formerly incarcerated people are not explicitly protected groups under fair housing laws, discrimination agains t them may constitute a violation of fair housing protections because historic and ongoing racial ly discriminatory laws and policies in housing, immigration, and criminal justice systems have resu lted in people of color disproportionately represented in homelessness, undocumented, a nd formerly incarcerated populations. As such, this Appendix addresses the housing barr iers faced by these groups of people whenever possible.
Richmond holds the unique position as one of the few remaining relatively affordable cities in the Bay Area. The City is still home to working class communities o f color, especially Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents. It is also small enough, at a population of about 115,000, that solutions to provide affordable and dignified stable housi ng to every resident is not an unrealistic goal. However, racialized displacement and housing unaffordability have become serious problems impacting lower income residents, including re sulting in growing numbers of unhoused residents. It will require focused commitment and the collective action of government, community, and philanthropic leaders to implement the meaningful actions identified and raise up Richmond as a beacon for fair housing solutions.
F.1.2 Community Engagement Efforts
AB 686 requires “meaningful, frequent, and ongoing community pa rticipation, consultation and coordination to ensure that input has been received from groups most impacted by fair housing issues and that local knowledge is incorporated.” Accordingly, the City of Richmond hired Just Cities, a racial justice planning organization, to conduct a tr ansformative community planning approach to engage residents in the development of the Needs As sessment (Appendix A) and AFFH (Appendix F) of the Housing Element. Key tenets of transf ormative community planning, as elucidated by University of Massachusetts Urban Planning Pro fessor Marie Kennedy, include increasing community capacity for taking control over developme nt projects and planning processes in their communities; actively listening, respecting, and acknowledging what residents
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-5
know, including utilizing non-traditional data sources to valid ate community knowledge and experience; challenging exclusionary thinking in planning processes and outcomes; and actively acknowledging the attitudes and biases of planners in a profess ion that has enacted and continues to enact racial exclusion and harm (Kennedy, 2018).
To carry out this transformative community planning approach, t he City team’s community engagement strategies included:
● The formation of a Resident Advisory Council (RAC). The RAC is composed of groups that have been traditionally excluded from planning processes, including AAPI, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, multiracial, low-incom e, LGBTQ+, youth, and undocumented residents, and limited English speakers. This sele ction process was intended to ensure that key issues, data, and policy solutions identified in the Housing Element align with community concerns and lived experiences. ● Interviews with residents and stakeholders involved in fair hou sing to understand barriers to housing and desired solutions. Resident engagement included active listening sessions with residents normally excluded from govern ment planning, including over 50 unhoused people, Latina mothers, formerly incarcerated residents, and youth.
Additionally, over 140 residents were interviewed at six pop-up events. Stakeholder engagement included active listening sessions with 17 staff lea ders at long-standing housing justice community-based organizations and interviews wi th staff involved in fair housing at 10 local and regional organizations, including fair housing agencies, homeless service providers, housing and community development providers, public housing authorities, advocacy organizations, and regional centers. ● Community workshop with XX participants during the Housing Element Public Review Period to share information, answer questions, and gather community feedback. ● Ground-truthed assumptions, data, analysis, meaningful actions, and language used in the Housing Element through an iterative feedback proce ss with the RAC and community partners.
Insights from these community engagement efforts are included t hroughout this document.
However, the City team will be gathering additional feedback fr om Richmond’s Native American people and their feedback will be included in the next version of the City’s Housing Element.
F.1.3 Data and Analysis Considerations
Unless otherwise noted, all demographic data was provided by th e Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and HCD’s AFFH Data Resources and Web Mappin g Tool. This analysis also includes information from the Contra Costa County’s Analys is of Impediments to Fair Housing report and community input described above. In additio n, the U.S. Census Bureau divides geographic areas into census tract and block group subd ivisions in order to facilitate statistical analyses. These census tract and block group bounda ries do not always follow city,
F-6 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g town, and other administrative boundaries. As a result, some ce nsus tract analyses in this appendix may include small areas that fall outside of the City of Richmond boundaries. It is footnoted where this occurs.
The City attempted to address the following shortcomings of available government data:
● HCD provided maps are based upon using regional income and othe r standards. In defining whether an area is low, moderate, or high income in Ri chmond, HCD utilizes the median income standard of a regional area, HUD Metro Fair Marke t Rent (FMR) area. The FMR area for Richmond is the Oakland-Fremont FMR area, which includes cities in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. As provided in Table F-1, the media n income in the Richmond FMR area ($92,900 in 2015) is higher than the Richmond median i ncome ($55,102 in 2015).
This means that the maps that describe income information, such as low to moderate income areas, may include areas that by Richmond standards, are not low income. Indeed, this was an issue that RAC members flagged in reviewing several of the m aps. Throughout this section, we highlight where issues may exist with specific maps.
Table F-1: Median Household Income (2015)
Geography 2015
Richmond $55,102
Oakland-Fremont, Ca HUD Metro Area -Fremont FMR Area
(includes Richmond)
$92,900
Source: ACS 5-Year Data (2011-2015), Table B19013.
● Insufficient data on marginalized populations. The way that government data is collected and analyzed often excludes the experiences of minority groups. For example, Richmond has one of the largest Laotian communities in the Bay Area, but ins ufficient data is available to capture their experiences because they are collapsed into one category for all Asian American and Pacific Islander people. Likewise, Native Americans - on wh ose land Richmond was founded - are often left out of data analysis due to small samp le sizes. Additionally, the experiences of Middle Eastern and North African residents are erased by grouping them into the “White” category. Barriers to reaching marginalized groups also makes it difficult to accurately capture their experiences through official data. Uns tably housed and unhoused people are hard to reach because they sometimes do not have a p ermanent address.
Undocumented people’s experiences may not be captured in offici al data because federal laws prevent them from participating in federally funded housin g and employment.
Additionally, residents who distrust government - often for leg itimate reasons tied to historic marginalization - may be less likely to fill out government surveys. As a result, the community engagement efforts specifically inc lude resident experiences th at may not be captured in official data sources and provide complimentary qualitative data to the quantitative analysis. ● Census tract level data may not represent neighborhood dynamics. Government survey data is typically analyzed at the census tract level, but these boundaries often do not
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-7
meaningfully reflect neighborhood dynamics. As a result, while the maps in this chapter show data at the census tract level, neighborhoods are used to discuss trends in the narrative. This approach helps ensure that residents understand where their com munities fit into the data and that the policy solutions identified in Section F.9 are tai lored to residents’ lived experiences.
● Limitations in racial and ethnic group naming conventions. W h i l e r a c e i s a s o c i a l construct with no biological basis (Wagner et al. 2017), histor ic and ongoing racism create disparities between racial groups that are real and pervasive. However, the way racial and ethnic groups are named in official data may not accurately ref lect how members of these groups self-identify. To ensure that the Housing Element names racial and ethnic groups in a way that is respectful and inclusive, the RAC helped formulate naming conventions reflected in Appendix A, Section A.1.1, which are used throughout the Richmond Housing Element.
F.1.4 Richmond Nei ghborhoods and Subareas
Neighborhood names are used to refer to specific geographic loc ations when describing demographic trends. Additionally, HCD requires a jurisdiction t o be divided into sub-areas for purposes of analyzing new housing sites, as provided in Section F-8. To meet this requirement, Richmond is divided into the six sub-areas described in the below map (Figure F-1).
F-8 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-1: Richmond’s Neighborhoods and Sub-Area
Source: City of Richmond, 2022.
Section F.2 Barriers to Fair Housing in Richmond
This section examines the causal and contributing sources of Richmond’s current housing crisis, its impact on the City and its residents, and the persistent ba rriers to fair housing. Key findings include:
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-9
● Rising housing costs in Richmond are driven by a shortage of housing (particularly affordable housing) in Richmond and the Bay Area.
● The shortage of affordable housing and barriers to housing ch oice contribute to the displacement of low-income residents, especially those who are Black/African American, Latinx/Hispanic, Laotian, and Asian Indian, and threatens to pu sh additional long-time residents out of Richmond.
● The shortage of affordable housing and barriers to housing ch oice result in severe overcrowding, especially of H ispanic/Latinx residents, and unin habitable rental housing conditions.
● The disproportionate impact of the housing crisis results fro m discriminatory policies and practices such as racially restrictive covenants, urban renewal , and predatory mortgage lending that have segregated Richmond and limited economic and other forms of opportunity in communities of color.
● Unlike many cities in the Bay Area that have undergone gentri fication and displacement, Richmond remains relatively racially diverse, but strategic and bold policymaking is necessary to preserve the City’s current diversity.
F.2.1 Regional Impacts on Racial and Income Diversity in Richmond Richmond is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse cities in the Bay Area, giving the City a unique history, cultural vibrancy, and a strong sense of comm unity. During community engagement events, many residents expressed pride in Richmond’s diversity. Residents of color shared that they deeply value being surrounded by people who look like them and who can relate to their life experiences. Many residents stated that community events that celebrate cultural heritage, like Juneteenth and Cinco de Mayo, were their favorite aspect of Richmond. Importantly, residents shared that their love for the City is rooted in bein g able to raise their families in the same place that they grew up.
The growing regional affordable housing crisis in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area more broadly threatens Richmond’s racial diversity. For years, housi ng production and policy did not match population growth (Table F-2), resident needs, and market forces. Table F-2 shows Richmond’s progress toward its Regional Housing Needs Allocatio n (RHNA) during the 2015- 2022 cycle. RHNA goals are the housing production goals that t he State of California sets for each region every eight years to accommodate population growth).1 Regarding the housing permits that the City issued from 2015 to 2021, as of December 2021, Richmond issued permits for 100 percent of its very low-income housing goal, 70 percent of its low-income housing goal, and 63 percent of its above moderate-income housing goals. However, the City had not permitted any moderate-income housing. The Cit y of Richmond’s Community
1The State of California allows cities to meet their RHNA goals based on the number of units permitted rather than the actual number of units built.
F-10 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Development Department (CDD) did not deny proposals for moderate-income housing, but rather developers did not seek to build this type of housing in Richmo nd during the 2015-2022 RHNA cycle. Overall, the majority of building permits issued (55 percent) are for above moderate-income housing, which may contribute to market rate displacement. It is important to note that providing a permit does not guarantee that the project will actually be built.
Regarding the actual units built, which is taken from data on c ertificates of occupancy issued by the City (Table F-2), only 808 housing units overall were actually built from 2015 to 2021, reaching only 33% of the City’s overall RHNA goals. While the City reached 79% of its low income housing goals, it only met 24% of very low income, 0% of moderate income, and 36% of above moderate income goals, respectively.
Table F-2: Progress Toward 2015-2022 State RHNA Housing Production Goals, Richmond
Income Affordability
Categories 2015-2022
RHNA
Goals
(Housing
Units)
Permits Issued 2015-
2021
Units Built
2015-2021 2023-2031
RHNA
Goals Count % of Goal
Met Count % of Goal
Met
Very Low (<50% of AMI)
(<$62,800) 438 438 100.0% 106 24.2% 840
Low (50-80% of AMI)
($62,800 - $100,480) 305 214 70.2% 241 79% 485
Moderate (80-120% of AMI)
($100,480 - $150,720) 410 0 0.0% 0 0% 638
Above Moderate (>120% of
AMI)
(>$150,720)
1,282 805 62.8% 461 36% 1,651
Total Units 2,435 1,457 59.8% 808 33.2% 3,614
Notes: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals.
AMI calculations are based on median income for a family of four in Contra Costa County in 2021.
Source: Data on housing units is from City of Richmond Annual Progress Reports (2015-2021). AMI data is from HCD 2021 calculations.
Richmond’s progress toward its RHNA goals varies from many Bay Area jurisdictions, which tend to underproduce low-income housing and overproduce above-modera te income housing. As a result, many neighboring residents may move to Richmond because of its lower housing prices.
This additional demand for housing, along with rising construction costs, contribute to rising rental and home prices in Richmond.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-11
As a result of the lack of an adequate regional housing supply, housing costs in Richmond grew considerably over the past decade (Figure F-2). According to Zillow, between 2011 and 2020, the typical value of a Richmond home increased by 159 percent from $247,317 to $641,530.
Figure F-2: Zillow Home Value Index (2001-2020)
Notes: The Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range and includes all owner-occupied housing units. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series. For median contract rent, county and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)) Additionally, between 2015 and 2019, Richmond median rent incre ased by 25 percent, from $1,102 to $1,381 (Figure F-3).
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000Dollars
Bay Area Contra Costa County Richmond
F-12 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-3: Median Contract Rent (2009-2019)
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Note: For unincorporated areas, the median is calculated using distribution in B25056.
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year) As wage growth fails to keep up with rising housing prices, residents in Richmond are increasingly unable to afford rent and are at risk of displacement. Despite lower housing prices relative to the region, a higher percentage of Richmond residents experience ho using cost burden (Section F.6.1). Unaffordable housing has contributed to a 40 percent de cline in the Black/African American population since 2000 and a 54 percent decline in the Laotian population since 2015 (Section F.4.1).
As lower-income Black/African American and Laotian residents mo ved out of Richmond, data suggests that similar numbers of higher-earning households and low-income households moved in. The incoming households may be attracted to Richmond because of its relatively low housing prices compared to the other Bay Area cities (Section F.2.1). G iven the 77 percent increase in Richmond’s Hispanic/Latinx population since 2000, a majority of the new low-income residents are likely Hispanic/Latinx (Section F.4.1). As housing costs co ntinue to rise, Black/African and Hispanic/Latinx residents are at greater risk of displacement b ecause these groups face higher levels of housing cost burden (Section F.6.1). Additionally, H ispanic/Latinx residents are more than twice as likely to live in overcrowded households than the citywide average (Section F.6.2).
Overcrowded conditions could also be exacerbated by the end of COVID-19 eviction moratoria and rental assistance programs that were protecting residents who fell behind on rent during the pandemic.
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
Richmond Contra Costa County Bay Area
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-13
Increasingly, residents perceive the City as being divided into “two Richmonds”: one that is higher- income with quality housing and access to opportunity, and one that is lower-income and lacks these advantages. But despite these challenges, residents expre ssed an overwhelming pride in living in Richmond and a strong desire to address these problems and preserve their community.
Richmond has a strong infrastructure of community-based organizations, and many residents are proud to be part of those efforts. As one unhoused resident explained, “It’s my city, and I want to see it do better and be better.”
While many Bay Area cities, such as San Francisco and Oakland, already experienced extensive gentrification and displacement of their low-income residents o f color (especially their Black/African American residents) Richmond still has an opportunity to preserve its diversity and be home to the kind of stably integrated community that is at t he heart of the State’s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing.
F.2.2 Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Housing Policy Racial and ethnic disparities faced by residents of Richmond ar e the legacy of centuries of discriminatory policies and practices designed to maintain the wealth and power of White people by restricting opportunity for people of color. Identifying the specific policies and practices that created and maintain these disparities will give insight into h ow to undo the harm they have caused. Discussion of past discrimination in this section draws from Project PRISM, a historical study of Richmond completed by the City’s Planning Department in 2009, unless otherwise noted (Richmond Planning Department, 2009). However, the PRISM study does not sufficiently record the history of discrimination faced by Hispanic/Latinx, AAPI, and Native American people.
The earliest known residents of what is now known as Richmond are the Chochenyo- and Karkin- speaking groups of the Muwekma Ohlone people, who have resided on the land for over 2,000 years (Dremann 2022). Recognizing the Native American groups w ho lived on this land prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors is necessary for explaini ng how the commodification, privatization, and capitalization of housing today is ultimatel y rooted in the displacement of the Native American people. In 2003, there were approximately 600 members of Ohlone Muwekma who lived on their native land (D remann 2022). Tribal members a re still seeking federal government recognition of their tribal status, which would supp ort their access to housing, healthcare, and education, as well as establishment of a land trust (Dremann 2022).
Before World War II, Richmond’s Black/African American populati on was centered in semi-rural North Richmond, which is currently an unincorporated part of Co ntra Costa County. During the war, North Richmond and Richmond became popular destinations fo r Black/African American people fleeing the Jim Crow South because of opportunities in t he defense industry in the Richmond shipyards. Richmond’s Black/African American populatio n grew from 38 residents in 1930 to approximately 13,000 residents in 1950. North Richmond’ s Black/African American population also grew exponentially during this time, from 270 t o approximately 5,700 between 1940 and 1944 (Bissell et al., 2018). While it is impossible to determine the size of the Hispanic
F-14 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g population during this period because the U.S. Census had dropped “Mexican” as a race category and had not yet introduced ethnicity as a demographic category, secondary sources, including oral histories, indicate that the Hispanic population also grew substantially during this time.
Black/African American residents in Richmond were restricted by similar forms of housing and employment discrimination that existed outside the Jim Crow Sou th. Black/African American workers were largely reliant on the temporary defense housing projects operated by the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) because they faced discrimination on the private market. However, RHA reserved only 20 percent of its housing for Black/African Ameri can shipyard workers, making these housing options insufficient. Additionally, RHA’s policy was to segregate public housing, concentrating Black/African American, Hispanic, and other non-W hite residents into inferior housing in certain parts of the City and prohibiting access to superior permanent public housing complexes that were reserved for non-Hispanic White residents.
In 1945, Richmond’s Chamber of Commerce declared its plan to re place “all hastily constructed war time homes” with “modest suburban type, one-family homes.” The Richmond Redevelopment Agency (RDA), which had been formed in 1949 to address neighbor hood “blight,” worked with developers to carry out this plan. By 1950, the City moved forward with plans to tear down wartime housing, despite over three-quarters of Richmond’s Black/Africa n American population still occupying these homes. These housing projects in Richmond were removed to make way for Highway 580 and future development. Additionally, according to an interview with the City of Richmond, RDA policies led to the destruction of local homes an d businesses in majority Black/African American neighborhoods as part of urban renewal in downtown Richmond.
Richmond was not formally redlined, a practice in which the fed eral Home Owners’ Loan Corporation ranked the loan worthiness of neighborhoods in over 200 cities across America, deeming some neighborhoods “risky” based on their racial and et hnic characteristics, and effectively excluding them from receiving mortgage loans. Howev er, Black/African American residents in Richmond faced various barriers to homeownership. These barriers included discrimination by lending institutions, legal deeds which prohibited the sale of individual homes to Black/African American people, known as racially restrictive covenants, and mob violence against families who attempted to move into White neighborhoods. Thus, White residents were able to take advantage of government-backed mortgages and buy homes in new private housing developments, but Black/African American residents were exclude d from this important wealth- building opportunity in Richmond. This extended to Black/Africa n American war veterans who were promised affordable mortgages by the federal government, but were unable to successfully buy homes.
These practices entrenched racial segregation in Richmond by re stricting residents to certain parts of the City. Racially restrictive covenants as early as 1909 (and some as late as 1963) made it extremely difficult for Black/African American people to pur chase homes outside of North Richmond (Bissell et al., 2018). Within Richmond, Black/African American people and other residents of color were largely restricted to purchasing homes in southern Richmond and the Iron
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-15
Triangle, and Black/African American residents became increasin gly concentrated in southern Richmond housing projects below Ohio Avenue. Many housing developments in the northeastern part of the City were understood to be off-limits to residents of color.
As more Black/African American people moved into Richmond, many formerly predominantly White neighborhoods transitioned to majority Black/African Amer ican neighborhoods. This was facilitated by a practice called “blockbusting,” where realtors fanned racial fears by convincing White people that their neighborhood was “turning” and that the y should sell their home quickly, which they often did at or below market price. Banks and realto rs bought these properties at reduced prices and benefitted again when they sold them to Blac k/African American people and other people of color who could only access subprime loans with higher fees and interest rates.
During the 1940s and 1950s, Neitha Williams led a small group of Black/African American people who worked in Richmond real estate to purchase, renovate, and s ell properties in southern Richmond and the Iron Triangle almost exclusively to the Black/ African American community.
Additionally, in 1949, an alliance of Black/African American de velopers and community leaders developed Parchester Village in northwest Richmond, which becam e one of the few residential developments in Richmond that offered homeownership opportunities to Black/African American people.
The Black/African American community organized efforts through groups such as the NAACP, Richmond CORE, and the Richmond C ouncil for Civic Unity to deve lop strategies to protest housing and employment discrimination. In July 1964, Richmond CORE organized a sit-in at the RHA office to protest discrimination in the allocation of public housing. Additionally, staff from the CORE regional office and members of the UC Berkeley and Richmon d CORE chapters joined together to conduct a door-to-door survey of RHA housing and cr eated a map showing that the units were both segregated and disproportionately White.
During WWII, Richmond’s Japanese American population faced disc riminatory policies and practices. In April of 1942, all of Richmond’s Japanese residents were forcibly uprooted from their homes and businesses and initially sent to the Tanforan Assembly Center south of San Francisco, where most were interned at the Topaz Relocation Center in the Utah desert. In 1945, the War Relocation Authority planned to send Japanese Americans returning from forced internment F to live in 1,000 housing units in Richmond, which the Richmond may or and RHA director publicly opposed. In response, only Japanese Americans who were military veterans received housing accommodations in Richmond. Census records show that in 1946, o nly 205 family units were occupied by residents described as “Other,” a category primaril y made up of Japanese Americans.
F.2.3 Lasting Effects of Historic Discrimination
While the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlawed many forms of overt and covert housing discrimination, these legacy of the policies and practices pers ist today. During community
F-16 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g engagement events for this Housing Element, community members e mphasized that racism is the reason why segregation, gentrification, and displacement di sproportionately affect people of color in Richmond. For decades, residents of color have been excluded from homeownership and other economic opportunities that would have allowed them to build wealth, which makes it more difficult to afford housing in Richmond’s higher-opportunity ne ighborhoods (Rothstein, 2017).
Additionally, as a result of urban renewal and other forms of d isinvestment in Richmond’s communities of color, residents of those impacted neighborhoods are more likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty that lack the high-performing schools, good jobs, and amenities that help produce upward mobility (Section F.5).
Predatory lending in the 1990s and early 2000s that specifically targeted homeowners of color for risky, subprime mortgages led to a large number of foreclosed h omes, abandoned properties, and displacement of long-time residents in Richmond’s Black/Afr ican American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods (Bissell et al., 2017). Discrimin ation persists today in various forms, including landlord discrimination, concentration of affo rdable housing in low-income neighborhoods, and single-family zoning laws that effectively p revent affordable housing in higher-income neighborhoods. Laws that are race-neutral on their face, such as requiring the use of Social Security numbers or criminal history information on h ousing applications, can also be discriminatory because they perpetuate existing racial disparities.
Throughout the community engagement process, several residents identified racial tensions and conflicts between Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx re sidents as a byproduct of the racial demographic change that has occurred in Richmond due to these discriminatory policies.
These residents identified the resentment that some Black/African American residents may have towards Hispanic/Latinx residents, who have increased in popula tion size in once Black/African American ethnic enclaves such as Parchester Village and Iron Tr iangle. However, information from both community engagement and census data show that many L atinx residents residing in these neighborhoods are low income and also experience high rates of overcrowding. This leads us to believe that it is not Hispanic/Latinx residents who are directly responsible for the involuntary displacement of Black/African American residents.
Section F.3 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
This section details the strengths and shortcomings of existing local, state, and federal fair housing laws and the activities and capacity of fair housing or ganizations that serve Richmond residents. It also examines the evidence of various types of ho using discrimination against residents based on race or ethnicity, disability, source of inc ome, previous incarceration, undocumented status, and gender identity or sexual orientation. Key findings include:
● The Richmond Rent Program’s administration of Richmond’s Fair Rent and Just Cause for Eviction ordinances and Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) and the Eviction Defense Center’s legal services are effective components of the City’s AFFH infrastructure.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-17
● Legal support services are critical for residents who have ex perienced discrimination, but current capacity is insufficient to meet the level of need. ● Housing discrimination persists in various forms due to ongoi ng racism, structural shortcomings of existing fair housing laws, a lack of enforceme nt mechanisms, and gaps in residents’ awareness of housing rights. Several key factors contribute to shortcomings in fair housing outreach and enforcement described below. These include:
○ Lack of City housing department infrastructure and enforcemen t mechanisms may result in reduced capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement.
While the City of Richmond is eligible to be a HUD entitlement city and receive HUD funds directly, as a result of structural changes to the Ci ty’s former housing department combined with the loss of State redevelopment funds that resulted in severely reduced staffing, the City opted for Contra Costa Coun ty to receive its share of HUD funding. Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (CCSL S) noted that the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which is the main fair housing enforcement agency, operates too slowly to help with evictions. The Rent Program also noted that the City lacks the capacity to enforce fair housing laws because of insufficient staffing.
○ Structural shortcomings of existing laws result in fair housi ng disparities. Interviews with CCSLS, the Rent Program, and BALA found that meaningful re nt control at the local level is not possible due to the state Costa Hawkins law’s prohibitions on rent control of certain types of properties. Additionally, any funding from the federal government cannot be used to provide fair housing services to u ndocumented immigrants. Additionally, the narrow scope of the Fair Chance O rdinance limits legal avenues to protect formerly incarcerated people against f air housing violations.
○ Tenants face barriers to filing fair housing complaints. BALA n oted that when discrimination happens, the burden is on tenants to file a comp laint, and many tenants - especially those who are low income - do not have the time nor capacity to do so. Residents and community-based organizations emphasized that tenants are often afraid to complain about their landlords because they fear retaliation. For example, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) noted t hat Southeast Asians are sometimes reluctant to complain about housing issues because even if they are facing severe habitability issues, they feel gratef ul simply to have housing. Additionally, legal ser vices organizations are limite d in their ability to advocate on behalf of tenants because of understaffing.
F.3.1 Existing Fair Housing Laws and Regulations
State laws prohibit discrimination in many aspects of housing access and provision. The key laws include:
F-18 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government C ode, Title 2, Division 3, Part 2.8) prohibits discrimination or harassment in housing practices. I t expands the list of protected classes under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit discrimination based on:
○ Race (FHA)
○ Color (FHA)
○ Religion (FHA)
○ National origin (FHA)
○ Sex (FHA)
○ Disability (FHA)
○ Familial status (FHA)
○ Ancestry (FEHA)
○ Gender, gender identity,
gender expression (FEHA)
○ Sexual orientation (FEHA)
○ Source of income (FEHA)
○ Genetic information (FEHA)
○ Marital status (FEHA)
Under FEHA, people with disabilities have expanded rights and are entitled to reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and services and a re permitted to make reasonable modifications to their dwellings to ensure full enjo yment of the premises.
Additionally, FEHA makes explicit that fair housing violations can be proven through evidence of unjustified disparate impact of actions and inactions on protected classes and establishes the burden-shifting framework that courts and DFEH must use to evaluate disparate impact claims.
● California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. This l aw also prohibits local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to inquire about a person’s immigration or citizenship status.
● Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the state and in any land use decisions. Recent changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 require local jurisdictions to provide h ousing options for special needs groups, including people with disabilities (SB 520); unho used people, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housin g (SB 2); and extremely low income households, including single-room occupancy units. ● As discussed above, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AB 686) mandates that all state and local public agencies take meaningful action to address patterns of segregation and to foster inclusive communities. AB 686 lays out new requir ements for Housing Elements (Section F.1).
Richmond has both codified state laws related to fair housing i n local legislation and expanded protections to address local needs. Key local laws include:
● Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction, and Homeowner Protection Ordinance (the “Rent Ordinance”): Caps the amount that landlords can increase rent annually and p rohibits eviction unless the landlord has a just-cause reason specified under the law. The law exempts temporary rentals from Fair Rent and Just Cause protections.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-19
● Fair Chance to Access Affordable Housing Ordinance: Regulates when and how affordable housing providers may ask about and use arrest and c onviction records in making housing decisions.
● Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance: Protects tenants from harassment by their landlord and provides tenants with the ability to sue their landlord for harassment. ● Inclusionary Housing and Linkage Fee Ordinance: Facilitates the development of affordable housing by (1) requiring housing developers to inclu de set-aside affordable housing units in new market-rate rental developments, or, if they opt out, to pay an in-lieu fee, and (2) requiring an affordable linkage fee on certain new non-residential developments to generate local funding for affordable housing p roduction and preservation.
● Zoning Ordinance of 2016: Replaces the City’s previous zoning ordinance, establishes various zoning and land-use regulations that promote density, and establishes incentives for affordable housing, senior housing, accessible housing for people with disabilities, and developments with an on-site childcare facility. It also establ ishes waiver procedures to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through a waiver of the zoning regulations.
Community organizations emphasiz ed that Richmond’s strong Just Cause protections give its residents an important layer of protection against unlawful evictions in comparison to many other cities. BALA and CCSLS credited these protections as the reason why they receive far fewer eviction cases from Richmond than from demographically similar cities in Contra Costa County such as Antioch and Martinez. However, residents noted that inf ormal/constructive evictions, in which tenants move out of their homes after receiving warnings or threats from their landlord without a formal eviction notice ever being filed, are an ongoing problem.
In addition, the City is a member of the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) and passed Resolution 93-18 in December 2018 to apply a “racial equ ity lens in decision-making,” including regarding fair housing issues. As part of this priority, the City has affirmatively engaged in audits to research and monitor potential concerns such as race discrimination based upon voice identification in rental housing in four neighborhoods.
F.3.2 Activities and Capacity of Agencies and Organizations Several local and regional organizations provide legal represen tation and advocacy for people who have experienced housing discrimination. The City of Richmond’s Community Development Department (CDD) actively funds some of these organizations to conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement (marked with an asterisk below).
● Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) * is the main provider of legal representation and advocacy for Richmond residents facing fair housing issues. BALA focuses on serving low-income residents, especially people who speak limited English and people with disabilities. BALA
F-20 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g also conducts fair housing audit testing and operates a weekly Housing Law Clinic (funded by the Richmond Rent Program) that assists low-income litigants to prepare self- represented pleadings and understand the eviction process. Four staff members focus on housing.
● Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (CCSLS)* provides legal representation and advocacy to seniors ages 60 and over. Unlike BALA, it has no in come requirement.
CCSLS has one staff member that focuses on housing, and a consi derable share of its housing cases involve Richmond residents.
● Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing) provides legal services, offers tenant and landlord education on tenants’ rights, and co nducts fair housing audit testing. While its service area includes Richmond, it provides limited services in Richmond. ● Eviction Defense Center (EDC) offers legal services for residents facing eviction. While its service area includes Richmond, it provides limited services for Richmond residents.
Many community organizations noted that these legal housing ser vices organizations provide critical support for Richmond residents who face fair housing v iolations, including eviction defense, tenant advocacy, and help with reasonable accommodatio ns requests and filing fair housing complaints to DFEH. However, BALA and CCSLS stressed th at Richmond’s legal services infrastructure lacks the capacity to adequately meet the needs of residents. In particular, BALA noted that it cannot provide legal services for undocumented residents because it receives federal funds that prohibit servicing undocumented residents. However, undocumented residents can participate in BALA’s Housing Law Clinic. BALA is unable to provide services for higher- income residents, who do not meet its income requirement.
Community organizations also emphasized that the City of Richmo nd Rent Program, which conducts outreach for, administers, and enforces the Rent Ordin ance, is critical to Richmond’s fair housing infrastructure. Though the Rent Program is not a traditional fair housing organization because its activities are not focused on housing discrimination, Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction and Homeowner Protection Ordinance create structural protections that help prevent discrimination from occurring in the first place. The Rent Prog ram’s funding and current programming focus stem from a ballot measure that requires regu lated housing providers to pay an annual fee. If the City were to expand services and function s of the Rent Program, it would have to separately fund those activities, such as through City general funds.
F.3.3 Housing Discrimination and Harassment
DFEH tracks formal housing discrimination complaints filed by r esidents. Between 2011 and 2016, DFEH received between 30 and 40 housing complaints for Co ntra Costa County annually (C4 et al., 2019). While the number of complaints received each year did not increase during this period, additional efforts may be needed to prevent recurring p roblems. However, DFEH data is insufficient because it does not track the number or type of fa ir housing complaints at the local level. DFEH data also fails to capture the full scope of housin g discrimination in Richmond because residents face many barriers to filing formal housing c omplaints, including lack of
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-21
knowledge about their rights, lack of time and information to e ngage in the complaint process, and fear of retaliation from landlords or law enforcement (espe cially for undocumented immigrants).
According to the Richmond City Attorney’s office, there are cur rently four open claims related to fair housing and civil rights violations against the Richmond Housing Authority.
Residents and community-based organizations have shed additiona l light on the kinds of fair housing issues that residents encounter most often. These forms of discrimination are discussed below.
Discrimination Against Residents of Color
Many forms of private discrimi nation persist against residents of color. In 2011, Fair Housing of Marin (now known as Fair Housing Advocates of Northern Californ ia, or FHANC) worked with BALA to conduct fair housing testing via phone across the Marin a Bay, Point Richmond, Richmond Annex, and Hilltop neighborhoods. When White testers a nd Black/African American testers called 20 housing providers who had posted rental adver tisements on Craigslist, there was considerable differential treatment in favor of White teste rs in 55 percent of calls (C4 et al., 2019).
In addition, there have neem several cases of litigation over banks’ alleged discrimination in their treatment of foreclosed homes during the Great Recession. In 20 16, FHANC, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), and 19 local fair housing organization s across the nation filed a law against Fannie Mae, alleging that Fannie Mae had maintained and marketed foreclosed homes in predominantly White neighborhoods while allowing similar hom es in Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods across the country, including in Richmond, to fall into disrepair. The lawsuit argued that this differential treatment exacerbated the damage caused by the 2008 mortgage crisis and slowed economic recovery in neighb orhoods of color (C4 et al., 2019). In 2022, a $53 million settlement agreement was reached with Fannie Mae. Additionally, in an unresolved case that was filed in 2017, FHANC, NFHA, and 18 local fair housing organizations sued Deutsche Bank for intentionally failing to maintain foreclosed homes in middle- and working-class Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods in 30 metropolitan areas across the country, including Richmond (C4 et al., 2019).
There also exists large racial disparities in mortgage loan app roval rates (Table F-3). Data from 2018-2019 shows that, among Richmond residents who applied for a mortgage, financial institutions approved 64 percent of White applicants’ loans. Ap proval rates for Native American residents were the lowest of any racial or ethnic group (38 per cent). Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx applicants also had lower rates of loan approval than White applicants (51 percent and 52 percent, respectively). Approval rates for Asian America n or Pacific Islander (AAPI) applicants were around the middle of this range (57 percent). During community engagement, several residents expressed how unfair it is to be rejected for loans when they meet standard requirements.
F-22 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-3: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, Richmond (2018-2019) Racial/Ethnic Group2 Total Applications Percent of Total Applications by Race Rate of Loan Approval
AAPI 885 18. 5% 57.4%
Black/African American 616 12.9% 50.6%
Hispanic/Latinx 1,123 23.4% 51.6%
Native American* 21 0.4% 38.1%
White 1,065 22.2% 64.4%
Notes: “Loan approval” is based on rates of loan origination, meaning that the application was accepted and a loan was made by a financial institution to the applicant.
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files.
Additionally, BALA noted that more of their Richmond cases are related to disability-based discrimination than race because racial discrimination is harde r to prove, both from the victim’s perspective and from a legal perspective. BALA also noted that there is racial disparity in habitability cases (cases related to housing quality) in Richmo nd and that landlords tend to be more amenable to addressing issues with White tenants than with tenants of color.
Discrimination Based on Disability
In interviews with BALA and CCSLS, both noted that most of their cases across the Bay Area are focused on people with disabilities and involve reasonable acco mmodation requests. However, BALA said that landlords tend to be more willing to resolve issues with non-disabled tenants than with disabled tenants. Additionally, RCEB noted that landlord d iscrimination is a challenge for people with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs). And in 2017, RHA settled in a conciliation agreement with a disabled resident who filed a complaint with HUD after RHA refused to grant their reasonable accommodations request and te rminated their Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher.
Source of Income Discrimination
In 2020, State legislation made it illegal to discriminate based on source of income (SOI), meaning landlords cannot refuse to rent to people using a government housing subsidy from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, the HUD VASH program, Homelessn ess Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Programs, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, and security deposit assistance programs. However, BALA, CCSLS, the Othering & Belon ging Institute, and the
2 Except for the “Hispanic/Latinx” category, all analysis of rac ial and ethnic groups throughout this report includes only non-Hispanic members of that group.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-23
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) all emphasized that landlord discrimination against voucher holders persists despite existing protections.
SOI discrimination may continue because landlords are unaware o f the new state law. For example, a sample review of Richmond rental housing advertiseme nts on Craigslist in August 2022 found that six housing units specify “No Section 8” in the listing (Craigslist, 2022). Moreover, in an interview, the Community Development Department noted tha t the City does not have the capacity to investigate SOI discrimination, meaning the landlords of the six units noted above may never be corrected. In addition, HACCC explained that landlords find creative ways to discriminate against voucher holders, such as refusing to accept an applicat ion because it is an hour late or setting high standards on the application, such as strict credit score cut-offs, that voucher holders are unlikely to be able to meet (Contra Costa Consortium et al., 2019).
Discrimination Against Formerly Incarcerated Residents
Richmond’s Fair Chance Housing law limits landlords’ ability to ask about and use arrest and conviction records in housing decisions. The current law only a pplies to publicly subsidized housing providers and allows them to conduct a criminal background check at a later point in the housing application review process.
Formerly incarcerated residents are disproportionately Black/Af rican American and Hispanic/Latinx, so many also face racial discrimination in their housing search. In a Safe Return Project survey of Richmond residents returning home from incarceration, one in four respondents said they had tried to obtain public housing or a lease on the private market but were unsuccessful (Safe Return Project, 2014). 3 The City is currently revisiti ng its Fair Chance Housing polic y to expand it beyond its current limitations to potentially align w ith the recent Fair Chance Housing laws enacted in the cities of Seattle, Oakland, and Berkeley.
Discrimination Against Undocumented Residents
Many residents discussed pervasi ve housing discrimination again st undocumented residents.
They shared that undocumented residents experience exclusion from rental housing opportunities because rental housing applications require a Social Security N umber (SSN), which they do not have, instead of the form of identification they are more likel y to have, an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Residents also experience discrimination when seeking to purchase homes. For example, one resident shared that in 2007, she was initially offered a low interest rate on a mortgage, but once she shared that she only had an ITIN, n ot an SSN, the interest rate doubled, and the amount of the required down payment increased.
Additionally, residents shared that undocumented residents cont inue to face discrimination from landlords even after they find housing because landlords know that undocumented residents have little leverage to fight back. As a result, undocumented tenant s may stay quiet about housing
3 This study took place before the City of Richmond passed its current Fair Chance Housing Ordinance in 2019.
F-24 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g habitability issues and do repairs themselves because they fear eviction. BALA noted an increase in discrimination against monolingual Spanish speaking tenants, who make up a disproportionate percentage of the undocumented population.
Discrimination Against LGBTQ+ Residents
While data is not available at the local level, research suggests that Richmond residents who are LGBTQ+ face housing discrimination. According to an Urban Insti tute study, gay men and transgender couples face discrimination in the housing search p rocess, even in states with anti- discrimination protections. The study found that housing provid ers were less likely to make an appointment with gay male couples, less likely to inform them of available units, and quoted them higher rents. Housing providers also told transgender testers about fewer available units (Levy et al, 2017). Another study explored discrimination against same-s ex couples responding to online rental ads and found that same-sex couples received fewer respo nses to email inquiries about available units (Friedman et al, 2013). Finally, research has f ound evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples by mortgage lenders. One study found that, compared to different-sex borrowers of similar profiles, same-sex borrowers had a loan approval rate that was 3 to 8 percent lower and were also charged higher interest and/or fees among a pproved loans (Sun and Gao, 2019).
Landlord Harassment
Despite Richmond’s new Tenant Anti-Harassment Law, many residen ts reported that landlord abuse continues to be a major issue in their lives. In particu lar, tenants living in rent-controlled units said their landlords tried to push them out in order to i ncrease rent (under the state Costa Hawkins law, landlords can reset the rental rate on rent-contro lled units when they become vacant). Many residents said they felt taken advantage of by their landlords and that they are not fully aware of their rights or how to address harassment issues through City processes.
Section F.4 Patterns of Integration and Segregation
Addressing segregation, defined as the separation of demographi c groups into different geographic areas, is at the core of the AFFH mandate. As discussed in Section F.2, a long history of discrimination has produced segregated neighborhoods where r esidents have less access to highly-rated schools, good jobs, green space, public safety, and other services and amenities that create opportunities for upward mobility, educational attainmen t, higher lifetime earnings, and lower mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren, 2018; Sharkey, 2013). Additionally, physical and also psychological separation of residents by race/ethnicity and income creates power imbalances and divisions between groups that make it harder to collectively address inequities.
Key findings include:
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-25
● Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and low-income people are concentrated in Richmond relative to the surrounding region.
● Within Richmond, neighborhoods are largely segregated by race and income, with Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and low-income residen ts more likely to live in central and southern Richmond, and AAPI, White, and higher-income residents more likely to live on the outskirts of Richmond in areas bordering higher-income cities. ● Segregation of Black/African American residents has declined o ver time as many have been displaced from Richmond.
F.4.1 Race and Ethnicity
Richmond’s demographics differ considerably from the Bay Area’s and have shifted over time. As Table F-4 shows, in 2019 Richmond had a far lower percentage of White and AAPI residents and a far higher percentage of Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African Am erican residents than the Bay Area as a whole. Additionally, between 2000 and 2019, Richmond’s racial demographics changed considerably. The percent of residents in Richmond who identify as Black/African American decreased by 17.5 (37% to 19.5%), and who identify as White decreased by 4.2 (22% to 17.8%), while who identify as Hispanic/Latinx increased by 15.1 (27.4% to 42.5%). The share of the population who identify as AAPI grew by 2.4 percent, but this m asks important differences by subgroup. In particular, between 2010 and 2015, the number of L aotian residents decreased by 54 percent, from 2,486 to 1,134, and the number of Asian Indian residents decreased by 49 percent, from 1,930 to 979 (ACS 5-Year Data, Table B01003).4 Areas of Richmond that have a predominant race or ethnicity can be seen on Figure F-4, which demonstrates patterns of segregation throughout the City by highlighting the racial/ethnic groups with the biggest share of the population in a given area. Black /African American residents live predominantly (over 50 percent) or sizeably (between 10 and 50 percent) in the neighborhoods south of Barret Avenue, Hilltop Village and Fairmede Hilltop. H ispanic/Latinx residents live predominantly in central Richmond neighborhoods, Parchester Vil lage, and the Hilltop District.
Additionally, White residents liv e predominantly in Point Richm ond, and a slim (less than 10 percent) or sizable gap in the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods.
4 Margins of error for population estimates for Laotian and Asia n Indian residents are large due to small sample sizes. As a result, estimates may be inaccurate. However, this data confirms the story that residents and community groups told about displacement of Laotians from Richmond.
F-26 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-4: Population by Racial Group, Richmond and the Region Richmond Contra Costa
County Bay Area
Race 2000 2019 %
Growth 2019 2019
AAPI 12,553 13.1% 17,073 15.5% +36.0% 193,534 17.0% 2,055,319 26.7% Black/Afr
ican
America
n
35,279 37.0% 21,465 19.5% -39.2% 95,892 8.4% 448,177 5.8% Hispanic
/Latinx 26,319 27.4% 46,664 42.5% +77.3% 292,298 25.6% 1,814,366 23.5% Native
America
n
351 0.4% 324 0.3% -7.7% 2,278 0.2% 18,088 0.2%
White 21,081 22.0% 19,569 17.8% -7.2% 500,592 43.8% 3,026,740 39.3% Other
Race or
Multiraci
al
400 0.4% 4,787 4.4% +1,096.8
% 57,657 5.1% 347,336 4.5%
Source: ABAG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-27
Figure F-4: Racial Predominance
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-28 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g
Neighborhood and Regional Racial Segregation
Segregation is measured according to the distribution of racial and ethnic groups across neighborhoods or cities. For example, a city or region is segre gated if it has high percentages of a specific race/ethnicity concentrated in one area and low percentages throughout the rest of the city. Figure F-5 offers a visual representation of where racial and ethnic groups live within Richmond, with the clustering of different colored dots in diff erent parts of the City indicating segregation. Figure F-5 also includes racial segregation infor mation from the neighboring communities of Pinole, Hercules, North Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Albany, and Berkeley.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-29
Figure F-5: Racial Dot Map, Richmond (2020)
Note: 1 Dot= 75. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
Source: ABAG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2002 Census of Population and Housing Table P002. HUD Data Exchange AFFH Tool, 2020
F-30 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g As shown in Figure F-5, large numbers of Black/African American residents still live in the areas that were only allowed to them due to housing discrimination du ring the mid-1900s. Areas in Richmond with concentrated populations of Black/African America n residents include Parkview and Iron Triangle (Table F-5). Hispanic/Latinx residents largel y live in central Richmond neighborhoods, with the highest concentrations in Atchinson Vil lage, Belding/Woods and Iron Triangle. AAPI residents predominantly live in the Richmond Ann ex and Hilltop neighborhoods, while White residents are most likely to live on the edges of t he City, including Point Richmond, Marina Bay, and eastern Richmond. The majority Black/African Am erican and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods are separated from areas with higher concentratio ns of White residents by the I- 80 and I-580 freeways (Figure F-5). Regionally, Richmond, Oakland, and southern San Francisco are predominantly Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx, while areas around Berkeley, San Francisco, San Rafael, and Walnut Creek are predominantly White.
Table F-5: Richmond Neighborhood Summary by Race and Income, 2020 Predominant Racial or Ethnic
Group(s)
Percent Low- to Moderate-Income
Population Neighborhoods
Asian American and Pacific Islander
(AAPI)
<25% Carriage Hills North, Carriage Hills
South, Greenbriar
25%-50% Hilltop Green, Hilltop Village
Black/African American
25%-50% Eastshore
50%-75% Parkview
Hispanic/Latinx 50%-75% Atchison Village, Belding/Woods White
25%-50% Point Richmond, Southwest Annex,
Greenridge Heights, Quail Hill
50%-75% Panhandle Annex
AAPI and White
<25%
El Sobrante Hills, May Valley
(western portion), Richmond
Heights (eastern portion)
25%-50%
Marina Bay, May Valley (eastern
portion)
Richmond Heights (western portion)
50%-75% Richmond Annex
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-31
Black/African American and AAPI 25%-50% Fairmede/Hilltop Black/African American and
Hispanic/Latinx
25%-50%
Coronado (southern portion),
Cortez/Stege (southern portion),
Parchester Village
50%-75%
Coronado (northern portion),
Cortez/Stege (northern portion),
Laurel Park, Pullman, Richmore
Village/Metro Square, Santa Fe,
Shields-Reid
>75% Iron Triangle
Hispanic/Latinx and White
25%-50% North and East (eastern and
northeastern portions)
50%-75% North and East (southwestern
portion), Park Plaza
Notes: Analysis is based on the census tract that the neighborhood is located in.
Source: ABAG analysis of 2020 U.S. Census Bureau data (predominant racial/ethnic group); HCD AFFH Data Viewer (low- to moderate-income population).
A method to measure segregation is the dissimilarity index (DI), which HCD requires jurisdictions to use in their analysis. The DI measures how any two groups are distributed across a geographic area. The DI score can range from 0 to 1, and can be interpreted as the percentage of one group that would have to move across neighborhoods to be distributed the same way as the second group to create perfect integration for these two groups. A score of 0 indicates conditions of total integration under which both groups are distributed in the same proportion across all areas, while 1 indicates conditions of total segregation. Although the DI va lues measure the level of segregation in Richmond between White residents and residents who are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, or AAPI, this measurement may be interpreted as problematic because it makes proximity to White people the standard against which segregation is measured.
Table F-6 shows DI values for Richmond and the Bay Area across three time periods. In 2020, Richmond had the highest amount of segregation between Black/Af rican American and White residents (0.50), followed by Hispanic/Latinx and White residen ts (0.48). The DI scores of 0.50 and 0.48 mean that 50 percent of Black/African American residen ts and 48 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents would need to move across neighborhoo ds to be proportionally represented geographically within the community. In the Bay Are a, Black/African American and White residents have a similar score to Richmond (0.46), while Hispanic/Latinx and White Residents are less segregated than in Richmond (0.30). In Richm ond, AAPI residents have a
F-32 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g score of 0.27 indicating that they are more evenly distributed than in the Bay Area where they have a higher score of 0.37.
Patterns of segregation have changed over time in Richmond and the Bay Area. Black/African American residents have become slightly less segregated from Wh ite residents, while AAPI residents have become more segregated in Richmond but remained relatively the same in the Bay Area. Segregation of Hispanic/Latinx residents has remained relatively the same in Richmond and the Bay Area. The decline of Black/African American segrega tion in Richmond follows the larger Bay Area trend, which is driven by outmigration of Black /African American people from historically Black/African American neighborhoods in Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco toward suburban cities that have historically had more heavily White populations and in-migration of other groups (C4 et al., 2019).
Table F-6: Racial Dissimilarity Index (DI) Values for Segregation, Richmond Richmond Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2010 2020
AAPI vs. White 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.38 0.37
Black/African
American vs.
White
0.55 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.46
Hispanic/Latinx
vs. White 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.30 0.30
People of Color
vs. White 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.30 0.29
Source: ABAG analysis of IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) U.S. Census Bureau data and ABAG/MTC UC Merced Segregation Report
Another way to measure segregation is the Isolation Index (II), as required by HCD, which identifies the likelihood that a person lives around others of their same racial or ethnic group. The II score can range from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate a particular racial or ethnic group is more isolated from other groups. In Richmond, Hispanic/Latinx r esidents have a score of 0.54, which means that the average Hispanic/Latinx resident lives in a neighborhood that is 54 percent Hispanic/Latinx (Table F-7). Hispanic/Latinx residents have the highest II of any racial group in Richmond, meaning they are the least likely to live around othe r racial groups in their neighborhoods. In the Bay Area, White residents have the highest score (0.43) among racial and ethnic groups, followed by AAPI residents (0.38), which means that they are the least likely to live around other racial and ethnic groups.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-33
Table F-7: Racial Isolation Index (II) Values for Segregation, Richmond Richmond Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2010 2020
AAPI 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.32 0.38
Black/African
American 0.45 0.32 0.24 0.14 0.12
Hispanic/Latinx 0.36 0.49 0.54 0.28 0.29
White 0.37 0.32 0.29 0.50 0.43
Source: ABAG analysis of IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) U.S. Census Bureau data.
In Richmond, between 2000 and 2020, segregation declined for Black/African American residents (whose average neighborhood changed from 45 percent to 24) and for White residents (37 percent to 29 percent). However, segregation increased for Hispanic/Latinx residents (36 percent to 54 percent) and for AAPI residents (16 percent to 21 percent ). In the Bay Area, II scores for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents have remai ned relatively the same since 2010, while scores for White residents decreased and scores for AAPI residents increased. In comparison to the Bay Area, II scores indicate that Black/Afric an American and Hispanic/Latinx residents are more segregated in Richmond, while White and AAPI Richmond residents are less segregated.
F.4.2 Income Status
Median household incomes in Richmond are considerably lower tha n Contra Costa County. For example, in 2020 the median household income in Richmond was $7 2,463 while the median household income for Contra Costa County was $103,997 (Table F- 8). From 2010 to 2015, the median household income in Richmond only rose slightly, by two percent, matching similarly slow countywide trends. Incomes grew rapidly in Richmond between 2015 and 2020, where the median household income increased by 32 percent from $55,102 to $72,46 3. This slightly outpaced countywide trends, where median income increased by 30 percent.
F-34 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-8: Median Household Income (2010, 2015, 2020)
Geography 2010 2015 2020
Richmond $54,012 $55,102 $72,463
Contra Costa County $78,385 $80,185 $103,997
Source: ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2016-2020), Table B19013.
The distribution of households in each category of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI), as shown in Table F-9, reveals the existence of income disparit ies in Richmond, with over 35 percent of households earning less than half the median income of the County and over 38 percent earning more than the median. Between 2010 and 2018 the distribution of households in each income category stayed relatively consistent. Therefore, it appears that as Richmond’s population changed from 2010 to 2018, it is likely that new Ric hmond residents include similar numbers of low-income residents and higher income earners. These new high-income residents are possibly drawn to Richmond by lower housing prices relative to other Bay Area cities. In addition, a large portion of low-income residents are likely Hi spanic/Latinx due to displacement from more expensive cities in the Bay Area as suggested through interviews with community- based organizations and residents (Section F.6.3).
In comparison to the Bay Area, Richmond had a far higher share of very-low income households (35 percent vs. 23 percent) and a far lower share of households with incomes above median income (38 percent vs. 55 percent). Figure-6 shows that househ olds that make more than the State’s Median Household Income of $87,100 live throughout Rich mond, however, households with incomes higher than $125,000 are concentrated in Point Ric hmond, Marina Bay, Hilltop neighborhoods, and El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-35
Table F-9: Households by Income Level (2010-2018)
Income Group Richmond Bay Area
Year 2010 2018 2010 2018
<50% HAMFI 33.1% 35.4% 24.3% 23.7%
50%-80% HAMFI 17.1% 14.9% 13.8% 12.3%
80%-100% HAMFI 11.8% 11.2% 9.4% 8.7%
>100% HAMFI 37.9% 38.4% 52.6% 55.3%
Notes: HAMFI is calculated based on median family income in Contra Costa County. HAMFI includes only households with related family members, whereas AMI includes all households.
Contra Costa County Median Family Income for 2014-2018 was $93,712 Source: Just Cities analysis of HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, 2006-2010 and 2014- 2018.
F-36 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-6: Median Household Income, Richmond 2015-2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-37
Figure F-6 shows Richmond neighborhoods with the highest concen tration of low to moderate income households (less than 120 percent AMI). These include th e Iron Triangle, with over 75 percent of households that are low to moderate income, and all of Central Richmond and areas of Richmond Annex east of I-580, where most neighborhoods are over 50 percent low to moderate income. These neighborhoods also have higher percentages of Bla ck/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents (see Figure F-4). Areas with the lowest concentration of low to moderate income households include Point Richmond, El Sobrante Hills nei ghborhoods, and south of Richmond Heights, where less than 25 percent of residents have low to moderate incomes. These neighborhoods are predominantly White and A/API. In contrast, t he adjacent cities of Tara Hills and El Cerrito have a low concentration (below 50 percent) of L ow to Moderate Income households. Notably, AAPI residents are the predominant populat ion in Tara Hills and White residents in El Cerrito (see Figure F-4).
For Figure F-6, HCD requires the use of regional median income in determining “low to moderate income” status, rather than Richmond median income. Since Richmond median income ($55,102 in 2015) is considerably lower than regional median income ($92,900 in 2015), from a Richmond resident perspective, this map may overstate areas with low to moderate income households.
F-38 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-7: Low to Moderate Income Population, Richmond (2011-2015) Note: Low- to moderate- income is based on Area Median Income (AMI includes all households, whereas HAMFI only includes family households)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-39
Income segregation across Richmond can be measured using the di ssimilarity and isolation indices, applied to income groups. As shown in Table F-10, betw een 2010 and 2015 citywide income segregation increased slightly, between households consi dered at or below low income (< 80% AMI) and the rest of Richmond (> 80% AMI), and also slig htly increased between households at or below very low income (< 50%) and those at or above high income (> 120% of AMI). Additionally, in 2015, income segregation between these g roups was much higher in Richmond than the average of all Bay Area communities.
Table F-10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values, Richmond Richmond Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs Above 80% AMI 0.30 0.33 0.20
Below 50% AMI vs Above 120% AMI 0.43 0.46 0.25
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data (2006-2010 and 2011-2015).
The II values for each income group also demonstrate the level of segregation based on income level in Richmond. As shown in Table F-11, very low-income hous eholds are by far the most segregated group in Richmond, with the average very low-income household living in a neighborhood where 49 percent of households are also very-low i ncome. Additionally, very-low income households are the only income group in Richmond to become more segregated between 2010 and 2015, with an II score increase of 0.8, while all othe r group decreased slightly. In comparison to the average for the Bay Area, very low-income hou seholds in Richmond are far more segregated (0.27 and 0.49 respectively), and above-moderat e households are much less segregated (0.51 and 0.33 respectively).
F-40 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-11: Income Group Isolation Index Values, Richmond Richmond Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50%) 0.41 0.49 0.27
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.19 0.18 0.15
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.24 0.19 0.18
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.35 0.33 0.51
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data (2006-2010 and 2011-2015).
F.4.3 Disability Status
The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as one of the followi ng: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-c are difficulty, and independent living difficulty. As shown in Table F-12, 12.6 percent of Richmond residents have a disability, which is slightly higher than that of the County (11.2 percent) and the Bay Area (9.6 percent). Additionally, Table F-12 shows a slight increase in the percent of Richmond r esidents who have a disability between 5-year periods of 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. Figure F-8 shows the population of persons with a disability by census tract in Richmond from 2015-2019. T he map reveals that most areas of Richmond have between 10 and 20 percent of their population living with a disability. There are slightly lower concentrations of residents with disabilities in Richmond Heights, Point Richmond, Richmond Annex, and the eastern neighborhoods of Castro Heights and Carriage Hills South, areas with higher percentages of White, AAPI, and high-income residents. However, the disability rate is also under 10 percent in the southeastern part of the Belding/Woods neighborhood, where many lower-income and Hispanic/Latinx residents live. Similarly, 10 to 20 percent of residents in adjacent cities also have disabilities.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-41
Table F-12: Population by Disability Status, Richmond (2010-2019) Percent with a Disability
Geography 2010-2014 2015-2019
Richmond 10.5% 12.6%
Contra Costa County 10.4% 11.2%
Bay Area 9.2% 9.6%
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2010-2014), (2015-2019), Table B18101.
F-42 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-8: Population with a Disability, Richmond (2015-2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-43
The level of segregation for people with disabilities can also be measured by the type of residential setting. A segregated residential setting only includes people with disabilities, and an integrated setting has a mix of people with and without disabilities. In g eneral, home and independent/supported living settings tend to be the most integ rated residential setting, institutions and medical/rehabilitation/psychiatric settings ar e the most segregated, and community care facilities fall somewhere in the middle (C4 et al., 2019).
The majority of California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) clients (93 percent) live in home or independent/supported living settings, which are relatively integrated (Figure F-8). This may be due to DDS’s prioritization of integrated residential se ttings through a requirement that funded housing units must be in a development where less than 25 percent of units are for people with disabilities.
F.4.4 Familial Status
The Fair Housing Act (FHA), also bans discrimination based on "familial status." The FHA defines familial status discrimination as when someone is treated diffe rently by a landlord, property manager, real estate agent, or property owner treats because th ey are part of a family with one or more individuals who are under 18 years of age.
