RRRiiiccchhhmmmooonnnddd

Housing Element HHoouussiinngg EElleemmeenntt

CCCiiitttyyy ooofff RRRiiiccchhhmmmooonnnddd

222000000111---222000000666 HHHooouuusssiiinnnggg

EEEllleeemmmeeennnttt

NNNooovvveeemmmbbbeeerrr 222000000555

PREPARED FOR:

City of Richmond 1401 Marina Way South Richmond, CA 94804 510.620.0606

Contact: Mimi Liem, AICP

FUNDED BY:

Planning Department, City of Richmond & CED Group

HOUSING ELEMENT STRATEGIC TEAM CURRENT AND (FORMER) CITY STAFF

Office of the City Manager

William Lindsay, City Manager (Phil Batchlor, former Interim City Manager) (Leveron Bryant, former Interim City Manager) (Jay Corey, former Assistant City Manager (Isiah Turner, former City Manager)

Planning Department

Richard Mitchell, Interim Planning Director (Barry Cromartie, former Planning Director) Mimi Liem, Senior Planner

Building Regulations

Fred Clement, City Building Official

Community and Economic Development Department James Branch, Development Project Manager Steve Duran, Community and Economic Development Director Lisa Hamburger, Deputy Director for Housing and Community Development Jenny Kuykendoll, former Redevelopment Specialist (Harriette Langston, former Community Development Program Manager) Jene’ Levine-Snipes, Development Project Manager Craig Murray, Development Project Manager Theresa Wilkerson, Community Development Program Manager Alan Wolken, Deputy Director for Redevelopment

Housing Authority Tim Jones, Executive Director Manuel Rosario, Deputy Director (Dan Nackerman, former Executive Director)

CCIITTYY OOFF RRIICCHHMMOONNDD HHOOUUSSIINNGG EELLEEMMEENNTT

NOVEMBER 2005

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 Rancho Cordova, CA 95827

CITY OF RICHMOND

City Council

Irma Anderson - Mayor Richard Griffin - Vice Mayor Nathaniel Bates (Charles Belcher, Former Councilmember) (Gary Bell, Former Councilmember) Tom Butt (Mindell Penn, Former Councilmember) (Richard Griffin, Former Councilmember) Jim Rogers Maria Viramontes John Marquez Gayle McLaughlin

Planning Commission

Virginia Finlay- Chair Stephen A. Williams – Vice Chair Ludmyrna Lopez - Secretary Vicki L. Winston Zachary Harris William H. Coleman Nagaraja Rao

RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary ...... E-1

Introduction

State Housing Strategy and Policies ...... 1 Regional Housing Policies ...... 2 City of Richmond Strategic Planning for Housing ...... 2 Internal Structure...... 3 Target Areas for Housing Programs within the City of Richmond...... 4 Funding Sources...... 5

City of Richmond Housing Program

Housing Goals, Policies and Programs ...... 9 Enhance the Quality and Supply of Housing ...... 10 Promote Universal Access to Housing...... 20 Improve and Preserve Neighborhoods ...... 27 Housing Element Programs – Implementation Schedule and Responsible Agencies ...... 35 Quantified Objectives Summary ...... 36

Background Report

Section I: Introduction to the Housing Element...... HE-1 Purpose ...... HE-1 Public Participation...... HE-1 Relationship to Other Elements...... HE-2 Organization ...... HE-3

Section II: Community Profile...... HE-5 Population Characteristics ...... HE-5 Population Growth ...... HE-5 Age Composition ...... HE-5 Race and Ethnicity ...... HE-6 Education, Employment and Economic Trends ...... HE-7 Education ...... HE-7 Employment...... HE-7 Economic Trends...... HE-10 Jobs/Housing Balance ...... HE-10 Household Characteristics ...... HE-11 Household Growth ...... HE-11 Household Composition ...... HE-12 Household Income ...... HE-12 Housing Characteristics ...... HE-15 Historic Residential Construction Trends ...... HE-15 Housing Conditions...... HE-15 Overcrowded Households...... HE-16 Vacancy Trends...... HE-17

November 2005 Table of Contents PAGE ii RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Section III: Housing Needs ...... HE-18 Housing Costs and Overpayment ...... HE-18 For Sale Housing Costs...... HE-18 Rental Housing Costs...... HE-18 Rents by Number of Bedrooms...... HE-19 Overpayment ...... HE-19 Housing Affordability...... HE-20 Maximum Affordable Rents by Income Levels ...... HE-20 Maximum Affordable Sales Price by Income Levels...... HE-21

Special Housing Needs...... HE-22 Senior Population and Households...... HE-22 Large Family Households ...... HE-25 Single Parent and Female Headed Households...... HE-25 Disabled Persons...... HE-26 Homeless Persons ...... HE-29 Agricultural Workers...... HE-30 Regional Housing Needs Determination ...... HE-30

Section IV: Housing Constraints and Resources ...... HE-33 Constraints to Housing Delivery ...... HE-33 Governmental Constraints...... HE-33 State and Federal Policy ...... HE-33 Land Use Controls...... HE-34 General Plan and Land Use Designations ...... HE-34 Specific Plans...... HE-34 Zoning Regulations...... HE-34 General Residential Standards...... HE-36 Development Standards...... HE-36 Provision for a Variety of Housing ...... HE-38 Performance Standards...... HE-39 Design Review ...... HE-41 Homeless and Transitional Shelters ...... HE-41 Subdivision Standards ...... HE-43 Inclusionary Housing...... HE-44 Development Process...... HE-45 Local Permit Processing Fees and Timeframes ...... HE-45 Codes and Code Enforcement ...... HE-49 Nongovernmental Constraints...... HE-51 Cost of Construction...... HE-51 Cost of Land ...... HE-51 Availability of Financing...... HE-51 Constraint Removal Efforts ...... HE-53 Identification of Possible Constraints to the Development, Maintenance, or Improvement of Housing for Disabled Persons ...... HE-54 Adequate Sites...... HE-55 Available Multifamily Sites...... HE-55 Available Single Family Sites ...... HE-56 Completed, Pending, and Proposed Residential Projects...... HE-56 Affordable and At-risk Housing ...... HE-60 Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units...... HE-61 Preservation Costs ...... HE-62 Preservation and Affordable Housing Resources...... HE-62

Table of Contents November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE iii

Resources and Incentives for Affordable Housing ...... HE-63 Residential Energy Conservation ...... HE-67

Section V: Review of Previous Element...... HE-71 Appropriateness...... HE-71 Effectiveness ...... HE-71 Progress of Richmond’s 1994 Housing Goals and Programs...... HE-73

Appendix

A-1: Preservation Resources ...... A-1 A-2: Ahwahnee Principles...... A-2 A-3: Design Review Ordinance and Design Review Guidelines ...... A-3 A-4: AB 438 Evaluation ...... A-4

LIST OF TABLES

Table HE-1: Population Growth ...... HE-6 Table HE-2: Age Distribution ...... HE-6 Table HE-3: Race and Ethnic Composition ...... HE-7 Table HE-4: Occupations of Richmond and County Residents ...... HE-8 Table HE-5: Occupations and Wages in Contra Costa County in 2001...... HE-8 Table HE-6: Major Employers in Richmond ...... HE-9 Table HE-7: Unemployment ...... HE-10 Table HE-8: Jobs/housing Balance Indicators...... HE-10 Table HE-9: Commute Time for Residents...... HE-11 Table HE-10: Household Tenure...... HE-12 Table HE-11: Household Composition...... HE-12 Table HE-12: Household Income in Richmond and the County ...... HE-13 Table HE-13: Median Household Income by Race...... HE-13 Table HE-14: Lower Income Households by Household Type...... HE-14 Table HE-15: Poverty Status ...... HE-14 Table HE-16: Housing Units by Type...... HE-15 Table HE-17: Housing Units by Year Built ...... HE-16 Table HE-18: Substandard Housing Units ...... HE-16 Table HE-19: Overcrowded Households...... HE-17 Table HE-20: Housing Vacancy ...... HE-17 Table HE-21: Median Sales Price for Single Family Homes ...... HE-18 Table HE-22: Richmond Rental Costs...... HE-18 Table HE-23: Median Apartment Rental Costs by Housing Type – 2003 ...... HE-18 Table HE-24: Total Households Overpaying by Income...... HE-20 Table HE-25: Maximum Household Income – 2004 ...... HE-20 Table HE-26: Renter Affordable Housing Costs ...... HE-21 Table HE-27: Owner Affordable Housing Costs ...... HE-22 Table HE-28: Senior Population Trends ...... HE-22 Table HE-29: Senior Population by Age ...... HE-23 Table HE-30: Senior Householders by Tenure ...... HE-23 Table HE-31: Services for the Elderly and/or Disabled ...... HE-24 Table HE-32: Large Households and Housing Units...... HE-25 Table HE-33: Noninstitutionalized Persons with Disabilities by Age ...... HE-27 Table HE-34: Persons with Disabilities by Employment Status...... HE-28 Table HE-35: Services and Housing Resources for Homeless Persons ...... HE-30

November 2005 Table of Contents PAGE iv RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Table HE-36: Regional housing Needs Determination 1999-2006 ...... HE-31 Table HE-37: Development Standards for Residential land Use ...... HE-37 Table HE-38: Parking Standards ...... HE-38 Table HE-39: Open Space Requirements ...... HE-38 Table HE-40: Housing Types Permitted by Zoning District...... HE-39 Table HE-41: Performance Standards for Residential Development...... HE-40 Table HE-42: Street Standards – Class A...... HE-43 Table HE-43: Street Standards – Class B ...... HE-44 Table HE-44: Parkland Dedication Requirements ...... HE-44 Table HE-45: Development Permit Fees ...... HE-46 Table HE-46: Housing Construction Costs ...... HE-51 Table HE-47: Loan Amount by Annual Household Income ...... HE-52 Table HE-48: Historic Residential Sales – All Types ...... HE-53 Table HE-49: Total Vacant Residential Sites ...... HE-56 Table HE-50: Residential Project Since 2000 – As of June 2005 ...... HE-57 Table HE-51: Affordable and At-Risk Housing Projects...... HE-61 Table HE-52: Redevelopment Agency Affordable Housing Production...... HE-66 Table HE-53: Housing Needs and Objectives – New Construction 1990-1995 ...... HE-71 Table HE-54: 1990-1998 Total Units Built ...... HE-72 Table HE-55: Affordable Housing Units Created Between 1990-1999 ...... HE-72 Table HE-56: 1994 Housing Goals and Programs ...... HE-73 Table HE-57: 1994 Housing Programs and Accomplishments...... HE-73

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure HE-1: Education Level ...... HE-7 Figure HE-2: Household Growth 2000-2020...... HE-11 Figure HE-3: Gross Rent by Number of Bedrooms ...... HE-19 Figure HE-4: Development Procedure and Timeframes ...... HE-48

Table of Contents November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(1) The City of Richmond has made diligent efforts to solicit public participation pertaining to the formulation of the Housing Element. Public participation for the 1999-2006 Housing Element included community outreach, a web site, public workshops and public hearings. A total of six public workshops were held to solicit community input for the update of the Housing Element. Recommendations and comments regarding housing in the city included:

o Increase access to homeownership for residents of public housing, as well as providing services related to preparing households for homeownership. o Improve link between services, such as childcare, employment training, computer literacy, and supportive services, and populations (e.g., affordable housing residents and special needs groups) that most need the services. o Increase the number of affordable rental housing units available for people with disabilities. o Address renters that are at risk of losing housing. o Provide more shelters and transitional housing. o Support was expressed for a land trust concept that would allow affordable units to remain affordable over time and multiple ownership/occupancy. o Support was expressed for the use of mobile homes, senior housing development near shopping and public transportation, and providing monetary incentives for affordable housing. o Advertise the opportunities available to people in need of housing, landlords, developers, and non-profits. o Enact policies that shorten the permitting process. o Make it easier to build and/or convert existing structures into second units. o Encourage more in-fill development near shopping, public transportation and services.

(2) The effectiveness of 1990 to 1998 Richmond Housing Program, in regards to meeting regional housing needs, can be measured by a level of achievement. From 1990 to 1998, the City of Richmond gained 1,553 housing units. This represents a 4 percent increase in the total number of housing units over the eight-year period. New construction of housing units from 1990 to 1998 represents 32.2 percent of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Determination of 4,823 units. The City achieved only 24 percent of its affordable (low and very low) new construction goals and 33 percent of its market rate (moderate and above moderate) new construction goals in the 1990-1998 period.

(3) In 2000, the City of Richmond had a population of 99,216 persons, which made it the second largest City in Contra Costa County. Between 1990 and 2000, the City population increased by 13 percent compared to 18 percent for Contra Costa County. According to projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the City’s population is expected to increase by nine percent to approximately 108,100 persons in 2020.

(4) Over the last 10 years in Richmond, middle-aged adults and young people between the ages of 18 to 24 years experienced the largest proportional increase at 36 percent and 27 percent, respectively. The percentage of school age children also increased substantially, growing by

November 2005 E-1 Executive Summary RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

19 percent or 3,137 persons. The only group that experienced a decline over the last 10 years was those persons age 65 and over. Seniors declined by one percent or 106 persons.

(5) Between 1990 and 2000, the number of households in Richmond increased by six percent, from 32,749 to 34,625. According to ABAG, that number is expected to increase by almost 14 percent by 2020. Compared to the other similarly sized communities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, the number of households in Richmond is expected to grow twice as fast as the next fastest growing jurisdiction – Berkeley.

(6) Approximately 46.7 percent (16,162 households) of the City’s households are renters and 53.3 percent (18,463 households) are owners. Families comprised approximately 67 percent of all households in 2000.

(7) Between 1999 and 2006, the REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION FOR City of Richmond has been given 1999-2006 New Construction Units a RHND construction need of Income Remaining Need Allocation Const. 2,603 housing units, of which, a Group majority are for the need of Number Percent Number Number Percent Moderate and Above-moderate Very Low 471 18.1% 538 0 0.0% income households. Since 2000, Low 273 10.5% 421 0 0.0% the City had 1,497 dwelling units Moderate 625 24.0% 301 324 51.8% completed and 2,207 are under Above 1,234 47.4% 2,444 0 0.0% construction. Currently there are Moderate 818 very low income units and TOTAL 2,603 100.0% 3,704 324 12.4% 501 low income units, 604 Source: ABAG, Regional Housing Needs Determination, 2001; City moderate income units, and of Richmond Note: *Current units = only constructed and under construction units 4,713 above moderate income as of June 2005. See Table HE-50 for complete breakdown of units. units either constructed, under construction, in the planning process or proposed. A total of 301 moderate income units are constructed or are under construction as of June 2005, this results in a remaining need of 324 units (51.8 percent) affordable to moderate income households.

(8) 2000 Census data indicates a total of 36,044 housing units in the City. As of January 2003, this total had risen to 37,064 housing units built or approved. A comparison of the 1990 and 2000 Census data shows the largest numerical increase in housing units was detached single family homes (783 units, 4.0 percent increase). Apartment complexes of 50 or more units represent the largest proportional increase at 139.1 percent (1,237 units).

