450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804-1630
Telephone: (510) 620-6512 Fax: (510) 620-6542 www.ci.richmond.ca.us CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
July 14, 2023
Civil Grand Jury - Foreperson
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA. 94553-0091
[email protected]
RE: City of Richmond’s Response to Grand Jury Report No. 2306: “Affordable Housing: A Plan Without a Home”
Dear Foreperson:
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and 933.05(b), please find below the response of the City of Richmond to the findings and recommendations of the 2022-2023 Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2306. The City’s responses are in italics directly below each finding or recommendation.
FINDINGS
1. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.
Response: We agree with this finding; however, it should be noted that City and County governments are not responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.
They are responsible for identifying adequate sites zoned and available within the housing element planning period to meet their fair shares of the regional housing needs across all income levels.
2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.
Response: We agree with this finding.
3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.
Response: We disagree with this finding. Jurisdictions with insufficient progress toward their RHNA targets become subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for affordable housing projects.
4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing CoR Response – “A Plan Without a Home”
allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low- income and 4x for low-income residents).
Response: We agree with this finding in general, but it should be noted that Richmond attained 100% of its very low- and 70.2% of its low-income targets during the 5th Cycle planning period covering 2015 through 2023.
5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low- and low-income housing, including: a) Limited availability of land; b) Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c) Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d) Limited available funding; e) Lack of community support; f) NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.
Response: We agree with this finding in general, but it should be noted that Richmond attained 100% of its very low- and 70.2% of its low-income targets during the 5th Cycle planning period despite many obstacles, including the ones listed in this finding.
6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development. Zoning obstacles include: a) Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b) Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c) Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.
Response: We agree with this finding; however, it should be noted that c) is not an obstacle in Richmond because the City already has an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in place (Richmond Municipal Code Article 15.04.603).
7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval.
Response: We partially agree with this finding as there are also penalties in place for jurisdictions making insufficient progress toward meeting their RHNA targets.
See response to Finding No. 3.
8. Builder’s Remedy and SB 35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.
Response: We disagree with this finding. In Richmond, the application of SB 35 recently resulted in a streamlined, ministerial planning approval for the TBV:
Villas at Renaissance Apartments Project (105 units along Colusa Avenue).
There are two other SB 35 projects currently under review that are expected to receive non-discretionary approval in the next few months – the Central Avenue Project (102 units along Central Avenue) and the Bob Dabney Plaza Project (32 units along Macdonald Avenue).
CoR Response – “A Plan Without a Home”
9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA’s) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.
Response: We agree with this finding in general, but it should be noted that Richmond’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has provisions for a housing in-lieu fee and non-residential linkage fee. The fees collected through the ordinance are intended to fund affordable housing projects throughout the City.
10. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low-income residents.
Response: We agree with this finding as Measure X monies can also be utilized to fund regional hospitals and community health centers; support crucial safety- net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and fund other essential county services.
11. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer’s overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.
Response: We agree with this finding.
12. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.
Response: We agree with this finding.
13. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low- and low-income housing.
Response: We agree with this finding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.
Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but it will be discussed with the City Council by December 14, 2023.
CoR Response – “A Plan Without a Home”
2. Each city and County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) is already presented to the City Council once a year before it is submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with State law.
3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The City of Richmond has a Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) that meets at least once a month.
The purpose of the HAC is to advise the Richmond Housing Authority on matters concerning the provision of decent affordable housing for low- and very low- income households. The HAC consists of seven commissioners appointed by the City Council.
4. Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low- income housing in their community.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. Appendix C of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update analyzes City policies and regulations (such as the Zoning Code) and market factors outside of the City’s control that constrain the production of housing in Richmond (including very low- and low- income housing). Section IV of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update establishes programs intended to address these constraints.
5. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.
Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) maintains an online tool called the “Housing Element Implementation and APR Dashboard”. The dashboard provides a high-level overview of California’s housing production data, including progress towards meeting RHNA targets at the regional and local jurisdiction levels.
CoR Response – “A Plan Without a Home”
6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned “suitable for residential use,” without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The State continues to pass legislation that streamlines housing development approvals on properties meeting certain eligibility criteria. A few examples include SB 35, SB 9, and other bills that have accelerated production of accessory dwelling units.
7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. See response to Recommendation No. 4.
8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The City of Richmond’s inclusionary housing ordinance is codified in Richmond Municipal Code Article
15.04.603.
9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The Richmond Housing Authority and City Council hold joint meetings to discuss matters related to the provision of very low- and low-income housing, including prioritization, funding, and implementation.
10. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.
Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Moving forward, the City’s Housing Division of the Community Development Department will publish an online report summarizing the City’s use of Measure X funds for very low- and low-income housing projects and programs.
CoR Response – “A Plan Without a Home”
_________________
The Richmond City Council reviewed and approved this response at their meeting of July 11, 2023.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this very important issue. Please contact me at (510) 620-6512 or at [email protected] if you have any additional questions.
Respectfully,
Shasa Curl
City Manager
cc: Eduardo Martinez, Mayor
David Aleshire, City Attorney