Richmond has a smaller share of married-couple family households (42 percent) than the County (55 percent) and the Bay Area (51 percent). 5 Areas of the City where children are less likely to live in married couple households are concentrated in the southeastern section of the City (Figure F-9) between I-580 and I-80, where less than 40 percent of chil dren live in married-couple households. Areas where children are more likely to live in mar ried couple households include Central Richmond, Point Richmond, Hilltop, and the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods. In the neighboring cities of North Richmond, San Pablo and Tara Hills, 20 to 40 percent of children live in households with married couples. In contrast, in most parts of El Cerrito, 80 percent of children live in married couple households.
Richmond has a higher percentage of both single female-headed and single male-headed family households (24.7 percent combined) than the County (17.1 percen t) and the Bay Area (15.2 percent). As Table F-13 shows, most of these households in Richmond are female-headed (17.4 percent). Figure F-9 shows that areas with the highest concentr ations of children living in non- married couple households are in the southeastern portion of the City between I-580 and I-80.
5 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5‐Year Data (2015‐2019), Table B11001
F-44 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-13: Familial Status (2015-2019)
Geography Female-
headed Family
Households
Male-
headed Family
Households
Married-
couple Family
Households
Single-person
Households
Other Non-
family
Households
Richmond 6,470 17.4% 2,712 7.3% 15,726 42.4% 9,414 25.4% 2,766 7.5% Contra
Costa
County
48,256 12.2% 19,180 4.9% 217,370 55.1% 86,232 21.8% 23,731 6.0% Bay Area 283,77
0 10.4% 131,105 4.8% 1,399,71
4 51.2% 674,58
7 24.7% 242,25
8 8.9%
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-45
Figure F-9: Children Living in Married-Couple Households, Richmond (2015-2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-46 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g F.4.5 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty or Affluence Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) and racially or ethnically concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) contribute to patterns of segregation by hindering mobility out of low-income neighborhoods and into higher-income neighborhoods. While there are no areas of Richmond that meet the official definition of a R/E CAP, there are areas that come close to meeting the definition.
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) R/ECAPs represent the cumulative effects of discrimination against people of color, and therefore deserve special attention. HUD defines a R/ECAP as a census tra ct with a majority non-White population and where 40 percent or more of individuals live at or below the federal poverty level, which was $27,750 for a family of four in 2022. Based on this definition, there are no R/ECAPs in Richmond in 2013. However, standards like R/ECAPs that utilize the federal poverty level, which does not account for geographic differences in housing costs an d incomes, are not accurate indicators of community conditions and needs in Richmond. Relatively few residents of Richmond have incomes below the federal poverty level, due to a higher c ost of living that drives higher incomes throughout the City and the rest of the Bay Area. As di scussed in Section F.4.2, 35 percent of all Richmond residents are very-low income, which is a designation that accounts for local median income levels and costs of living (Table F-9).
Several areas in Richmond come close to meeting the definition of a R/ECAP. According to 2015- 2019 ACS data, areas with the highest concentration of poverty in Richmond have a poverty rate between 20 and 30 percent (Figure F-10). The neighborhoods in t his category that also have a majority non-White population (see Figure F-4), and therefore are close to meeting the criteria of a R/ECAP include the Iron Triangle, Atchinson Village, Santa Fe, Coronado, Pullman, Park Plaza, Metro Square, Richmore Village/Metro Square, and Shields-Reid. Additionally, there is one R/ECAP adjacent to Richmond, north of the North & East neighbor hood in the City of San Pablo (see Figure F-4).
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-47
Figure F-10: Poverty Status
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-48 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Richmond has the potential for R/ECAPS to emerge in the future, which could be influenced by the following two factors:
Lack of City institutional capacity and funding for aggressive housing and community revitalization strategies. From 1945 to 2012, California had local redevelopment agencies (RDAs), which were designed to revitalize blighted neighborhood s and devoted 20 percent of allocated tax increment financing funds to affordable housing. Before the Great Recession of the late 2000s, the Richmond RDA was involved in the development of multifamily housing and below market rate housing for first-time homebuyers and other homeownership assistance programs, in addition to other non-housing investment projects (C4 et al., 2 019). In response to state budget concerns, then Governor Jerry Brown dissolved all RDAs in 2012, severely constraining local capacity to invest in housing and community revitalization initiatives in Richmond. In addition, due to past RHA management issues, the County currently administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs and HUD entitlement funding, including Communi ty Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME grants, for Richmond. The RHA has been e ngaging in disposition of its housing projects to nonprofit affordable housing developers and is currently in the disposition process of its remaining three housing projects.
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)’s funding formula disadvantages new housing in low-income neighborhoods. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), combined with local funding contributions, are the main source of funding for affordable housing.
The allocation of LIHTC credits to a potential housing project is based on various criteria determined by TCAC. In 2021, HCD, adopted changes to the criter ia to favor projects located in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (see Section F-5 Acces s to Opportunities) as designated by TCAC (California Treasurer, 2020). The changes to the criteria are intended to increase integration by incentivizing new housing in higher opportunity areas, but these changes potentially have the unintended effect of disincentivizing new housing in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty that are in severe need of additional hous ing investments. These changes may also have a negative impact on housing investments in Richm ond since there are no areas of the City that qualify as an area of High or Highest Resource (see Figure F-13).
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
Equally deserving of attention but less considered by public policy are racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs). Although HCD has not decided on a final m ethodology to define RCAAs, these areas are generally accepted as neighborhoods with both h igh concentrations of White residents and high household incomes. While the most recent HCD data does not officially recognize any RCCAs in Richmond, this may be attributed to use of regional census tract data rather than a local understanding of conditions. In Richmond, areas that are predominantly White are located in Point Richmond, Richmond Heights, and El Sobrant e Hills neighborhoods (see Figure F-4). These areas also have census block groups with median household incomes above $125,000 (see Figure F-6), which is almost 60 percent more than the citywide median income of $72,463.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-49
F.4.6 Location of Affordable Housing
The majority of affordable housing in Richmond is located in lo w-income neighborhoods, which contributes to patterns of segregation and concentrated poverty . While it is important to place affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods to meet the needs of low-income residents who cannot or do not want to leave their community, over-concentrat ing affordable housing in low- income neighborhoods makes it difficult for low-income resident s to access opportunities found in higher-income neighborhoods.
According to the Rent Program, over 20 percent of Richmond’s rental housing stock is considered “affordable housing." This includes approximately 2,925 units built with LIHTC and 789 units that receive HUD Project-Based Rental Assistance (Richmond Rent Program, 2021). As of July 2022, the City’s affordable housing stock also includes 1,739 households with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), with 558 landlords participating in the HCV program (HA CCC, 2022). Many units are under multiple affordable housing programs, for example, over h alf the City's LIHTC units also receive HUD subsidies (Richmond Rent Program, 2021).6
Affordable housing is predominantly concentrated in the lower-i ncome areas along MacArthur Blvd in Atchison Village, the Iron Triangle, Richmore Village/Metro Square, and along Cutting Blvd in southern Richmond (Figure F-11). These areas all have a median household income below the state median (see Figure F-6), and also align with the potentia l R/ECAP areas identified in this section. In Contra Costa County, affordable housing developments are most heavily concentrated in and around Richmond and Pittsbur g, which have higher percent ages of low-income, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latinx residents than othe r cities in the County (C4 et al., 2019). As one resident expressed during community engagement, “Any time there is new [affordable] housing being built, it is in the poorer, less favorable areas, so people are kept in the same circle. Housing should be accessible all across Richmond, not just in a certain area.”
6 The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) took over management of the City’s HCVs from the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) in 2018. According to the City of Richmond Community Development Department, this occurred because RHA had been labe led by HUD as a “distressed” public housing authority due to poor performance and financial insolve ncy. Since then, RHA has narrowed its efforts to owning and managing the City’s public housing develo pments. However, RHA has approved conversion of all of its public housing developments under HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program over the last several years. RAD was designed to promote the long-term financial viability of public housing and allows public housing to be converted to private ow nership while ensuring long-term affordability through contracts with developers. RAD effectivel y converts public housing to project-based vouchers (PBVs, which are part of the HCV program). This means that public housing in Richmond will come under the purview of HACCC and it will no longer be owned or managed by RHA. The last two RHA public housing developments, Nevin Plaza and Nystrom Village, h ave received RAD funding and began renovation in 2017 (Bissell et al., 2018).
F-50 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-11: Affordable Housing Developments in Richmond (2021)
Source: City of Richmond Rent Program Fiscal Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 Annual Report.
Residents who receive HCVs are able to use them anywhere on the private market, but their use is often concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods. In Richmond, recipients of HCVs are most likely to use them in the Iron Triangle, Atchison Village, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Pullman, Park Plaza, and Fairmede/Hilltop neighborhoods (between 15 to 30 percent) (Figure F-12). All of these neighborhoods have high concentrations of Black/African A merican, Hispanic/Latinx, and low-income residents except Fair mede/Hilltop (see Figure F-4). The neighboring cities of San Pablo and North Richmond, have low concentrations of housing choice voucher use. Tara Hills is the neighboring city with the highest rate of housing choice vo ucher usage (between 30 to 60 percent).
Factors contributing to the low use of vouchers in high income neighborhoods include SOI discrimination and insufficient HCV value to cover the cost of housing, as noted in interviews with HACCC and the West Contra Costa Public Education Fund. HACCC ha s attempted to address this issue by increasing the maximum allowable rent for vouchers in more expensive areas in the central and west part of the County.
Additionally, inadequate search time can prevent HCV participan ts from finding housing in high- demand markets such as Contra Costa County, and especially in c ompetitive higher-income neighborhoods. HACCC currently issues new vouchers with a 90-day search limit and second- move vouchers with a 120-day search limit, and extensions are limited. While longer search times
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-51
may not be preferable for public housing authorities due to bud get and resource constraints, allowing additional search time could help promote integration (C4 et al., 2019). In addition to the tenant-based vouchers, HUD allows public housing authorities to use 20 percent of their HCV allocation as project-based vouchers (PBVs), which attach the rental subsidy to a specific private housing unit. According to HACCC, PBVs are a very promising too l for deconcentrating poverty, because vouchers can be attached to housing units in higher-inc ome neighborhoods. Per HACCC, nearly all vouchers currently being used in higher-income areas of the County are PBVs tied to units owned by a non-profit developer. However, out of the 23 properties in Contra Costa County where HACCC offers PBVs, 11 are currently in Richmond (HACCC, 2022). While this may address the housing needs of lower-income Richmond residents, the lack of distribution of PBVs across the County entrenches patterns of segregation.
F-52 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-12: Housing Choice Vouchers, Richmond (2015-2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-53
F.4.7 Integration and Segregation Additional Factors
In addition to the R/ECAPs, RCAAs, and the location of affordab le housing, several other key factors also contribute to patterns of segregation in Richmond. These include:
● Historic discrimination. As described in Section F.2, today’s patterns of segregation are the result of discriminatory practices such as racially restric tive covenants, blockbusting, and segregated public housing. While these practices are now illegal, their legacy persists in the form of racial wealth disparities that contribute to Bla ck/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents reduced ability to afford to live in higher-income neighborhoods in Richmond.
● Zoning and land use laws. The financial constraints of building affordable housing typically means that affordable housing is built as multifamily housing, but Richmond remains mostly zoned for single family residences and industria l use. Areas zoned for multifamily residences lie in the center of the City, near Carlson Boulevard, Nevin Avenue, Ohio Avenue, Roosevelt Avenue, and the western side of I-80, where higher percentages of low-income, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latinx resi dents live (C4 et al., 2019).
● Lack of access to opportunity in low-income neighborhoods. Residents of low- income neighborhoods often lack access to high-performing schoo ls, environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and good jobs that promote upward econom ic mobility (Section F.5). This perpetuates poverty in low-income neighborhoods and makes it more difficult for low-income residents to move out of areas of concentrated poverty. ● Funding constraints. In an interview, the City Community Development Department explained that federal and state funding sources often come wit h requirements that they be used solely for housing unhoused or very-low income resident s, which can make it hard to create mixed-income, integrated housing.
Section F.5 Access to Opportunity
Where residents live can often determine their access to opportunities, including high-performing schools, good-paying jobs, clean air, and efficient public tran sportation. Furthermore, affordable housing is disproportionately located in low-opportunity areas, reinforcing concentration of poverty and patterns of segregation. HUD, HCD, and TCAC have cr eated methodologies to measure access to opportunities throughout California to identi fy these areas of low access to opportunity, or to examine patterns of discrimination and segregation in regards to opportunities.
However, current State policy that utilize TCAC indices in ways that discriminate against affordable housing projects in areas deemed “low-opportunity” ( such as the lack of access to grocery stores, better public schools, and major transit hubs), reinforce the legacy of racial discrimination against these neighborhoods. Instead, State pol icy should support both funding
F-54 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g for affordable housing in higher resource areas, and also in low income neighborhoods that people call home.
For this assessment, HCD’s TCAC Opportunity Indices are used in conjunction with data from local agencies and insights from community engagement activitie s. TCAC Opportunity Indices utilize educational, economic, and environmental data to assess “access to opportunity.” Economic indicators include: proportion of the population below 200% of the federal poverty limit, percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above, number of jobs filled by workers with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a given radius, and median home value. TCAC indicators of environmental opportunity consider common pollutants using C alEnviroScreen 3.0 data.
Educational indicators are explained in greater detail in F.5.2. Together, the composite scores are used to categorize neighborhoods into “Low,” “Moderate,” and “High” resource areas.
Key findings include:
● According to the TCAC Opportunity Maps which applies economic , environmental, and educational indicators, as described above, nearly all of Richm ond falls into the “Low Resource” category and most of Richmond’s residents live in these neighborhoods. There are no neighborhoods that are considered “High Resource” in Richmond. White and then AAPI residents are more likely to live in “Moderate Resource” areas than are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Native American residents. Howev er, RAC members raised that several neighborhoods deemed “Low Resource,” are co nsidered by residents to be middle class areas.
● Housing and school segregation in Richmond and Contra Costa C ounty produce concentrated poverty in Richmond public schools that undermine student success and school performance.
● Relatively low levels of educational attainment among Richmon d residents and a lack of living wage jobs make it more difficult for residents to afford rent. ● High levels of pollution in Richmond negatively affect reside nts of all races and incomes. ● A lack of public transit in the higher-income neighborhoods o n the outskirts of Richmond may make it more difficult for low-income residents and people with disabilities to live in those areas.
F.5.1 Overall Access to Opportunity
As shown in Figure F-13, nearly all Richmond residents live in areas identified as Low Resource in terms of overall access to opportunity. The only area identified as Moderate Resource is in the far eastern portion of Richmond, which includes Richmond neighb orhoods of El Sobrante Hills, Greenbriar, Carriage Hills North and South, and Castro Heights. In terms of demographics, the “Moderate Resource” areas have predominantly White (39 percent) and AAPI (24 percent) residents (Table F-14) with household incomes greater than $125 ,000 (see Figure F-6). The “Moderate Resource” areas of Richmond make up a small geographic area and also account for
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-55
less than 10 percent of the total population of Richmond. The “ Low Resource” areas of the City, which encompass nearly all of Richmond, have demographics that are more representative of Richmond as a whole.
As noted above, RAC members raised that several neighborhoods HCD deemed “Low Resource,” such as Marina Bay or Point Richmond, are considered better-res ourced areas from Richmond resident perspectives. As described above, the TCAC indicators for defining an area as “Low Resource” includes economic, environmental, and educational ind icators. It may be that environmental issues are considerable factors in the “Low Resou rce” classification. The City is working on an Environmental Justice Element to help address these issues.
It is worth noting that the moderate resource areas in sub-area 2 extend to portions of Hercules, Martinez, Orinda, Pinole, and Berkeley. It may be possible that the majority of moderate resources highlighted are not located in Richmond. Regionally, Richmond, Antioch, and Pittsburg have the lowest overall levels of opportunity in Contra Costa County (C4 et al., 2019). The adjacent cities of North Richmond, San Pablo and Tara Hills are also low resour ce areas, while the City of El Cerrito has multiple moderate, high and highest resource access areas.
Table F-14: Racial Disparities in Access to Resource Areas, Richmond (2020) Asian
American and
Pacific
Islander
Black/African
American
Hispanic/Latinx Native
American
White Other Race
or Multiple
Races
Proportion
of Overall
Population
15% 18% 44% <1% 18% 9%
Low
Resource or
High
Segregation
and Poverty
Area
14,673 14% 20,132 19% 46,479 45% 330 <1% 17,565 17% 4,295 4% Moderate
Resource
Area
1,688 24% 674 10% 1,467 21% 12 <1% 2,766 39% 444 6%
High/
Highest
Resource
Area
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Source: Just Cities Analysis utilizing ABAG analysis of California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD) Opportunity Maps (2020); ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
F-56 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-13: TCAC Neighborhood Resource Levels, Richmond (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-57
F.5.2 Educational Opportunity
The TCAC Education Index indicates that access to proficient school opportunities throughout the City are not available, as all of Richmond scores under 0.5 (Figure F-14). This index is based on indicators for 3rd and 4th grade math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty. The Hilltop and El Sobrante Hills neighborhood s have the highest scores in the entire City (.33 and .40 respectively). These neighborhoods hav e median household incomes above $125,000, and the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods are pre dominantly White, while the Hilltop neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic/Latinx (see Fi gure F-3). The education opportunity score of the neighboring cities of North Richmond a nd San Pablo, education opportunity score is similar to a majority of Richmond’s score (less than .25). Further north east cities like Pinole and Hercules score a little higher than Rich mond (between .25 and 5) while El Cerrito Albany and Berkeley score higher than Richmond overall (.5 and higher).
F-58 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-14: TCAC Education Score, Richmond (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-59
It is important to note that academic achievement gaps are not the result of any inherent deficiencies of students of color, but rather a function of ine quitable access to educational opportunities. During community engagement events, parents and students expressed disappointment in the quality of Richmond public schools. Of th e 35 schools in the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) that are located in Rich mond, only eight are rated average (5/10) or higher on GreatSchools, a popular website tha t ranks schools according to a formula that accounts for student academic progress, college readiness, equity, and test scores.7.
Five of these higher-rated schools are charter schools located in the higher-income neighborhoods of Marina Bay and Hilltop District, which are home to higher percentages of White, AAPI, and higher-income families in comparison to the rest of Richmond. Additionally, all eight of those higher-rated schools are charter schools (GreatSchools, 2 022). Three of the eight higher- rated charter schools (Leadership Public Schools: Richmond, Ric hmond College Preparatory School, and Caliber Beta Academy) are located in lower-income neighborhoods, but low-income families are more likely to lack the time and information to na vigate complex charter school application processes (Knight, n.d.). In response to the low pe rformance of public schools, EdFund West and several students reported in interviews that some families in Richmond transfer their children to higher-performing public schools in other cities like El Cerrito or to private schools.
Richmond’s low TCAC Education Index scores are a result of several factors:
Housing segregation perpetuates educational inequities because where students live largely determines the quality of the school they can attend. As a resu lt of discriminatory policies and practices that have concentrated poverty in Richmond, low-incom e students are often placed in low performing schools and do not have the financial means to m ove to areas outside of Richmond that have higher-performing schools (Figure F-15). WCC USD school assignment zones further segregate low income students due to the way that these boundaries are drawn.
Additionally, as discussed above, HCV recipients cannot use their vouchers as a means to live in neighborhoods with higher-performing schools due to the high cost of housing in these areas.
7 WCCUSD serves the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Rich mond, and San Pablo and the unincorporated areas of Bayview-Montalvin Manor, East Richmond Heights, El Sobrante, Kensington, North Richmond, and Tara Hills.
F-60 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-15: Student Proximity to High-Performing Schools, Richmond (2015)
Source: HUD analysis of Great Schools (proficiency data, 2013-14); Common Core of Data (4th grade school addresses and enrollment, 2013-14); Maponics (attendance boundaries, 2016).
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-61
Housing instability among students. Housing instability has direct effects on academic success and school performance. Students who experience housing instabi lity are more likely to have a lower GPA, less likely to graduate from high school, and more likely to be chronically absent from school (Cunningham and MacDonald, 2012). Thus, high levels of o vercrowded households and housing cost burden in Richmond (see Figure F-26) serve as barr iers to student success.
Academic challenges are even more prevalent for unhoused students, which have increased from 908 students in 2010 to 1075 students in 2018 (KidsData, 2022). Unhoused students in WCCUSD receive services from the federal McKinney Vento program and fr om WCCUSD’s Families in Transition program. Additionally, the Richmond Rapid Response F und (R3F), which was formed as a wraparound initiative to meet the immediate and ongoing ne eds of the community during COVID-19 and beyond, is centering the intersection of housing, homelessness, and education as one of its focus areas.
Housing affordability challenges make it difficult to retain high-quality teachers. According to a WCCUSD survey, 70 percent of school employees who rent the ir homes have considered leaving because of high housing costs (C4 et al., 2019). To com bat this issue, in the 2020-2021 school year, the WCCUSD board increased teachers’ compensation by at least 10 percent, and Richmond’s teachers went from being the lowest paid to the high est paid in the County, which may help offset housing costs. (Davis, 2022).
Insufficient and inequitable school financing makes it more dif ficult to adequately serve students. WCCUSD is currently operating with a budget deficit of over $16 million and is expected to run out of funding during the 2023-2024 school year unless i t can make the appropriate cuts (Taub, 2022). California’s Proposition 13, which severely limit s property tax revenue for public services, including public education, has negatively impacted p er-pupil spending. As of 2018, California ranked 43rd of all states in per-pupil spending, whi ch negatively affects educational outcomes (Rancaño, 2018). Prior to the passage of Proposition 1 3 in 1978, California ranked among the highest in the nation regarding per-pupil spending and educational attainment.
Another factor that has contributed to WCCUSD’s budget constrai nts is the increase in charter school enrollment (8 percent in 2014 to 17 percent in 2019) (IT PI, 2019), which takes funding away from public schools. As a result, a study found that charter schools add $27.9 million a year to WCCUSD’s costs of running its non-charter schools, which amo unts to $978 less per year in per pupil funding (ITPI, 2019).
F.5.3 Economic Opportunity
Nearly all of Richmond is in the lowest category of economic ou tcomes according to the TCAC Economic Index, which includes indicators for poverty, percent of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree, employment, and distance from jobs. Only Point Richmond and the portion of Richmond Heights to the east of I-80 score in the top half of economic outcomes (Figure F-17), both of which have high percentages of higher-income White residents. The Economic Opportunity score of the neighboring City of El Cerrito (between .25 and .75) is higher than Richmond. Whereas the scores of adjacent cities - North Richmond, San Pablo and Tara Hills - are similar to the overall score of the City of Richmond (less than .25).
F-62 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-16: TCAC Economic Score, Richmond (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-63
Several factors contribute to the relatively low economic outcomes in Richmond. These include:
● A general shortage of employment opportunities . As shown in Figure F-17, there are fewer jobs in Richmond than occupied households (the jobs-household ratio is less than
1.0). In Contrast, there are more jobs in the Bay Area than occupied households (the jobs- household ratio nears 1.5). Additionally, employment only grew 17 percent in Richmond between 2010 and 2020, compared to 30 percent in the Bay Area ( City of Richmond, 2020b). During conversations with residents, many attributed th is discrepancy to the lasting economic fallout of the Great Recession.
Figure F-17: Jobs-Household Ratio (2002-2018)
Source: ABAG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Longit udinal Employer-Household Dynamics; Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) Files (Jobs) 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-S (Households). ● Low wages and growing wage inequality make it difficult to affo rd basic needs, including housing. The Richmond City Council voted in 2017 to raise the minimum wage to $15.44 by January 1, 2022. However, according to the Insigh t Center’s Family Needs Calculator, the wage needed for a single adult working full-tim e with an infant child to be self-sufficient in Contra Costa County in 2021 is $47.93 per ho ur (Insight Center 2021).
During interviews, residents stressed that they struggle to aff ord housing because their jobs do not pay living wages, and several mentioned having to w ork multiple jobs to pay rent. Additionally, between 2009 and 2017, most of the new jobs that opened in the East Bay were either very low-wage or very high-wage jobs. The incom e inequality generated by this type of economic growth contributes to the housing crisis by allowing higher-income residents to consistently outbid lower-income residents for ava ilable housing (Bissell et al., 2018).
F-64 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● Relatively low levels of educational attainment. Many Richmond residents likely do not qualify for available good-paying jobs because educational atta inment levels are considerably lower in Richmond than in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. More than one-fifth of Richmond residents have less than a high school degree, which is double the rate of the County and the Bay Area (Table F-15), partially because Richmond lacks adequate educational opportunities for its students (Section F.5.2). Without a high school degree, many residents can only acquire low-paying jobs that ma ke it difficult to pay for rent.
Table F-15: Educational Attainment (2019)
Education Level Richmond Contra Costa
County
Bay Area
Less than High School 21.6% 10.5% 11.2%
High School Graduate 21.2% 17.3% 15.9%
Some College 29.1% 29.9% 25.0%
Bachelor’s Degree 18.3% 26.3% 27.7%
Graduate Degree 10. 0% 16.1% 20.2%
Notes: Educational attainment is among population age 25+. High school graduate includes equivalency. Graduate school includes master’s, professional school, and doctorate degrees.
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B15003. ● Many residents live far away from available jobs. Living far away from available jobs can make finding employment more difficult due to increased tim e and transportation costs. According to the Jobs Proximity Index, which measures th e accessibility of a neighborhood as a function of its distance to all employment lo cations within the area, all of Richmond except Point Richmond and Marina Bay have low to mo derate proximity to jobs (Figure F-18). The areas that rank lowest include the lower-income neighborhoods of Richmore Village/Metro Square, Belding/Woods, and North and East neighborhoods, and the higher-income Richmond Heights, Hilltop District, Hilltop V illage, Fairmede/Hilltop, Hilltop Green, May Valley, El Sobrante Hills, and Greenbriar. A ccording to Figure F-18, the Job Proximity Score of neighboring cities - North Richmond, Tara Hills and parts of El Cerrito - is similar to that of lower-income neighborhoods of Richmond. However, the City of San Pablo's Job Proximity Score is the lowest of these cities.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-65
Figure F-18: Jobs Proximity Index, Richmond (2014-2017)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-66 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● High unemployment among some groups of residents. The unemployment rate among Black/African American and Native American residents and Multiracial residents is nearly twice that of Hispanic/Latinx and White residents, while the AAPI unemployment rate falls in the middle (Table F-16). The high Black/African American unemployment rate is the result of a variety of factors, including persistent hir ing discrimination against Black/African American people (Quillian et al. 2017).
Table F-16: Unemployment Rate by Race and Ethnicity (2019) Racial/Ethnic Group Richmond Contra Costa
County
Bay Area
Total Population 6.0% 5.3% 4.5%
AAPI 6.2% 4.2% 3.9%
Black/African
American
9.6% 10.5% 9.4%
Hispanic/Latinx 4.7% 6.0% 5.0%
White 4.4% 4.3% 4.0%
Native American 10.8% 8.5% 8.4%
Multiracial 11.2% 10.3% 6.0%
Some Other Race 4.4% 6.0% 4.7%
Notes: Unemployment rate is among people aged 16-64 in the civilian labor force.
Source: ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C23002.
Other groups also face higher unemployment rates and barriers t o employment. For example, the unemployment rate among disabled residents in Rich mond is 11 percent, which is nearly twice that of the overall unemployment rate of Richmond (ABAG, 2021).
Additionally, in a survey of Richmond residents who were releas ed from incarceration within the previous 3 to 18 months, 78 percent of respondents w ere unemployed, a rate that is nearly seven times that of the State (Safe Return Proje ct, 2014). Finally, undocumented residents cannot legally work, which forces them t o work in lower-paying jobs that lack benefits.
F.5.4 Access to Transportation
As Table F-17 shows, the vast majority of Richmond residents (77 percent) drive to work as their main mode of transportation. Only 12 percent use public transportation, and just two percent use active transportation as their main mode of transportation. How ever, these numbers may
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-67
underestimate usage of public transportation and active transportation if residents commute using a combination of transportation modes. This data demonstrates t he transportation needs of Richmond residents, although constraints may prevent some residents from using their preferred mode of transportation.
Table F-17: Commuting to Work, Richmond (2015-2020)
Residence Type Number
Car, truck, or van - drove alone 63.2%
Car, truck, or van - carpooled 13.7%
Public transportation 12.2%
Walked 1.6%
Bicycle 0.7%
Other means 0.7%
Worked at home 6.9%
Note: Universe includes workers 16 and over.
Source: Contra Costa Health Services analysis of ACS 5-Year Estimates (2015- 2020), Table S0801
Despite a heavy reliance on driving for commuting purposes, som e areas of Richmond have far lower rates of vehicle ownership than others. These areas inclu de the central Richmond neighborhoods of Iron Triangle, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Santa Fe, Coronado, and Cortez/Stege, and the southern Richmond neighborhoods between I -80 and I-580, including Laurel Park, Eastshore, and Southwest Annex (Figure F-20). All of these are low- to moderate- income areas (see Figure F-7). However, according to an intervi ew with the City of Richmond Transportation Department, these neighborhoods are better served by BART and AC Transit than some areas of the City with higher rates of vehicle ownership.