(9) According to “Raising the Roof, California Housing Development Projections and Constraints, 1997-2020”, the desirable vacancy rate in a community is considered to be 5 percent in order to give city residents an adequate supply of housing in which to choose from. The 2000 Census estimated a vacancy rate for Richmond of 3.9 percent in 2000.

(10) Overpayment is defined as monthly shelter costs in excess of 30 percent of a household’s income. Shelter cost is defined as the monthly owner costs (mortgages, deed of trust, contracts to purchase or similar debts on the property and taxes, insurance on the property, and utilities) or the gross rent (contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities). According to the 2000 Census, 15.6 percent of the owner households and 19.0 percent of the renter households in the City are overpaying for housing.

Executive Summary E-2 November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

(11) Seven affordable apartment complexes with a total of 790 units are “at-risk” in the City of Richmond within the effective term of this housing element. All of the at-risk apartment units are anticipated to have their affordable housing funding renewed.

(12) Currently, there area 224 vacant residential acres in the City for a total potential for 616 single-family dwelling units and 3,544 multifamily dwelling units based on current zoning designations in the City, including commercial zones.

(13) Based on the above Programs and the available developable sites, the it is the City’s objective to provide for the preservation of 790 at-risk housing units, the construction of 2,603 units, or the rehabilitation or conservation of approximately 315 units between 1999 and 2006.

SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR 1999-2006 New Income Group Rehabilitation Conservation Preservation Construction Very-low 100 50 471 790 Low 100 50 273 Moderate 15 0 0 625 Above-moderate 0 0 0 1,234 TOTAL 215 100 790 2,603

November 2005 E-3 Executive Summary RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

This page is intentionally left blank

Executive Summary E-4 November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 1

HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to present the City of Richmond’s housing program, which is based on state, regional, and local housing policies, as well as identified housing needs of the City’s residents, housing resources and housing constraints.

State Housing Strategy and Policies

In 1980, the State of California amended the Government Code by adding Article 10.6 regarding Housing Elements. By enacting this statute, the legislature found that "the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order. The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community..."

In 1995, the State published the State of California Consolidated Plan that includes a five-year housing strategy. The five-year housing strategy is intended for the utilization of federal resources toward housing needs in the state. Three broad objectives are identified for the use of federal funds:

1) Meeting low-income renters needs. 2) Meeting low-income homeowners needs. 3) Meeting the needs of homeless persons and households requiring supportive services.

Within the five year strategy is a sub-list of strategies that are intended to address housing as a statewide concern:

1) Development of New Housing (assisting local governments in preparing and implementing housing elements of their general plan, expedited permit processing for affordable housing, funding resources and fostering partnerships between housing providers).

2) Preservation of Existing Housing and Neighborhoods (rehabilitation of existing homes, code enforcement, preserving government-assisted housing projects and mobile home ownership).

3) Reduction of Housing Costs (development on surplus and under-utilized land, self-help construction and rehabilitation programs, tax-exempt bonds for development and rehabilitation, financing and manufactured homes, eliminating duplicative environmental review procedures and revising regulations that add to the cost of housing development).

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 2 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

In 1999, the State issued the California Statewide Housing Plan Update. Key issues ascertained in the Housing Plan include:

Much higher levels of housing construction are needed to adequately house the State’s population.

High housing cost burdens are increasingly an issue for both owners and renters. The combination of upward price pressure in the housing markets and relatively tight urban housing markets has led to increasing cost burdens, particularly for low-income renter residents.

In some portions of the State, the level of overcrowding has dramatically increased.

A substantial portion of affordable rental housing developments statewide are at risk of conversion to market rate use.

Significant numbers of temporary agricultural workers migrate throughout the State facing housing challenges that impact their welfare.

Homeless individuals and households face significant difficulties in obtaining shelter and reintegrating themselves into the broader society.

Regional Housing Policies

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the development of regional housing policies for the nine county San Francisco Bay area including all cities within the area. The Final Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) was issued by ABAG in June 2001. According to ABAG the San Francisco Bay area is expected to grow by 450,000 persons by 2005. The purpose of the RHND is to allocate to the cities and county their “fair share” of the Bay Area’s projected housing need by household income group over the seven and a half year (1999-2006) planning period covered by the plan See Table HE-36 for the City of Richmond’s RHND for 1999- 2006.

City of Richmond Strategic Planning for Housing

In addition to this Housing Element and the General Plan, the City creates several other documents that are important housing-related planning and strategy tools. All of these documents correlate to one another and this Housing Element through shared goals and programs.

The Community and Economic Development Department, which comprises the Housing and Community Development Division and the Redevelopment Agency, both of which have responsibility for housing development and preservation, produces an annual Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan defines the mission, vision, challenges, and near and long term goals for the department. Department goals include “Enhance the quality and supply of housing, with an emphasis on affordable housing” and “Increase home ownership in Richmond”.

The 5-Year City of Richmond Consolidated Plan, 2003-2008, describes the housing, community development, and homeless needs within the City, analyzes the Richmond Housing Market, and creates a five-year strategic plan for improving housing conditions and options in Richmond.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 3

Within the Consolidated Plan frame, the Annual Action Plan details the specific activities to be implemented each year. Creation of these documents is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds, and is coordinated by the Housing and Community Development Division (HCD).

The Redevelopment Agency 5-Year Implementation Plan, 2004-2009, sets forth the housing obligations of the Richmond Redevelopment Agency related to the provision of affordable housing in the Redevelopment Project Areas. By law, 20% of Redevelopment Tax Increment revenue must be set-aside in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (LMIHF) for affordable housing. This document identifies the affordable housing goals, policies, programs and projected expenditures that govern the use of the LMIHF during the implementation period. Responsibility for the LMIHF is held jointly by the Redevelopment Agency and HCD.

Finally, the Richmond Housing Authority produces their Public Housing Authority 5-Year Plan and Annual Plan each year, which creates a strategy for providing stable permanent housing for all residents, through various programs that the Housing Authority administers, including Public Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Many smaller scale plans and strategies steer individual programs and neighborhood-specific housing improvements. More information on the programs identified above can be found under Resources and Incentives for Affordable Housing on page HE-58.

Internal Structure

Housing in Richmond is the responsibility of several departments, divisions, agencies, and entities within the City of Richmond organizational structure. The following chart demonstrates the relationship between these various entities. Only City Departments that have responsibility for housing program(s) are represented.

City of Richmond Housing Programs Organizational Chart

Redevelopment Agency Board Housing Authority Board City Council

Office of the City Manager Office of City Attorney

Finance Department Office of the Assistant City Manager for Public Services Department Community & Economic Development

Community & Economic Planning Department Building Regulations Division Richmond Housing Authority Development

Redevelopment Agency Housing & Community Development Division

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 4 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Several abbreviations and acronyms are used throughout this section of the Housing Element to improve the document’s ease of use. They are listed below. Additional information about these terms can be found above under “City of Richmond Strategic Planning for Housing” and on page HE-58 under “Resources and Incentives for Affordable Housing”.

Cal HCD: California Department of Housing and Community Development Cal HFA: California Housing Finance Agency CDBG: Community Development Block Grant CED: Community and Economic Development Department, comprising the Housing and Community Development Division and the Redevelopment Agency EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RHA: Richmond Housing Authority HCD: Housing and Community Development Division of the Community and Economic Development Department HOME: Home Investment Partnership Program HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development LMIHF: Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund RDA: Redevelopment Agency

Target Areas for Housing Programs within the City of Richmond

The City has identified several target regions of Richmond in which to direct the majority of funds for housing. These target regions tend to have high minority concentrations, above average levels of poverty and unemployment, older housing, often in disrepair, and general blighting conditions. The name of each target area and the affected neighborhoods/neighborhood councils are listed.

Central Richmond, comprising neighborhoods of Iron Triangle, Forest Park, North and East, Belding Woods, Metro Richmore, City Center and Atchison Village. The City’s Central Richmond Revitalization Initiative is the key strategy document for guiding housing programs and neighborhood revitalization efforts in central Richmond. Further, the Iron Triangle Neighborhood has been designated a Revitalization Strategy Area by HUD, which encourages increased investment in this neighborhood. Portions of it are also designated as Redevelopment Project Areas.

Southside, comprising neighborhoods of Santa Fe, Coronado, Cortez, Pullman, Park Plaza, Laurel Park, East Shore, Parkview, Panhandle Annex, Richmond Annex, Easter Hill, and Southwest Annex. The Easter Hill HOPE VI neighborhood revitalization project is re-making this public housing development and surrounding area into a mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhood with hundreds of new rental and ownership units and expanded amenities and commercial options.

North Richmond, comprising neighborhoods of Shields-Reid and Parchester Village. The North Richmond Federal Task Force, made up of representatives from several federal agencies, the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County, non-profit organizations, businesses, and residents, has been working to develop strategies and solutions for North Richmond for several years. The City and County collaborate on many fronts in this neighborhood, including housing. The North Richmond Memorandum of Understanding was recently executed by the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, and Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond to guide housing and community development within the neighborhood over the next five years.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 5

Hilltop, comprising neighborhoods of Hilltop Bayview, Hilltop Green, Fairmede, Hilltop, Hilltop Village, and the entire Hilltop Regional Center, a large indoor mall and commercial area.

Funding Sources

The biggest challenge the City faces in its housing programs is funding. Several predictable and entitlement funding sources keep our programs operating. However, because of the high cost of developing, improving, and subsidizing decent and affordable housing in Richmond, as in all of the Bay Area, these funds can assist a very limited number of household. The City has recently stepped-up its efforts to secure additional sources of funding through federal, state, and non-profit sources in order to assist as many families as possible. More information about the major sources of funding used for housing in Richmond is available beginning on page HE-63.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 6 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

The page intentionally left blank

Housing Program November 2005

P AGE 8 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

The page intentionally left blank

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 9

CITY OF RICHMOND HOUSING PROGRAMS

Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the housing programs being implemented to preserve, improve and develop housing for Richmond. The goals, policies and programs provide the foundation for specific housing activities to be developed and implemented.

Goals

The City of Richmond has developed eight housing goals for the development of housing for all incomes and special needs groups in the City.

ENHANCE THE QUALITY AND SUPPLY OF HOUSING

GOAL A: Create decent, safe, and affordable housing in a wide range of types and densities and make it available to all existing and future Richmond residents, regardless of age, income level, or household size. In doing this, The City of Richmond supports the ideas presented in the Ahwahnee Principles (see Appendix A-2 for these Principles).

PROMOTE UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HOUSING

GOAL B: Ensure that fair housing opportunities prevail for all city residents regardless of age, sex, family status, income level, source of income, race, creed, national origin, sexual preference, gender identity or disability.

GOAL C: Make suitable housing available for residents with special needs, such as elderly or disabled persons.

GOAL D: Ensure that temporary shelter and transitional housing are available.

IMPROVE AND PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS

GOAL E: Conserve and maintain the existing housing stock to the maximum extent feasible.

GOAL F: Preserve and upgrade residential neighborhoods so that they are attractive, safe, retain their distinct identities, and promote a sense of community.

GOAL G: Promote housing development and public improvements to take advantage of adjoining transportation, community facilities, open space, commercial services, and amenities (i.e. smart growth).

GOAL H: Ensure that involuntary displacement is minimized and, when necessary, mitigated as housing stock upgrading and neighborhood preservation are pursued.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 10 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

The City has designed the following policies and programs to fulfill the housing goals listed above and address the future housing need in the City.

ENHANCE THE QUALITY AND SUPPLY OF HOUSING

GOAL A: Create decent, safe, and affordable housing in a wide range of types and densities and make it available to all existing and future Richmond residents, regardless of age, income level, or household size. In doing this, The City of Richmond supports the ideas presented in the Ahwahnee Principles (see Appendix A-2 for these Principles).

POLICIES TO ENHANCE THE QUALITY AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Policy 1 Promote affordable infill housing development wherever compatible with existing neighborhoods.

Policy 2 Require all residential developments of ten or more units to include an affordable housing component, or pay in-lieu fees to support future affordable housing development, per City of Richmond Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 28-01.

Policy 3 Assist residential developers to meet their affordable housing obligation by providing density bonuses and/or other incentives.

Policy 4 Promote development of affordable housing on surplus, underused or vacant public lands where appropriate and where compatible with existing uses.

Policy 5 Assist non-profit developers of affordable housing to obtain infill sites at reduced cost.

Policy 6 The City Council will consider waiving the payment of building permit and other City fees on a case by case basis for projects providing housing units affordable to very low and low income persons, where possible and permissible.

Policy 7 Work actively to create new sources of financing for affordable housing.

Policy 8 Discourage applications for downzoning of existing medium and high density residential areas to lower density residential, in order to encourage the provision of additional affordable housing.

Policy 9 Actively promote the use of innovative methods to achieve lower land costs and create more affordable housing units, such as Planned Area Districts, clustered housing developments, cooperative housing, and other methods.

Policy 10 Include an affordable housing component in any new or expanded redevelopment areas.

Policy 11 Promote a balance of housing types, tenures, densities, and price ranges, including promoting mixed-income residential development.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 11

Policy 12 Focus the use of City resources for housing rehabilitation and affordable housing in target areas (see page 5). Policy 13 Disperse affordable housing throughout the City to the maximum extent feasible without adversely impacting any building or area; avoid further impacting target areas.

Policy 14 Continue to pursue rent subsidy programs for low-income City residents to the maximum extent possible, while working toward self-sufficiency for all residents with respect to housing and shelter.

Policy 15 Make a maximum effort to preserve for low income households, all of the units in affordable housing developments in Richmond that are eligible under existing laws and contracts.

Policy 16 Promote the development of good quality housing for all income groups through zoning, design review, and building regulations, consistent with efforts to increase the City's affordable housing stock.

PROGRAMS TO ENHANCE THE QUALITY AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Program 1: Secure or Make Available Sites for Affordable Housing Development

Objective: Secure sufficient property and/or acquisition funds for the development of affordable housing.

Description: The Land Assembly Program was established to secure and make available sites for affordable housing construction, especially for Very Low and Low Income families.

Specific Action Required: The City will continue for a five-year time period to work with the Redevelopment Agency and developers and purchase privately owned sites, as well as public properties for the development of housing affordable to lower income households. Under the public lands component, City and Agency owned public lands will be assessed for best use, and actions will be taken to make appropriate sites available for affordable housing. The Agency will either develop affordable units on the selected sites or make them available to affordable housing developers, particularly nonprofit corporations. The Agency may deed properties suitable for affordable housing development to nonprofit corporations, governed by reimbursement agreements spelling out conditions of development and of repayment. The City and Agency will promote similar activities and programs by other agencies such as the County, the School District, Caltrans, and the public utilities. The City’s goal for this program is the development of 25 housing units affordable to lower income households. (Ref: Policies 1, 4, 5 and 9)

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 12 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Funding Source: LMIHF, CDBG, HOME.

Responsible Agencies: Redevelopment Agency, Housing & Community Development Division (HCD), Public Services Department, Public Works - Building Regulations Division; City Attorney’s Office, City Manager.

Program 2: Inclusionary Housing Program

Objective: Continuation and evaluation of the adopted Inclusionary Housing Program.

Description: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Number 28-01, adopted by the Richmond City Council in 2001, requires that all residential developments of 10 or more housing units assign a minimum number of units to be affordable to Very Low, Low and/or Moderate Income households. The amount or percentage of affordable units required in each income group varies based on program guidelines. Guidelines allows for differences between larger developments and smaller infill projects. It includes incentives such as density bonuses, fee waivers, design, zoning, and building code flexibility, etc. (Ref: Policies 2, 3, 13 and 19)

Specific Action Required: Continue to require inclusionary housing for all residential development project of 10 or more units. Collect developer In-lieu fees where necessary. Evaluate program accomplishments and recommend Ordinance and implementation amendments, as necessary.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program. In 2005- 2006, conduct program evaluation.

Funding Source: In-lieu fees.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department, HCD, RDA.

Program 3: Affordable Housing Trust Fund

Objective: In association with other jurisdictions, the City will help to develop the Contra Costa County Affordable Housing Trust Fund, to assist in the construction of housing units affordable to lower income households.

Description: The Affordable Housing Trust Fund will create additional funding sources for the development of affordable residential units. (Ref: Policies 7)

Specific Action Required: The City will participate in the creation of the Contra Costa County Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which will be available to help fund the development of affordable housing in the City. As part of the creation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the City will investigate the feasibility and appropriateness of fees and funding sources.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 13

Implementation Schedule: Create program by 2006. Apply for funds from the Housing Trust Fund as soon as feasible.

Funding Source: To be decided.

Responsible Agencies: HCD.

Program HG-4: Residential Site Inventory

Objective: Maintain inventory and update it annually to reflect changes in land uses and in zoning.

Description: Using the Geographical Information System (GIS), the IT and Planning Departments are creating a list of land parcels in the Richmond Sphere- of-influence area that (a) are zoned for residential development and (b) are vacant. (Ref: Policy 5)

Specific Action Required: Continue creating a Residential Site Inventory available on GIS.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department.

Program 5: City Building Permits & Fees

Objective: Continue to implement and improve permit processes that facilitate the provision of housing.

Description: The City is working to expedite and simplify the permitting process for housing development, by reducing the time and costs associated with permitting and environmental review and ensuring that development standards are reasonable. (Ref: Policy 6)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue identifying conditions within the approval process that slow or reduce housing development and work to improve those. Implement a “one-stop” permit process that provides coordinated, comprehensive, and accurate review of residential development applications. Ensure coordination between different City Departments. Annually review and revise the process to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. Reduce the time and cost of environmental review by using CEQA and NEPA exemptions, performing tiered reviews, and requiring only those on- and off-site improvements necessary to meet the needs of residential development and to mitigate significant environmental impacts.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 14 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

The City will examine the process used to develop housing units affordable to very low and low income persons and determine what improvement might enhance the quality and supply of affordable housing. The City will encourage and receive public comments on projects through Richmond Neighborhood Councils, The City Planning department, as well as other City Departments, the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Implementation Schedule: Standards for affordable development will be completed by Fiscal Year 04-05.

Funding Source: To be decided.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department, Public Works Department, Public Works - Building Regulations Division, HCD.

Program 6: Affordable Housing Financing

Objective: Assist in the development of affordable housing through financial support.

Description: Under this program the City and the Redevelopment Agency will pursue various approaches to increasing the funds available for affordable housing projects. These approaches include (1) working with the local lending institutions to commit to a shared pool of funds earmarked for affordable housing financing and to consider somewhat less restrictive underwriting standards; (2) the use of Agency tax increment and bonding capacity (primarily HCD); (3) identifying and competing for additional funding through state, federal and other programs, including programs under HUD, EPA, Cal HFA, and California HCD; and (4) optimizing the use of the LMIHF, established by state redevelopment law, to support the first-time homebuyer program and the renter and owner rehabilitation programs. The City and Agency will also look into innovative financing methods such as shared-equity programs. (Ref: Policy 7 and 10)

Specific Action Required: The City and Agency shall explore innovative financing methods and offer financial assistance to the identified programs which appear to have the most benefit and success.

Implementation Schedule: On-going. Continuation of existing program. Specific implementation dates for the Program are: (1) Pool of funds - December 2005 (2) Next Agency (HCD) Bond - March 2008 (3) Identify and competing for funding programs - Dependent on grant/loan schedule. (4) Agency First-Time Home-Buyer Program - December 2005 (5) Innovative Financing methods – December 2005

Funding Source: LMIHF, In-lieu fees, CDBG and HOME funds.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 15

Responsible Agencies: Redevelopment Agency (HCD), Richmond Housing Authority (RHA), Finance Department.

Program 7: Design Review, Planned Area, Tentative Development Plan, and Subdivision Review

Objective: Education of elected and appointed official and City staff on innovative design methods for higher density developments that are compatible with single family development.

Description: The Planning Department provides educational forums for elected and appointed officials and staff on innovative design methods for higher density developments and for multifamily units that are compatible with single family areas. (Ref: Policies 9)

Specific Action Required: The Planning Department will continue to provide educational forums for City staff and elected and appointed officials. The educational forums will be held annually. City staff, as part of the development review process, will encourage housing development applicants to integrate affordable units in their projects while maintaining excellence of design.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund, Planning Fees.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department.

Program 8: Housing Coordinating Group

Objective: Reestablish the Housing Coordinating Group to improve communication and coordination surrounding housing-related programs and projects within the City. Conduct periodic meetings to coordinate the City's housing activities and to review progress in implementing the Housing Element policies and Five-Year Program.

Description: A Housing Coordinating Group will be reestablished under the direction of the Redevelopment Agency to ensure that the City's housing policies and programs are effectively coordinated in order to (1) generate maximum results in addressing Richmond's housing needs and (2) implement the Housing Element policies and Five-Year Program. The Coordinating Group shall include all of the various City agencies and departments involved with housing: the RHA; HCD; RDA; Building Regulations Division; Planning Department; Public Works Department; and the Office of the City Attorney. The Coordinating Group will work closely with other housing providers in the private and non-profit sectors and with other public agencies. (Ref: Policies 11, 12 and 25)

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 16 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Specific Action Required: The City will reestablish the Housing Coordinating Group in order to ensure that the City's housing policies and programs are effectively coordinated in order to (1) generate maximum results in addressing Richmond's housing needs and (2) implement the Housing Element.

Implementation Schedule: Establishment of Group by 2006.

Funding Source: General Fund, Planning Fees.

Responsible Agencies: RHA, HCD, RDA, Building Regulations Division, Planning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney’s Office.

Program 9: Housing Balance and Variety

Objective: Continue to provide adequate sites for all types of housing in the City to address the needs of every income group.

Description: The Richmond Zoning Ordinance currently provides a full range of zoned districts allowing for residential development, including single family; multiple family; high rise residential; residential uses in community reserve, agricultural, and commercial areas; factory built (manufactured) homes; mobile homes; second units; and emergency and transitional housing. In September 2004, a vacant land survey was completed and found an estimated approximately 224 vacant acres of land zoned for residential uses, representing a potential 4,161 estimated housing units. (Ref: Policies 11 and 20)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue promoting a variety of different housing types and densities and zoning districts by evaluating each housing project and proposal as to its effectiveness in addressing the housing needs of the City’s residents.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund, Planning Fees.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council.

Program 10: County Mortgage Credit Certificates

Objective: Assist 10 to 15 first-time homebuyers in Richmond to purchase homes by obtaining mortgage interest tax credits.

Description: The Contra Costa County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program assists first time homebuyers that are income qualified to purchase new or existing (resale) homes, by providing income tax credits up to 20% of the annual mortgage interest paid. A limit on the home purchase price also applies. (Ref: Policy 7 and 12)

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 17

Specific Action Required: The City will continue participating in the Contra Costa County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. The City will continue to inform perspective first time homebuyers of the availability of this program through information distributed as a part of the FTHB process and information about the Mortgage Credit Certificate placed on the City’s housing web-site, at the Housing Authority office and Community Development office.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: County revenues.

Responsible Agencies: HCD.

Program 11: Lease Purchase Programs

Objective: Assist 25 first-time homebuyers in Richmond, especially those with no or poor credit, to purchase a home through a local lease-purchase program.

Description: CalHFA and the ABAG Finance Authority provide lease purchase programs under the East Bay Delta Lease-Purchase Program and the California Home Source Lease-Purchase Program, respectively. These programs assist first- time homebuyers to purchase homes by first buying the home for the client and leasing it to them for up to 3 years. Downpayment and closing costs are paid by the Lease-Purchase Program and a silent second loan. At the end of 3 years, the client assumes the mortgage. These programs are intended for first time homebuyers with limited downpayment and closing cost resources and/or who have limited or impaired credit. (Ref: Policy 7 and 12)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue participating in the local Lease- Purchase programs.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: Freddie Mac.

Responsible Agencies: HCD.

Program 12: Default and Delinquency Counseling

Objective: Provide default and delinquency counseling for 100 homeowners, and tenant counseling for 350 tenants, per year. Conduct 2 workshops per year.

Description: Through several service providers, the City provides comprehensive housing counseling services to Richmond residents, focusing on the target area neighborhoods. Services include mortgage default and delinquency counseling for homeowners, tenant counseling in areas of management and tenant

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 18 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

responsibilities, and homeowner and consumer education workshops. (Ref: Policy 12)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue offering default and delinquency counseling to persons in need of such assistance.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: LMIHF, CDBG, HOME.

Responsible Agencies: HCD, RDA, RHA.

Program 13: Conventional Public Housing Program

Objective: Manage, maintain and systematically upgrade the units in the RHA projects.

Description: The Housing Authority currently owns and manages 350 elderly and 500 family units of low-income housing constructed under HUD's Conventional Public Housing Program. The specific projects are: Easter Hill Village (300 family units); Nystrom Village (102 family units); Triangle Court (98 family units); Hacienda (150 elderly units); Friendship Manor (58 elderly units); and Nevin Plaza (143 elderly units). (Ref: Policy 14, 18 and 19)

Specific Action Required: The Housing Authority will continue to manage, maintain and upgrade the affordable housing units under its jurisdiction. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: Public Housing Funding.

Responsible Agencies: RHA.

Program 14: Section 8 Certificate Program

Objective: Conduct annual inspections and tenant eligibility reexaminations for all project based Section 8 Certificates. Maintain 100% lease-up average for all Section 8 Certificates.

Description: The Housing Authority subsidizes rents of Very Low Income families through the use of Section 8 Certificates under the Housing Assistance Program of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). (Ref: Policy 14, 18 and 19)

Specific Action Required: The Housing Authority will continue to processes new Section 8 Housing Assistance Contracts and lease amendments; conduct annual unit inspections and tenant reexaminations to determine eligibility for continued

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 19

assistance; and apply for additional Existing Housing Program Certificates whenever available.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: Housing Authority operational funds.

Responsible Agencies: RHA.

Program 15: Housing Choice Voucher Program

Objective: Maintain 100% lease-up average for all units subsidized by the Housing Choice Voucher Program (formally Section 8).

Description: The Richmond Housing Authority currently assists 1,529 households through the HUD Housing Choice Vouchers. The Housing Authority as with the Certificates program, processes new Housing Assistance Contracts and lease amendments; conducts annual unit inspections and tenant eligibility reexaminations; and applies for additional Vouchers when available. (Ref: Policy 13, 14, 18 and 19)

Specific Action Required: The RHA will continue to administer the HUD Housing Choice Voucher program.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: Housing Authority operational funds.

Responsible Agencies: RHA.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 20 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

PROMOTE UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HOUSING

GOAL B: Ensure that fair housing opportunities prevail for all city residents regardless of age, sex, family status, income level, source of income, race, creed, national origin, sexual preference, gender identity or disability.

GOAL C: Make suitable housing available for residents with special needs such as elderly or disabled persons.

GOAL D: Ensure that temporary shelter and transitional housing is available.

POLICIES TO PROMOTE UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HOUSING

Policy 17 Promote fair housing principles and equal housing opportunity in all situations.

Policy 18 Address through City actions and programs the unmet housing needs of special groups in the population, including the elderly and disabled.

Policy 19 Promote efforts to make available a variety of housing options for special needs groups including the elderly and disabled.

Policy 20 Provide adequate sites to address the community's unmet need for emergency shelters and transitional housing.

Policy 21 Ensure that the City's regulatory process encourages and does not impede the provision of needed shelters and transitional housing.

Policy 22 Work to preserve, rehabilitate and expand the existing stock of single room occupancy (SRO) units in Richmond.

PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HOUSING

Program 16: Tenant Landlord Counseling

Objective: Continue to fund a fair housing program component. The Program includes workshops, community presentations, and newspaper advertisements.

Description: An ongoing program providing advice to tenants and landlords regarding legal rights and responsibilities related to evictions, security deposits, and discrimination. The City provides pre-litigation counseling and Legal Services provides legal assistance and litigation services. The City's Human Relations Department assists in resolving cases of discrimination and violations of fair housing and equal housing opportunity. The City, in addition, promotes fair housing and equal housing opportunity by conducting workshops for residents and addressing neighborhood groups and renter associations. (Ref: Policy 17)

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 21

Specific Action Required: The City will continue to offer this service and provide funding for the program. Information about Tenant Landlord Counseling will continue to be disseminated through workshops, community presentations throughout the City and newspaper advertisements as well as placement on the City’s web-site.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: CDBG.

Responsible Agencies: HCD.

Program 17: City Compliance with Fair Housing Act Access Requirements

Objective: Continue to review and remain consistent with federal Fair Housing access requirements.

Description: City compliance with all state and federal Fair Housing access requirements. (Ref: Policy 17 and 18)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue review, on an on-going basis, its building application review and permit process, and update it if necessary, to ensure that it complies fully with any new federal of state fair housing requirements. The Richmond Housing Authority will continue to review its existing properties to ensure full compliance with the federal law access provisions relating to modifying of existing subsidized housing

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing - continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund, Planning Fees, Building Fees.

Responsible Agencies: Public Works - Building Regulations Division, Planning Department.

Program 18: Review of Residential Development Applications

Objective: Continuation of development review for consistency with General Plan policies.

Description: Residential projects are evaluated as part of the review process as to the adequacy of transit and other services planned for the development. Applicants may be required to work with transit agencies to increase the level of bus or other transit service to the project. The City's Growth Management Element to the General Plan spells out levels of services and facilities, which must be met before a development can be approved. (Ref: Policy 28 and 19)

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 22 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Specific Action Required: The City will continue to require that all development be reviewed for consistency with General Plan policies.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation for existing program. Funding Source: General Fund, Planning Fees.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department.

Program 19: Second Units Program

Objective: The development of second units, which may add to the City’s affordable housing stock.

Description: By exercising its authority to allow second units the City may enable elderly residents to extend the time they can live independently and provide for more affordable housing. The City will encourage shared equity schemes allowing elderly persons to stay in their house. (Ref: Policy 18 and 19)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue to allow second unit development in all residential zones in the City. The City will supply informational brochures about second unit development in the Redevelopment Agency and Planning Department Offices and on the City’s web site.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of an existing program

Funding Source: General Fund, Planning Fees.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department, HCD.