Richmond is served by BART, Amtrak, and AC Transit for bus serv ice, and also has relatively extensive biking and walking options. These options make Richmond easier to live in for disabled residents, who are more likely to rely on public transportation to travel. However, access to non- vehicular transportation is uneven across the City. Central Ric hmond has strong connectivity to transit and biking options, due to recent City investments in w alking and biking in central Richmond and the waterfront area. However, traveling without a car is difficult for residents who live in the northern and northeastern parts of the City. Some of these underserved neighborhoods, such as Parchester Village, have many low-income residents that may rely on non-vehicular
F-68 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g transit options. According to RCEB, the lack of public transit in higher opportunity areas in north and northeast Richmond complicates the prospect of housing peop le with disabilities in these areas. The Transportation Department also noted that the lack o f public transit in these areas make them less desirable for affordable housing developments.
The Low Transportation Cost Index estimates how much money resi dents spend on transportation, measured at the census tract scale and compared to the rest of the nation. The higher an area’s index score, the lower the cost of transportation. Scores are influenced by factors such as public transit access, proximity to employment centers and services, and housing density.
In Richmond, scores range from 78 to 94, with neighborhoods in Central Richmond having the highest scores and therefore lowest transportation costs (HUD, 2020). These areas are greater served by public transit and are also where Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents are more likely to live. The area with the highest transportation costs covers the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods and have a score of 78, meaning costs are lower t han 78 percent of the nation.
This is due to higher vehicle usage and less connectivity to transit.
Public transit in Richmond is more effective at helping low-income Richmond residents get to jobs.
As shown in Table F-18, 33 percent of households earning less than $50,000 per year have jobs within a half mile of frequent rush-hour transit, more than the citywide (21 percent) and countywide (15 percent) share.
Table F-18: Jobs in Proximity to Transit (2017)
Richmond Contra Costa County
Type of Transit All Households Households earning
under $50,000
All Households Households earning
under $50,000
Jobs within a half mile of
frequent full-day transit
13.6% 20.4% 11.6% 11.5%
Jobs within a half mile of
frequent rush-hour transit
21.4% 33.1% 15.4% 14.4%
Source: AllTransit, 2017.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-69
Figure F-19: Low Transportation Cost Index, Richmond (2020)
Source: HUD Data Portal, 2020
F-70 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Many residents continue to face transportation challenges, in a 2021 survey, only 47 percent of respondents stated that the ease of travel by public transporta tion was excellent or good, 37 percent stated that the ease of travel by bicycle was excellent or good, and 32 percent stated that the ease of walking was excellent or good (National Research Ce nter and Polco, 2021).
Additionally, in the Richmond Community-Based Transportation Pl an, feedback from residents across the City were safety issues for pedestrians and bikers, unreliable bus routes, and lack of bike connectivity.
To address gaps in Richmond’s access to transportation, particu larly for neighborhoods that are underserved by other mobility options, the City of Richmond and Via launched Richmond Moves in April 2022. This is a public shuttle service that enables re sidents to easily connect with key transit hubs in the region without a personal vehicle. Riders c an book an on-demand ride, which directs them to a “virtual bus stop” within a short walking dis tance. The fleet includes all plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to reduce energy consumption (City of Richmond, 2022).
F.5.5 Environmental Health
When discussing their favorite things about Richmond, residents often highlighted Richmond’s nature, including parks and beaches, and emphasized that they w ant to see these things preserved. However, residents cited pollution, food access, and safety as key environmental concerns. As described below, the City has been engaged in impr ovements to environmental health as part of its nationally innovative place-based strategies, including the Community Health and Wellness Element.
According to he TCAC Environmental Score, which ranks the envir onmental health of neighborhoods according to pollutant exposure indicators and en vironmental effects indicators,8 conditions vary considerably across Richmond. Neighborhoods on the west side of the railroad tracks and neighborhoods in Point Pinole have the lowest environmental index scores (less than
0.25), while neighborhoods such as North and East, Fairmede Hilltop, Greenridge Heights, Quail Hill, and the El Sobrante Hills neighborhoods have the highest environmental scores (more than
0.75) in Richmond (Figure F-20). This reveals the sharp divide in environmental conditions in the City, as areas of lowest resources and high segregation and pov erty have lower environmental scores, and the higher income areas have better environmental scores.
The neighboring cities of San Pablo, Tara Hills and El Cerrito have environmental scores higher than the western-most neighborhoods in Richmond (Figure F-20). Overall, the environmental health of Richmond is poor compared to neighboring cities.
CalEnviroScreen, a statewide risk assessment tool that maps sou rces of pollution, offers more detail on the types of pollution in the neighborhoods with the lowest TCAC environmental scores
8 Environmental indicators included in the environmental score include Ozone, PM2.5, Diesel PM, Drinking Water, Pesticide Use, Toxic Releases from Facilities, Traffic Density, Cleanup Sites, Groundwater Threats, Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities, Impaired Water Bodies, and Solid Waste Sites and Facilities.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-71
(CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022). All of these neighborhoods rank above the 80th percentile statewide in exposure to diesel particulate matter (PM), cleanup sites, h azardous waste, and impaired waters. Additionally, the Iron Triangle, Atchison Village, Rich more Village/Metro Square, Santa Fe, Cortez/Stege, and Coronado neighborhoods rank above the 85t h percentile statewide in exposure to toxic releases and lead from housing. Other polluta nts that rank above the 80th percentile in Richmond include groundwater threats in southern Richmond, traffic in the neighborhoods between I-80 and I-580 in southern Richmond, and solid waste in Parchester Village.
One major reason for Richmond’s poor environmental conditions i s pollution from nearby oil refineries, chemical plants, superfund sites, highways, and rai l yards. In particular, the Chevron and Phillips 66 oil refineries, which are located in Richmond, emit large amounts of toxic chemicals. Many residents noted air pollution as a major issue and expressed concerns that affordable housing is often located near refineries. Health outcomes are notably worse for people of color, and Black/African American residents have the worst h ealth outcomes of all residents, which may reflect higher poverty levels, lower rates of health insurance coverage, and the health impacts of intergenerational trauma related to racism (C4 et al., 2019; Taylor, 2019). In particular, residents reported difficulties accessing healthcare in Richmon d due to a lack of hospitals in the area. As one resident explained, “The Kaiser is too small to ac commodate the people here. We need another hospital to help people’s health, especially people who don’t have rides.” Additionally, housing problems in Richmond directly impact residents’ health. First, since much of the City’s housing stock is old (with the largest proportion built between 1940 and 1959), housing habitability problems like lead, mold, asbestos exposure, and i nadequate seismic bracing are major causal or contributing factors to resident health issues (ABAG, 2021; City of Richmond, 2012). Lead poisoning is of particular concern - approximately 46 percent of children with elevated blood lead levels in the County live in the Richmond/San Pablo Area (C4 et al., 2019). Second, the lack of quality affordable housing may compromise resident health by forcing tenants to reside in substandard housing, overcrowd into homes, and overspend on rent. Residents residing in substandard housing are at increased risk for health risks such as fires, electrical injuries, lead poisoning, rodent infestation, mold, childhood asthma and other illnesses and injuries.
Overcrowded housing conditions can contribute to higher mortali ty rates, infectious disease, inhibited childhood development, and stress. In a cyclical pattern, housing cost burden contributes to mental stress, hunger, and overcrowding (City of Richmond, 2012).
F-72 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-20: TCAC Environmental Score, Richmond (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-73
F.5.6 Food Access
Many residents of Richmond lack opportunities to access fresh, healthy, and affordable food, with about one third living in “critical food access areas”, also kn own as food deserts. Figure F-21 shows areas with limited access to food in Richmond, based on a nalysis conducted by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Green census tracts show areas where annual family income is at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ( $55,500), and a considerable share of residents must travel more than one mile to reach a grocery store. These areas are on the outskirts of the City in Hilltop District, Parchester Village, May Valley, El So brante Hills, Greenbriar, and Marina Bay, which are all higher-income areas relative to the rest of Richmond. However, based on the City’s Environmental Justice Map Atlas and Baseline Report, much of central Richmond also has food access issues, as nearby grocery stores in these areas hav e limited fresh produce (City of Richmond, 2022). Furthermore, yellow census tracts indicate are as where the nearest grocery store is more than a half mile away, and residents have limited access to vehicles. These areas include most of central Richmond, the area between I-580 and I- 80 in southern Richmond. With the exception of Hilltop District and the southernmost part of the City, all of these areas have high percentages of low- to moderate-income residents. Residents of these areas that rely on public transit or walking may have extra difficulty accessing fresh food.
F-74 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-21: Grocery Store Access, Richmond (2019)
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 2019.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-75
F.5.7 Barriers to Access to Opportunity
Based upon both research, data, and community engagement inform ation, several key factors contribute to disparities in access to opportunity in Richmond. These include:
● Concentrated poverty. Policies that segregated Richmond and disinvested in communities of color have concentrated poverty in certain parts of the City (Section F.3.2.5). Concentrated poverty makes it more difficult for resi dents to take advantage of educational and economic opportunities, to afford transportatio n and healthcare needs, and to live in higher-income areas of Richmond. Additionally, c oncentrated poverty increases the scale of the barriers facing the City and its residents, making problems more expensive and complicated to solve.
● High cost of housing. The rising cost of housing makes it more difficult for low-inco me residents to afford housing (Section F.3.4.1). High housing costs also force residents into overcrowded and substandard housing, which can be hazardous to health and can affect success in school and work.
● Lack of high-performing schools. Very few schools in Richmond are high-performing.
This is a function of housing and school segregation, housing i nstability among students, high housing costs making it difficult to retain high-quality teachers, and insufficient school funding. Low education outcomes in Richmond mean that residents are not adequately prepared for success in the labor market.
● Lack of good-paying jobs. Job growth in Richmond has not risen as fast as it has in the region, making it harder for residents to find and commute to their jobs. This is particularly problematic because in recent years, wages have been stagnant w hile housing prices have been rising. Several larger employers in Richmond identif ied a recent business tax measure, Measure U, as influencing their potential decision to relocate their businesses. ● Lack of access to public transportation on the outskirts of Ric hmond. The northern Richmond neighborhoods of Fairmede/Hilltop, Hilltop Green, Hill top Village, and Parchester Village are home to large numbers of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, AAPI, and low-income residents but lack sufficient public trans it options, making transportation more difficult to access and afford. Additionall y, the lack of public transit in the higher opportunity May Valley, Carriage Hills North, Carria ge Hills South, and Greenbriar neighborhoods in northeast Richmond may complicate e fforts to subsidize housing in these areas if low-income residents do not own a car.
Section F.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Richmond residents are impacted differently by housing issues, including affordability, overcrowding, displacement, homeownership access, and housing a nd neighborhood quality.
F-76 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g This section examines these differences and highlights existing governmental and community efforts addressing disproportionate needs.
Key findings include:
● Citywide data shows that housing has become more affordable s ince 2010, but this data masks rising cost burden in particular neighborhoods and does n ot reflect the lived experiences of many residents.
● Neighborhoods with high percentages of Hispanic/Latinx reside nts have the highest rates of overcrowded households. Overcrowding is likely a symptom of hou sing unaffordability and a shortage of rental housing stock with three or more bedrooms. ● Displacement has impacted Black/African American, Laotian, an d Asian Indian residents most, but Hispanic/Latinx residents are also highly vulnerable. Ongoing displacement is a result of the 2000s foreclosure crisis, the economic consequenc es of COVID-19, gentrification, lack of affordable housing, and speculative investments. ● The rate of homeownership fell during the Great Recession and never recovered, and large racial and ethnic disparities remain.
● Much of Richmond’s housing stock suffers from unsafe living c onditions and requires repairs.
Blight is also concentrated in low-income neighborhoods.
F.6.1 Housing Affordability
When speaking with residents about housing barriers in Richmond, the lack of affordable housing came up most often. In a listening session, a resident emphasi zed that “even families with two working parents can’t afford the rent.” The impacts of housing unaffordability are far-reaching.
During community engagement events, residents said that high ho using costs force people to relocate within Richmond or to move out of Richmond altogether. Additionally, when households cannot afford rent, they are more likely to live in overcrowded or substandard housing Local surveys reflect residents’ concerns about affordable hous ing. In the 2017 National Citizen Survey, only 39 percent of Richmond residents said they were “n ot experiencing housing cost stress” (National Research Center and ICMA, 2017). Additionally, the percentage of respondents who rated the availability of affordable quality housing as exc ellent or good in the Richmond Community Survey declined from 25 percent in 2015 to 18 percent in 2021 (National Research Center and Polco, 2021). In a 2019 survey of Laotian residents in the Richmond area conducted by APEN, 70 percent of respondents reported spending over half of their monthly income on rent.
While 70 percent of respondents said they like where they live, 57 percent said the cost of housing made them want to leave Richmond (APEN, 2020).
This section presents affordability data at the regional, city, and neighborhood levels, with a focus on how tenure, race, and ethnicity have affected residents’ abi lity to pay for housing over time.
Despite relatively low housing costs in Richmond, residents face higher levels of cost burden than
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-77
the Bay Area region. While there have been improvements in hou sing affordability citywide and for all racial and ethnic groups over time, housing cost burden has increased in some neighborhoods and renters and residents of color disproportionately experience cost burden.
Analysis of Housing Cost Burden
Despite lower housing prices relative to the region, a higher p ercentage of Richmond residents struggle to afford housing than in Contra Costa County or the Bay Area. As Table F-19 shows, 45 percent of Richmond residents experience housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of income on housing) versus 37 percent in the County and 36 pe rcent in the Bay Area.
Additionally, 20 percent of Richmond residents face extreme cost burden (spending more than 50 percent of income on housing) compared to 17 percent of County residents and 16 percent of Bay Area residents.
Table F-19: Regional Housing Cost Burden Severity (2019)
Location
0%-30% of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Richmond 19,891 55.1% 8, 886 24.6% 7,346 20.3%
Contra Costa County 242,570 62. 7% 80,625 20.8% 63,787 16.5% Bay Area 1,684,831 61.7% 539,135 19.7% 447,802 16.4%
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091.
Within Richmond and as of 2019, renters are more likely than ow ners to experience affordability challenges, though this was not the case in 2010. As Table F-20 shows, in 2010, a similar percentage of owner-occupied households and renter-occupied households were cost-burdened (50 percent and 55 percent, respectively). However, between 201 0 and 2019, the number of owner occupied households experiencing cost burden decreased. T he percent of renter households experiencing cost burden remained almost constant at 56 percent. The percentage of extremely cost-burdened owner and renter households followed a similar pattern over time.
F-78 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-20: City-Wide Housing Cost Burden by Tenure, Richmond (2010-2019)
Tenure
2006-2010 2015-2019
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
30%-50% of
Income Used for
Housing
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner Occupied 5,204 27.1% 4,391 22.9% 3,696 20.1% 2,604 14.1% Renter Occupied 4,419 27.0% 4,614 28.2% 5,190 29.3% 4,742 26.8% Total 9,623 27.1% 9,005 25.3% 8,886 24.6% 7,346 20.0%
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Tables B25070 and B25091; Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010), Tables B25070 and B25091.
Housing affordability can also be measured by the percent of median household income required to afford the average cost of housing. According to this metric, housing affordability improved for renters citywide between 2015 and 2020. As Table F-21 shows, in 2015, Richmond renters making the median household income of $40,355 needed to pay 60 percent of their income towards the average rent of $2,022. However, in 2020, the media n household income for Richmond renters increased to $55,128, while the average rent i ncreased 16 percent to $2,345.
In 2020, renters making the median household income needed to pay 51 percent of their income to afford the average rent, a nine percent decline from 2015.
Based upon the citywide data alone it is difficult to determine if the increase in affordability for renters is the result of changing demographics, or improved eco nomic conditions, or a combination of the two. The citywide increase in affordability for renters since 2015 may be caused by higher income residents moving to Richmond and overcr owded households inflating household income, rather than increased income of long-time res idents. As detailed in previous sections, there are patterns of displacement of lower income re sidents and in-migration of new residents. It is difficult to determine the correlation between citywide increases in median income, the displacement of low-income residents, and the arrival of new residents.
Community knowledge shared duri ng community engagement and the analysis of eight ethnic enclave neighborhoods later in this section help us better unde rstand the disparate housing affordability experiences.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-79
Table F-21: Percent of Income Spent on Rent, Richmond (2011-2020)
Citywide 2011-2015 2016-2020 Percent Change
Median Household Income
for Renters $40,355 $55,128 +36.6%
Average Annual Rent
$2,022 $2,345 +16.0%
Percent Unaffordability 60.1% 51.1% -15.1%
Notes: Average Annual Rent includes rents from studios, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 4 bedroom, and 4 bedroom apartments. Average Annual Rent between 2011-2015 only includes data from December 2014 - December 2015.
Source: Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-year estimates, 2016-2020 (household median income data), and Zumper Rent Research as of June 2022 (median rent data).
In 2017, 53 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents were cost-burdened, compared to 45 percent of Black/African American residents, 32 percent of AAPI residents, and 31 percent of White residents (Table F-22). Following the citywide trend of increasing housing affordability over time, between 2010 and 2017, housing affordability improved for every racial and ethnic group, with the biggest decreases in cost burden occurring among AAPI residents (45 percent to 32 percent) and Black/African American residents (55 percent to 45 percent) . However, this improvement in affordability may be due to higher income Black/African American and AAPI residents moving in, rather than a sign of economic improvements for long-time residents, or potentially a combination of both situations. The analysis of eight ethnic enclave neighb orhoods later in this section demonstrates the racially disparate housing experiences by neighborhood level.
F-80 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-22: Housing Cost Burden by Race, Richmond (2010-2017) 2006-2010 2013-2017
Race/Eth
nicity
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of Income
Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used
for Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent AAPI 1,185 23.8% 1,045 21.0% 830 16.1% 845 16.3%
Black/Afri
can
American
3,195 27.2% 3,215 27.4% 1,930 21.3% 2,230 24.7%
Hispanic/
Latinx 2,470 27.6% 2,900 32.4% 3,365 30.7% 2,435 22.2%
Native
American* 0 0.0% 10 71.4% 15 17.9% 29 34.5%
White 1,870 20.6% 1,345 14.8% 1,750 18.6% 1,200 12.8%
Other
Race or
Multiple
Races
190 22.6% 165 19.6% 480 27.0% 350 19.7%
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
Source: ABAG analysis of HUD, Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; Just Cities analysis of HUD, Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2006-2010 release.
Neighborhood Analysis
Renters and Housing Cost Burden
Figures F-22 and F-23 show the percentage of cost-burdened rent ers across Richmond in 2014 and 2019. Areas that experienced a decrease in cost burden over that time period include the lower-income neighborhoods of Atchison Village, Iron Triangle, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Belding/Woods, Laurel Park, Eastshore, Parkview, Richmond Annex , Southwest Annex, and Panhandle Annex; and the higher-income neighborhoods of May Valley, Castro Heights, Carriage Hills South, with Richmond Annex experiencing the most dramatic decrease.
The only neighborhood where cost burden increased is the higher-income area of Marina Bay.
Despite reductions in cost burden for renters in some neighborh oods, Figure F-23 also shows that, in 2019, more than 40 percent of renters were cost-burdened everywhere except the higher-
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-81
income neighborhoods of Richmond Annex, western May Valley, Car riage Hills North, Carriage Hills South, and Castro Heights.
There are also racial disparities regarding housing cost burden , as seen in Figures 22 and 23.
The neighborhoods with over 60 percent renter households who ar e cost-burdened are predominantly low income Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods (Shields- Reid, Santa Fe, Coronado, Cortez/Stege, and Belding/Woods), wit h the exception of Fairmede/Hilltop, a higher-income but racially diverse neighborhood.
The percent of income spent on rent in each neighborhood in 2019 is summarized in Table F-23.
Table F-23: Summary of Renter Cost Burden by Richmond Neighborhood (2019) Percent of
Income Spent
on Rent
Neighborhoods
20%-40% Carriage Hills North, Carriage Hills South, May Valley (western portion), Richmond Annex, Quail Hill, Greenridge Heights
40%-60% Atchison Village, Beldi ng/Woods, Coronado (southern portion), Cortez/Stege (southern portion), Eastshore, El Sobrante Hills, Greenbriar, Hilltop Green, Hilltop Village, Iron Triangle, Laurel Park, Marina Bay, May Valley (eastern portion), North and East, Panhandle Annex, Parchester Village, Park Plaza, Parkview, Point Richmond, Pullman, Richmond Heights, Richmore Village/Metro Square, Southwest Annex
60%-80% Coronado (northern port ion), Cortez/Stege (northern portion), Santa Fe, Southwest Annex Notes: Analysis is based on the census tract that the neighborhood is located in.
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer.
In order to better understand the extent of racial disparities in housing affordability, Just Cities conducted an analysis of the change in affordability in a sample of eight neighborhoods that were ethnic enclaves in 2000 (Table F-24). Between 2000 and 2019, the percentage of cost burdened households increased in all eight neighborhoods, demonstrating that the decrease in citywide housing cost burden, as discussed above, masks increasing cost burden in some neighborhoods.
The increase in cost burden was considerably larger in Hilltop District (148 percent) than in any other neighborhood analyzed. Data suggests that this may be bec ause housing construction did not meet new demand associated with the large population increa se in the Hilltop District that occurred over this time period (see Table F-29).
F-82 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g
Table F-24: Cost Burdened Renter Households in Select Ethnic Enclaves, Richmond (2000-2019)
Area/
Neighborhood
Predominant
Racial or Ethnic
Group in 2000
2000 2015-2019
Percent
Change of Cost
Burdened
Households
Number of
Cost
Burdened
Household
Percent of
Cost
Burdened
Household
Number
of Cost
Burdene
d HH
Percent of
Cost
Burdened
HH
Citywide Black/African
American 6,856 42.5% 9,932 53.4% +44.9%
Atchison Village Hispanic/Latinx
and Black/African
American
591 45.8% 730 51.9% +23.5%
Belding/Woods Hispanic/Latinx 625 51.6% 846 58.6% +35.4% Iron Triangle Black/African
American and
Hispanic/Latinx
539 48.2% 612 59.5% +13.5%
Fairmede/Hilltop Black/African
American 442 47.0% 692 67.3% +56.6%
Hilltop District Black/African
American 635 46.4% 1578 54.6% +148.5%
Marina Bay Black/African
American 635 36.9% 716 52.0% +12.8%
Richmond Annex White 304 34.6% 345 39.6% +13.5%
Point Richmond White 251 33.2% 306 46.5% +21.9%
Notes: Predominant racial/ethnic groups are any groups over 30% of the overall area population. While AAPI are also an important group in Richmond, they tend to reside across many neighborhoods.
Source: Just Cities analysis of U.S. Decennial Census (2000 Table: T166), American Community Surveys (5-Year Estimates) (2015-2019 Table: A18002).
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-83
Figure F-22: Overpayment by Renters, Richmond (2010-2014)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-84 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-23: Overpayment by Renters, Richmond (2015-2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-85
Most neighboring cities have between 40 to 60 percent of renter households experiencing housing cost burden. The smaller cities of San Pablo and North Richmond have more areas where more than 80 percent of renters are cost-burdened. In contrast, El Cerrito only has two areas with less than 20 percent of renters experiencing cost burden. Minimal improvements were observed in the cost burden trend for renters from years 2010- 2014 and 2015- 2 019. However, cost burden in neighboring cities of El Cerrito has improved from 2010 to 2019.
Homeowners and Housing Cost Burden
Relative to renters. homeowners face lower levels of overpayment in Richmond and neighboring cities. As Figures F-24 and F-25 show, homeowners in Richmond experienced declining levels of overpayment in many neighborhoods between 2014 and 2019. The area where homeowners spent the highest percentage (more than 60 percent) of their in come on housing was in the Iron Triangle in 2014. However, by 2019, homeowners in Santa Fe, Coronado, and Cortez/Stege also faced increased overpayment. These are all neighborhoods that are predominantly Black/African American and Latinx/Hispanic.
Regarding neighboring cities, from 2014 to 2019, there is some decrease in cost burdened homeowners in San Pablo, Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Richmond, and El Cerrito (from the 40 to 60 percent range to 20 to 40 percent range categories in the map below).
F-86 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-24: Overpayment by Homeowners, Richmond (2010-2014)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-87
Figure F-25: Overpayment by Homeowners, Richmond (2015-2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-88 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Housing costs are rising for various reasons, but in interviews, community organizations and City agencies honed in on the lack of housing supply in Richmond and the Bay Area as the main contributing factor. In particular, there is a regional dynami c where lower income residents who are priced out of cities like San Francisco and later Oakland h ave moved to Richmond given its relative affordability. The Community Development Department e mphasized that the cost of construction - driven by the rising costs of materials and labo r - is the main barrier to building housing in Richmond. In addition, affordable housing developers identified other constraints such as the City permitting process and lack of sufficient City staff to work with them.
F.6.2 Overcrowding
Many residents mentioned that families - especially those who are Hispanic/Latinx - are crowding into homes as rents rise. Additionally, a local survey of Laotian residents found that overcrowding is the most reported outcome of rising rent (APEN 2020). Resear ch shows a strong association between overcrowded household conditions (defined as more peopl e living in a household than there are rooms, excluding kitchens and bathrooms) and worsened respiratory health, stomach cancer, psychiatric symptoms, mental illness, and other health conditions. Research shows that when there are more than 1.5 people per room, it can lead to wo rsened child mortality, reading and mathematical testing, and increased accidents (Bissell et al., 2018).
As with overpayment, overcrowding is more likely to affect rent ers. As shown in Table F-25, in 2020, 13 percent of Richmond renters lived in overcrowded house holds, compared to 6 percent of homeowners. While the percentage of overcrowded households remained relatively similar for both renters and owners between 2010 and 2020, analysis from the Othering & Belonging Institute found that between 2005 and 2015, overcrowding among Richmond r esidents decreased for homeowners but increased substantially for renters, with the nu mber of overcrowded renter households with one to 1.5 people per room nearly doubling from 2005 to 2015 (Bissell et al., 2018).
Table F-25: Overcrowded Households by Tenure, Richmond (2010-2020)
Tenure
2006-2010 2016-2020
Number of
Overcrowded
Households
Percent of
Overcrowded
Households
Number of
Overcrowded
Households
Percent of
Overcrowded
Households
Owner Occupied 994 5.2% 1,183 6.0%
Renter Occupied 2,072 12.7% 2,300 13.1%
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens).
Source: Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010 and 2016-2020), Table B25014.
Overcrowding also disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latinx re sidents. As Table F-26 shows, in 2020, Hispanic/Latinx residents were more than twice as likely to live in overcrowded households
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-89
than the citywide average (20 percent versus 9 percent, respect ively). Overcrowding can inflate median household income, masking the economic hardships faced by individual families and the negative experiences caused by overcrowding. Black/African Amer ican residents are the least likely to live in overcrowded households (2 percent). Additiona lly, between 2010 and 2020, the percentage of overcrowded households in each racial and ethnic group remained relatively constant.
Table F-26: Overcrowded Households by Race, Richmond (2010-2020)
Race/Ethnicity
2006-2010 2016-2020
Number Percent Number Percent
AAPI 474 9.4% 562 9.3%
Black/African
American 404 3.4% 185 2.1%
Hispanic/Latinx 1,948 21.8% 2,414 20.2%
Native American* 0 0.0% 35 16.0%
White 135 1.5% 345 3.7%
Other Race 596 18.2% 1,250 22.7%
Multiracial 92 10.0% 211 8.6%
Citywide 3,026 8.5% 3,483 9.3%
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens).
Source: Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010 and 2016-2020), Table B25014.
Figure F-26 shows the distribution of overcrowded households ac ross Richmond. Overcrowding is most severe in the Belding/Woods neighborhood, which has a v ery high percentage of Hispanic/Latinx residents. Overcrowding is also high in surrounding neighborhoods that have high percentages of Hispanic/Latinx residents such as Coronado and Santa Fe.
The neighboring communities of North Richmond and San Pablo als o have overall higher rates of overcrowding and high percentages of Hispanic Latinx residents. All other adjacent cities have lower rates of overcrowding (less than 8.2 percent).
F-90 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-26: Overcrowded Households, Richmond (2020)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-91
In addition to being driven by rising rents, overcrowding may also in part be a function of mismatch between the size of Richmond’s families and the size of housing units in the rental housing stock.
As Table F-27 shows, while there are an approximately equal num ber of owner- and renter- occupied units in Richmond, renters occupy far more 0-2 bedroom homes than units with 3 or more bedrooms. The 2016 changes to Richmond’s Zoning Ordinance attempt to address this issue by creating incentives for low-income, very-low income, and extremely-low income housing projects with four or more bedrooms per unit, by providing a 35 percent density bonus where projects exceed the percentage of affordable units per househol d income groups (City of Richmond, 2021).
Table F-27: Size of Housing Units Occupied by Owners and Renters, Richmond (2015- 2019)
Number of Bedrooms Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
0 Bedrooms 117 790
1 Bedroom 499 4,553
2 Bedrooms 4,845 7,693
3-4 Bedrooms 12,355 5,376
5 Or More Bedrooms 666 194
Total 18,482 18,606
Source: ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B25042.
F.6.3 Gentrification and Risk of Displacement
Displacement of people, especially residents of color, occurs f or many reasons that can be voluntary or involuntary. However, as housing costs have skyroc keted in the Bay Area region, forced displacement of low-income residents has become a major issue, and high-income residents have been attracted to Richmond by relatively low housing prices. Given that California state law, the Costa Hawkins Act, allows for the resetting of rent prices to market rate levels when housing units become vacant, there is a financial incentive for housing providers to replace longer- term tenants with newer tenants who can afford higher rent prices.