Program 20: Senior Housing Development

Objective: The development of housing for seniors.

Description: Seniors often have trouble obtaining housing due to a fixed or limited income. The City will encourage housing development identified for lower income senior households. (Ref: Policy 18 and 19)

Specific Action Required: To encourage affordable senior projects, the City will continue to offer density bonuses, help interested developers apply for government financing and/or other government subsidies, assist interested developers in acquiring surplus government land suitable for multifamily development, expedite permit processing, reduce parking standards and lot sizes, and waive fees for low- income dwelling units.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing procedure.

Funding Sources: In-Lieu Fees, CDBG, HOME, LMIHF.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 23

Responsible Agencies/Departments: HCD, RDA, Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council.

Program 21: Housing for Large Families

Objective: The development of available housing units for large families.

Description: Multifamily rental housing does not typically provide dwelling units for large families, so the City must encourage the creation of large housing units to accommodate large families. (Ref: Policy 18 and 19)

Specific Action Required: To encourage multifamily projects to include units of three and four bedrooms affordable to lower income households, the City will offer density bonuses, help interested developers apply for government financing and/or other government subsidies, assist interested developers in acquiring surplus government land suitable for multifamily development, expedite permit processing, and waive fees for low-income dwelling units.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing procedure.

Funding Sources: CDBG, HOME, LMIHF.

Responsible Agencies/Departments: HCD, RDA, Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council.

Program 22: Removal of Governmental Constraints to Housing Development for Persons with Disabilities

Objective: The identification and removal of possible governmental constraints to the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Description: Persons with disabilities have been identified by the State as a housing special needs group and thus actions must be taken to ensure that housing for these persons is not inhibited due to the City of Richmond housing policies and practices. (Ref: Policy 18 and 19)

Specific Action Required: Annually evaluate whether there are constraints on the development, maintenance and improvement of housing intended for persons with disabilities. The analysis will include a monitoring of existing land use controls, permit and processing procedures and building codes. If any constraints are found in these areas, the City will initiate actions to address these constraints, including removing the constraints or providing reasonable accommodation for housing intended for persons with disabilities.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 24 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Implementation Schedule: The City will conduct an evaluation by 2005 and annually thereafter. If any constraints are found, the City will take subsequent actions within six months of the completion of the evaluation.

Funding Sources: City General Fund.

Responsible Agencies/Departments: Planning Department, City Council.

Program 23: Additional Housing for Homeless or Persons in Need of Transitional Housing

Objective: Obtain funding for the production and operation of emergency shelters and transitional housing.

Description: Federal financing is available under the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program Operation Grants (EHAP), the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program Capital Development (EHAPCD), and the Federal Emergency Shelter grant Program (FESG) for the production and operation of emergency and transitional housing. (Ref: Policies 20 and 22)

Specific Action Required: The City shall apply for the EHAP, EHAPCD and FESG programs in order to assist in the development of housing for persons with a transitional or homeless status. If funding is obtained, the City will contact local homeless and transitional service providers to determine the most effective method to assist the persons in need of housing and use the funding to provide this assistance. This may be dependent on the type of funding received.

Implementation Schedule: Apply for all three federal funding programs in 2005.

Funding Source: HOME, CDBG.

Responsible Agencies: HCD, RDA, RHA.

Program 24: SRO Unit Rehabilitation

Objective: Preserve the existing stock of single room occupancy (SRO) units in Richmond through intervention and rehabilitation assistance, consistent with other City policies and programs.

Description: The City has an ongoing effort to work with owners of SRO units in Richmond to assist them in rehabilitating and preserving their properties, including providing rehab loan financing. (Ref: Policy 22)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue to monitor the availability and condition of existing SRO units in Richmond in collaboration with the Housing Authority and with Contra Costa Legal Services. The City will continue its efforts to encourage and assist SRO unit owners to rehabilitate their properties.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 25

Specifically, the City will explore the use of owner incentive refinancing and other programs to help finance the rehabilitation of SRO units.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund, Planning Fees.

Responsible Agencies: HCD, RDA, RHA

Program 25: Zoning Ordinance Administration

Objective: The promotion of neighborhoods with a mixture of housing at various densities in order to incorporate housing for all income levels into all areas of the City.

Description: The neighborhoods that provide housing to and serve all income groups successfully are neighborhoods with a mixture low, medium and high housing densities. These neighborhoods offer benefits such as increased transit and other services, shopping facilities, and greater pedestrian friendly access. (Ref: Policies 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20 and 21)

Specific Action Required: In administering the Zoning Ordinance, working with applicants for housing developments, and working with the Planning Commission and the City's neighborhoods through the network of neighborhood councils, the Planning Department staff will promote and encourage the mixture of housing densities. The City staff will also work to ensure that the Ordinance and the regulatory process encourages, and does not impede, the provision of emergency shelters and transitional housing.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund, Planning Fees.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council.

Program 26: Zoning Ordinance Evaluation

Objective: Periodic evaluation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to incorporate any new state housing laws.

Description: The City’s Zoning Ordinance was last updated in 1997. Since that time a new state zoning standards have been established. In addition a number of Programs in this Housing Element may require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. This program is to ensure that the City incorporates any new state and Housing Element zoning standards on a timely basis. (Ref. Policies 12, 15, 28 and 21)

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 26 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Specific Action Required: The City shall evaluate and amend the Zoning Ordinance every two years to ensure that recent State requirements such as the State density bonus law are incorporated into the ordinance.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing, evaluation to be completed every two years beginning in 2006.

Funding Source: General Fund.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department.

Program 27: Richmond General Plan and Housing Element Annual Review

Objective: An annual review of the effectiveness of the City’s General Plan including the Housing Element.

Description: Maintain the General Plan, including the Housing Element, with current data and effective housing goals, policies, and programs. (Ref: Policy 15 and 28)

Specific Action Required: Review the General Plan and Housing Element on an ongoing basis to determine the effectiveness of the General Plan in achieving goals and objectives and update the data in the Housing Element on a continual basis. Provide annual reports the Richmond Planning Commission and City Council and the California Department of Housing and Community Development as to the effectiveness of the Housing Element to achieve the General Plan goals.

Implementation Schedule: Annually, starting in 2005.

Funding Source: General Fund.

Responsible Agencies: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 27

IMPROVE AND PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS

GOAL E: Conserve and maintain the existing housing stock to the maximum extent feasible.

GOAL F: Preserve and upgrade residential neighborhoods so that they are attractive, safe, retain their distinct identities, and promote a sense of community.

GOAL G: Promote housing development and public improvements to take advantage of adjoining transportation, community facilities, open space, commercial services, and amenities. (i.e. smart growth).

GOAL H: Ensure that involuntary displacement is minimized and, when necessary, mitigated as housing stock upgrading and neighborhood preservation are pursued.

POLICIES TO IMPROVE AND PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS

Policy 23 Give priority in the use of city programs and resources to conserving and upgrading the City's existing housing stock rather than constructing new units, except for the construction of affordable units.

Policy 24 Leverage federal block grant and other public funds to the maximum extent to support housing rehabilitation and to preserve existing housing.

Policy 25 Use a comprehensive, focused neighborhood revitalization approach involving several city departments to upgrade and preserve neighborhoods at risk.

Policy 26 Support the neighborhood councils, neighborhood watch groups, and local non- profit groups in their efforts to combat crime and to strengthen, beautify and upgrade neighborhoods.

Policy 27 Educate and inform all major ethnic groups in the community of available housing rehabilitation programs through neighborhood and community organizations and by using the most effective media.

Policy 28 Review residential development applications for accessibility to community facilities and commercial services, and encourage provision of transit services.

Policy 29 Conduct City code enforcement and abatement activities so as to avoid involuntary displacement of tenants wherever possible.

Policy 30 Use demolition of substandard or dangerous buildings only as a last resort in the code enforcement and abatement process and provide relocation assistance.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 28 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE AND PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS

Program 28: Central Richmond Revitalization Initiative

Objective: Revitalization of central Richmond, especially along the arterial corridors of Macdonald Avenue and 23rd Street, through development of housing, as well as commercial, transportation, and services infrastructure.

Description: This is an ongoing multi-departmental, concentrated revitalization program aimed at strengthening the economic vitality of Central Richmond by providing housing, commercial, transportation and recreational projects. The program's intent will be to achieve a substantial revitalization of the area through a concentrated approach. Affordable housing development, rehabilitation and conservation is the first major facet of the revitalization of the area, to be followed up with market rate residential and commercial development. The Iron Triangle, within the Central Richmond area, has been designated as a HUD Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area and is a priority redevelopment area of the City. (Ref: Policies 10, 23 and 25)

Specific Action Required: RDA and HCD will continue to focus redevelopment, federal and state funds and other funding sources to rehabilitate and beautify the area, attract new affordable infill housing, improve streets, eliminate blight, and make other public improvements. The City will continue to promote housing rehabilitation, conservation and new construction for affordable housing.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: LMIHF, CDBG, HOME, Tax Increment, Section 108, Brownsfield

Responsible Agencies: RDA, HCD, Public Services Department, Planning Department, City Council.

Program 29: North Richmond Revitalization Program

Objective: The rehabilitation, conservation and development of additional housing resources in the North Richmond neighborhood.

Description: The City works with many agencies and organizations, including the North Richmond Federal Task Force, Contra Costa County, the Shields-Reid Neighborhood Council, and the North Richmond Municipal Advisory Committee to help make improvements in this neighborhood. The North Richmond Memorandum of Understanding was recently executed by the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, and Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond to guide upcoming and future housing and community development efforts and help to provide continuity between the City and County portions of North Richmond. The North Richmond Livable Communities Urban Design and Transportation Plan was adopted specifically to guide street and sidewalk improvements along Filbert Street, Kelsey Street, and Gertrude Avenue

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 29

that support housing development and preservation. Filbert Street and Chesley Avenue, in particular, are important thoroughfares for in-fill housing development. Ref: Policies 10, 23 and 25)

Specific Action Required: Continue collaborating with the North Richmond Federal Task Force, the North Richmond Municipal Advisory Committee, Shields- Reid Neighborhood Council, Contra Costa County, non-profits, and residents to create housing and improve and preserve North Richmond. Continue to support development of in-fill parcels.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing programs.

Funding Source: LMIHF, CDBG, HOME, Section 108, Brownsfield.

Responsible Agencies: HCD.

Program 30: Residential In-Fill Development Program

Objective: Develop housing on vacant or abandoned properties and make them available for sale to low and moderate income households.

Description: The City shall identify vacant parcels in Richmond and implement strategies that encourage and support residential development by landowners, non-profit developers, or private developers on these sites. This multi-faceted project began operation in March 2004. Various components are still being refined as the program is launched and new strategies to increase affordability are being investigated. Current and envisioned components are to: identify and acquire vacant parcels; provide technical assistance and encouragement to landowners; create and utilize a Pattern Book, which will provide developers with an expedited Design Review Process; design a lower cost manufactured model for the Pattern Book; streamline the permitting process for developers when their project falls within approved parameters, including allowing development on smaller lots without obtaining a substandard lot variance and allowing development of co-joined lots; and provide buyers’ subsidies to help make the projects financially feasible. A nearly finalized Infill Policies & Procedures Manual will guide the program. (Ref: Policies 7, 12, 23 and 24)

Specific Action Required: HCD and the Planning Department will continue to develop and implement streamlined processes that encourage residential development on in-fill sites and make them available for-sale to lower income homebuyers. The Infill Policy & Procedures Manual will be finalized and put to use guiding the In-fill Development Program.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program. Infill Policy & Procedures Manual to be completed and available by June 2006.

Funding Source: LMIHF, CDBG, HOME.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 30 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Responsible Agencies: HCD, Planning Department.

Program 31: Public Housing Modernization

Objective: Continue the Richmond Housing Authority’s modernization of its housing projects.

Description: The Housing Authority is systematically modernizing the units within its Conventional Low Rent Public Housing projects, with federal assistance under the Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP). The modernization and maintenance of Nystrom Village, Hacienda, Friendship Manor, Triangle Court and Nevin Plaza projects will occur during the 2001-2006 planning period. (Ref: Policy 23 and 24)

Specific Action Required: The Richmond Housing Authority shall modernize and maintain the listed projects using CGP funds as a part of its five-year plan.

Implementation Schedule: Modernization and maintenance of the various projects is an ongoing endeavor of the Housing Authority and will continue during the 2001-2006 planning period.

Funding Source: HUD Comprehensive Grant Program.

Responsible Agencies: RHA.

Program 32: Homeowner Rehabilitation Programs

Objective: Rehabilitate and update dwelling units occupied by low and moderate income homeowners to meet current building standards.

Description: The City will continue providing housing rehabilitation assistance to low income owner occupants through its Home Improvement Loan Program, Deferred Loan Program, Emergency Loan Program, Richmond We Care Paint Program, Ebb Everett Helping Hand Program, and the Richmond Effort to Abate Lead (Project REAL). Depending on the program, assistance may be available citywide or limited to target area neighborhoods. Assistance is offered in the form of low interest loans or free services, again depending on the program. Several programs serve only senior and disabled residents. Project REAL assists homeowners in homes where a child 6 years or younger spends time. Combined, these programs will rehabilitate an estimated 265 units per year. HCD provides housing code compliance inspections, work specifications, and construction monitoring, as necessary, to support these programs. (Ref: Policies 12, 18, 23 and 24)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue to offer these programs for the rehabilitation of housing units affordable to lower income households.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 31

Funding Source: CDBG, CalHOME, HUD Lead Hazard Control.

Responsible Agencies: HCD, RHA.

Program 33: Rental Rehabilitation Programs

Objective: Rehabilitate and update dwelling units occupied by low and moderate income renters to meet current building standards.

Description: The City and Redevelopment Agency provide financial assistance and services to owners of rental units that are affordable to low and moderate income families under the Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program, Project REAL, and the Richmond We Care Paint Program. These programs help to rehabilitate substandard rental units in order to ensure that they meet building standards. The Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program provides up to 50% of rehabilitation costs on qualifying units through a low-interest loan. Project REAL provides free lead testing and remediation in homes where a child 6 years or younger spends time. Richmond We Care paints the exteriors of homes of senior and disabled residents. 15 rental units will be rehabilitated with assistance from the Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program every year, in addition to homes assisted under Project REAL and the Richmond We Care Paint Program, which primarily, but not exclusively, serve homeowners. HCD provides housing code compliance inspections, work specifications, and construction monitoring, as necessary, to support these programs. (Ref: Policies 12, 13, 23 and 24)

Specific Action Required: The City and Agency will continue to offer these programs for the rehabilitation of rental housing units affordable to lower income households. The goal for the 2001-2007 Housing Element time-period is the rehabilitation of rental housing units is100 units.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: CDBG, CalHOME, HUD Lead Hazard Control.

Responsible Agencies: HCD, RHA.

Program 34: Units At Risk Program

Objective: There are currently 790 units at-risk housing units in the City. It is the City’s intention to preserve as many of these units as possible.