In addition, forced displacement can occur either through direc t displacement, such as housing providers evicting tenants, or through indirect market force di splacement. The development of considerable numbers of above moderate income new housing units in areas that are undergoing gentrification can sometimes result in the increase of rents for those older housing units (Mundie and Associates, 2005). It is a function of rising comparative rents in an area.
F-92 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Because Richmond remains relatively diverse, the City has a rar e opportunity to maintain a racially and economically diver se community. However, without s wift action, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Laotian residents, who are more likely to be low-income and rent their homes, are at heightened risk of displacement. The remain der of this section analyzes changing demographics and contributing factors to past and ongoing displacement.
Racial Demographic Change
Severe displacement of Black/African American, Laotian, and Asian Indian residents has already occurred in Richmond. As Table F-28 shows, between 2010 and 201 9, the percentage of Black/African American residents in Richmond decreased by almost 40 percent. Additionally, the percentage of AAPI residents increased by 36 percent over that same time period. However, within the AAPI community, between 2010 and 2015, the Laotian p opulation declined by 54 percent, from 2,486 to 1,134 residents, and the Asian Indian po pulation fell by 49 percent, from 1,930 to 979 residents (ACS 5-Year Data, Table B01003). Residen ts reported in interviews that many who are displaced move to lower-income cities in Contra Co sta County such as Antioch and Pittsburg or out of the Bay Area altogether.
Table F-28: Racial Demographic Change, Richmond (2000-2019) Race/Ethnicity 2000 2019
Percent Change
Number Percent Number Percent
AAPI 12,553 13.1% 17,073 15.5% +36.0%
Black/African
American
35,279
36.8%
21,465 19.5% -39.2%
Hispanic/Latinx 26,319 27.4% 46,664 42.5% +77.3%
Native American 351 0.4% 324 0.3% -7.7%
White 21,081 22.0% 19,569 17.8% -7.2%
Other Race or
Multiracial
400 0.4% 4,787 4.4% +1,096.8%
Source: ABAG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; ACS 5-Year Data (2015-2019).
As Black/African American, Laotian, and Asian Indian residents have been displaced from Richmond, a mix of new residents have moved in, including large numbers of Hispanic/Latinx and AAPI people. High rates of cost burden and overcrowding among H ispanic/Latinx residents, (Sections F.6), suggest that many of these new Hispanic/Latinx residents are low-income. Data from the Urban Displacement Project offers further evidence of this, finding that in 2015, Richmond and San Pablo were the top destination for low-income Hispanic/Latinx residents who
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-93
had been pushed out of more expensive cities, particularly in A lameda County (Urban Displacement Project and CHPC, 2019). Finally, income data (Sec tion F.4.2) and the insights of residents and community-based organizations suggest that high-i ncome residents, attracted by relatively low housing prices in Richmond, are also moving into the City and contributing to the market forces discussed above that result in rising land values and increased gentrification in some neighborhoods.
Examining racial demographic change at the neighborhood level offers additional insight into how groups have experienced displacement over time. Table F-29 shows racial demographics for the same eight ethnic enclaves analyzed in Section F.3.4.1 in 2000 and 2019. In line with citywide data, the percentage of Black/African American residents decrea sed in every neighborhood except Hilltop District, and decreased most dramatically in the Iron Triangle (by 74 percent). The percentage of Hispanic/Latinx residents increased in every neighborhood except Atchison Village (where there was a large increase in the AAPI population), and increased most in the Hilltop District (by 854 percent). The AAPI population increased in eve ry neighborhood, especially in Atchison Village (283 percent) and Hilltop District (259 percent). The most dramatic change in the White population was also in Hilltop District (182 percent incr ease), but it also declined considerably in Belding/Woods (34 percent decrease), Iron Trian gle (29 percent decrease), and Fairmede/Hilltop (41 percent decrease).
Table F-29: Racial Demographic Change in Select Ethnic Enclaves, Richmond (2000- 2019)
Area/Neighb
orhood
2000 2015-2019 Change Over Time
Number Percent Number Percent Percent
Change
Predominant
Racial or
Ethnic
Group(s)
City of
Richmond
Black/African
American 35,279 35.60% 21,465 19.50% -39.16% 2000:
Black/African
American
2015-2019:
Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 26,319 26.50% 46,664 42.50% 77.30%
AAPI 12,077 12.20% 16,716 15.20% 38.41%
White 21,081 21.20% 19,569 17.80% -7.17%
Atchison
Village
Black/African
American 2,540 33.40% 1,506 20.60% -40.71%
2000:
Hispanic/Latinx
and
Black/African
American
Hispanic/Latinx 3,864 50.90% 3,620 49.40% -6.31%
AAPI 344 4.50% 1,317 18.00% 282.85%
F-94 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Area/Neighb
orhood
2000 2015-2019 Change Over Time
Number Percent Number Percent Percent
Change
Predominant
Racial or
Ethnic
Group(s)
White 636 8.40% 651 8.90% 2.36%
2015-2019:
Hispanic/Latinx
Belding/Wood
s
Black/African
American 1901 21.62% 1058 11.30% -44.35% 2000:
Hispanic/Latinx
2015-2019:
Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 5,241 59.61% 6,932 74.02% 32.26%
AAPI 552 6.28% 672 7.18% 21.74%
White 765 8.70% 505 5.39% -33.99%
Iron Triangle
Black/African
American 2,935 49.30% 777 12.40% -73.53% 2000:
Black/African
American and
Hispanic/Latinx
2015-2019:
Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 2,189 36.70% 4,581 73.40% 109.27%
AAPI 470 7.90% 719 11.50% 52.98%
White 158 2.70% 112 1.80% -29.11%
Fairmede/Hillt
op
Black/African
American 2,886 54.20% 1,572 29.40% -45.53% 2000:
Black/African
American
2015-2019:
Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 774 14.50% 1,928 36.10% 149.10%
AAPI 755 14.20% 993 18.60% 31.52%
White 698 13.10% 409 7.70% -41.40%
Hilltop District
Black/African
American 2,499 45.30% 3,196 19.41% 27.89% 2000:
Black/African
American
2015-2019:
Hispanic/Latinx
Hispanic/Latinx 629 11.40% 6,001 36.44% 854.05%
AAPI 907 16.40% 3,255 19.77% 258.88%
White 1,212 22.00% 2,983 18.11% 146.12%
Marina Bay
Black/African
American 1,883 31.40% 1,399 23.60% -25.70%
2000:
Black/African
American Hispanic/Latinx 1,136 18.90% 1,368 23.10% 20.42%
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-95
Area/Neighb
orhood
2000 2015-2019 Change Over Time
Number Percent Number Percent Percent
Change
Predominant
Racial or
Ethnic
Group(s)
AAPI 959 16.00% 1,079 18.20% 12.51% 2015-2019:
None
White 1,732 28.90% 1,628 27.40% -6.00%
Richmond
Annex
Black/African
American 579 12.90% 285 5.80% -50.78%
2000: White
2015-2019:
White
Hispanic/Latinx 575 12.80% 880 18.00% 53.04%
AAPI 914 20.40% 1,203 24.70% 31.62%
White 2,149 47.90% 2,337 47.90% 8.75%
Point
Richmond
Black/African
American 224 7.70% 131 3.90% -41.52%
2000: White
2015-2019:
White
Hispanic/Latinx 266 9.20% 614 18.50% 130.83%
AAPI 96 3.30% 192 5.80% 100.00%
White 2,170 75.00% 2,264 68.00% 4.33%
Notes: Predominant Racial/Ethnic Groups are any groups over 30% of the overall area population. While AAPI are also an important group in Richmond, they tend to reside across many neighborhoods.
Source: Just Cities analysis of U.S. Decennial Census (2000 Table: RC2000SF1:P8), American Community Surveys (5-Year Estimates) (2015-2019 Table: B03002).
Despite Fair Rent and Just Cause protections, Richmond’s renter s can still be vulnerable to displacement for many reasons. For example, existing Fair Rent and Just Cause protections do not apply to all rental housing leaving some renters vulnerable to very high rent increases or aggressive eviction tactics. Additionally, renters are more lik ely to experience cost burden (Section F.6.1) and therefore more impacted by rent increases, job losses, or other negative economic changes than homeowners.
In Richmond, renters are more likely to be residents of color. In 2020, 56 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents, 59 percent of Black/African American residents, 43 percent of White residents, and 29 percent of AAPI residents rented their homes (ABAG, 2021). As Figure F-31 shows, renters are more likely to live in predominantly Black/A frican American and Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods in central and southern Richmond. High percentages of renters
F-96 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g also live in Hilltop Village and the eastern part of Hilltop Di strict, which have a relatively high percentage of AAPI residents, and Southwest Annex, where large numbers of White and AAPI residents live. There are only three census tracts where less t han 40 percent of residents are renters, which include the more heavily White and affluent Rich mond Heights neighborhood, but also Belding/Woods and the western part of the North and East neighborhoods, which have high percentages of low-income and Hispanic/Latinx residents.
Tables F-28 and F-29 show racial demographic changes, in partic ular decreases in the Black/African American population. It is possible that renter s tatus increases vulnerability to the effects of gentrification and other contributing factors of dis placement. These factors are elucidated below.
Like Richmond, neighboring communities of North Richmond and San Pablo also have high rates of renter households. However, the percentage of renter househo lds is lower in El Cerrito.
Notably Hispanics are the predominant population in North Richm ond and San Pablo and White persons in El Cerrito (see Figure F-4).
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-97
Figure F-27: Percentage of Renters, Richmond (2020)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-98 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g The UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project (UDP) uses data-driven research to produce maps identifying sensitive communities that are at-risk of displacement (see Figure F-35). UDP defines sensitive communities as currently having “populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost.” Vulnerability is determined based on the following characteristics in census tracts:
● The share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent; an d ● The tract meets two of the following criteria:
o Share of renters is above 40 percent
o Share of people of color is above 50 percent
o Share of very low-income households that are severely rent bur dened households is above the county median
o Percent change in rent is above county median rent increase o Rent gap, which is the difference between tract median rent an d median rent for surrounding areas
UDP has identified sensitive communities throughout the City (F igure F-35). Areas not identified as sensitive communities include areas in the west (Point Richm ond) and east (Carriage Hills North, Greenbriar). Vulnerable communities have also been identified adjacent to Richmond (e.g., San Pablo, El Cerrito, Albany).
Residents and community organizations expressed concern about the challenges that are arising in Richmond as a result of these demographic shifts. Residents stated they were worried that the communities that they love will be fundamentally changed by con tinuing gentrification and displacement. Additionally, HACCC noted in an interview that in creasing housing prices create tensions between renters who are being displaced and homeowners who are finally seeing their home values rise. Some residents also mentioned rising tensions between Richmond’s Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx communities as forme rly majority Black/African American neighborhoods are becoming majority Hispanic/Latinx an d the relative political power of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents shifts as a result. Finally, the RYSE Center and APEN noted that it is hard to organize residents aro und housing issues because so many former residents have been displaced.
Contributing Factors to Displacement
Many factors have contributed to displacement in Richmond, but the most prominent include:
● The mid-2000s foreclosure crisis. Many residents recounted family and friends being displaced from Richmond during the foreclosure crisis because they could not afford their rising mortgage payments.
● Gentrification. Residents observed that while gentrification improved neighborh ood and housing quality in some parts of Richmond, it also led landlord s to charge higher rents, forcing long-time residents out of the City. One resident explained that “[in] areas that have
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-99
been restored or renovated, residents can’t stay any longer bec ause affordability decreases.”
● More affordable and higher quality housing in other cities. As one resident put it, “Rent [is] too high - why would people live here when they coul d live more cheaply elsewhere? That is why they are moving away.”
● Lack of affordable housing for moderate-income families. The Community Development Department explained that housing developers are not interested in building moderate-income housing in Richmond because it is not financial ly feasible. This is reflected by the fact that no moderate-income housing was permi tted during 2015-2022 (Table F-2). As a result, not only low-income families, but also moderate-income families, are facing displacement pressures due to lack of supply. ● An increase in speculative investment in Richmond during and after the foreclosure crisis. Speculative investment is when people or investment companies buy up homes even though they do not plan on living in them for the purpose of making a profit. This reduces housing supply and inflates the price of housing. Betwe en 2008 and 2012, the percentage of absentee owner purchases tripled, and while it fe ll to around 20 percent in 2016, it remains higher than pre-recession levels (Bissell et a l., 2018). House flipping in Richmond also spiked after the foreclosure crisis and remains h igher than pre-recession levels. Between 2000 and 2007, owners sold 589 Richmond properties within three years of purchasing them, whereas between 2008 and 2017, there were 3,593 properties resold within three years. A 2016 analysis by RealtyTrac found that housing in the Richmond zip code 94801, which includes Central Richmond, Point Richmond, an d unincorporated North Richmond, had the highest return on investment of any zip code in the Bay Area (Bissell et al., 2018).
● Crime and Safety. During community interviews, s ome residents mentioned crime and safety impediments to access to opportunity, pointing most ofte n to recent increases in crime and problems such as gun violence. Residents attributed t hese issues to a mix of over-policing of their communities, the end of COVID-19 economi c relief programs, and failure to meet young people’s needs. One resident also attribu ted youth becoming involved in selling drugs and violent crime to the lack of sports and recreation centers that used to serve the community. While Latina residents observed in a listening session that crime has decreased over time in some formerly high crime areas like the Iron Triangle, they also noted that the rise in homeless encampments is inducing fear for residents who live nearby. In addition, some residents have pointed to crime and violence as factors that have driven long-time residents of color to leave Richmond. ● COVID-19. During COVID-19, evictions were prohibited by federal, state, a nd local eviction protections, and as of July 2022, California’s COVID-1 9 Rent Relief Program distributed an average of $12,543 each to 2,787 Richmond households who could not pay their rent due to economic hardship (HCD, 2022). Many local org anizations noted that these laws were very effective in preventing evictions. However , both programs have
F-100 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ended (the last of the emergency eviction protection law expire d in September 2021 and the Rent Relief Program stopped accepting applications in March 2022), and landlords have been allowed to start eviction proceedings since July 1, 2 022. Without these protections in place, renters who fell behind on rent during th e pandemic - who are disproportionately low-income, Black/African American, and Hisp anic/Latinx - are at increased risk of displacement. This fear is reflected in Censu s Pulse Survey data collected from June 29 to July 11, 2022, in which 40 percent of Contra Costa County adults who are not current on their rent or mortgage reported that the y are either very likely or somewhat likely to be evicted in the next two months (U.S. Cens us Bureau, 2022). That was the highest percentage recorded over the 33 weeks since Aug ust 2020 that this question has been asked in the survey.
Several efforts have been or are currently being made to prevent displacement in Richmond, but gaps remain. First, for covered units, Fair Rent and Just Cause protections help prevent displacement by ensuring that renters are not priced out of the ir homes or unfairly evicted.
According to the Rent Program, as of 2020, 8,996 rental units w ere fully covered by both Fair Rent and Just Cause protections, and an additional 11,914 units were covered by Just Cause only (Richmond Rent Program, 2021).
However, many units in Richmond are not covered by Fair Rent du e to the state Costa Hawkins law and single family home exemptions in the AB1482 Rent Caps law. Additionally, in accordance with Rent Board Regulation 202, affordable housing is exempt fr om rent stabilization but subject to Just Cause for eviction protections. To help address this gap, in February 2019, the Rent Board adopted a resolution that limits rent increases in certain LIHTC units to 5 percent annually to better protect low-income residents in these developments (Richmond Rent Program, 2021).
Second, two recent City ordinances are intended to help ensure that the benefits of new market- rate development in Richmond reach existing residents, especial ly those who are low-income.
First, the Richmond City Council passed an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2020 that requires developers of market-rate housing to include a certain percenta ge of affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee to the City that is dedicated toward developing aff ordable housing. Also in 2020, the City Council established a community benefits policy for Richmond. This policy establishes terms that project developers and related parties must comply with when working on any public-private project. These terms regulate hiring practices and employee com pensation, give Richmond- based businesses priority for awarded contracts, and require th e developer to make a financial contribution to a Community Benefits Fund. The Community Benefi ts Fund will be spent on improvements to the local community such as services provision, workforce development, and public space (City of Richmond, 2021b).
Finally, there are still sources of economic relief for Richmon d residents who fell behind on rent and mortgage payments during COVID-19. For renters, the Richmon d Rapid Response Fund (R3F) - a joint effort created during the pandemic by the City of Richmond, the Richmond Rent Program, West Contra Costa Public Education Fund, The RYSE Cent er, and Building Blocks for Kids - operates a Rent Assistance Program for Displacement and Homelessness Protection,
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-101
which provides financial assistance to individuals and househol ds at risk of losing their housing after eviction moratoria expire. R3F aims to raise $5 million f or the program (R3F, 2022).
Additionally, the California Mortgage Relief Program continues to provide federal funds to homeowners who fell behind on their home payments and/or proper ty taxes due to COVID-19.
As of July 2022, the program had provided an average of $36,811 per household to 199 households in Contra Costa County (California Mortgage Relief, 2022).
F.6.4 Homeownership
Many residents expressed concer n that homeownership is increasi ngly out of reach, especially for young adults. Residents view this as problematic because they see homeownership as offering important financial stability and protecting long-time residents against displacement.
The percentage of Richmond residents who owned their homes decr eased during the Great Recession and never recovered. In 2005, 61 percent of residents were homeowners, but in 2020, only 53 percent were homeowners (Bissell et al., 2018; ACS 5-Ye ar Data, Table B25003). The disproportionate targeting of Black/African American and Hispan ic/Latinx homebuyers for subprime loans in the 1990s and early 2000s was a key contribut ing factor to this decline.
Between 2007 and 2012, 6,300 residential properties in Richmond went into foreclosure.
Foreclosures were most likely to occur in the Iron Triangle nei ghborhood, which has high percentages of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and low -income residents (C4 et al., 2019).
Even after the recession ended, many Richmond homeowners remain ed at high risk of foreclosure. In 2013, the City estimated that 30 percent of homes in Richmond were financed with subprime loans (Bissell et al., 2018). As late as the end of 2013, when the number of foreclosures had dropped to pre-recession levels, more than one in four Rich mond homeowners owed more on their mortgage than the fair market value of the property. T his rate dropped to 4.4 percent by 2018., and as of August 2022, there are 68 foreclosed homes in Richmond (Bissell et al., 2018; RealtyTrac, 2022).
There are also racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership t hat stem from historical and ongoing discrimination in wealth and lending practices (Section F.2). According to census data, White and AAPI residents are more likely to be homeowners than Black/African American and Latinx/Hispanic residents. As Table F-30 shows, in 2020, 71 percent of AAPI residents, 67 percent of White residents, 44 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents, an d 41 percent of Black/African American residents owned their homes. Additionally, between 201 0 and 2020, the AAPI homeownership rate increased (from 60 percent to 71 percent), w hile the homeownership rate among Hispanic/Latinx households decreased (from 52 percent to 44 percent). The homeownership rate among Black/African American and White house holds remained relatively constant over that time period.
F-102 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g
Table F-30: Homeownership, Richmond (2010-2020)
Race/Ethnicity
2006-2010 2016-2020
Number Percent Number Percent
AAPI 3,009 59.9% 4,270 70.5%
Black/African American 4,849 41.0% 3,518 40.6%
Hispanic/Latinx 4,609 51.6% 5,227 43.7%
Native American* 24 40.0% 130 59.4%
White 6,318 69.7% 6,308 67.0%
Other Race 2,119 64.9% 2,033 37.0%
Multiracial 539 58.5% 1,160 47.5%
Citywide 19,194 54.0% 19,841 53.0%
Source: Just Cities analysis of ACS 5-Year Data (2006-2010 and 2016-2020), Table B25003.
During a listening session, Latina residents noted that beyond the high cost of homeownership, the process of buying a home continues to be daunting for many first-time homebuyers, even when they qualify for loans. As one resident said, “If no one i n your family has owned a house, that process is scary and you don’t know where to begin.” F.6.5 Housing and Neighborhood Quality
High-quality housing is important for the health and safety of its occupants and for ensuring that homes and neighborhoods are a source of pride for their residen ts. During community engagement, residents reported that many homes in Richmond need repairs. Residents shared experiences of mold, heating issues, flooding, pests, and lead. However, homeowners noted that repair costs are often prohibitive, and that they were not aware of City programs to help with these costs. Community-based organizations cited various reasons why landlords are not held accountable for making necessary housing repairs for their tenants. BALA emphasized that many renters do not complain to their landlords due to fear of retal iation - a fear which Hispanic/Latinx residents noted is heightened for undocumented residents. Addit ionally, CCSLS mentioned that
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-103
HACCC is hesitant to call out landlords who rent to voucher hol ders for bad behavior because HACCC does not want to lose landlords’ participation in the program. And APEN noted that some Laotian immigrants are averse to complaining in general.
Residents also cited abandoned properties and illegal dumping as major issues in Richmond. As of August 2022, there were 170 vacant lots and 84 vacant proper ties in Richmond (Richmond Code Enforcement Division, 2022), which are an easy target for illegal dumping, are dangerous for children, attract criminal activity, and are a fire hazard. These vacant buildings, which the Richmond Code Enforcement Division inspects and may clean up, a re extremely costly for the City. Residents also complained about trash on the streets. How ever, others acknowledged that their neighborhoods are cleaner than they used to be.
Residents and community-based organizations explained that poor quality housing, vacant properties, and illegal dumping contribute to blight. As the Ho using Authority of Contra Costa County described it, when residents see blight in their neighbo rhoods, they think: “The City doesn’t care, so why should we?”
As Figure F-28 shows, between 2016 and 2021, the Code Enforcement Department increased its efforts to address blight in the City, with the number of code enforcement cases nearly doubling from 1,445 to 3,079. However, the number of cases fell by more than half in 2021, likely impacted by COVID-19 shelter in place rules.
Figure F-28: Code Enforcement Cases, Richmond (2013-2021)
Source: Transparent Richmond, Code Enforcement Cases.
As Table-31 shows, between 2013 and 2021, nearly half of code e nforcement cases were regarding property maintenance. Other types of cases that repre sented more than 10 percent of total cases were related to vehicle abatement, illegal dumping, or a vacant building or property (Transparent Richmond, 2022).
F-104 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g
Table F-31: Types of Code Enforcement Cases, Richmond (2013-2021)
Case Type Number Percent
Property maintenance 8,421 44.9%
Vehicle abatement 2,678 14.3%
Multiple violations 2,576 13.7%
Illegal dumping 1,979 10.6%
Vacant building or property 1,872 10.0%
Zoning 630 3.4%
Nuisance 400 2.1%
Coinspection 136 0.7%
Health and safety 38 0.2%
Hoarder 28 0.1%
Notes: The “Vacant building or property” category includes cases listed as “CE vacant building,” “Vacant commercial,” “Vacant property,” “Vacant residential multi-unit,” and “Vacant residential single family.” The “Vehicle abatement” category includes cases listed as “CE vehicle abatement” and “Vehicle abatement.” The “Zoning” category includes cases listed as “CE Zoning” and “Zoning.”
Source: Just Cities analysis of Transparent Richmond Code Enforcement Records, 2013-2021.
During this time period, code enforcement cases were concentrat ed in the central Richmond neighborhoods of Iron Triangle, Shields-Reid, Richmore Village/ Metro Square, Belding/Woods, Coronado, Cortez/Stege, and Pullman; and in the northern areas of Parchester Village and Fairmede/Hilltop neighborhoods, all of which have high percenta ges of Black/African American
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-105
and Hispanic/Latinx residents. This information is shown in Fig ure F-29, a heat map that shows the concentration of City code enforcement complaints filed with the City from 2013 to 2021.
F-106 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-29: Code Enforcement Cases, Richmond (2013-2021) Source: Just Cities analysis of Transparent Richmond Code Enforcement Records, 2013-2021.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-107
Residents and community groups expressed mixed opinions on the effectiveness of code enforcement. The percentage of respondents who rated code enfor cement as excellent or good in the Richmond Community Survey declined from 22 percent in 20 15 to 12 percent in 2021 (National Research Center and Polco, 2021), though this decline may have been influenced by COVID-19 rules regarding code enforcement inspections. However, CCSLS noted in an interview that Richmond does a better job of handling housing habitabilit y issues than other parts of the county because of its code enforcement program. To address rema ining shortcomings, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) noted in an in terview that it is crafting a more proactive rental inspection policy that it hopes the City will adopt.
The Richmond Community Foundation (RCF) is also engaged in effo rts to address blight in Richmond through home rehabilitation. The City of Richmond used to directly rehabilitate homes through the Richmond RDA, but stopped operating this program af ter the dissolution of state redevelopment agencies. In 2015, the Richmond City Council vote d to issue up to $3 million in Social Impact Bonds for the purpose of rehabilitating and repai ring abandoned residential properties in the City, an initiative that is facilitated by RC F through the Richmond Housing Renovation Program. RCF works wi th the Code Enforcement Division to identify the City’s most blighted properties for rehabilitation, and RCF acquires the pr operties (Mechanics Bank funded the entire bond series during the five-year pilot). RCF noted i n an interview that most of the rehabilitated properties were in the Coronado, Santa Fe, Iron T riangle, and southern Richmond areas. Once the homes are rehabilitated, families who participa te in SparkPoint Contra Costa, a local financial services program, are given the first opportuni ty to purchase the homes through the organization’s First Time Home Buyer Program. Buyers are ty pically moderate-income families. As of July 2022, the Richmond Housing Renovation Prog ram had completed and sold 23 properties to first-time homebuyers and reduced code enforce ment costs for the City by $44,000 per year (Richmond Community Foundation, 2022).
F.6.6 Access to Subsidized Housing
Richmond residents may receive federal housing assistance if they live in one of the 26 affordable housing developments in Richmond or if they are a recipient of a Section 8 HCV. However, far more residents meet the federal requirements to qualify for sub sidized housing than receive it.
HACCC’s waiting list for PBVs reopened in August 2022 for County residents ages 62 and older, but for younger residents and choice-based vouchers (which cons titute 80 percent of HACCC’s vouchers), the waiting list is currently closed and not accepti ng new applicants. Additionally, not all the available vouchers are being used. HACCC’s voucher utilization rate was 91.2 percent in August 2022. While this is far better than RHA’s performance wh en it controlled the City’s vouchers, there are still 808 families in Contra Costa County w ho are not a part of the program but are eligible (HUD, 2022).
For many residents, the inability to receive a voucher has majo r consequences. One resident noted that her parents became homeless and her friend stayed in a domestic violence situation
F-108 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g because they were unable to obtain a voucher. Additionally, as described in Section F.2 voucher recipients face many barriers to using them, especially in high er-opportunity neighborhoods, which include SOI discrimination, insufficient search time, and the value of the voucher being too low to afford high-quality housing.
Fortunately, affordable housing in Richmond is not generally at risk of converting to market-rate.
According to 2022 analysis by the California Housing Partnershi p Corporation, all subsidized affordable rental housing in Richmond is at low-risk of conversion to market-rate housing by 2033 except 10 units at Rubicon Homes that are at moderate risk. The restrictions on these units are set to expire by 2029 (CHPC, 2022).
F.6.7 Contributing Factors to Disproportionate Housing Needs Several key factors contribute to the disproportionate housing needs in Richmond discussed in this section. These include:
● Historic and ongoing discrimination. Discriminatory policies and practices have resulted in disparities in income and wealth that cause residen ts of color - especially Black/African American residents - to disproportionately feel t he effects of housing problems today.
● Rising housing unaffordability. As housing costs rise and wages remain stagnant, residents are increasingly unable to afford rent. This puts residents who are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Laotian, and low-income at increased risk of housing issues such as displacement, overcrowding, and inability to access homeownership. ● Lack of City capacity. Without a dedicated housing department or adequate staff in the Community Development Department, the City is unable to adequat ely administer and enforce many of the promising housing laws that the City Council has passed. ● Failure to address blight. Vacant properties are disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods and generate illegal dumping, crime, and safety hazards. ● Lack of housing subsidies. Many Richmond residents who meet the income requirements for federal housing subsidies cannot obtain them d ue to long waiting lists.
This forces many low-income residents to spend a high percentage of their income on rent and forgo other basic needs.
● Structural barriers to accessing housing benefits and protectio ns. There are loopholes and omissions in local, state, and federal laws that prevent residents from obtaining the housing support they need. At the local level, Ri chmond’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance does not adequately protect formerly incarcer ated residents from landlord discrimination. At the state level, Costa Hawkins is a major barrier to meaningful rent control. And at the federal level, prohibitions on using f ederal funds to serve undocumented people leaves Richmond’s undocumented residents with unmet needs.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-109
● Community opposition. In an interview, the Community Development Department noted that the City often encounters community opposition when buildi ng new affordable multi- family housing that makes it more difficult to complete project s. The Community Development Department explained that NIMBY attitudes materiali ze in the form of opposition to new housing based on potential increases in traff ic or loss of open space.
For example, residents in the Hilltop area recently opposed a p roposed 100 percent affordable housing complex, instead favoring a mixed-income dev elopment. In addition, innovative strategies for housing Richmond’s unhoused populatio n, such as building tiny homes in a vacant lot in the City, have been defeated by resident opposition.