Description: The City and Redevelopment Agency staff will continue to monitor the local assisted housing projects and keep in touch with the owners, HUD, and service providers, so that the City can be forewarned of any situation where assisted units are in danger of converting to non-low income housing uses. The City/Agency will work with Local Initiatives Support Council (LISC) on efforts to

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 32 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

strengthen the capacity of local nonprofit housing corporations to purchase, develop, and manage affordable housing projects, including larger multifamily rental projects at risk of conversion. In the event that units are at risk of conversion, the City/Agency will use their best efforts to preserve the units for lower income households. (Ref: Policies 15 and 25)

Specific Action Required: The City and CED staff will continue to monitor the local assisted housing projects and keep in touch with the owners, HUD, and local agencies, so that the City can be forewarned of any situation where assisted units are in danger of converting to non-low income housing uses.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: LMIHF, CDBG, HOME

Responsible Agencies: HCD, RDA.

Program 35: Neighborhood Services Liaison

Objective: Increase the number of active neighborhood councils; sponsor workshops and training sessions for neighborhood councils; increase resident participation in the Crime Prevention program and the Community Drug Education program.

Description: An ongoing program to promote and solicit community residents' participation in the Neighborhood Council system and the City-supported Crime Prevention and Community Drug Education programs. (Ref: Policy 26)

Specific Action Required: The City will assist in the development and promotion of neighborhood councils by sponsoring training sessions for neighborhood councils, assist in the funding of neighborhood councils, and continue to require that the City interact with the neighborhood councils on housing development and neighborhood improvement issues. The City will continue to support the Crime Prevention and Drug Education programs.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund.

Responsible Agencies: City Manager's Office, Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 33

Program 36: City Housing Programs Marketing Program

Objective: Continuation of the Housing Programs Marketing Program.

Description: The City and the Redevelopment Agency developed a marketing plan for its housing programs for implementation in late 1990. The program includes meeting with all active neighborhood councils to promote its housing assistance programs. Neighborhood meetings are supplemented with mailings, door to door canvassing in select areas, and direct contacts with special ethnic group centers such as the Lao Family Center. (Ref: Policy 27)

Specific Action Required: The City and Agency will continue using the Marketing Plan to promote its housing assistance programs. On a bi-annual basis, the City will continue to meet with all active neighborhood councils in a public meeting to encourage the use of the City’s housing assistance programs.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: HOME, CDBG.

Responsible Agencies: RHA, Richmond Housing Coordinating Group.

Program 37: Code Enforcement, Abatement and Relocation

Objective: Preserve and improve the physical, social and economic health of neighborhoods through the removal of unsafe and unsightly housing conditions using code enforcement procedures.

Description: The City program provides State mandated enforcement of building and construction codes and enforcement of local requirements related to land use, zoning, health and safety. The City shall use demolition of substandard or dangerous buildings only as a last resort in the code enforcement and abatement process and only when the building conditions pose an imminent risk of harm to public health, safety, or welfare and when rehabilitation is economically infeasible. The City shall require and/or provide relocation benefits and assistance whenever tenants are ordered to vacate a substandard or dangerous building in connection with code enforcement and abatement activity. (Ref: Policies 29 and 30)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue to provide code enforcement, abatement and relocation processes in order to sustain the City’s housing stock.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund.

Responsible Agencies: Public Works - Building Regulations Division, City Attorney's Office.

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 34 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Program 38: Abatement of Substandard Buildings Project

Objective: Conduct abatement (in most cases rehabilitation) of dwelling units in substandard buildings. Provide relocation assistance and payments to families, in the City's target area neighborhoods, who are displaced by code enforcement. (Note: the number of relocation cases is entirely dependent on the pace of abatement activity.)

Description: The project utilizes the City's abatement process to expedite the rehabilitation or abatement of select, severely substandard occupied rental housing structures in the City's CDBG target areas. Abatement actions are coupled with relocation assistance available to tenants, and rehabilitation loan assistance is offered to the absentee landlords. (Ref: Policies 29 and 30)

Specific Action Required: The City will continue conducting abatement procedures and rehabilitation of substandard residential buildings. The City will continue to offer relocation assistance to persons of lower incomes who are required to relocate because of City abatement processes.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing – continuation of existing program.

Funding Source: General Fund.

Responsible Agencies: Public Works - Building Regulations; City Attorney's Office.

Program 39: Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities Housing Development

Objective: The development of formal procedures to provide reasonable accommodation for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.

Description: Presently, the City does not have formal procedures to accommodate housing that are intended to serve persons with disabilities. As such the City shall develop a “reasonable accommodation” ordinance to address this issue.

Specific Action Required: The City will develop and adopt a “Reasonable Accommodation” ordinance which allows people with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. Persons with disabilities can request relief from various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices, or procedures of the City to facilitate and encourage reasonable accommodations.

Implementation Schedule: Develop ordinance by July 2006, Adoption by December 2006

Funding Source: General Fund.

Housing Program November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE 35

Responsible Agencies: HCD, Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council.

Housing Element Programs – Implementation Schedule and Responsible Agencies

Listed below are the implementation time frames and responsible agencies for each of the Housing Element Programs.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Responsible Agency Program Implementation Schedule Building Division City Attorney City Council City Manager Finance Department RHA HCD Housing Coordinating Planning Commission Planning Department Public Services Public Works RDA 1 2006 X X X X X X 2 Ongoing X 3 2004/05 X 4 Ongoing X X X X 5 Ongoing X 6 Ongoing X X X X 7 Ongoing X 8 2005 X X X X X X 9 Ongoing X X X 10 Ongoing X 11 Ongoing X 12 Ongoing X X X 13 Ongoing X 14 Ongoing X 15 Ongoing X 16 Ongoing X 17 Ongoing X X 18 Ongoing X 19 Ongoing X X 20 Ongoing X X X X X 21 Ongoing X X X X X 22 Ongoing X 23 2005 X X X 24 Ongoing X X X X X 25 Ongoing X 26 2005 X X 27 2005 X X X 28 Ongoing X X X 29 Ongoing X X X 30 Ongoing X 31 Ongoing X 32 Ongoing X X 33 Ongoing X X 34 Ongoing X X 35 Ongoing X X X X 36 Ongoing X X X 37 Ongoing X X 38 Ongoing X X 39 2006 X X X X

November 2005 Housing Program P AGE 36 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Quantified Objectives Summary

Based on the above Programs and the available developable sites, the it is the City’s objective to provide for the preservation of 790 at-risk housing units, the construction of 2,603 units, or the rehabilitation or conservation of approximately 315 units between 1999 and 2006.

SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR 1999-2006 New Income Group Rehabilitation Conservation Preservation Construction Very-low 100 50 471 790 Low 100 50 273 Moderate 15 0 0 625 Above-moderate 0 0 0 1,234 TOTAL 215 100 790 2,603

Housing Program November 2005

RRRiiiccchhhmmmooonnnddd CCCiiitttyyy ooofff RRRiiiccchhhmmmooonnnddd

222000000111---222000000666 HHHooouuusssiiinnnggg EEEllleeemmmeeennnttt Background Report

HHHooouuusssiiinnnggg EEEllleeemmmeeennnttt November 2005 NNoovveemmbbeerr 22000055

RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-1

SECTION I INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT

Accommodating the housing needs of the State of California is an important goal for the City of Richmond, regional agencies and State agencies. As the population of the State continues to grow and pressure on resources increase, Richmond is concerned with providing adequate housing opportunities while maintaining a high standard of living for all citizens in the community.

Recognizing the importance of providing adequate housing, the State has mandated a Housing Element within every General Plan since 1969. Richmond’s previous current Housing Element was adopted in 1994. This Housing Element covers the period from 1999 through 2006 and was prepared in compliance with State General Plan law pertaining to Housing Elements and was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on ______.

Purpose

The State of California has declared that “the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order.” In addition, government and the private sector should make an effort to provide a diversity of housing opportunity and accommodate regional housing needs through a cooperative effort, while maintaining a responsibility toward economic, environmental and fiscal factors and community goals within the general plan.

Further, State Housing Element law requires “An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs.” The law requires:

• An analysis of population and employment trends • An analysis of the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs • An analysis of households characteristics • An inventory of suitable land for residential development • An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on the improvement, maintenance and development of housing • An analysis of special housing needs • An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation • An analysis of publicly-assisted housing developments that may convert to non-assisted housing developments

The purpose of these requirements is to develop an understanding of the existing and projected housing needs within the community and to set forth policies and schedules which promote preservation, improvement and development of diverse types and costs of housing throughout Richmond.

Public Participation

The City of Richmond has made diligent efforts to solicit public participation pertaining to the formulation of the Housing Element. Public participation for the 1999-2006 Housing Element included community outreach, a web site, public workshops and public hearings.

October 2005 Background Report

PAGE HE-2 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

A total of six public workshops were held to solicit community input for the update of the Housing Element. Workshops were held at various locations throughout the City in order to facilitate participation. Among those invited to the workshops were housing and service providers, seniors groups, community and neighborhood groups, non-profit housing developers, Planning Commissioners and City Council members. Topics discussed included Housing Element Law, the previous Housing Element goals and population and demographic information. Workshop attendance ranged from two to twelve people at each workshop. Attendees included representatives from the City’s Planning and Community Development Departments, Richmond Housing Authority, local housing and service providers, developers, representatives from neighborhood councils and individual citizens. Recommendations and comments regarding housing in the city included:

o Increase access to homeownership for residents of public housing, as well as providing services related to preparing households for homeownership. o Improve link between services, such as childcare, employment training, computer literacy, and supportive services, and populations (e.g., affordable housing residents and special needs groups) that most need the services. o Increase the number of affordable rental housing units available for people with disabilities. o Address renters that are at risk of losing housing. o Provide more shelters and transitional housing. o Support was expressed for a land trust concept that would allow affordable units to remain affordable over time and multiple ownership/occupancy. o Support was expressed for the use of mobile homes, senior housing development near shopping and public transportation, and providing monetary incentives for affordable housing. o Advertise the opportunities available to people in need of housing, landlords, developers, and non-profits. o Enact policies that shorten the permitting process. o Make it easier to build and/or convert existing structures into second units. o Encourage more in-fill development near shopping, public transportation and services.

In addition, a public review draft of the Housing Element (public review draft) was prepared and made available to the community for a 60-day review period in November and December. The general public was notified of the public review draft’s availability through notices in the local newspaper, a notice on the City’s web page, as well as postings at government offices and public libraries. Richmond Housing Authority, Contra Costa County, surrounding cities, non-profit organizations, affordable housing providers, and various service providers were provided copies of the public review draft (see appendix for a complete mailing list). The public review draft included comments received from City Staff and public comments from the workshops.

Relationship to Other Elements

State Law requires that “…the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies…” The purpose of requiring internal consistency is to avoid policy conflict and provide a clear policy guide for the future maintenance, improvement and development of housing within the City.

Background Report October 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-3

The Housing Element is proceeding independently from a General Plan update. However, all elements of the Richmond General Plan have been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element.

Organization

This Background Report to the 1999-2006 Housing Element update is organized into six primary sections:

INTRODUCTION: This section provides the reader with the purpose of the Housing Element, the public participation process for the Housing Element, and the relationship and consistency of the Housing Element to other General Plan elements.

COMMUNITY PROFILE: This section discusses the current population, employment, household and housing trends in the City.

HOUSING NEEDS: This section discusses the existing housing needs of the City including special needs groups and their housing needs and the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination for the City.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES: This section includes a housing needs assessment, an inventory of resources and a section discussing constraints, efforts and opportunities.

REVIEW OF HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE: This section includes an analysis of the previous housing element and its effectiveness.

October 2005 Background Report

PAGE HE-4 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

This page is intentionally left blank

Background Report October 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-5

SECTION II COMMUNITY PROFILE

Demographic and socioeconomic variables such as population, household characteristics, housing stock conditions, and employment are discussed in this section. Analysis of these demographic, housing, and employment characteristics provides the background to adequately determine the present and future housing needs of the City of Richmond.

Population Characteristics

Population Growth. Richmond is the second largest City in Contra Costa County, which part of the nine-county Bay Area Region. Because Richmond and the rest of West Contra Costa County are physically separated by the East Bay Hills, and because of the ethnic diversity of its households and age of housing units, Richmond has more similarities to nearby cities in Alameda County, such as Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda, than to eastern Contra Costa cities, such as Walnut Creek, San Ramon and Antioch.

Historically, Richmond is a rich tapestry indicative of the beginnings and growth of the Bay area itself. The city incorporated in 1905 with population of 2,000. Within a mere 35 years Richmond had become an industrial boomtown with a population of 23,000. The town centered around the western terminus operation of the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe railroads, the port and Standard Oil Refinery. These later two industries would play a major role in Richmond development to the present day.

World War II brought a huge growth boom to Richmond, owing to the US’ urgent need for ships and Richmond’s port and established industrial core. The population had jumped to 99,200. However, with the closure of the shipyards in 1945, Richmond saw a loss of population, and by 1960 total numbers were down to 71,900.

In 2000, the City of Richmond had a population of 99,216 persons, which made it the second largest community behind the City of Concord in Contra Costa County. Between 1990 and 2000, the City population increased by 13 percent compared to 18 percent for Contra Costa County. Compared to other similarly sized communities such as Berkeley and Alameda, the City had one of the highest levels of growth over the 10-year period. According to projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the City’s population is expected to increase by nine percent to approximately 108,100 persons in 2020. Table HE-1 shows the population growth trends for Richmond and the County between 1970 and 2020.

Age Composition. A person’s age often affects their need for and choice of housing. Families typically need larger units, while seniors and young adults generally need smaller housing units.

In Richmond, the median age in 2000 was 32.8 years, a slight increase from 1990. As shown in Table HE-2, the largest age group in the City was composed of those persons between the ages of 25-44. Persons in this age group are considered to be in the family-forming age group and generally have a need for single-family homes or larger apartment units. Children under 18 represent the second largest group in Richmond comprising approximately 28 percent of the population. The other major age group in Richmond, representing 20 percent of the population, consisted of those between age 45 and 64 years. Seniors represent approximately 10 percent of the City’s population.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-6 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-1 POPULATION GROWTH Richmond Contra Costa County Year Population Change Population Change 1970 79,043 -- 556116 -- 1980 74,676 -6% 656380 18% 1990 87,425 17% 803,732 22% 2000 99,216 13% 948,816 18% 2010 102,700 4% 1,076,800 13% 2020 108,100 5% 1,169,000 9% Source: 1970-2000 Census and ABAG Projections 2000.

TABLE HE-2 AGE DISTRIBUTION 1990 2000 Percent Age Group Number Percent Number Percent Change Preschool (<5 yrs.) 7,606 9% 7,669 8% 1% School Age (5-17 yrs). 16,688 19% 19,825 20% 19% College Age (18-24) 7,725 9% 9,790 10% 27% Adults (25-44) 29,998 34% 31,118 31% 4% Middle Age (45-64) 15,496 18% 21,008 21% 36% Senior (65+) 9,912 11% 9,806 10% -1% Total 87,425 100% 99,216 100% 13% Source: 1990 and 2000 Census.

Over the last 10 years in Richmond, middle-aged adults and young people between the ages of 18 to 24 years experienced the largest proportional increase at 36 percent and 27 percent, respectively. The percentage of school age children also increased substantially, growing by 19 percent or 3,137 persons. The only group that experienced a decline over the last 10 years was those persons age 65 and over. Seniors declined by one percent or 106 persons.

Race and Ethnicity. Richmond is one of the most diverse communities in Contra Costa County. The City has a large African American population as well as a growing number of Hispanic and Asian residents. Table HE-3 identifies the race/ethnicity of Richmond residents in 1990 and 2000.

African Americans constitute the largest group in Richmond in 2000 with over 35,200 persons or 36 percent of all residents. Hispanic residents were the next largest group with 26,319 persons or 27 percent of the City population. White persons comprised 21 percent of the population or 21,081 persons. Asian, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and those of two or more races made up the remainder of Richmond residents.

Though African Americans and Whites both represent a large segment of the City population, both groups have decreased since 1990. The number of African American residents has declined by six percent over the past 10 years, while the number of White residents has fallen more dramatically, representing a 21 percent decline. The two major racial/ethnic groups that have seen dramatic increases include Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander residents. In 10 years, the number of

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-7

Hispanic residents has increased by 107 percent, while the number of residents of Asian or Pacific Islander origin increased by 27 percent. Thus, Richmond continues to be a community with an increasingly diverse population.

TABLE HE-3 RACE AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION 1990 2000 Change Race/Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent African American 37,461 43% 35,279 36% -2,182 -6% Asian or Pacific Islander 9,870 11% 12,553 13% 2,683 27% Hispanic 12,690 15% 26,319 27% 13,629 107% Native American 437 <1% 351 <1% -86 -20% White 26,757 31% 21,081 21% -5,676 -21% Other* 210 <1% 3,633 4% 3,423 N/A Total 87,425 100% 99,216 100% 11,791 13% Source: 1990 and 2000 Census. Note: *Other category in the 2000 Census includes persons of two or more races.

Education, Employment and Economic Trends

Education level and employment are major factors that affect a household’s income level and thus the type of housing that it can afford.

Education. A person’s level of educational attainment correlates FIGURE HE-1 EDUCATION LEVEL strongly with they type of job and 25% 24% 25% 22% income level that he or she has. 21% Richmond residents have a range of 20% educational backgrounds. As shown in 15% Figure HE-1, 29 percent of residents have 8% a college or graduate degree and 24 10% percent have some college education. However, 25 percent have less than a 5% high school education, while 22 percent 0% have a high school diploma. This lower >H.S. H.S. Some College Graduate level of education generally translates Diploma College Degree Degree into lower-paying employment options Source: 2000 Census. and a need for less expensive housing options.

Employment. According to 2003 data from the State Employment Development Department, Richmond had a labor force of 53,390 persons. Table HE-4 identifies the occupations of Richmond and County residents in 2000 by sector. As in the County, the largest sector of employment in Richmond was the managerial and professional category, which typically pays higher wages. However, in Richmond this category accounted for 33 percent of 14,088 jobs while in the County this category represents 41 percent of the total jobs. Sales and office occupations were the second largest sector in Richmond and Contra Costa County with 26 and 28 percent, respectively.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-8 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-4 OCCUPATIONS OF RICHMOND AND COUNTY RESIDENTS Richmond Contra Costa County Occupation Number Percent Number Percent Managerial/Professional 14,088 33% 185,100 41% Sales and Office 11,296 26% 126,183 28% Services 7,748 18% 60,299 13% Production/Transportation 5,690 13% 38,497 9% Construction/Maintenance 3,857 9% 40,341 9% Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 90 <1% 937 <1% Total Jobs 42,769 100% 451,357 100% Source: 2000 Census.

In contrast to the County where 24 percent of residents were employed in service and production, transportation, and material moving occupations, a greater percentage of Richmond, 33 percent, are employed in these occupations which tend to pay lower wages. Table HE-5 shows the average earnings by type of occupation in Contra Costa County for various categories. As shown in this table, production, transportation/material moving, and service occupations generally earn wages in the very low and low income groups, as described in Table HE-24.

TABLE HE-5 OCCUPATIONS AND WAGES IN CONTRA COASTA COUNTY IN 2001 Average Average Occupation Type Occupation Type Earnings Earnings Food Preparation & Service $18,998 Protective Services $43,328 Personal Care & Service $24,963 Education, Training, & Library $45,050 Cleaning & Maintenance $26,261 Construction & Extraction $49,345 Farming, Fishing, & Forestry $27,701 Arts, Entertain., Sports, & Media $49,809 Healthcare Support $28,727 Business & Finance $60,464 Transportation & Material Moving $31,356 Healthcare Practitioners & Tech. $62,770 Production $33,193 Life, Physical, & Social Science $63,201 Office & Administrative Support $33,369 Architecture & Engineering $65,332 Sales $35,430 Legal $70,634 Community & Social Services $38,676 Computer $73,072 Installation, Maintenance, & Repair $40,737 Management $88,510 Source: EDD Wage and Salary, 2002

Table HE-6 identifies the top 25 employers in the City of Richmond by the total number of employees. As shown in the table, Richmond has a relatively diverse array of major employers. Chevron’s refinery facility employs the largest number of persons, followed by the West Contra Costa Unified School District and the Social Security Administration.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-9

TABLE HE-6 MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN RICHMOND No. of Rank Company Name Type of Industry Employees 1 Chevron U.S.A., Refinery 1,646 Petrochemicals 2 West Contra Costa Unified School District 1,271 Public schools 3 Social Security Payment Center 1,260 Federal government 4 City of Richmond 1,247 City government 5 Chevron Research & Technology 1,076 Petrochemicals research 6 U. S. Postal Service Bulk Mail Center 1,007 Bulk mail 7 United Parcel Service (UPS) 950 Mailing distrib. center 8 Berlex Laboratories, Inc. 471 Pharmaceutical products 9 U.C. Berkeley Field Station 440 Research/education 10 Permanente Medical Group 437 Medical services 11 Quick Response Services, Inc. 350 Computerized info retrieval 12 Safeway Stores, Inc. 320 Bakery/grocery/distribution 13 Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. 312 Biotechnology 14 PG&E Richmond Service Center 299 Gas and electric utilities 15 Zeneca, Inc. 289 Biotechnology 16 Veriflo Corporation 260 Valves/regulators 17 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 250 Railroad terminal 18 MSC Pinole Point Steel Inc/Pre-finish Metals Inc 243 Steel fabrication 19 The Home Depot 241 Home improvement 20 Macy's Hilltop 200 Department store 21 Ford Motor Co. 194 Auto parts 22 Costco Wholesale Corp. 168 Warehouse retail 23 Sears Roebuck & Co. 151 Department store 24 Albertsons 148 Retail grocery 25 Mechanics Bank 146 Financial services Source: Richmond Consolidated Plan 2003-2008, 2003.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-10 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Economic Trends. While the San Francisco Bay Area economy grew more rapidly than the rest of the nation during the 1990s, it suffered deeper declines than the rest of the U.S. and its recovery has lagged behind that of other areas. Though growth in the labor force has remained flat since 2001, the unemployment rate has TABLE HE-7 UNEMPLOYMENT 1 continued to increase. As shown in Contra Costa Year Richmond Table HE-7, unemployment in County Richmond has increased from a low 1998 6.9% 3.6% of 5.3 percent in 2000 to a high of 10.3 percent in May 2003, according 1999 5.8% 3.0% to the State Employment 2000 5.3% 2.7% Development Department. 2001 6.3% 3.3% Richmond has consistently had a 2002 9.8% 5.2% higher unemployment level than that of the County. 2003* 10.3% 5.5% Source: Employment Development Department, May According to ABAG, job growth and 2003. household income are expected to Note: *May 2003 only. increase moderately over the next few years. Overall, the region’s recovery from the economic slowdown is anticipated to be similar to that of the rest of the nation.2

Jobs/Housing Balance. The jobs/housing balance provides an estimate of whether there are a sufficient number of jobs to support the number of residents. An unbalanced jobs/housing ratio implies that residents may have to commute to outside of the city to find employment, leading to both negative economic and environmental effects.

The jobs/housing balance is the ratio of jobs in a city compared the number of housing TABLE HE-8 units in that city. If the jobs/housing ratio is JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE INDICATORS greater than one, then the city is likely to Indicator 1990 2000 import workers. If the ratio is less than one, Jobs 37,916 41,745 then the city residents generally travel outside Housing Units 34,532 36,044 the city to find employment. Though this is an imperfect indicator of the balance Ratio 1.1:1 1.2:1 between housing in the city and the number Alternate Indicator 1990 2000 of persons who actually work within their Worked in City 9,989 8,884 city of residence, it provides a general Housing Units 34,532 36,044 indicator of the need for additional jobs or housing in that community. Ratio 0.29:1 0.25:1 Source: 1990 and 2000 Census. The City of Richmond has a jobs/housing ratio of 1.2:1, meaning that there are 1.2 employed persons for each housing unit (refer to Table HE-8). This indicates a fairly equal jobs/housing balance. A more accurate indication of a jobs/housing balance is the ratio of persons working in their place of residence compared to the number of housing units. According to the 2000 Census, there were 41,745 employed persons and

1 Oakland Workforce Investment Board. Economic Outlook for the East Bay Area, February 2003. 2 Association of Bay Area Governments. ABAG Projects Economic Outlook for 2002 and 2003 - Have We Hit Bottom? March 14, 2002.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-11

36,044 housing units in the City. However, only 21 percent of the employed persons residing in Richmond worked in the City. This represents decline from 1990, when 26 percent of residents worked in the City.

Comparing the number of persons working in their place of residence and TABLE HE-9 COMMUTE TIME FOR RESIDENTS the number of housing units establishes Commute Time Residents Percent the “worked in place of Worked at home 1,196 3% residence/housing ratio” as 0.25:1 in Less than 5 minutes 497 1% 2000 compared to 0.29:1 in 1990. This 5 to 19 minutes 10,467 25% implies a lack of employment in the City 20 to 44 minutes 17,294 41% or a need for higher paying jobs that 45 to 59 minutes 5,651 14% enable residents to work in their 60 to 89 minutes 4,553 11% community, since most residents 90 or more minutes 2,087 5% commute outside the City for Total 41,745 100% employment. Table HE-9 indicates that 78 percent of the City’s residents worked Source: 2000 Census. outside Richmond and over 71 percent traveled more than 20 minutes to their place of work.

Household Characteristics

Household characteristics are important factors when analyzing housing demand, supply, and future needs. Household size, age, and composition all affect the type of housing needed in a community.

Household Growth. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of households in Richmond increased by six percent, from 32,749 to 34,625. According to ABAG, that number is expected to increase by almost 14 percent by 2020. Compared to the other similarly sized communities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, the number of households in Richmond is expected to grow twice as fast as the next fastest growing jurisdiction – Berkeley (refer to Figure HE-2).

FIGURE HE-2 HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: 2000 - 2020 50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Richmond Alameda Berkeley El Cerrito

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-12 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Household Composition. Approximately 46.7 percent (16,162 households) of the City’s households are renters and 53.3 percent (18,463 households) are owners. Families comprised approximately 67 percent of all households in 2000. Family households in Richmond experience the greatest numerical increase between 1990 and 2000. The number of family households rose by 1,234 or 5.7 percent over the 10-year period. Non-family households, such as single individuals and unrelated persons living together, comprised 33.4 percent of all households and grew at approximately the same level as family households over the last ten years.

TABLE HE-10 HOUSEHOLD TENURE Richmond Contra Costa County Tenure Households Percent Households Percent Owner 18,463 53% 238,449 69% Renter 16,162 47% 105,680 31% Total 34,625 100% 344,129 100% Source: 2000 Census.

Table HE-11 identifies the household composition in Richmond between 1990 and 2000. Overall, all household types increased. However, the greatest increase was among “other non-family households,” which includes unrelated persons living together. This household type grew by 22.7 percent between 1990 and 2000. The high housing costs in the City and throughout the Bay Area may mean that more persons are doubling up or finding roommates in order to lower housing costs. The other group that experienced a higher increase was non-family households, which includes single-parent households and grandparents caring for grandchildren. This type rose by nine percent. Average household size also increased over the ten-year period. The average number of persons per household rose from 2.63 in 1990 to 2.82 in 2000.

TABLE HE-11 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 1990 2000 Percent Household Type Households Percent Households Percent Change Families 21,799 66.6% 23,042 66.5% 5.7% Married With Children 6,568 20.1% 6,991 20.2% 6.4% Married No Children 6,924 21.1% 7,032 20.3% 1.6% Other Families 8,307 25.4% 9,019 26.0% 8.6% Non-Families 10,950 33.4% 11,583 33.5% 5.8% Singles 8,913 27.2% 9,083 26.2% 1.9% Other Non-Families 2,037 6.2% 2,500 7.2% 22.7% Total Households 32,749 100.0% 34,625 100.0% 5.7% Avg. Household Size 2.63 2.82 7% Source: 1990 and 2000 Census

Household Income. Income is the single most important factor that determines a household’s ability to afford adequate housing. There are wide variations in income patterns by type, size, and age of households. Table HE-12 shows the range of household income in 2000 for Richmond and the County. Approximately 56.1 percent of Richmond households earned less than $50,000 in

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-13

1999 compared to 38.2 percent of County households. The County also had a higher percentage of households earning over $100,000.

TABLE HE-12 HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN RICHMOND AND THE COUNTY Richmond Contra Costa County Income Level Households Percent Households Percent Less than $10,000 3,489 10.0% 17,656 5.1% $10,000 to $14,999 2,020 5.8% 12,393 3.6% $15,000 to $24,999 3,894 11.2% 25,908 7.5% $25,000 to $34,999 3,958 11.4% 29,345 8.5% $35,000 to $49,999 6,138 17.7% 46,316 13.4% $50,000 to $74,999 6,849 19.7% 69,476 20.2% $75,000 to $99,999 4,251 12.2% 51,287 14.9% $100,000 to $149,999 2,986 8.6% 52,442 15.2% $150,000 to $199,999 701 2.0% 19,385 5.6% $200,000 or more 466 1.3% 20,214 5.9% Total 34,752 100.0% 344,422 100.0% Median Household Income $44,210 $63,675 Source: 2000 Census

In general, the median income level in Richmond was substantially below that of the County. The median household income in Richmond was only 69 percent of the County’s median income. In addition, growth in household income lagged behind that of the County during the period from 1990 to 2000. While the median household income in Richmond increased by 37 percent between 1990 and 2000, the median income in the County increased by 41 percent.

Household income also varied considerably by race. Table HE-13 identifies median household income by race. Pacific Islander, African American and Hispanic households had the lowest median income compared to the City median. In contrast, Asians and White and households with persons of two or more races had median incomes that were above the City median.