Section F.7 Housing Barriers Facing Other
Marginalized Groups
Several groups, including Richmond’s unhoused, undocumented, disabled, elderly, and LGBTQ+ residents, former foster youth, and single mothers with childre n also face additional housing barriers that warrant special attention. The rest of this secti on examines these barriers and the accessibility of related housing supports. Because there is limited government survey data on the housing needs of these populations in Richmond, data from local community-based organizations and from interviews with residents are also included.
F.7.1 Unhoused Residents
According to the 2022 Point-in-Time Count, which is a survey co nducted in every city across the country on one night of each year, Richmond is home to 632 unhoused residents - by far the most of any city in Contra Costa County. The number of Richmond unh oused individuals has nearly doubled since 2019 (Table F-32).9 Research, including Point in Time data from other jurisdictions, shows that Black/African American residents, formerly incarcerated residents, children, LGBTQ+ youth, seniors, and people with mental health conditions are di sproportionately affected by homelessness (Bissell et al., 2018).
9 Point-in-Time data is generally considered to undercount the actual unhoused population.
F-110 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-32: Unhoused People in Top 5 Contra Costa County Cities (2019 and 2022) City 2019 2022
Countywide 1,627 2,329
Richmond 333 632
Concord 350 436
Antioch 226 342
Pittsburg 128 221
Martinez 156 106
Source: 2022 Point-in-Time Count, Contra Costa Health Services.
Homelessness is an urgent concern for residents. As one unhouse d resident described it, “We are in a state of crisis.” During community engagement events, residents focused on rising homelessness as a key issue that the City should address. Likew ise, according to the 2021 Richmond Community Survey, 81 percent of respondents said increasing services to support the homeless population was an essential or very important priority for the City (National Research Center and Polco, 2021).
Residents and community-based organizations offered various exp lanations for the homelessness crisis. These include the lack of affordable housing in Richmond, economic fallout from COVID-19, the lasting economic impacts of the Great Recession, and stagnant wages. One unhoused resident stated that rising homelessness is a result of an “extraction process” in which the City favors businesses over people in order to maximize profit.
Community-based organizations also noted that “not in my backyard” (“NIMBY”) attitudes prevent practical solutions to homelessness. The Greater Richmond Inter faith Program (GRIP), which provides services to unhoused residents, described a recent inc ident when local residents stopped tiny homes from being placed on a vacant lot in Richmon d. As one unhoused resident said, “It seems like people want to care, but as soon as the he lp is near them, they change their minds.” A staff member at SOS! Richmond, a housing advocacy org anization led by unhoused residents, emphasized that NIMBYism persists because the lack o f interpersonal relationships between housed and unhoused people manifests in negative stereo types about unhoused people. SOS! Richmond is addressing this by showcasing the succ esses of unhoused people in the local media, including the organization’s efforts to bring water, showers, and plants to encampments and to help unhoused residents obtain their driver’s license.
Unhoused residents described many challenges associated with homelessness. They noted that being homeless is a trap because having an address and a stable home are critical to obtaining and keeping a job. Without a job, unhoused residents cannot aff ord housing and remain unhoused. Unhoused residents also described poor living conditi ons in encampments. One resident emphasized that unhoused people need somewhere safe to put their items during the
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-111
day while they are looking for em ployment and services so their belongings are not at risk.
Regarding the lack of basic safety that unhoused residents expe rience, she explained, “Living in fear is a horrible way to live.”
Support Services for Unhoused Residents
The Contra Costa County Department of Health and local communit y-based organizations offer programs and support for unhoused people in Richmond. Homelessn ess programs run by the Department of Health have relatively high success rates, but lack the resources to place enough people in permanently affordable housing. Between 2012 and 2016, Rapid Rehousing programs in the County placed clients in permanent housing 73 percent of the time and helped them avoid homelessness 93 percent of the time, and Permanent Supportive H ousing programs helped 96 percent of clients retain their housing (Contra Costa County Co nsortium (C4) et al., 2019).
However, in 2016, out of the approximately 8,500 homeless peopl e that come into contact with the Continuum of Care system annually, these two programs had only 218 beds and served about 1,000 people each. The system has the most difficulty placing p eople in permanent housing (Contra Costa County Consortium (C4) et al., 2019). However, wh en unhoused people are able to receive permanent housing, residents explained that it can b e transformative. As one beneficiary of Project Homekey, a State program that helps publ ic agencies develop housing for unhoused people, explained, the program “put me off the streets and got me a home, which allowed me to get a job.”
Key barriers to accessing homelessness services include:
● A potential mismatch between the types of shelters available an d the populations who need services. During the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s 2019 Housing Inventory Count, only 40 and 60 percent of Contra Costa County’s emergency shelter housing beds were full; but this may reflect a lack of options for certain populations rather than a lack of demand for shelter. For examp le, some shelters only accept families, formerly incarcerated people, or people of a certain faith. ● Inadequacy of homeless shelters. GRIP noted that the lack of privacy and strict rules in shelters deter some unhoused people from seeking out those services. ● A gap between available services and the people who need them. One unhoused resident explained that the general attitude toward obtaining s ervices is “I don’t know where to go.” Another said that they needed someone to “sit there and walk them through [how to access services] or it won’t happen.” And unhoused residents explained that even after initially accessing services, it can be difficult to continue going. They suggested that this could be addressed by bringing services to people rather t han asking people to seek them out.
● Lack of trust in institutions . Unhoused residents expressed having lost faith in City government and politicians to address their problems. According to one resident, asking for help can be “daunting” because previous experiences with th e City have traumatized unhoused residents. As a result, unhoused residents explained t hat when accessing
F-112 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g services, they need to be able to create relationships with people they can trust. This starts with having a caseworker who shows up for them consistently, bu t they said this has not been their reality.
● Unhoused residents noted that outside social influences, ment al health issues, and addiction are other reasons why people in their situation do not utilize available services.
Unhoused residents expressed a belief that to address their problems, leadership can and should start with themselves. They pointed to SOS! Richmond as a beacon of how to build relationships, trust, and leadership among unhoused residents so they can fight for policy changes.
F.7.2 Residents with Disabilities
Residents with disabilities face a variety of housing needs bas ed on the type of disability they have and their living situation. Data on the population served by the DDS offers a small sample of the living situations of people with disabilities. As Table F-33 shows, in Richmond, the vast majority (83 percent) of residents with developmental disabilit ies who receive DDS services live in their family’s home, 10 percent live in independent or suppo rted living settings, 5 percent live in community care facilities, and 1 percent live in a foster/family home.
Table F-33: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence, Richmond (2020) Residence Type Number Percent
Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 765 83.0%
Independent/Supported Living 90 9.8%
Community Care Facility 43 4.7%
Foster/Family Home 13 1.4%
Other 11 1.2%
Intermediate Care Facility 0 0%
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence, 2020.
Key barriers to housing for residents with disabilities include:
● Inadequate housing options in Richmond. Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (CCSLS) emphasized that the lack of very-low income housing in Richmond is problematic because some people with disabilities make very little money. Additionally, the number of individuals with psychiatric disabilities experiencing homeless ness, incarceration, or
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-113
residence in congregate facilities suggests that there is unmet need for supportive housing for that population (C4 et al., 2019).
● A lack of dedicated funding sources for housing people with dis abilities. According to RCEB, there is insufficient funding for housing for people w ith disabilities because federal Medicaid funding cannot be used for room and board and the only source of state funding is DDS. However, updates to the City of Richmond’s 2016 Zoning Ordinance were intended to create additional housing for people with disabilit ies. The City established additional concessions for development projects with housing un its affordable to low- income households and accessible to persons with disabilities (City of Richmond, 2021). ● Unmet in-home assistance needs. CCSLS noted that the shortage of caregivers providing in-home supportive services is problematic because pe ople with disabilities need caregivers to be able to live in their homes safely. RCEB also noted that overcrowding is a barrier to providing in-home supportive services. ● Barriers to independent living. It is likely that not all residents with disabilities who want to and are able to live in independent living settings have the opportunity to do so. First, CCSLS explained that disabled residents sometimes cannot take advantage of affordable housing subsidies because program rules prevent family members (who may be their caretakers) from moving in with them. Additionally, RCEB also n oted that residents with disabilities sometimes remain in their family home because the family is dependent on the disabled person’s Social Security Insurance (SSI) income to aff ord housing. In addition, supportive housing often consists primarily of one-bedroom apar tments, which is problematic for residents with disabilities who need a live-in aide with their own bedroom (C4 et al., 2019).
● Landlord discrimination. RCEB explained that while landlord discrimination is typically not a major problem for residents with physical disabilities, it is a barrier for residents with severe IDDs.
As a result of the combined effects of poverty and stress on physical and mental health, it appears that Black/African American Richmond residents may be more likely than residents of other racial and ethnic groups to have a disability, putting them at heighte ned risk for the disability-related housing barriers described above. In Richmond, 21 percent of Bl ack/African American residents have a disability, compared to 14 percent of White residents, 1 2 percent of AAPI residents, and 8 percent of Hispanic/Latinx residents (Table F-34).
F-114 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-34: Disability Rate by Race and Ethnicity (2019) Race Richmond Contra Costa County
Asian American 12.1% 8%
Black/African American 20.8% 16%
Hispanic/Latinx 6% 9.5%
Native American*10 4.2% 21.2%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
6.0% 9.6%
White 13.7% 12.6%
Other Race 5.2% 7.4%
Multiracial 14.7% 9.8%
Overall Disability Rate 10.2% 8.9%
Source: ABAG analysis of American Community Survey (2015-2019).
Despite heightened needs, Black/African American residents with disabilities may be less likely to receive the services they need. RCEB explained that because most of its funding sources support independent living, the organization has disproportionately served White people because they are more able to afford to live independently.
Two key agencies provide housing and other services to Richmond residents who have disabilities. Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services is responsible for coordinating the provision of supportive services, including housing, for residents with psychiatric disabilities in Contra Costa County. Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) coordinates the provision of supportive services for individuals with IDDs in the service area that includes Richmond.
F.7.3 Formerly Incarcerated Residents
According to the Safe Return Project, an organization that work s to build power for formerly incarcerated people in Richmond and across California, as a res ult of the “War on Drugs,” the massive effort launched in the early 1980s that led to increase d policing and incarceration, the rate of prison admissions grew 486 percent in Contra Costa County between 1970 and 2000 (Safe
10 Asterisks denote small sample size (<100) throughout this docu ment, meaning that the estimate has a high margin of error and may not be accurate.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-115
Return Project, 2011). As a city with a majority of Black/Afric an American and Hispanic/Latinx residents, Richmond was disproportionately affected (Safe Return Project, 2011).
As Table F-35 shows, in 2020, 1,149,800 residents were incarcer ated in Contra Costa County jails, and there were no major racial disparities in incarceration rates.
Table F-35: Incarceration by Race, Jail Population in Contra Costa County (2020) Race Number Incarcerated
Percentage of
Incarcerated
Population
Percentage of County
Population
AAPI 180,761 15.7% 17.0%
Black/African American 103,467 9.0% 8.4%
Hispanic/Latinx 293,079 25.5% 25.6%
Native American 3,311 0.3% 0.2%
White 523,428 45.5% 28%
Multiracial 45,754 4.0% 5.1%
Source: Incarceration data from California Department of Finance, P-2D County Population by Total Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Race (2020). Population estimates from ABAG analysis of ACS 5-Year data (2015-2019), Table B03002. .
Formerly incarcerated residents in Richmond face severe housing needs. According to self- reporting data from the 1,400 unhoused individuals served by Rubicon’s West County Economic Empowerment Services, between 2012 and 2016, 43 percent had been convicted of a crime and 39 percent had served time in prison or jail (Bissell et al., 2 018). And in a Safe Return Project survey of Richmond residents who were released within the previous 3 to 18 months, 70 percent of respondents were essentially homeless at the time of the survey. This included 34 percent who were staying with friends or family, 11 percent in short-term s helters, and 25 percent in halfway houses or residential programs. During the first three days aft er release, 22 percent of respondents reported that they could not find a safe place to s leep, and during the first month after release, nearly half stayed rent-free with family or friends, and one in five were homeless or stayed in short-term shelters. Additionally, one-third of respo ndents had lived in at least three different places since their release from prison or jail (Safe Return Project, 2014).
Formerly incarcerated residents are more likely to end up in un stable housing or unhoused for various reasons, including:
● Financial barriers. In the Safe Return Project survey described above, the most common challenge that respondents faced to accessing housing was finan cial, with 60 percent
F-116 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g reporting difficulties affording a credit check, deposit, and rent (Safe Return Project, 2014).
Affordability issues are exacerbated due to the limited employm ent options of formerly incarcerated residents that result from a lack of job experience and hiring discrimination. ● Barriers in the housing search process. The majority of formerly incarcerated residents do not receive any housing-related counseling or support prior to release. Additionally, one-third of Safe Return Project survey respondents said they h ad faced landlord discrimination (Safe Return Project, 2014). While the City’s Fa ir Chance Housing Ordinance was passed to combat discrimination against formerly incarcerated people after this survey was conducted, the Safe Return Project noted in an interview that discrimination persists because of loopholes in the ordinance. The City reports that it is still in the process of fully implementing the Fair Chance Hous ing Ordinance, which includes conducting outreach to affordable housing providers, c reating data collection systems, and creating an appeals process for tenants. However, the City acknowledges loopholes in the Ordinance and is currently working to improve and potentially expand it. ● Barriers to subsidized housing. Until the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance was passed, many individuals with a criminal record were expressly excluded from publicly subsidized housing and all other forms of housing. Additionally, many indi viduals who qualify for a Housing Choice Voucher lack support to navigate the affordable housing system and face long waiting lists after they apply (Safe Return Project, 2014). ● Barriers to accessing supportive and transitional housing. According to the Safe Return Project, homeless shelters often do not offer the supportive services that formerly incarcerated people need to achieve stability. Currently, the o nly transitional housing in the Richmond area is for individuals in recovery from substance abuse, which leaves no transitional housing options for formerly incarcerated people w ho do not face this issue (Safe Return Project, 2014).
F.7.4 Undocumented Residents
While specific data on undocumented residents in Richmond is no t available, other research suggests that they face severe barriers to housing. Undocumented and mixed legal status renter households are more likely than native-born households to exper ience housing cost burden (Allen, 2020). Additionally, a study of undocumented Mexican an d Central American immigrants found that undocumented immigrant households are far less likel y than documented immigrant households to be homeowners, and are more likely to live in overcrowded homes, report structural deficiencies with their homes, and express concern about the qu ality of public services and environmental conditions in their neighborhoods (Hall and Green man, 2013). Barriers to legally obtaining housing and a job also place undocumented residents a t higher risk of homelessness.
In fact, GRIP noted in an interview that most of the residents in its homeless shelter are undocumented.
Undocumented residents face numerous barriers to safe and affor dable housing. Residents explained that their undocumented friends and family cannot app ly to most rental housing or
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-117
obtain a mortgage to buy a home because they lack a Social Secu rity Number. Additionally, residents stated - and research confirms - that private landlor ds often refuse to rent to undocumented immigrants because they do not have provable streams of income, credit reports, or history of former rentals (Ayano, 2021). Residents also reported that undocumented residents are also more likely to face landlord abuse and unsafe living conditions because they are hesitant to complain due to fear of eviction or deportation. Likewise, G RIP explained that some undocumented residents do not seek out services because they are afraid they will get turned in to law enforcement.
Finally, undocumented immigrants are excluded from federal subs idies, including housing subsidies, Medicaid-funded supportive services, or services fro m organizations that accept federal dollars (like Bay Area Legal Aid). One resident noted t hat this was a particular challenge during COVID-19 because undocumented immigrants were not eligib le for federal stimulus checks or the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.
F.7.5 Low-Income Seniors
As Figure F-30 shows, almost 61 percent of lower-income senior households in Richmond are cost burdened, meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
F-118 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-30: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level, Richmond (2013-2017)
Source: ABAG analysis of HUD, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
Many residents noted that rising rents especially hurt seniors because they are living on fixed incomes. Additionally, CCSLS emphasized in an interview that af fordable housing funded with Low Income Housing Tax Credits is not sustainably affordable for seniors unless it is coupled with project-based vouchers because seniors have static income but r ents continue to rise. CCSLS also noted that homelessness is an increasing problem for senio rs. CCSLS explained that Adult Protective Services in Contra Costa County used to have a grant to prevent homelessness for seniors, but it is “woefully under-resourced.”
F.7.6 LGBTQ+ Residents
Though local data is not available, national data suggests that Richmond residents who are LGBTQ+ face additional housing barriers due to the combined eff ects of housing discrimination (Section F.3.1.3.6) and employment discrimination. According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, LGBTQ+ people are 15 percent more likely than non-LGBTQ+ people to be poor, making it more difficult to afford housing. Additionally, 50 percent of LGBTQ+ adults own their homes, compared to 70 percent of non-LGBTQ adults. Disparities in homeownership exist among LGBTQ+ couples as well - 64 percent of same-sex couples own their homes, versu s 75 percent of different-sex couples. And LGBTQ+ elders are more likely to live alone than n on-LGBTQ+ elders, which can
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-119
create challenges with independent living and financial stability (Romera, Goldberg, and Vasquez, 2020).
LGBTQ+ youth are also at increased risk of homelessness. Studie s find that LGBTQ+ youth are more than twice as likely to be unhoused than heterosexual, cis gender youth (Chapin Hall and VOYC, 2017). Other studies have found that family rejection of LGBTQ+ youth is a major factor contributing to high levels of homelessness (Romera, Goldberg, and Vasquez, 2020). Unhoused LGBTQ+ youth and adults also face barriers when trying to acces s homeless shelters and services, including harassment and violence and staff who are n ot appropriately equipped to serve LGBTQ+ people. Additionally, sex-segregated facilities le ad many transgender people to go unsheltered rather than receive services (Chapin Hall and VOYC, 2017).
F.7.7 Former Foster Youth
When youth in California age out of the foster care system at a ge 21, they must find their own housing and lose access to resources like a monthly stipend, me ntal health care, and case management services. Additionally, challenges associated with being a foster youth lead to lower high school and college graduation rates, making it harder for former foster youth to find employment and afford housing. Lack of financial support from parents and mental health issues can exacerbate these challenges (Dion et al., 2022)
While specific data on Richmond is not available, research shows that former foster youth are at increased risk of housing instability. In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago’s Chapin Hall, more than one in four former foster youth in California e xperienced at least one night of homelessness in the previous two years. Nearly 30 percent of respondents said they had “couch surfed,” or slept at friends’ houses, because they did not have anywhere else to sleep (Courtney et al, 2020).
Richmond youth who are transitioning out of foster care can acc ess assistance through Contra Costa Health Services’ Transitional Living Program (TLP), which provides temporary housing for youth between the ages of 18 and 24 who are homeless or are exi ting the foster care system.
Youth in the TLP program receive case management services that prepare them to transition back home, into permanent supportive housing, or to living inde pendently (Contra Costa Health Services, 2022b). However, it is likely that some former foster youth do not receive the support they need.
F.7.8 Single Female Headed Households with Children
Finally, single mothers with children may struggle to afford ho using if they only have a single income. This is an acute challenge in Richmond, where a far hig her percentage of residents live in female-headed households (17 percent) than in Contra Costa C ounty (12 percent) or the Bay Area (10 percent). 1,351 female-headed households with children in Richmond live below federal poverty limits. As a result, children in single-parent househol ds are more likely to live in low-
F-120 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g income neighborhoods in Richmond with fewer educational and economic opportunities (Section F.3.2.4).
Section F.8 Analysis of Sites Inventory
The State of California requires potential new housing sites to be analyzed and evaluated in a manner consistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AB 686). The framework for this analysis utilizes fair housing indicators used throughout this assessment to see if the sites identified will improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity in Richmond. Where the analysis indic ates that Richmond does not have sufficient sites available to meet its RHNA goals in a man ner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, the Housing Element must include strategies to address this, such as making additional sites available. Appendix B identifies that there is sufficient capacity in the sites inventory to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
This analysis is based on information identified in August 2022:
1. 517 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) : Affordability level is based upon an ABAG regional analysis contained in Appendix B-3 Table B-2.
2. Housing projects that have been approved or are under constr uction “ Entitled and Approved Projects” with an anticipated total of 1,984 units, of which 1,486 may be above moderate income.
3. Housing projects that currently have preliminary permitting applications or applications under City review. “Preliminary Pipeline,” with an anticipated total of 1,984 units, of which 1,486 are above moderate income units.
4. Available land in Richmond to build new housing units “Site Inventory” with an anticipated total of 784 units of which 419 could be very low or low-income housing units.
The following Table F-36 provides a summary of the sites invent ory of units by anticipated affordability levels.
Table F-36: Richmond Housing Development Potential and RHNA Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
RHNA 2022-2031 See Very
Low 840 485
638 1,651 3,614
1,325
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-121
Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
ADUs See Very
Low 155 155 155 52 517
Entitled/Approved Projects* See Very
Low 172 136 519 2,683 3,510
Preliminary Pipeline* See Very
Low 280 132 86 1,486 1,984
Sites Inventory* See Very
Low/Low 419 167 198 784
Total 1,449 927 4,419 6,795
Surplus 124 289 2,768 3,181
*Considers net new units only.
The Preliminary Pipeline describes projects that are currently preliminary applications or under review by the Planning Division. The Entitled/Approved Projects describes projects that have been approved by the Planning Division or are under construction.
Source: City of Richmond, LWC, Just Cities, August 2022 The City projects a surplus of about 3,181 housing units toward s meeting its RHNA total goals, which includes a surplus of moderate (289) and very low and low income (124) units.
The sites inventory analysis includes entitled/approved projects (diamonds in the following maps), preliminary pipeline projects (squares in the following maps), and site inventory sites (circles in the following maps). The site analysis does not include ADUs since it is unclear where ADUs may be built, given that ADU development is now available to many property owners across the City.
Key Findings:
The following Key Findings are based on neighborhood and sub-ar ea analysis of projects and sites as of August 2022 that consider the potential effects on access to opportunity, segregation, and displacement risk and disproportionate housing needs. ● All sites identified in this analysis are vacant land. And on ly one pipeline project demolishes low-income units that it will replace with new low-income units. ● Affordable housing projects are already in development or cou ld potentially occur in low to moderate-income areas, including such as Iron Triangle, Beld ing Woods, Coronado, Park Plaza and Marina Bay.
● Affordable housing projects and potential sites are concentra ted in lower-income areas (sub-areas 3, 4, 5), rather than higher resource areas (sub-areas 1 and 2).
F-122 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● Above-moderate income projects and sites are located in multi ple neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement with increasing housing cost burdens ( s u c h a s Fairmede/Hilltop, Santa Fe, Coronado, Iron Triangle, East of Ma rina Bay and Southwest Annex areas).
● Despite RHNA goals being met, insufficient housing is propose d in overcrowded neighborhoods like Belding/Woods and Atchison Village.
● Neighborhoods in the central most part of the City are experi encing the highest rates of pollution burden and have the most housing sites and units in d evelopment or proposed.
This includes neighborhoods like Iron Triangle, Coronado, Richm ond Annex, and Hilltop District.
F.8.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation
Strategies to increase racial desegregation in segregated neigh borhoods, without exacerbating gentrification and displacement trends, requires efforts to inc rease affordable housing in higher income neighborhoods where White residents tend to reside. Howe ver, as seen in Table F-37, using HCD’s criteria for low-income housing sites, there are no vacant properties that qualify as a low-income housing site. The table does show that there are above moderate income sites and two proposed mixed income housing projects contemplated in the only neighborhood that is not majority people of color–the Point Richmond neighborhood.
Without intervening policies, such as the City’s Inclusionary H ousing Ordinance, housing development projects may perpetuate Richmond’s current patterns of racial segregation.
Recommended strategies include the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the recently amended Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in achieving desegregation and fair housing priorities.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-123
Figure F-31: Percent of Total Non-White Population
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-124 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g F.8.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
There are two main strategies through new housing development f or Richmond to increase resident access to opportunities: 1) increase affordable housing in higher income neighborhoods; and 2) increase economic, educational, and environmental invest ments in lower income neighborhoods.
Regarding the strategy of increasing affordable housing access in higher income neighborhoods, in reviewing information in Table F-37, none of the potential h ousing sites in higher-income neighborhoods meet HCD’s criteria for low-income housing sites; therefore, all anticipated sites in these high-income neighborhoods are shown as above-moderate income housing sites, with the exception of one potential low-income housing site in Marin a Bay and a few mixed income potential projects in Point Richmond and Southwest Annex. Usin g HCD’s criteria alone, these anticipated housing development projects appear to perpetuate the lack of access of low-income households to high opportunity areas, where higher income households reside.
Recommended strategies include evaluating Richmond’s amended Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in creating affordable housing opportunities in highe r income neighborhoods through the production of on-site affordable housing units in market ra te projects. In addition, since the City’s identification of approximately 120 vacant small parcel sites suitable for 1-2 units of housing are predominantly in higher income neighborhoods, the City can engage in strategic partnerships with affordable housing developers that develop smaller units t ypes, including single-family and duplex units, to align objectives of creating affordable housin g opportunities in higher income neighborhoods. Regarding the strategy of improving conditions i n lower income neighborhoods, as reflected in Figure F-35, neighborhoods in the central most part of the City, including Iron Triangle and Coronado, Pan Handle Annex and Fairmede/Hilltop ar e experiencing the highest rates of pollution burden, and have the most new potential hous ing sites and projects. This strategy builds upon Richmond’s i nnovative integration of healt h and wellness in land use planning, including the adoption of a Community Health and Well ness Element in its General Plan, and Health in All Policies Ordinance, one of the first in the nation (Community Health and Wellness, Richmond General Plan 2030). As part of Richmond’s health equity approach, the City has engaged in place-based planning efforts and the investment of new climate resilience and infrastructure projects in lower income neighborhoods, includin g Iron Triangle, Santa Fe, and Coronado. Projects include, but are not limited to, the Yellow Brick Road Walkable Neighborhood Plan, Rumrill Blvd/13th Street Complete Street, Resilience Road map, Unity Park, and Harbour- 8th Park.
For example, Phase 3 of the Yellow Brick Road Project (YBR) in Richmond's Iron Triangle neighborhood will install human-scale street lighting, litter a batement facilities, wayfinding and placemaking signage, and public art elements to 8th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. The Project also proposes decorative fencing at the two parks that bookend the YBR route (Elm Playlot and Harbour-8 Park) as well as a litter abatement and public ar t maintenance campaign for
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-125
residents who live within a 1/4-mile of the project site. This project will clean and beautify the project site and place-making elements to complete the community's vision to create clean, green and safe streets for biking and walking in the Iron Triangle neighborhood.
F-126 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-32: Percent of Low-Moderate Income Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-127
Figure F-33: Environmental Justice Communities
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-128 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g F.8.3 Potential Effects on Displacement Risk and Disproportionate Housing Needs
All new housing sites identified in this analysis are vacant la nd. Only one pipeline project demolishes existing low-income units that will be later replace d with new low-income units.
However, this does not negate the existence of market force displacement and the fact that most of the new market rate units identified in the sites inventory, using HCD’s established methodology, are in areas considered vulnerable to displacement.
Sites Inventory: As mentioned in Table F-36, the City has identified available sites suitable to potentially accommodate 198 above moderate housing units. With the exception of one parcel, these sites are small vacant parcels suitable for developing 1-2 housing units. There is one parcel suitable for accommodating around 34 units, located in Fairmede /Hilltop. As seen in Figure F- 35, many of these parcels identified as potential above-moderat e income housing are in neighborhoods considered vulnerable to displacement by the UC B erkeley Urban Displacement Project. With the exception of the Fairmede/Hilltop parcel, given the small unit types anticipated and the dispersed nature of the above-moderate income sites, th ere may be less impact on the displacement risk of Richmond’s residents with disproportionate housing needs. The information in Table F-37 highlights that above moderate-income projects an d sites are also located in neighborhoods experiencing high housing cost burdens like Santa Fe, Coronado, and Fairmede/Hilltop.
Entitled/Approved Projects: As provided in Table F-37, there are 3,510 approved and unde r construction units, 76 percent of which are identified as producing above-moderate income units (2,683 units). These above-moderate income housing units are mostly in larger housing projects that range from 68 units to 1,193 units (Point Molate Mixed Use Development Project).
The above-moderate income projects are primarily located in dis placement vulnerable neighborhoods. These anticipated projects appear to potentiall y have considerable impacts on the displacement risk of Richmond’s residents with disproportionate housing needs, as identified above. However, given that these projects have already been ap proved, City action on these sites is limited.
Preliminary Pipeline Projects: As provided in Table F-40, there are 1,984 anticipated new units in the preliminary pipeline, 75 percent of which are identified as potentially above-moderate income units. As seen in Figure F-36, with the exception of th e Quarry Redesign preliminary pipeline project located in Point Richmond, all the above-moder ate income preliminary pipeline projects are in neighborhoods considered vulnerable to displacement by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project. These projects range from 85 to 349 housing units.
These anticipated projects appear to potentially have considerable impacts on the displacement risk of Richmond’s residents with disproportionate housing needs, as identified above.
Recommendations: Given the seriousness of the fair housing implications of the new proposed above-moderate income housing projects, the City should engage in a Fair Housing, socio-
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-129
economic impact and displacement assessment of each new above-m oderate income housing project over a certain unit size, such as 10 units, as part of its review process (see Mundie and Associates, 2005, for an example). Pursuant to the assessment findings, strategies to prevent displacement, rather than traditional mitigation approaches, should be implemented. The City can partner with affordable housing developers to transform identif ied available sites into affordable housing, including homeownership opportunities and require on-s ite affordable housing units be provided as part of above moderate income sites. The current In clusionary Housing ordinance exempts market-rate development, north of I-580, from the requi rements to provide inclusionary units on-site or pay the in-lieu fees because a recent financia l feasibility study showed that unsubsidized housing was financially infeasible. This temporary exception was established to incentivize housing production in these areas. As a recommende d strategy, the City should complete a new financial feasibility study to determine if adju stment to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance should be made.
F-130 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-34: Sensitive Communities (Displacement Risk)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
Figure F-35: Percent of Renter Households Experiencing Cost Burden
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-131
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-132 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g
Table F-37: Entitled/Approved Development Projects
Address Project
Name/
Description
Neighbor
hood
Status Vacant/ Existing
or Previous Use
Units by Income Level
Very
Low1 Low1 Moderate1 Above
Moderate
Total Net
New2
Barrett
Ave.
New SRO
Multi-Family
Development
Belding/
Woods
Under
constru
ction
Vacant 17 - - - 17
1390 S.
49th St.
Campus Bay
Mixed Use
Project –
Phase I
East of
Marina
Bay
Approv
ed
Vacant - - 290 710 1,000
2100
Stenmark
Dr.
Point Molate
Mixed Use
Development
North of
Point
Richmond
Approv
ed
Vacant - - 67 1,193 1,260
1500
Dornan
Dr.
Terminal 1
Residential
Project
Point
Richmond
Approv
ed
Former Terminal
1 Wharf
- - - 316 316
1300
Roosevelt
Ave.
Hacienda
Senior
Apartments
Iron
Triangle
Approv
ed
Vacant Building 148 - - 2 150
S. 47th St. Miraflores
Residential
Development
Park Plaza Approv
ed
Former Nursery - 38 152 - 190
2301
Columbia
Blvd.
Cherry
Blossom Row
Residential
Project
Southwest
Annex
Approv
ed
Vacant - - 10 90 100 Colusa
Ave.
TBV: Villas at
Renaissance
Apartments
- Approv
ed
Vacant 7 98 - - 105
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-133
Address Project
Name/
Description
Neighbor
hood
Status Vacant/ Existing
or Previous Use
Units by Income Level
Very
Low1 Low1 Moderate1 Above
Moderate
Total Net
New2
3900
Giant Rd.
Richmond
Country Club
Residential
Development
Hilltop
District
Approv
ed
Vacant - - - 94 94
3151
Garrity
Way
Garrity Way
Apartments
Hilltop
District
Approv
ed
Vacant - - - 98 98
3080
Hilltop
Mall Rd.
Hilltop
Apartments
Hilltop
District
Approv
ed
Surface Parking
Lot
- - - 180 180
Entitled/Approved Subtotal 172 136 519 2,683 3,510
Source: City of Richmond, August 2022
Table F-38: Preliminary Pipeline Sites
Address
Project Name/
Description
Supportive
and Family
Apartments
Neighbor
hood
Status
Under
review
Vacant/
Existing
or
Previous
Use
Vacant
Building
Units by Income Level
Very
Low
1 Low1 Moderate1 Above
Moderate
Total Net
New2
F-134 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g 100 38th
St.
Supportive and
Family
Apartments
Park
Plaza
Under
review
Vacant
Building 95 38 - 2 135
1135
Canal
Blvd.
Quarry
Redesign
Point
Richmond
Under
review Vacant - - 8 68 76
1101-
1221
Macdonal
d Ave.
12 th &
Macdonald
Iron
Triangle
Under
review Vacant - - 69 278 347
Portola
Ave.
Metrowalk
Phase II
Belding/W
oods
Under
review
Surface
Parking
Lot
46 104 - - 150
5620
Central
Ave.
Central SB35 Richmond
Annex
Under
review Vacant 39 - - 349 388
Brickyard
Cove
Road
PG&E Site
Subdivision
Point
Richmond
Under
review Vacant - - 9 85 94
2400
Nevin
Ave.
Nevin Plaza
New
Construction
North and
East
Prelimin
ary Vacant - 90 - 2 92
Maine
Ave.
Nystrom
Village Coronado Prelimin
ary
100 Low-
Income
Units
100 -100* - 303 303
Marina
Way
Marina Way
South
Coronado
or Marina
Bay
Incompl
ete Vacant - - - 399 399
Preliminary Pipeline Subtotal 280 132* 86 1,486 1,984
1 Any low or moderate units are or will be deed restricted to the identified income level. 2 Only counts net new units (i.e., subtracts existing units that are being demolished as part of the new housing development).
*Subtracts the 100 existing low-income units to be demolished in Nystrom Village.
Source: City of Richmond, August 2022
F.8.4 Sites Inventory Analysis
The following section is the detailed site inventory analysis b y sub-area and neighborhood that was summarized above in the potential effects of housing sites and projects on patterns of segregation (F.4.2), access to opportunity (F.4.3), or displace ment risk and disproportionate housing need (F.4.4). This section includes several tables (Tab le F-39 and F-40) and maps highlighting fair housing indicators (Figures F-3 to F-4) as we ll as sites inventory,
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-135
entitled/approved projects and preliminary pipeline projects. T he tables highlight the lowest to highest values in a purple gradient for twelve data points required by the State as part of the sites inventory analysis. There are several factors to consider regar ding the Sites Inventory Analysis, which include:
● The analysis does not include ADU units.
● There are multiple census tracts that are part of more than on e neighborhood in this analysis.
● There are some neighborhoods located within two sub-areas such as Iron Triangle (Sub- Areas 3 and 5), and Coronado (Sub-Areas 5 and 6).
● There are a few geographic labels that are not a neighborhood. These geographies are marked with an asterisk (*) in the TCAC analysis tables. These include North of Point Richmond, East of Marina Bay, Northwest of Greenridge Heights and Southwest of Greenbriar.
● There are no R/ECAPS in the City, and therefore, will not be i ncluded in the sites inventory analysis, however, Section F.4.5 performs an analysis of potential future R/ECAPS in the City.
● The following two sites were not mapped or included in the TCA C analysis below:
o TBV: Villas at Renaissance Apartm ents, Approved, Currently Vacant, 105 units (7 very low and 98 low units)
o Marina Way South, Incomplete, Currently Vacant, 399 above mode rate income units
● The required State indicators are described using estimates, w hich are not exact conditions of the demographics of Richmond. For example, overcrowding data may underestimate the number of overcrowded households because some households may fear that sharing this information could put them at risk of eviction or potential deportation for undocumented residents.
The following analysis is based on the 6 sub-areas and their ne ighborhoods that include census tracts or block groups with site inventory (sites), preliminary pipeline and entitled/approved projects on them.
Citywide Overview
● Sites are located across the City, but concentrated in distri cts 3, 4, 5, and 6. These sites account for 29 percent (784 units) of the anticipated developme nt potential. A majority of these units are low income. Pipeline or Entitled/Approved projects account for 75 percent (5,090 units) of the anticipated development potential. Except for subarea 2, these projects can be found in all subareas. A majority of these units are above-moderate income. ● Above-moderate income sites are distributed across the City. Their location in neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement with increasi ng housing cost burdens may negatively impact existing households in neighborhoods such as Iron Triangle, Coronado, East of Marina Bay and Southwest Annex.
F-136 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● Low and Moderate sites are concentrated in Sub-Areas 3, 5, an d 6. These Sub-Areas are vulnerable to displacement, have a large share of low to modera te income households who are also experiencing cost-burden, have high percentage of non-White population, and have a low-resource score for access to opportunity. ● Neighborhoods such as El Sobrante Hills and Green Briar (Sub- area 2), which are the only two neighborhoods in the City with moderate resources, cou ld have the opportunity to integrate more low and moderate sites if there were availabl e vacant sites that could accommodate such housing.
Sub-Area 1
● The sites and projects in this sub-area, which includes Point Richmond, Shields-Reid, Parchester Village and the Hilltop District neighborhoods, are clustered around Parchester Village, Shields-Reid, and Point Richmond. Eight percent (63) of site units and 42 percent (2,118) of project units are located in this sub-area. The majo rity of sites include small buildings with above moderate income units with only a handful of moderate income units.
The majority of projects are larger buildings with above-moderate income units. ● This area has a high non-white population, rates of children living in married couples in the City and some of the lowest rates of children female-headed households. ● This area has smaller percentages of low to moderate income h ouseholds than other areas of the City. For example, north of Point Richmond and Poi nt Richmond both have the highest concentrations of projects, smallest percentage of low to moderate income households and very little overcrowding.
● Some specific clusters of sites in Sub-Area 1 have limited ac cess to environmental opportunities, including those in Parchester Village and Hilltop District, which score above the 80th percentile statewide for poor environmental outcomes. These neighborhoods are also vulnerable to displacement, as they have concentrations of marginalized groups such as minority population (72 percent in Shields-Reid and Hilltop neighborhoods), renter households experiencing cost burden, and other vulnerable group s such as disabled populations (less than 13 percent).
● Prioritizing above moderate sites here would further segregat e high income residents into these areas, and further displace residents already suffering from rent burden.
Sub-Area 2
● This sub-area, which includes the El Sobrante Hills neighborh oods, Fairmede/Hilltop, Greenbriar, and Greenridge Heights, accounts for seven percent (51) of site units, all of which are above-moderate income. There are no preliminary pipeline or entitled/approved projects. These sites can produce 1 to 34 units per parcel. ● Sites in this sub-area are located in neighborhoods with some of the lowest concentrations of low-moderate income households, pollution burden, overcrowdi ng (4 percent), and owner housing cost burden.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-137
● However, thirteen percent of the population is disabled, a ma jority of renters experience cost burden (56 percent), and households living in Southwest of Green Briar and Fairmede Hilltop are vulnerable to displacement.
● This sub-area has the only two neighborhoods in Richmond with moderate resources, yet it does not have any sites at different income levels that coul d help integrate residents of all income groups. There is an opportunity to integrate more lo w and moderate income sites if there were available vacant or other opportunity sites that could accommodate such housing.
Sub-Area 3
● Sites in one of the smallest sub-areas account for nine perce nt (74) of units in central Richmond, which covers Belding Woods, Iron Triangle, and part o f Richmore Village and cover a range of income levels. The majority of sites are locat ed in Iron Triangle, which are moderate, mixed, and above-moderate, and sites in Richmore Village are low, mixed, and moderate. The preliminary pipeline and entitled/approved pr ojects in this sub-area account for six percent (317) of citywide units with a majority low income in Belding/Woods and Iron Triangle.
● All neighborhoods in the sub-area are vulnerable to displacem ent. This sub-area has the largest minority population, high rates of renters experiencing cost burden, and households in this sub-area have the highest overcrowding rates (18-19%) and pollution burden in the City.
● Homeowners near projects in this sub-area experience the lowe st rate of housing burden across all other areas.
● Affordable housing is integrated in both lower and moderate i ncome areas. ● The City should focus on strategies to alleviate overcrowding in neighborhoods like Belding Woods through increasing new affordable housing development.
Sub-Area 4
● This sub-area that covers North and East Richmond and Richmon d Heights has six percent (49) of site units, which are moderate, mixed, and above-moderate income. There is only one preliminary pipeline project (Nevin Plaza New Construction) in this sub-area; which accounts for two percent (92) of citywide units. Ninety of these units are low-income. ● Households in this sub-area experience overcrowding and rent burden (over 52 percent) while having a large proportion of low-moderate income households, minority and disabled populations.
● All neighborhoods in this sub-area are vulnerable to displace ment except for a part of North and East Richmond.
● The addition of moderate income sites in this sub-area may help increase integration of income groups in these neighborhoods.
Sub-Area 5
F-138 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g ● Sites in this sub-area account for 18 percent (143) of units, in Atchison Village, Santa Fe, Coronado, Pullman, Metro Square, and Park Plaza, cover a range of income levels and are distributed throughout the sub-area. A majority of low and moderate income unit sites are concentrated here and in one other sub-area. Preliminary pi peline and entitled/approved projects in this sub-area account for twenty- one percent (1,075) of citywide units and are located in Coronado, Iron Triangle and Park Plaza neighborhoods.
These units are almost evenly split between above moderate (583 ) and lower and moderate income (492) units.
● All neighborhoods in the sub-area are vulnerable to displacem ent. This sub-area has a large minority and disabled population (15 percent), one of the highest rates of children in married couple households, high rates of low-to-moderate income households and housing cost burden, particularly in the Santa Fe and Coronado neighborhoods. ● Households west of the railroad tracks have high overcrowding rates and pollution burden compared to the eastern section of the sub-area.
● The potential distribution of low, moderate and above sites i n this sub-area can aid in the integration of affordable housing.
● The City should focus on strategies to alleviate overcrowding in neighborhoods like Iron Triangle through increasing new affordable housing development.
Sub-Area 6
● This sub-area, which includes Marina Bay, Cortez/Stege, Laure l Park, Eastshore, Parkview, Panhandle Annex, and Richmond Annex, have a concentration of sites on the north and east side of I-580. Sites account for 52 percent of citywide units (404 units total with 344 of these units from the Marina Bay site) and range from low to above-moderate, with a higher number of above moderate sites. Twenty-nine perce nt (1,468) of project units are in this sub-area in the following neighborhoods: East of Marina Bay, Richmond Annex and Southwest Annex. These projects are majority above mo derate income housing units.
● All neighborhoods in this sub-area are vulnerable to displace ment with households experiencing rent burden and high pollution burden. At the same time, this sub-area has low rates of owner housing cost burden (38 percent) and overcro wding when compared to other sub-areas.
● The sub-area has a large minority population and the highest rate of female headed households across the City. A little over half of the household s are low to moderate income.
● Since this area has many residents who are displacement vulne rable and may be subject to fair housing disparities, the City should consider strategie s to ensure that the potential housing sites are used for affordable rental and homeownership projects.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-139
Table F-39: Preliminary Pipeline and Entitled/Approved Sites Analysis Summary Table
F-140 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Table F-40: Sites Inventory Analysis Summary Table
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-141
F-142 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-143
F-144 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-145
Figure F-36: Percent of Overcrowded Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-146 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-37: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-147
Figure F-38: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-148 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Figure F-39: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-149
Figure F-40: Percent of Population with a Disability
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
F-150 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Section F.9 Contributing Factors to Fair Housing
Issues and Meaningful Actions
AB 686 mandates the identification and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues related to segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated are as of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within Richmond, including displacement risk and segregated living patterns. Contributing factors may include public actions and private actions at the local, regional, state, or federal level, including thos e beyond the City’s ability to control or influence but must still be identified as part of its affirmatively furthering fair housing assessment.
Consistent with HCD guidelines, the contributing factors listed below are identified based on data analysis and review of related research, as provided throughout the AFFH section; critical community feedback and engagement, including from a Resident Ad visory Council; and the analysis of available sites for new housing development. While HCD requests the listing of contributing factors in order of significance, most contributing factors are inter-related rather than linear. These contributing factors form the basis for the devel opment of the meaningful actions that the City of Richmond will take during the next seven years to break the cycle of racism and other forms of exclusion in access to fundamental human rights to housing. The City’s meaningful actions are summarized below in Table F-41.
1. Historic and ongoing discrimination
The structural roots of Richmond’s current fair housing problem s reside in both the history and current existence of racial discrimination in housing, land use , and related economic and educational systems. Very few meaningful changes can occur wit hout recognizing and addressing this reality. As described throughout the AFFH appe ndix, policies such as racially restrictive covenants, blockbusting, segregated public housing, and lending discrimination created the patterns of segregation that persist in Richmond today. These patterns of segregation result in the concentration of poverty within communities of color and unequal access to resources and amenities such as high-perfo rming schools, good jobs, and c lean streets. Additionally, the consequences of historic and ongoing discrimination in housing, employment and education result in racial wealth disparities with many lower income Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and AAPI residents less able to afford to live in higher-income neighborhoods in Richmond. The racial wealth gap also makes it more difficult for residents of color to take advantage of educational and economic opportunities and to afford basic needs such as food, transportation, and healthcare. It is a cyclical and self-perpetuating crisis.
Today, people of color in Richmond and across the country conti nue to face discrimination by housing providers and lending institutions. Undocumented residents are at a further disadvantage because some federal agencies explicitly bar their access to re sources and services funded by those agencies. Additionally, limitations in the current Fair C hance Ordinance prevent formerly incarcerated residents from meaningful access to all forms of housing.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-151
Addressing the legacy of historic and ongoing racism requires a nti-racist policy-making that accounts for existing disadvantages, remedies historic injustic es, and honors the leadership of Richmond’s communities of color. Anti-racist policymaking can b enefit all of Richmond’s residents, regardless of racial or ethnic background, because i t can create broadly shared opportunity and prosperity–it is the true tide that can lift all boats.
Policy solutions listed in Table F-41 adequately begin to addre ss the structural roots of racism include the following meaningful actions: funding the City Hou sing Department, developing a Neighborhood and Land Stabilization policy, creating Anti-Displacement Zones, investing in race- specific strategies for Richmond’s long-time Black/African Amer ican residents, an Equitable Public Lands policy, comprehensive anti-displacement services, new public financing strategies, and prioritizing the specific needs of marginalized groups. Sol utions also include reforming the City’s community engagement processes to address the historical exclusion of the voices of residents of color in housing and land use decisions.
2. Market force displacement with rising rents out of reach for low- to moderate- income renters
With many residents wages unable to keep up with rising rents, low- and moderate-income residents - who are disproportionately Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Laotian - are increasingly unable to afford housing in Richmond. This places low-income residents at increased risk of displacement, which many Black/African American and Lao tian residents have already experienced. Rising rents also increase the risk of living in households that are overcrowded and pose hazards to human health. Rent is especially high in higher -opportunity neighborhoods, making it harder for low-income residents to access critical ed ucational and economic opportunities. Additionally, because housing is even more expen sive in other parts of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area, low-income residents have been p ushed into Richmond from nearby cities, creating regional disparities in access to opportunity.
Various factors contribute to rising housing costs and resultin g displacement in Richmond. First is a lack of housing supply at all income levels, but especiall y for low- and moderate-income residents. Housing supply is constrained by factors such as high construction costs, burdensome regulatory requirements for building new housing, and zoning and land-use laws that make it more difficult to build multi-family housing. While Richmond has his torically done better at meeting its housing goals for very-low and low-income housing than most other Bay Area cities, the City has performed poorly in meeting its moderate-income housing goals. Additionally, other cities’ failure to meet their housing goals has increased pressure on rental prices in Richmond.
Structural barriers also contribute to displacement. Meaningful rent control at the local level is not possible due to Costa Hawkins, a state law that effectively exempts single-family homes from rent control and allows landlords to reset the rent on rent-stabiliz ed units when the former tenants move out. Additionally, many residents who meet the income requ irements for federal housing
F-152 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g subsidies cannot obtain them due to long waiting lists, forcing low-income residents to spend a high percentage of their income on rent and forgo other basic needs.
In addition, as discussed in section F.6.3, Gentrification and Displacement, the development of new market rate housing projects in lower income neighborhoods can exacerbate current conditions of rising housing costs.
Various policy solutions can address market force displacement and rising rents. These include the following meaningful actions identified: enhancing and exp anding the pipeline of properties and funding for land trust programs to provide permanently affo rdable homeownership opportunities, a public land policy that prioritizes affordable housing development, piloting a Fair Housing Impact Assessment to determine if a policy would be app ropriate, and developing a potential local preference policy that prioritizes current or d isplaced Richmond residents for new affordable housing.
3. Lack of City capacity to address housing issues
The legacy of and current racism is also manifested in the hist ory of public and private disinvestment of public instituti ons, especially local governme nts in California. Structural financing inequities including California’ Proposition 13 and t he recent demise of State redevelopment funding have resulted in insufficient funding for City of Richmond Housing staffing.
Without a dedicated housing division and adequate staff in the Community Development Department, the City is unable to effectively conduct outreach for and enforce federal and state fair housing laws. The City is also limited in its ability to p roactively address housing needs and implement AFFH meaningful actions listed in Table F-41.
Richmond meaningful action to address this structural financing inequity will include evaluating new public financing options tied to funding City Housing staff and priority fair housing actions.
4. Lack of historic public investments in specific neighborhood s As described throughout the AFFH appendix, the history of racial housing covenants and redlining created the foundation for today’s neighborhood based racial an d ethnic disparities. In addition, the City's aging housing stock presents risks for human health and contributes to blight, and there are few dedicated resources available to help homeowners make r epairs and upgrades. Illegal dumping, crime, and other safety hazards often occur on vacant and abandoned properties in Richmond, which tend to be concentrated in low income neighborhoods of color.
To address underinvestment in low-income neighborhoods, the Cit y will review and track outcomes of the recently enacted Community Benefits Policy (which is intended to bring economic benefits of new market-rate housing to the surrounding communit y) and the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (which requires developers to include affordable unit s in new market-rate housing projects or pay a fee). Additionally, to address the City’s aging housing stock, the City will expand its Proactive Rental Inspection policy to address housing habitability and health issues.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-153
Through its Community Health and Wellness Element implementatio n efforts, the City of Richmond has targeted once redlined neighborhoods, especially in the City Center (Iron Triangle, Santa Fe, and Coronado neighborhoods) for new investments in in frastructure improvements including tree plantings, green infrastructure, pedestrian and bike path, and park improvements.
Regarding fair housing issues, these neighborhoods have disprop ortionate housing needs and are also vulnerable to displacement. A complementary place base d investment that prioritizes some of the proposed meaningful actions in these neighborhoods may help prevent displacement as these neighborhoods improve and become more attractive to higher income residents.
5. Lack of educational and economic opportunity
Richmond residents lack access to high-performing schools that contribute to good-paying jobs, making it harder to afford rent or become homeowners. The small handful of WCCUSD schools in Richmond with above average ratings on GreatSchools are all charter schools, the majority of which are located in higher income neighborhoods, whose applica tion processes can serve as a barrier to low-income families. Additionally, WCCUSD’s school a ssignment boundaries replicate patterns of neighborhood segregation. This leads to segregated schools and concentrated poverty that create barriers to academic success for students o f all backgrounds. As a result, Richmond residents are far less likely to graduate from high sc hool and obtain higher education than other Contra Costa County and Bay Area residents, making it more difficult to obtain a good- paying job and afford housing.
To address these issues, the City will re-start its collaborati on with WCCUSD to develop a first time homebuyer’s program dedicated for teachers, in order to su pport teacher stability, an essential ingredient for student academic success.
6. Concentration of affordable housing in low-income neighborho ods Affordable housing in Richmond is largely concentrated in low-i ncome neighborhoods, perpetuating patterns of segregation. This makes it harder for low-income residents - who are disproportionately Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Laotian - to move out of areas of concentrated poverty and into higher-opportunity neighborhoods. The reasons affordable housing developments are concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods inc lude high demand for affordable units in low-income neighborhoods, as well as the hi gher cost of land, single-family zoning laws, and resistance to affordable housing from residents in high-income neighborhoods.
Additionally, HCV recipients may struggle to use their vouchers in higher-income neighborhoods because the value of the voucher is too low, the limits on sear ch time are too short, or landlords may discriminate against voucher holders.
To address these issues, the City will assess on-site affordabl e housing units in market rate projects developed in higher-income neighborhoods as part of its Inclusionary Zoning Policy.
7. Disproportionate access to meaningful community engagement i n land use and planning processes
F-154 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g There are racial and income disparities in terms of which commu nity members are actively engaged in City planning and land use processes, including determining what kind of projects are developed in their neighborhoods. Many lower income residents are working multiple and/or inflexible jobs that do not enable them to take the time needed to attend multiple City meetings.
Other participation barriers include language access, available information that non-planners can understand, childcare/food at meetings, and also trust of government. The City of Richmond has an existing official structure of Neighborhood Councils for res idents to engage directly with the City. However, it is unclear which Neighborhood Councils funct ion effectively, include lower income residents of color, and engage in housing project development processes.
The City will review the structure, participation, and roles of its existing Neighborhood Councils and may alternatively create new community engagement bodies to provide critical feedback about new proposed housing projects and other land use decisions.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-155
Table F-41: Contributing Factors & Meaningful Actions
HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Disproportionate housing needs including cost burden and risk of displacement Contributing Factors:
● History of and current racism in land use, access to financia l resources, housing, employment and education ● Direct and market force displa cement with rising rents out of reach for low to moderate income renters. ● Insufficient new affordable housing development in low to mod erate income neighborhoods at risk of displacement. ● Disproportionate access to healthy and habitable housing, and adequate resources to maintain homes. ● Systemic issues contributing to disproportionate housing needs such as discrimination against undocumented applicants, formerly incarcerated residents, LGBTQ+ residents, families with multiple children, and source of income. ● Future problem of potential ma rket force displacement due to new market rate housing projects in neighborhoods currently at risk of displacement. ● Lack of high functioning Housing Department and focused leade rship on housing priorities ● Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations ● Program 2.A:
Inclusionary Housing
● Program 4.F:
Homelessness
Strategic Plan
● Program 4.J:
Funding for
Emergency,
Transitional, and
Supportive Housing
Assess Richmond’s housing staffing needs based upon
the programs and objectives identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, Homelessness Strategic Plan, and
Housing Equity Roadmap (HER).
By Q4 2023
Citywide
Increased dedicated City of
Richmond Housing staffing and
funding on housing priorities,
including the implementation of
AFFH Meaningful Actions.
Hire one new staff member and augment staffing with
contract services (3 contractors minimum) to implement
priorities identified in the HER and AFFH meaningful
actions.
By Q2 2024
Citywide
F-156 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
● Program 5.A: Monitor
At-Risk Affordable
Housing Units
● Program 5.B:
Assistance for At-
Risk Affordable
Housing Units
● Program 5.F: Code
Enforcement for
Residential
Neighborhoods
● Program 5.G:
Residential Rental
Inspection Program
● Program 6.A:
Community Land
Trust
● Program 6.D:
Enforcement of Just
Cause for Eviction
Ordinance
● Program 6.G:
Housing Equity
Roadmap
● Program 6.H:
Increased Housing
Staffing
Prioritize programming to meet highest needs and align
with available funding. Ensure staffing aligns with
programming priorities.
By Q2 2024
Citywide
Identify long-term funding for staff and programming. By Q4 2026 Citywide Identify potential funding sources and include in the
HER. By Q4 2023 Citywide Identified potential regional, State, Federal, and private
funding resources for the
implementation of identified AFFH
Meaningful Actions.
Secure a minimum of $300,000 of new funding.
By Q3 2024
Citywide
Evaluate a minimum of two public financing options for
voter consideration that will not result in displacement of lower income homeowners, such as amending the real
estate transfer tax or vacant properties parcel tax;
included in the HER.
By Q4 2023
Citywide
Evaluated new public financing
options that can be dedicated for
City Housing Division staffing and
identified meaningful actions.
Create a process for including the most viable public
financing option in the 2026 election. By Q3 2026
Citywide
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-157
HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
● Program 6.I: AFFH
Housing Funding
● Program 6.J: Public
Financing Options
● Program 6.K:
Neighborhood Land
Stabilization Program
● Program 6.L: SB
1079
● Program 6.M: Anti-
Displacement Zones
● Program 6.N: Local
Preference and Right
to Return Policies
● Program 6.O: Fair
Housing Impact
Assessment Policy
● Program 6.P:
Housing Reparations
Fund
● Program 6.Q: Basic
Income Program
● Program 6.R:
Equitable Public
Land Policy
Create a database of abandoned, deteriorated, vacant,
and tax delinquent properties, as well as habitability
violations.
By Q2 2023
Citywide
Developed a Neighborhood and
Land Stabilization Program
(NLSP) that will provide financial,
legal, and administrative
resources for property owners to
maintain their properties to
advance anti-displacement
priorities. If prevention of
displacement is not feasible, then
the NLSP available for acquisition
of privately-owned vacant and
distressed properties with serial
habitability violations by qualified
affordable housing developers
and Community Land Trusts to
rehabilitate and convert to
permanent affordable housing.
Investigate Revenue and Taxation Code Chapter 8 tax
defaulted program design. By Q3 2023
Citywide
Evaluate current Housing Receivership Program
impacts. By Q3 2023
Citywide
Initiate community engagement. By Q3 2023 Citywide
Enact the NLSP. Begin adoption phase. Begin Q3 2023 Citywide Pilot at least one acquisition for community land trust (either vacant or develo ped property) to benefit a
minimum of two low-income family households.
By Q4 2026
Citywide
Complete feasibility analysis. By Q4 2023 Citywide
F-158 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
● Program 6.S: Anti-
Displacement
Services
● Program 6.T: Renter
Policies
● Program 6.U: Senior
Resident Housing
Needs
● Program 6.V:
LGBTQ+ Housing
Issues
● Program W: Formerly
Incarcerated
Resident Housing
Needs
● Program 6.X: Re-
Entry Housing
● Program 6.Y:
Undocumented
Resident Housing
Needs
● Program 6.Z: Castro
and Rydin
Encampment
Projects
Assist two units annually if determined to be feasible. Begin Q1 2026 Citywide Examined the use of SB 1079 (2020), which created a new
foreclosure sale process for 2-4
unit buildings that allows qualified
parties a means to purchase
property in foreclosure, subject to
certain requirements.