TABLE HE-13 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY RACE

Race/Ethnicity of Percent of City Median Percent of County Median Median Income Household ($44, 210) ($63,675)

All Households $44,210 100.0% 69.4% African American $35,918 81.2% 56.4% White $53,096 120.1% 83.4% Native American $42,188 95.4% 66.3% Asian $56,558 127.9% 88.8% Pacific Islander $29,063 65.7% 45.6% Two or More Races $45,143 102.1% 70.9% Other $42,110 95.2% 66.1% Hispanic Origin* $41,362 93.6% 65.0% Source: 2000 Census. Note: *Hispanic is considered an ethnicity by the Census and not a race.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-14 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Household income also varies by tenure and the number of persons per household. Based on estimates from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), approximately 47 percent of Richmond households were low-income households (less than 80 percent of the area median income). As shown in Table HE-14, low-income renter households comprised 62 percent of all renter households, while only one-third of owner-occupied households in Richmond had low incomes. Approximately 30 percent of very low-income renters were small family (2 to 4 persons) households. Elderly households comprised over half of low-income owner households.

TABLE HE-14 LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE Extremely Low Very Low Low Household Type Total (0-30%) (31-50%) (51-80%) Renters 30% 17% 15% 62% Elderly 1,190 473 178 1,841 Small Families 2,195 1,299 1,143 4,637 Large Families 817 441 402 1,660 Other 968 695 799 2,462 Total 5,170 2,908 2,522 10,600 Owners 11% 10% 11% 33% Elderly 1,231 1,103 777 3,111 Other 872 747 1,351 2,970 Total 2,103 1,850 2,128 6,081 Total Low Income Households 7,273 4,758 4,650 16,681 Source: HUD, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2002 Note: These estimates are derived from 2002 projection data. The data project the following: 1) The change in the number of households in this jurisdiction from 1990 to 2002 is estimated at +9.52%. 2) The renter occupied households in 2002 is estimated at 47.95% of all occupied units. The owner occupied households in 2002 is estimated at 52.05% of all occupied units. 3) The change in elderly is estimated to be +0.49% from 1990 to 2002.

Table HE-15 shows the level of poverty in Richmond in 1990 and 2000. While the number of persons living in poverty increased by over 2,000 persons, the overall percentage remained the same. Though most groups saw a decline in poverty during the 10-year period, the number of persons, the number of children living in poverty increased.

TABLE HE-15 POVERTY STATUS 1990 2000 Household Type Number Percent Number Percent Persons (all ages) 13,909 16% 15,873 16% Individuals (age 18 and over) 8,036 13% 9,597 16% Children (under age 18) 5,721 26% 6,166 23% Families 2,964 14% 3,141 13% Families with children 2,564 21% 2,627 19% Female-Headed Hhds. 1,871 31% 1,658 25% Source: 1990 and 2000 Census

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-15

Housing Characteristics

Historic Residential Construction Trends. According to the City of Richmond Planning Department, a total of 6,636 housing units have been constructed, under construction, approved or proposed since January 2000 up through June 2005. 2000 Census data indicates a total of 36,044 housing units in the City. As of June 2005, this total had risen to 39,748 housing units built or approved. See Table HE-50 for a list of current projects in the City.

A comparison of the 1990 and 2000 Census data shows the largest numerical increase in housing units was detached single family homes (783 units, 4.0 percent increase). Apartment complexes of 50 or more units represent the largest proportional increase at 139.1 percent (1,237 units). Multifamily units (two units per dwelling or more) represent 34.8 percent (12,528 units) of the City total housing stock. In the 2000 Census, the City had a 46.7 percent renter rate (16,162 households). This in combination with the percent of housing units that are multifamily would indicate that a large number of single family and/or mobile homes units are rental units.

TABLE HE-16 HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE 1990 2000 Change Units in Structure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Single-family 19,684 57.0% 20,467 56.8% 783 4.0% detached Single-family 2,540 7.4% 2,928 8.1% 388 15.3% attached Duplex 1,457 4.2% 1,540 4.3% 83 5.7% 3 or 4 Units 3,652 10.6% 3,712 10.3% 60 1.6% 5 to 9 units 2,044 5.9% 2,183 6.1% 139 6.8% 10 to 19 units 1,916 5.5% 1,728 4.8% -188 -9.8% 20 to 49 units 1,880 5.4% 1,239 3.4% -641 -34.1% 50 or more units 889 2.6% 2,126 5.9% 1,237 139.1% Mobile Home 68 0.2% 65 0.2% -3 -4.4% Other (Includes RVs, Vans, Boats, 402 1.2% 56 0.2% -346 -86.1% etc.) Total 34,532 100.0% 36,044 100.0% 1,512 4.4% Source: 1990, 2000 Census

Housing Conditions. Age is an important factor in the condition of a housing unit. Housing gradually deteriorates over time and, like other infrastructure, regular maintenance of the housing stock is necessary. Typically, after 30 years most housing shows signs of deterioration and needs reinvestment to maintain its condition. Without proper maintenance, housing that is over 50 years requires major reinvestment to maintain its quality and appearance. Homeowners with older units may require assistance to upgrade conditions or such units will become substandard for use by homeowners or renters and may eventually be unsuitable for occupancy.

The largest percentage of Richmond’s housing stock, 25.1 percent (7,135 units), was built between 1950 and 1959 (see Table HE-17). Approximately 25.0 percent of Richmond’s housing stock was built since 1980. The majority of housing was built before 1970 and three-quarters of the City’s

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-16 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT housing stock was constructed prior to 1980. According to the 2000 Census, the median year built for the housing stock in the City was 1961, which indicates an older housing stock.

TABLE HE-17 HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR BUILT Year Built Number Percent Accumulated Percent 1939 or earlier 3,826 10.3% 10.3% 1940 to 1949 6,540 17.6% 27.9% 1950 to 1959 7,135 19.2% 47.0% 1960 to 1969 6,445 17.3% 64.4% 1970 to 1979 3,984 10.7% 75.1% 1980 to 1989 5,116 13.8% 88.9% 1990 to 1999 3,105 8.4% 97.2% 2000 to Jan. 2003 1,039 2.8% 100.0% Total 37,190 100.0% Source: 1990, 2000 Census; RAND California

Another measure of housing condition is the number of housing units lacking complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. The 2000 Census reported 264 occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities and 161 housing units lacking complete kitchen facilities in the City (Table HE- 18). In both areas, lacking complete plumbing and kitchen facilities, a slightly higher percentage of rental units lacked these facilities than did owner occupied units.

TABLE HE-18 SUBSTANDARD HOUSING UNITS Substandard Housing Households Percent Owner-occupied Lacking complete plumbing facilities 90 0.5% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 34 0.2% Renter-occupied Lacking complete plumbing facilities 164 1.0% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 127 0.8% Source: U.S. Census, 2000.

Overcrowded Households. Overcrowding is defined as a situation where there is more than one person per room in an occupied housing unit. Overcrowding can result from a low supply of affordable and adequate housing. Households that are unable to afford larger housing units may be forced to rent or purchase housing that is too small to meet their needs. According to the 1990 Census, 9.9 percent of households in Richmond were overcrowded. According to the 2000 Census, the number of overcrowded households in the City has increased by 2,033 representing 15.3 percent of households. Contra Costa County had 25,477 overcrowded households (7.4 percent) in 2000. As Table HE-19 shows, the level of overcrowding by tenure is substantially higher in renter households, which represent 65.0 percent of the overcrowded households in the 2000 Census. Overcrowded renter households have increased by 1,251 households while owner households have increased by 782 households since 1990.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-17

TABLE HE-19 OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS Overcrowded Severely Overcrowded Percent of (1.0-1.50 persons (1.50+ persons Total Total Type per room) per room) Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Percent 1990 Owner 723 64.0% 343 32.6% 1,066 48.9% 3.3% Renter 1,130 61.0% 1,052 75.4% 2,182 67.2% 6.7% Total 1,853 100.0% 1,395 100.0% 3,248 100.0% 9.9% 2000 Owner 1,035 41.2% 813 29.4% 1,848 35.0% 5.3% Renter 1,476 58.8% 1,957 70.6% 3,433 65.0% 9.9% Total 2,511 100.0% 2,770 100.0% 5,281 100.0% 15.3% Source: 1990, 2000 Census

Vacancy Trends. Vacancy trends in housing are analyzed using a “vacancy rate” which establishes the relationship between housing supply and demand. For example, if the demand for housing is greater than the available supply, then the vacancy rate is probably low, and the price of housing will most likely increase or remain stable. Additionally, the vacancy rate indicates whether or not the City has an adequate housing supply to provide choice and mobility.

According to the 1990 Census, the total vacancy rate was 5.1 percent (1,783 vacant units) in the City of Richmond, compared to 5.2 percent for Contra Costa County and 7.7 percent for the State. By 2000, the total vacancy rate for Richmond had TABLE HE-20 HOUSING VACANCY decreased 3.9 percent (1,419 vacant units), compared to a 2.9 percent vacancy rate for Contra Contra Costa Costa County. As shown in Table HE-20, the Tenure Richmond County vacancy rate of rental units is more than two to Owner 1.2% 0.8% three times the vacancy rate of owner occupied Renter 3.1% 2.7% units, in both the city and the county. As with the Total 3.9% 2.9% rest of the Bay Area, total number of units has Source: 2000 Census. increased in Richmond, but the vacancy rate has decreased. The housing production has simply not kept up with the demand, resulting in continually increasing housing prices.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-18 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

SECTION III HOUSING NEEDS

Section 3.0 Housing Needs includes data that assists in the determination of the future housing needs for current and future residents of Richmond. The cost of housing, the number of housing units that are considered overcrowded, the necessity to overpay for housing and persons in special needs groups are all examined in this section.

Housing Costs and Overpayment

For Sale Housing Cost. The residential real estate market in the State has recently had an increase in prices resulting from low mortgage rates, low inventory of homes available for sale, a steadily growing labor market, and a increasing population. The median sales price for a home in Richmond was $282,205 in through December 2002 as reported by DataQuick. The 2000 the median sales price in the City was $187,229, a 46.1 percent increase over the 1995 figure.

TABLE HE-21 MEDIAN SALES PRICE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Median Sales Change Year Price Dollars Percent 2002* $282,205 $94,976 50.7% 2000 $187,229 $59,104 46.1% 1995 $128,125 Source: DataQuick Note: * through December 2002

Rental Housing Costs. According to the 2000 Census, the TABLE HE-22 RICHMOND RENTAL COSTS 1 2 3 or more median contract rent for all rental Rent Bedroom Bedrooms Bedrooms units in the City of Richmond was Less than $200 375 295 155 $685 per month compared to $692 for $200 to $299 338 241 82 Berkley, $844 for El Cerrito and $629 $300 to $499 481 394 296 for San Pablo. In January 2003, $500 to $749 1,786 1,897 465 Pacific Municipal Consultants $750 to $999 1,293 1,645 832 surveyed apartment rental rates in $1,000 or more 898 1,780 1,245 order to determine the median rent for Total 5,171 6,252 3,075 apartment units in Richmond. Table Source: 2000 Census HE-23 illustrates the rental costs in Richmond, Berkley, Emeryville, and San Pablo by the number of bedrooms in June 2003. The median rent for a one bedroom apartment is $1,220 and $1,485 for a two bedroom units in Richmond.

TABLE HE-23 MEDIAN APARTMENT RENTAL COSTS BY HOUSING TYPE - 2003 Number of Bedrooms Richmond Berkley Emeryville San Pablo 1 Bedroom $1,220 $1,400 $1,475 $1,150 2 Bedroom $1,485 $1,800 $2,000 $1,390 Source: Pacific Municipal Consultants, May 2003

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-19

Rents by Number of Bedrooms. Figure HE-3 shows the percentage of housing units by bedroom size by gross rent according to the 2000 Census. One bedroom units had the largest percentage of their renters paying $500 to $749 for monthly rent, while the largest proportion of three bedroom renters paid $1000 or more per month.

FIGURE HE-3 GROSS RENT BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS

45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Less than $200 $200 to $299 $300 to $499 $500 to $749 $750 to $999 $1,000 or more Gross Rent

1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 or more

Source: 2000 Census

Overpayment. Generally, overpayment compares the total shelter cost for a household to the ability of that household to pay for housing. Specifically, overpayment is defined as monthly shelter costs in excess of 30 percent of a household’s income. Shelter cost is defined as the monthly owner costs (mortgages, deed of trust, contracts to purchase or similar debts on the property and taxes, insurance on the property, and utilities) or the gross rent (contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities).

As shown in Table HE-24, 35.4 percent of the occupied housing units in Richmond are overpaying for shelter. In Contra Costa County, 33.4 percent of the households are in overpayment situations. According to the 2000 Census, 15.6 percent of the owner households and 19.0 percent of the renter households in the City are overpaying for housing. Table HE-24 summarizes data from the 2000 Census that indicates the percentage of rental households and owner occupied households overpaying for shelter in 2000 by income range. Households earning between $20,000 and $35,000 annually have the highest proportion of overpayment (25.8 percent).

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-20 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-24 TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS OVERPAYING BY INCOME Housing Type Income Owner Renter Total % of % of % of 30% 35% 30% 35% # Category Category Category Less than $10,000 65 476 10.0% 117 1,829 28.4% 2,487 20.3% $10,000 to $19,999 55 744 14.8% 147 1,875 29.5% 2,821 23.0% $20,000 to $34,999 183 1,085 23.4% 548 1,354 27.7% 3,170 25.8% $35,000 to $49,999 380 951 24.6% 478 381 12.5% 2,190 17.8% $50,000 and over 827 648 27.2% 56 71 1.9% 1,602 13.1% Total 1,510 3,904 100.0% 1,346 5,510 100.0% 12,270 100.0% Percent 9.7% 25.2% 8.1% 33.2% 35.4% Percent of Total Households Richmond 15.6% 19.0% 35.4% Contra Costa County 19.7% 13.7% 33.4% Source: 2000 Census

Housing Affordability

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) publishes household income data annually for areas in California. Table HE-25 shows the maximum annual income level for each income group adjusted for household size for Contra Costa County. The maximum annual income data is then utilized to calculate the maximum affordable housing payments for different households (varying by income level) and their eligibility for federal housing assistance.

TABLE HE-25 MAXIMUM HOUSEHOLD INCOME – 2004 Maximum Income Household Size Level 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7-Person Very Low Income $29,000 $33,100 $37,250 $41,400 $44,700 $48,000 $51,350

Lower Income $46,350 $53,000 $59,600 $66,250 $71,550 $76,850 $82,150

Median Income $57,550 $65,750 $74,000 $82,200 $88,800 $95,350 $101,950

Moderate Income $69,050 $78,900 $88,800 $98,650 $106,550 $114,450 $122,350 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, February 2004.