Study legal and programmatic feasibility of anti-
displacement zone strategies, including: Research best
practices for incorporating neighborhood level median
income for defining “AMI” levels for affordable housing being built in ADZs while still complying with TCAC and HCD definitions for subsidized projects; Evaluate
existing local laws regarding demolition of rent stabilized buildings and potential ability to require one for one
replacement (no net loss) in the new units in compliance with state legislation.
By Q4 2023
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Created Anti-Displacement Zones
(ADZ) that implemented anti-
displacement strategies for
proposed market rate
development projects in
displacement vulnerable
neighborhoods.
Targeted new anti-displacement
strategies and resources in the
ADZs including legal services,
community outreach and
assistance, housing counseling,
and financial assistance.
Identify and provide at leas t $150,000 annually for
community education and outreach efforts of existing
anti-displacement resources targeted in displacement
vulnerable areas. Begin Q1 2024
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-159
HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
● Program 6.AA:
Tenant, Community,
and Government
Opportunity
(TOPA/COPA/GOPA
) to Purchase
Ordinance
● Policy 6.4:
Resources Alignment
● Policy 6.5: Lower
Income Family
Needs
Develop outreach materials about existing anti-
displacement resources and conduct annual outreach to
300 residents in displacement vulnerable areas.
Begin Q4 2024
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Developed local preference and
right to return policies for new
affordable housing units,
services, and financial assistance
in compliance with state
legislation and funding source
requirements.
Once new expanded anti-displacement resources are
available, conduct annual outreach to 1,000 residents in displacement vulnerable areas.
Begin Q1 2026
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Research the legal and public policy framework for
conducting a Fair Housing Impact Assessment and local
preference and right to return policies; to be included in the HER.
By Q4 2023
Citywide
Piloted the use of a Fair Housing
Impact Assessment policy and
evaluate its utility in guiding City
informed decision-making and
public knowledge of the impacts
of new development projects. Pilot the use of a Fair H ousing Impact Assessment Policy (beginning with public property) to benefit a
minimum of 100 households.
Begin Q4 2024
Citywide
F-160 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Produce annual reports on the performance of the
Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Linkage
Fee Ordinance and Community Benefits Agreement
Ordinance. For the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
evaluate the rate of onsite unit development versus
payment of the in-lieu fee.
Begin Q1 2024
Citywide
Assessed the effectiveness of the
City’s current Inclusionary
Housing and Affordable Housing
Linkage Fee and Community
Benefits Ordinances at producing
affordable housing units.
Design a Housing Reparations program, with robust
community engagement to aid Richmond’s long-time
Black/African American residents impacted by
displacement and/or structural racism in compliance with Proposition 209. The program may include a right of
return, affordable housing preference policy, and/or
other forms of economic assistance.
By Q2 2024
Target in ethnic
enclaves identified
as displacement
vulnerable
Established a Housing
Reparations Fund for both
homeowners and tenants
Identify and obtain at least $250,000 to fund the
program. By Q1 2025
Implement program. By Q1 2026
Adopt policies as part of the R3F strategic plan and
governance structure development.
By Q2 2023 Citywide Evaluated creation of a basic
income program (e.g., through
Richmond Rapid Response Fund
(R3F)); the target population for
the program should be identified
with input from the community.
Serve a minimum of four households per year over the
planning cycle.
Begin Q1 2024
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-161
HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Conduct spatial inventory of publicly owned land. By Q4 2022 Citywide Designed and enacted an Equitable Public Land policy, in
compliance with the Surplus Land
Act, with guidelines and
preferential criteria for the
disposition or use of publicly
owned land.
Conduct robust community engagement, including
engaging a minimum of 300 residents from Richmond’s
lower income neighborhoods.
By Q4 2023
Low income
neighborhoods
Adopt new Equitable Public Land policy Community
Land Trusts, Limited Equity Cooperatives, and other
non-profit entities t hat prioritize permanently affordable housing while supporting homeowner equity attainment
and renter stabilization; o r immediate and long-term
housing solutions for unhoused residents.
By Q1 2024
Citywide
Issue annual Notice of Availab ility, for 1-2 parcels that should provide a minimum of 6 units. Begin Q3 2024 Citywide Connect with a minimum of 20 female headed
households with children for educational workshops and
access to services annually.
See anti-displacement zone objectives.
Begin Q1 2024
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Provided new anti-displacement
services, including proactive and
affirmative enforcement to
prevent discrimination against
single female headed households
with children who are at high risk
of eviction.
See anti-displacement zone objectives. See anti-
displacement
zone timeline
F-162 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Assess and design potential new tenant anti-
displacement policies such as discrimination based on
credit scores, eviction hist ory, source of income, and income level requirements (i.e. requiring income three
times or more of the rent costs), as part of the HER.
By Q4 2023
Target in low-
income
neighborhoods
identified as
displacement
vulnerable
Evaluated new renter policies to
protect renters from the long-term
collateral consequences of the
COVID19 pandemic.
For seniors, conduct assessment and design new
programming and/or policies through community
surveys, analysis of mor tgage and rent burden, and
tailored community forums to inform housing assistance
services and additional policies.
By Q1 2024
Target areas where
lower income
seniors with
housing cost
burden
Assessed housing needs of
senior residents, particularly
lower income senior renters and
homeowners.
Provided new housing services
for low income senior residents. Serve a minimum of 50 low income senior residents annually. Begin Q1 2025 Citywide
Hold two annual forums (2024 and 2025) with a
minimum of 25 participants at each. Produce publicly
available report summarizing anonymized feedback on
LGBTQ+ housing issues and proposed solutions with
additional opportunity for community engagement and
feedback.
By Q4 2025
Citywide
Partnered with local organizations
to hold forum on LGBTQ+
housing issues with community
organizations. Coordinated with
community-led efforts to better
understand the needs of the
LGBTQ+ community.
Complete assessment of community needs. By Q3 2027 Citywide
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-163
HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Produce City staff report on the outcomes of the current Fair Chance Housing Ordinance; evaluate landlord
compliance and tenant experience of the current law.
By Q4 2023
Citywide
Prioritized the housing needs of
formerly incarcerated residents
through: 1) Completed
implementation of current Fair
Chance housing and 2)
Considered expansion of the Fair
Chance Housing law to apply to
all forms of housing and eliminate
the entire use of criminal records
(similar to the cities of Berkeley
and Oakland)
Preserved at risk re-entry housing
units.
Integrated re-entry housing and
supportive housing priorities into
larger housing plans.
Review implementation of the cities of Berkeley and
Oakland Fair Chance Housing Ordinances and work
with the City Attorney and the community, including re- entry service organizations to draft an expanded
ordinance for City Council review and adoption.
By Q1 2024
Citywide
Work with Rubicon Homes to preserve 10 assisted re-
entry housing units at moderate risk of converting to
market rate units during planning period.
By Q4 2028
At risk units census
tract locations
Integrate re-entry housing priorities into City housing plans, including Homelessness Strategic Plan and HER.
Advocate with the County for similar actions.
Begin Q4 2023 Citywide
Create referral list of legal services available to serve undocumented residents and at least 50 undocumented
residents served annually.
By Q2 2023
Citywide
Prioritize the housing needs of
undocumented residents through:
F-164 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
City Attorney’s office to collaborate with legal advocacy organizations to conduct legal research and review of
the City’s legal authority to combat housing
discrimination against undocumented residents.
Evaluate City powers to reduc e barriers of entry for
undocumented tenants without social security numbers
(SSN) to apply for subsidized housing.
By Q4 2024
Citywide
Established referral list of non-
Legal Service Corporation (LSC)
funded organizations for
undocumented tenants.
Enacted City policy that removes
discriminatory barriers against
undocumented residents in
access to City funded housing
units, services, and financial
assistance.
Complete strategic Homelessness Plan that includes
discussion of the City’s potential housing plans such as a safe parking pilot program, scattered sites housing,
and other housing choices for the City to address the
housing needs of Richmond’s unhoused residents
strategically and effectivel y. Apply for forthcoming
California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal
ICH) NOFA to implement future programs.
By Q4 2022
Citywide
Completed Strategic
Homelessness Plan
Completed Castro and Rydin
encampment projects.
Designed housing first program to
address the housing needs of
unhoused residents throughout
the City.
Conduct biannual resident engagement forums at
encampment sites. Begin Q4 2022 Encampment
locations
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-165
HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Provide alternative housing opportunities, including
supportive services, for approximately 130 residents at Rydin and Castro encampments based on individual
need assessments and program funding.
By Q4 2023
Encampment
locations
Used available land, including
public land, for immediate and
dignified housing solutions.
Identified public financing for
permanent supportive housing for
unhoused residents.
Provide counseling, behavioral health, drug
rehabilitation, job related training and support, health services, and housing pathways to approximately 130
residents living in encampments.
Begin Q4 2023
Encampment
locations
Assess City’s current code enforcement systems on
tenant housing habitability conditions, including potential expansion of the Residential Rental Inspection program.
Goal of increasing property management compliance
with code requirements by 10%.
By Q4 2023
Citywide
City expanded enforcement
options within the Residential
Rental Inspection program and to
integrate anti-displacement
strategies to address non-
compliance of housing habitability
and health impacts from unsafe
living conditions.
Develop database of health and safety code
enforcement complaints including non-compliant
property owners.
By Q3 2023
Citywide
Research enforcement options for motivating property
owner compliance and cooperation such as a Rent
Escrow Account Program and develop policy
implementation plans for expanded enforcement.
By Q1 2024
Citywide
F-166 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Assess the unit size production of publicly subsidized
units to determine need. By Q4 2023 Citywide Aligned target unit sizes of publicly funded and also private
development projects with the
needs assessment of lower
income families with children.
Identify potential policies to incentivize developers to produce larger units (3-bedroom and larger) that are also affordable; in the HER.
By Q4 2023
Citywide
Collaborate with local jurisdictions including Oakland
and Berkeley to learn from their experiences designing
TOPA/COPA/GOPA policies that would cover a wider
array of buildings outside of foreclosure, including rental housing with expiring federal and /or state subsidies
and/or affordability protections. Require purchasers to preserve units as permanently affordable. Include these findings and best practice policy implementation
information in the HER.
By Q4 2023
Citywide
Implemented a local tenant/
community and government
opportunity to purchase
(TOPA/COPA/GOPA) ordinance.
Ensured adequate legal and
organizational support so that
tenants can avail themselves of
the TOPA/COPA/GOPA process
when it becomes available. Refine the City’s proposed TOPA/COPA/GOPA Ordinance for City Council review and potential
adoption.
By Q3 2026
Citywide
Seek to preserve a minimum of 2 units annually upon
implementation. Begin Q3 2026 Citywide
Disproportionate access to opportunities in underserved communities (racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty).
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-167
HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Contributing Factors:
● History of and current racism in land use, access to financial resources, housing, employment and education ● Lack of historic public investments in specific neighborhoods including services and amenities ● Limited local public funding for investments in housing, education, and other services ● Program 2.A:
Inclusionary Housing
● Program 2.C: Affordable
Housing Assets Fund
● Program 2.E: ADUs and
JADUs
● Program 2.G: Pre-
Approved Small Lot
Home Plans
● Program 6.AB: Public
Improvements and
Affordable Housing in
Low-Income
Neighborhoods of Color
Assessment of any identified changes to the City’s
recently enacted Inclusionary Zoning and Community
Benefits ordinances in ord er to result in on-site
affordable units in above moderate income
neighborhoods, rather than in-lieu fee payments; to be
included in the HER.
By Q4 2023
Target above
moderate income
neighborhoods
Assisted affordable housing
providers to build new affordable
housing in above moderate
income neighborhoods.
Developed first-time homebuyers’
program dedicated to low-income
residents and families.
Identified place-based strategies
for new affordable housing and
fair housing investments in low
income areas with new City
infrastructure improvements.
At least 25 affordable housing units developed in higher income neighborhoods. Begin Q4 2027 Higher income
neighborhoods
At least 25 affordable units constructed on-site as part of market rate housing projects. Begin Q4 2027 Citywide
At least $5 million for public improvements in low income neighborhoods of color, coupled with new affordable
housing and fair housing strategies.
By Q4 2031
Low income
neighborhoods
F-168 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
For potential ADU production and single family home
development on the identified va cant sites inventory, in order to support lower income homeowners, produce
first set of floor plans and then update annually through planning cycle. The City to provide free or discounted pre-approved floor plans and guides for development on
small lots.
By Q1 2024
Citywide
Increased ADU and single family
home development for lower
income homeowners.
Permit a minimum of 7-10 ADU units annually. Begin Q1 2024 Disparities in community engagement in land use and planning decisions Contributing Factors:
● History of racial exclusion in government
● Lack of accessible forums
● Lack of knowledge about public and community meetings and how to meaningfully engage ● Lack of trust in government"
● Program 6.E: Housing
Access and
Discrimination Protocols
and Monitoring
● Program 6.AC: Resident
Planning Councils
Best practice review of resident planning councils in
other cities, including staffing, funding sources, interface with government to be included in the HER.
By Q4 2023
City considered strategies to
center neighborhoods at high risk
for displacement in the
development of democratic
resident planning councils for
anti-displacement priorities.
If deemed feasible, potential design of pilot resident
planning council, that would review and provide
feedback to the City on proposed development projects
in their neighborhoods and policies that may impact
resident health and displacement, completed.
By Q4 2024
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-169
HE Program Specific Actions Timeline Geographic
Targeting Outcomes
Process to include robust community engagement
process
City sponsored training program
including on how City planning
and approval processes work, the
history of land use discrimination;
land use terminology and major
policies; the role of residents in
land use decisions.
Funding of at least $150,000 for new resident planning
council pilot, including ongoing coordination, training program, resident stipends, program evaluation
identified and secured.
By Q2 2025
Pilot new resident planning council launched and
evaluated. By Q1 2026
F-170 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g References
“AFFH Data Viewer.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, accessed July 28, 2022, https://affh-data-resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/. “AFFH Segregation Report: Richmond.” UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021 (unreleased).
Allen, Ryan. “The Relationship Between Legal Status and Housing Cost Burden for Immigrants in the United States.” 2022. Housing Policy Debate, vol. 32, issue 3, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2020.1848898?casa_token=GUDQr4Dq PoUAAAAA%3AOkvznI02cWb1BrPatb0HnStn4T1HnCrSc0sy33PBAzQZL3QrvZp55EVRiaREV zlwRLH8pKHMc2XeKXI.
Ayano, Mekonnen Fire. “Tenants Without Rights: Situating the Experiences of New Immigrants in the U.S. Low-Income Housing Market.” 2021. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, vol. 28, issue 2, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/ wp-content/ uploads/ sites/25/2021/07/159-Ayano-Tenants-Without-Rights.pdf.
Bissell, Evan and Eli Moore, with Heather Bromfield, Sarah Brundage, William Edwards, DeAndre Evans, Ciera-Jevae Gordon, Sasha Graham-Croner, Noe Gudino, Affiong Ibok, Diana Perez-Domencich, Satina Shaw, and Eloy Toppin. “Housing Policy and Belonging in Richmond.” Othering & Belonging Institute. 2018.
https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_housingandbelongingrichmond _psprint_jan11.pdf.
C4 (Contra Costa County Consortium), Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg, and Richmond Housing Authority. “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.” 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7196/2020- 2025-Analysis-of- ImpedimentsAssessm.
“CA COVID-19 Rent Relief.” California Department of Housing and Community Development , accessed July 29, 2022, https://housing.ca.gov/covid_rr/dashboard.html. “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, updated October 20, 2021, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. “California Mortgage Relief.” California Mortgage Relief, accessed July 29, 2022, https://camortgagerelief.org/programstatistics/.
California History. “Junípero Serra,” August 12, 2004.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040812151444/http://www.californiahistory.net/4_PAGES/missio ns_junipero.htm.
California Treasurer. “California Tax Credit Allocation Committ ee Regulations Implementing the Federal and State Low Income Housing Tax Credit Laws, California Code of Regulations, Title 4,
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-171
Division 17, Chapter 1.” 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov /ctcac/programreg/2021/20210616/2021-regulations-clean.pdf Chang, Alvin. “We can draw school zones to make classrooms less segregated. This is how well your district does,” Vox, August 27, 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/16822374 /school- segregation-gerrymander-map.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and VOYC (Voices of Youth Count). “Missed Opportunities: Youth Homelessness in America.” 2017. https://voicesofyouthcount.org/ wp- content/uploads/2017/11/VoYC-National-Estimates-Brief-Chapin-Hall-2017.pdf Chetty, Raj, and Nathaniel Hendren. “Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I:
Childhood Exposure Effects.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 133, issue 3, 2018, https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/3/1107/4850660.
CHPC (California Housing Partnership Corporation). “Risk Levels for Affordable Rental Housing.” Received March 2022.
City of Richmond. “2021 Richmond Housing Element Annual Progress Report.” Received March 2022.
City of Richmond. “City of Rich mond Economic Development Plan.” 2020. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/57856/HRA-Advisors-Richmond- Economic-Development-Action-Plan-Proposal.
City of Richmond. “Chapter 15.04: Community Benefits Policy.” 2021. https://pub-richmond. escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?documentid=43811.
City of Richmond. “Community Health and Wellness: City of Richmond General Plan Element
11.” 2012. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8579/Health-and- Wellness- Element.
City of Richmond. “Local Roadway Safety Plan.” 2022. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/ View/61771/Local-Roadway-Safety-Plan-Draft-2022-4-6?bidId= City of Richmond. “Richmond Bicycle Master Plan.” 2011. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2739/Bicycle-Master-Plan
City of Richmond. “Richmond Complete Streets Safety Assessment.” 2021. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/ View/61379/Richmond-Complete-Streets-Safety-Assessment-Report?bidId= City of Richmond. “Richmond Livable Corridors Form Based Code.” 2022. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2965/Form-Based-Code
F-172 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g City of Richmond. “Richmond Pedestrian Plan.” 2011.
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2738/Pedestrian-Plan
City of Richmond. “Richmond Resilience Roadmap.” 2019.
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3907/Richmond-Resilience-Roadmap City of Richmond. “Rumrill Blvd. / 13th St. Complete Streets Study” 2015. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3161/Rumrill-Blvd-13th-St-Complete-Streets-St City of Richmond. “Urban Greening Master Plan.” 2017.
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2858/Urban-Greening-Plan
City of Richmond. “Yellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Walkable Neighborhood Plan.” 2012. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3162/Yellow-Brick-Road
“Code Enforcement Cases - Last 12 Months.” Transparent Richmond, accessed July 30, 2022, https://www.transparentrichmond.org/dataset/Code-Enforcement-Cases-Last-12-Months/7qfn- j6c8.
Contra Costa Consortium, Housing Authority of Contra Costa County Housing, Housing Authority, of the City of Pittsburg, and Richmond Housing Authority. “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.” June 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final- BOS-Approved-AI-6-11-19
Contra Costa Health Services (unreleased). Received from the City of Richmond June 9, 2022.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority. “Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan.” 2020. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Richmond-CBTP-Final-Plan-2020.pdf.
Courtney, Mark E., Nathanael J. Okpych, Justin Harty, Huiling Feng, Sunggeun (Ethan) Park, Jenna Powers, Melanie Nadon, Dale J. Ditto, and Keunhye Park. “Findings from the California Youth Transitions to Adulthood Study (CalYOUTH): Conditions of Youth at Age 23.” 2020.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. https://www.chapinhall.org/wp- content/uploads/CY_YT_RE1020.pdf.
Craigslist, “Richmond ‘No Section 8’”, accessed July 30, 2022, https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search /apa?query=richmond+%22no+section+8%22&min_price=&max_price=&availabilityMode=0&sa le_date=all+dates.
Cunningham, Mary, and Graham MacDonald. “Housing as a Platform for Improving Education Outcomes among Low-Income Children. Urban Institute, 2012, https://www.urban. org/sites/default/files/publication/25331/412554-Housing-as-a-Platform-for-Improving-Education- Outcomes-among-Low-Income-Children.PDF.
Damiano, Tony, Jason Hicks, and Edward G. Goetz. “Racially Conc entrated Areas of Affluence:
A Preliminary Investigation.” 2017. University of Minnesota, Humphrey School of Public Affairs. https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/192356.
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-173
Davis, Aaron. “Richmond teachers go from being among the lowest to the highest salaries in Contra Costa.” East Bay Times, 6 Jul. 2022, https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/15/ richmond-teachers-go-from-lowest-paid-to-highest-paid-in-contra- costa/#:~:text=The%20district%20approved%20numerous%20agreements,the%202020%2D20 21%20school%20year.
Dion, Robin, Amy Dworsky, Jackie Kauff, and Rebecca Kleinman. “ Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care.” 2014. U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/youth_hsg_main_report.pdf.
Dremann, Sue. “The Muwekma Ohlone Have Been Here for More than 2,000 Years. The Government Says They’re Not a Tribe.” Palo Alto Online, April 4, 2022. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/04/08/the-muwekma-ohlone-have-been-here-for- more-than-2000-years-the-government-says-theyre-not-a-tribe?utm_source=express-2022-04- 08&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express.
“Frequently Asked Questions.” R3F (Richmond Rapid Response Fund), accessed July 29, 2022, https://www.richmondresponsefund.org/faqs.
Friedman, Samantha, Angela Reynolds, Susan Scovill, Florence R. Brassier, Ron Campbell, and McKenzie Ballou. “An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples. 2013. U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal//publications/pdf/Hsg_Disc_ against_SameSexCpls_v3.pdf.
GreatSchools, “Richmond, CA Public Schools,” accessed July 5, 2 022, https://www.great schools.org/california/richmond/schools/?st%5B%5D=public_charter&st%5B%5D=public&st%5 B%5D=charter.
Hall, Matthew, and Emily Greenman. “Housing and neighborhood qu ality among undocumented Mexican and Central American immigrants.” 2013. Soc Sci Res., vol. 42, issue 6, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860281/.
“Homeless Public School Students.” KidsData, accessed July 5, 2022, https://www.kidsdata. org/topic/230/homeless-students/map#loct=950&fmt=355&loc=212&tf=64¢er=- 13616969.989701,4574459.7332087&zoom=5.
“Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Data Dashboard.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, accessed July 5, 2022, https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_ indian_housing/programs/hcv/dashboard.
“Housing Needs Data Workbook: Richmond.” Association of Bay Area Governments/ Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021 (unreleased).
ITPI (In the Public Interest). “The cost of charter schools for the West Contra Costa Unified School District.” 2019. https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_ WCCUSD_Charters_May2019.pdf
F-174 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Kennedy, Marie. “Transformative Community Planning for Community Development, Part One:
Moving from Advocacy Planning to Transformative Planning.” Planners Network, 2018, https://www.plannersnetwork.org/2018/11/transformative-planning-for-community-development- part-one-moving-from-advocacy-planning-to-transformative-planning/.
Khansouvong, Brandy, Sary Tatapoporn, Sasha Graham, and Evan Bissell. “Richmond is Home: Preventing a second displacement of Laotian Americans.” 2020. Richmond LAND and Asian Pacific Environmental Network. http://apen4ej.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ Richmond-is-Home-Zine.pdf.
Knight, Heather. “Is desegregation dead?” San Francisco Chronicle, n.d., https://www.sfchronicle.com/schools-desegregation/.
Levy, Diane K., Doug Wissoker, Claudia Aranda, Brent Howell, Ro b Pitingolo, Sarale H. Sewell, and Robert Santos. “A Paired-Testing Pilot Study of Housing Dis crimination against Same-Sex Couples and Transgender Individuals.” 2017. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/paired-testing-pilot-study-housing-discrimination- against-same-sex-couples-and-transgender-individuals.
Lin, Margaretta, Kalima Rose, Lin Chin. “A Roadmap Toward Equi ty: Housing Solutions for Oakland, California.” 2015. City of Oakland and PolicyLink . https://www.policylink.org/ sites/default/files/pl-report-oak-housing-070715.pdf
“Low Income & Low Access Layers 2019.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, accessed June 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ f o o d - access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/.
McArdle, Nancy, and Dolores Acevedo-Garcia. “Consequences of Se gregation for Children’s Opportunity and Wellbeing.” Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2017, https://www.j chs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/a_shared_future_consequences_of_segregation_for_children .pdf.
Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin. “Is There Systematic Meaningful Eviden ce of School Poverty Thresholds?” National Coalition for School Diversity, 2018, https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED603709.pdf.
Mordechay, Kfir, and Jennifer Ayscue. “School Integration in Ge ntrifying Neighborhoods:
Evidence from New York City.” 2019. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5c63w88j.
Mundie and Associates, The Proposed Wood Street Project: Planni ng & Policy Framework, A Report to the City of Oakland Community Economic Development Agency Planning Division (San Francisco, CA: Mundie and Associates, 2005). http://www2.oaklan dnet.com/ oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak046596.pdfA
A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g C i t y o f R i c h m o n d | F-175
National Research Center and ICMA. “The National Citizen Survey : Richmond, CA Technical Appendices.” 2017. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter /View/44218/The- NCS- Technical-Appendices-Richmond-DRAFT-2017?bidId=.
National Research Center and Polco. “Richmond, CA: The National Community Survey.” 2021. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/59800/The-NCS-Report---Richmond-CA- 2021.
“On-Demand Shuttle: Richmond Moves.” City of Richmond, accessed July 28, 2022, https:// www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4199/On-Demand-
Shuttle#:~:text=Rides%20are%20able%20to%20be,free%20for%20students%20and%20senior s.
“Projections.” California Department of Finance, accessed July 5, 2022, https://dof.ca.gov/ Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/.
Rancaño, Vanessa. “How Proposition 13 Transformed Neighborhood Public Schools Throughout California.” KQED, 25 Oct. 2018, https://www.kqed.org/news/11701044/ how-propositi on-13- transformed-neighborhood-public-schools-throughout-california. “Regional Center Overview: Regional Center of the East Bay,” California Department of Developmental Services, accessed July 5, 2022, dds.ca.gov/rc/dashboard/overview/. “Richmond Assisted Households.” Received from the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, July 14, 2022.
Richmond Code Enforcement Department (unreleased). Received from the City of Richmond August 3, 2022.
Richmond Planning Department. “Project PRISM Historic Context Statement.” 2009. https:// www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7082/Project-PRISM---Historic-Context- Statement?bidId=.
“Richmond, CA Foreclosures & Foreclosed Homes.” RealtyTrac, accessed August 4, 2022, https://www.realtytrac.com/foreclosures/richmond-ca/?centerLat=- 122.36952199999996¢erLong=37.95359415431007&zoomLevel=11. “Richmond Housing Renovation Program.” Richmond Community Foundation, accessed June 15, 2021, https://www.rcfconnects.org/community-initiatives/restoring-neighborhoods/ richmond- housing-renovation-program/.
Contra Costa Health Services. “The Richmond Health Equity Report Card.” n.d. https://cchealth.org/health-data/pdf/Richmond-Health-Equity-Report-Card-Full.pdf.
Quillian, Lincoln, Devah Pager, Ole Hexel, and Arnfinn H. Midtboen. “Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time.” 2017. PNAS, vol. 114, issue 41, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706255114.
F-176 | City of Richmond A f f i r m a t i v e l y F u r t h e r i n g F a i r H o u s i n g Richmond Rent Program. “Fiscal Years 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 Annual Report.” 2021. https:// www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/59562/FY19-20-and-FY-20-21-Annual-Report- Final.
Romera, Adam P., Shoshana K. Goldberg, and Luis A. Vasquez. “LG BT People and Housing Affordability, Discrimination, and Homelessness.” 2020. UCLA Sc hool of Law, Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-housing-instability/.
Rothstein, Richard. “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government segregated America.” 2017. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Safe Return Project. “Speaking the Truth on Coming Home: Research Findings and Recommendations on Reentry in Richmond.” 2011. https://pacinst.org/wp-content/ uploads/2011/07/reentry_report3.pdf.
Safe Return Project. “Housing and Community Reintegration in Contra Costa County.” 2014. htt ps://www.safereturnprj.org/_files/ugd/78f578_fa0711ea74414fda8f203fb6de40e707.pdf.
Sharkey, Patrick. “Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality.” 2013. The University of Chicago Press.
Sun, Hua, and Lei Gao. “Lending practices to same-sex borrowers.” Biological Sciences, vol. 116, issue 19, 2019, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903592116.
Taub, Madeline. “WCCUSD passes budget to stave off insolvency and state takeover.” Richmond Confidential, 30 Jun. 2022, https://richmondconfidential.org/2022/06/30/ wccusd- budget-insolvent-deficit/.
Taylor, Jamila. “Racism, Inequality, and Health Care for African Americans.” 2019. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/racism-inequality-health-care-african- americans/?agreed=1
“Transitional Living Program.” Contra Costa Health Services, accessed July 18, 2022, https://cchealth.org/h3/transitional-living.php.
Tulane. “History of Law: The Fourteenth Amendment,” July 9, 2017. https://online.law.tulane.edu/articles/history-of-law-the-fourteenth-amendment.
Urban Displacement Project and the California Housing Partnership. “Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area.” 2019. https://www.urbandisplacement. org/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/bay_area_re-segregation_rising_housing_costs_report_2019.pdf.
Wagner, Jennifer K., Joon-Ho Yoo, Jayne O. Ifekwunigwe, Tanya M. Harrell, Michael J.
Bamshad, and Charmaine D. Royal. “Anthropologists’ views on rac e, ancestry, and genetics.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 162, issue 2, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/.