Tables HE-26 and HE-27 show the maximum rents and sales prices, respectively, affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. Affordability is based on a household spending 30 percent or less of their total household income for shelter and on the maximum household income levels established by the Department of Housing and Community Development as shown previously in Table HE-24

Maximum Affordable Rents by Income Levels. As shown in Table HE-26, the maximum affordable rent for a very low income three-person household is $931 monthly in 2004. As of the 2000 Census, 4,472 two-bedroom dwelling units in the City, 71.5 percent of all two-bedroom rental

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-21 units, rent for less than $1,000. This would indicate that a large portion of rental units in the City are affordable to lower-income households. However, according to the rental survey conducted in 2003, the median rental cost for a two-bedroom apartment in the City has increased to $1,485, which indicates that housing costs have increased since the 2000 Census and that rental units are less affordable to lower income households. Based on the 2003 rental survey, all moderate and above moderate income households can afford the median rents for one and two bedroom units. However, the median rents are not affordable to very low income households.

TABLE HE-26 RENTER AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS Levels for Levels for Levels for Levels for Income Group 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person Households Households Households Households Very Low Monthly Rent $725 $828 $931 $1,035 Monthly $2,417 $2,758 $3,104 $3,450 Income Low Monthly Rent $1,159 $1,325 $1,490 $1,656 Monthly $3,863 $4,417 $4,967 $5,521 Income Moderate Monthly Rent $1,726 $1,973 $2,220 $2,466 Monthly $5,754 $6,575 $7,400 $8,221 Income Above Moderate Monthly Rent >$1,726 >$1,973 >$2,220 >$2,466 Monthly >$5,754 >$6,575 >$7,400 >$8,221 Income Source: 2004 Official State Income Limits, Department of Housing and Community Development, February 2004 Note: Affordable housing costs assume that 30% of gross household income is applied toward rent or house payment.

Maximum Affordable Sales Price by Income Levels. The median sales price for single-family homes in Richmond continue to rise. As of December 2002, the median sales price for single-family homes in the City was $282,205. Based on the HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for Contra Costa County, the maximum affordable sales price for a four-person, very low income households is $140,206, for a low income household is $229,870, and for a moderate income household is $334,096. This would indicate that the average home is not affordable to 4-person households in the extremely low, very low, or low income ranges.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-22 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-27 OWNER AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS Sales Price for Sales Price for Sales Price for Sales Price for Income Group 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person Households Households Households Households Very Low Max Sales $98,225 $112,083 $126,144 $140,206 Price Income Limit $29,000 $33,100 $37,250 $41,400 Low Max Sales $156,898 $179,503 $199,823 $229,870 Price Income Limit $46,350 $53,000 $59,600 $66,250 Moderate Max Sales $233,839 $267,204 $300,732 $334,096 Price Income Limit $69,050 $78,900 $88,800 $98,650 Above Moderate Max Sales >$233,839 >$267,204 >$300,732 >$334,096 Price Income Limit >$69,050 >$78,900 >$88,800 >$98,650 Source: 2004 Official State Income Limits, Department of Housing and Community Development, February 2004; http://nt.mortgage101.com Note: Affordable housing sales prices are based on the following assumed variables: 10% down payment, 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 6.0% annual interest rate. Assignment of 30% of gross household income to housing costs - to cover principal, interest, property taxes, homeowner’s insurance and private mortgage insurance.

Special Housing Needs

Household groups with special needs include seniors, mentally and physically disabled persons, large family households, female-headed households, agricultural workers, and homeless persons. Households with special housing needs often have greater difficulty in finding decent and affordable housing. As a result, these households may experience a higher prevalence of overpaying, overcrowding, and other housing problems.

Senior Population and Households. Seniors have special housing needs primarily resulting from physical TABLE HE-28 SENIOR POPULATION TRENDS disabilities and limitations, income, and % Year Population Change health care costs. Additionally, senior Change households also have other needs to 1990 9,912 preserve their independence including 2000 9,806 -106 -1.1% supportive services to maintain their 2010 10,150 334 3.5% health and safety, in-home support 2020 10,684 534 5.3% services to perform activities of daily Source: 1990 - 2000 Census, and ABAG Projections living, conservators to assist with personal Note: *2005 and 2010 senior population has been care and financial affairs, public calculated by determining the proportional representation administration assistance to manage and of seniors in the 2000 Census general population and applying this proportion to the general population 2005 resolve estate issues and networks of care and 2010 projections.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-23 to provide a wide variety of services and daily assistance. In 1990, 9,912 persons in Richmond were 65 years and older. In 2000, the City had 9,806 persons 65 years old or older as shown in Table HE-28, which accounts for 9.9 percent of the total population in the City, and is a decrease of 106 seniors from the City’s 1990 senior population. Based on ABAG population projections, the City’s senior population will increase by 3.5 percent (334 persons) by 2010 and another 5.3 percent (534 persons) by 2020. This calculates into an annual increase of 0.4 percent in the senior population from 2000 to 2010, substantially more than the previous ten-year period with a decrease in senior population.

The majority of the senior population in the City was female in the 2000 Census, representing 59.2 percent of the senior population. Seniors over 80 years of age, who may require more care because of their age, represent 25.1 percent of the total senior persons in the City. Of these, 64.3 percent were female and 35.7 percent male.

TABLE HE-29 SENIOR POPULATION BY AGE Male Female Age of Seniors Number Percent % of Total Number Percent % of Total 65 to 69 years 1,180 29.5% 1.2% 1,531 26.4% 1.5% 70 to 74 years 1,041 26.0% 1.0% 1,388 23.9% 1.4% 75 to 79 years 902 22.5% 0.9% 1,299 22.4% 1.3% 80 to 84 years 508 12.7% 0.5% 866 14.9% 0.9% 85 years and over 373 9.3% 0.4% 718 12.4% 0.7% Total 4,004 100.0% 4.0% 5,802 100.0% 5.8% Source: 2000 Census

In 2000, 6,223 householders in Richmond were seniors, representing 17.9 percent of the households in the City. Of the senior households, approximately 77.4 percent are owners and 22.6 percent are renters, as shown in Table HE-30.

TABLE HE-30 SENIOR HOUSEHOLDERS BY TENURE Age Number Percent Percent of Total Renter Occupied 65 to 74 years 801 56.8% 12.9% 75 to 84 years 454 32.2% 7.3% 85 years and over 154 10.9% 2.5% Total 1,409 100.0% 22.6% Owner Occupied Households 65 to 74 years 2,273 47.2% 36.5% 75 to 84 years 1,999 41.5% 32.1% 85 years and over 542 11.3% 8.7% Total 4,814 100.0% 77.4% Total Households 65 to 74 years 3,074 49.4% 75 to 84 years 2,453 39.4% 85 years and over 696 11.2% Total 6,223 100.0% Source: 2000 Census

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-24 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

Fourteen senior residential care facilities, five adult day care facilities serving seniors, and six apartment complexes for low-income seniors are located in the City. See Table HE-31.

TABLE HE-31 SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY AND/OR DISABLED Number of Number of Facility Type Service Facilities Units/Beds Senior Apartments 6 364 Apartment complex for seniors. Apartment complex for disabled persons. Disabled only 2 13 Many senior complexes also allow disabled Apartments persons. Facilities of any capacity and provide 24- hour non-medical care and supervision to Group Homes 17 96 children in a structured environment. Provide social, psychological, and behavioral programs for troubled youths. Provide 24-hour-a-day care in the licensee's family residence for six or fewer children who are mentally disabled, developmentally Small Family Home 4 21 disabled, or physically handicapped, and who require special care and supervision as a result of such disabilities Facilities of any capacity that provide 24- hour non-medical care for adults ages 18 through 59, who are unable to provide for Adult Residential 35 206 their own daily needs. Adults may be physically handicapped, developmentally disabled, and/or mentally disabled. Facilities of any capacity that provide programs for frail elderly and Adult Day Care 5 258 developmentally disabled and/or mentally disabled adults in a day care setting. Provide care, supervision and assistance with activities of daily living, such as bathing and grooming. They may also provide incidental medical services under special care plans. The facilities provide services to persons 60 years of age and over Residential Care for and persons under 60 with compatible 14 189 the Elderly needs. May also be known as assisted living facilities, retirement homes and board and care homes. The facilities can range in size from six beds or less to over 100 beds. The residents in these facilities require varying levels of personal care and protective supervision. Source: State of California Community Care Licensing Division, April 2003; Pacific Municipal Consultants 2003.

By 2010, it is projected that Richmond will have approximately 334 additional seniors living in the City. According to the Census 2000, the City had an average of 1.48 persons per senior household. Therefore, it can be calculated that the City will need approximately 226 additional housing units to accommodate seniors by 2010. This calculates into approximately 23 housing units per year.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-25

Large Family Households. Large family households are defined as households of five or more persons. Large family households are considered a special needs group because there is limited supply of adequately sized housing to accommodate their needs. The more persons in a household, the more rooms are needed to accommodate that household. Specifically, a five-person household would require three or four bedrooms, a six-person household would require four bedrooms, and a seven-person household would require four to six bedrooms. Data from the 2000 Census indicates that 5,488 households in Richmond have five or more persons (15.8 percent), while there were 14,502 occupied housing units in the City of three or more bedrooms. There were 2,699 large owner households compared with 11,291 owner-occupied housing units of three or more bedrooms. There were 2,789 large renter households and 3,211 rental housing units of three or more bedrooms. As shown in Table HE-32, an adequate number of ownership housing units with sufficient bedrooms are present to accommodate the City’s large households. However, currently there are very few large renter housing units (those with four or more bedrooms) to accommodate the families of seven or more persons. The City has only 492 rental units with four or more bedrooms and 1,501 large households of six or more persons.

TABLE HE-32 LARGE HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING UNITS Number of Number of Household Size Number % Of Total % of Total Bedrooms Units Owner Units 5-Person 1,326 49.1% 3-Bedrooms 8,217 72.8% 6-Person 727 26.9% 4-Bedrooms 2,721 24.1% 5-Bedrooms or 7-Person or more 646 23.9% 353 3.1% more Total 2,699 100.0% Total 11,291 100.0% Renter Units 5-Person 1,288 46.2% 3-Bedrooms 2,719 84.7% 6-Person 776 27.8% 4-Bedrooms 442 13.8% 5-Bedrooms or 7-Person or more 725 26.0% 50 1.6% more Total 2,789 100.0% Total 3,211 100.0% Source: 2000 Census

By the year 2010, it is projected that Richmond will have approximately 36,210 total households in the City. Of these households, approximately 5,739 will be considered large households, should current trends continue.

Single Parent and Female Headed Households. Single parent households are households with children under the age of 18 at home and include both male and female-headed households. These households generally have a higher ratio between their income and their living expenses (that is, living expenses take up a larger share of income than is generally the case in two-parent households). Therefore, finding affordable, decent, and safe housing is often more difficult for single parent and female headed households. Additionally, single parent and female-headed households have special needs involving access to daycare or childcare, health care, and other supportive services. Census 2000 data indicates that 12.7 percent (4,451 households) of all households, in the City of Richmond are headed by single parents with children under the age of 18. Approximately 3,583

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-26 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT households or 80.5 percent of all single-parent households are female-headed households. Additionally, there are 838 single-parent households in the City that are headed by a male with no female present and having related children under the age of 18 present in the home.

Based on ABAG’s projections, there will be 4,599 single-parent households in the City by 2008 requiring housing. This will necessitate approximately 147 additional housing units through 2010.

Disabled Persons. According to the California Government Code, a "disability" includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental disability as defined in Section 12926. A "mental disability" involves having any mental or psychological disorder or condition, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, or specific learning disabilities that limits a major life activity. A "physical disability" involves having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects body systems including neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine. In addition, a mental or physical disability limits a major life activity by making the achievement of major life activities difficult including physical, mental, and social activities and working.

Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities could prevent a person from working, restrict a persons’ mobility, or make caring for oneself difficult. Therefore, disabled persons often require special housing needs related to potential limited earning capacity, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs associated with disabilities. Additionally, people with disabilities require a wide range of different housing, depending on the type and severity of their disability. Housing needs can range from institutional care facilities to facilities that support partial or full independence (i.e., group care homes). Supportive services such as daily living skills and employment assistance need to be integrated in the housing situation. The disabled person with a mobility limitation requires housing that is physically accessible. Examples of accessibility in housing include widened doorways and hallways, ramps, bathroom modifications (i.e., lowered countertops, grab bars, adjustable shower heads, etc.) and special sensory devices including smoke alarms and flashing lights.

The 2000 Census defined six types of disabilities including sensory, physical, self-care, mental, go- outside-home, and employment. A disability is defined as a mental, physical, or health condition that lasts over six months. According to the 2000 Census, 19,666 persons age 5 and older had a disability (19.8 percent of the population over 5 years of age) in Richmond. Further, 3,273 persons had a physical disability in Richmond (3.6 percent of the population over 5 years of age). According to 2000 Census information, approximately 9,187 persons, ages 16 to 64, in Richmond have an employment disability, 10.0 percent of the City population. Approximately 2,117 persons, representing 2.3 percent of the population age five and over, had a mental disability. Females make up the majority of disabled persons in the City representing 54.0 percent of the disabled population. Approximately 47.2 percent (4,449) of persons 65 years of age or older have a disability. Of the persons age 16 to 65 with disability, 51.3 percent (7,308 persons) are employed.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-27

TABLE HE-33 NONINSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY AGE Percent of Percent of Disability Number* Disabilities Total by Age Population Total disabilities 36,114 100.0% 39.4% Total disabilities tallied for people 5 to 15 years 1,409 100.0% 1.5% Sensory disability 179 12.7% 0.2% Physical disability 217 15.4% 0.2% Mental disability 813 57.7% 0.9% Self-care disability 200 14.2% 0.2% Total disabilities tallied for people 16 to 64 years 25,431 100.0% 27.8% Sensory disability 1,520 6.0% 1.7% Physical disability 4,660 18.3% 5.1% Mental disability 2,921 11.5% 3.2% Self-care disability 1,433 5.6% 1.6% Go-outside-home disability 5,710 22.5% 6.2% Employment disability 9,187 36.1% 10.0% Total disabilities tallied for people 65 years and over 9,274 100.0% 10.1% Sensory disability 1,485 16.0% 1.6% Physical disability 3,056 33.0% 3.3% Mental disability 1,304 14.1% 1.4% Self-care disability 1,220 13.2% 1.3% Go-outside-home disability 2,209 23.8% 2.4% Total Sensory disability 3,184 8.8% 3.5% Total Physical disability 3,273 9.1% 3.6% Total Mental disability 2,117 5.9% 2.3% Total Self-care disability 2,853 7.9% 3.1% Total Go-outside-home disability 7,919 21.9% 8.7% Total Employment disability 9,187 25.4% 10.0% Source: 2000 Census Note: *Numbers are not mutually exclusive. A disabled person may have more than on disability.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-28 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-34 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS Male Female Total Age/Disability Status Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 5 to 15 years: With a disability 646 7.5% 375 4.4% 1,021 6.0% 16 to 20 years: With a disability: 565 17.0% 508 15.3% 1,073 16.2% Employed 262 46.4% 247 48.6% 509 47.4% Not employed 303 53.6% 261 51.4% 564 52.6% 21 to 64 years: With a disability: 6,140 22.0% 6,983 23.2% 13,123 22.7% Employed 3,238 52.7% 3,561 51.0% 6,799 51.8% Not employed 2,902 47.3% 3,422 49.0% 6,324 48.2% 65 to 74 years: With a disability 769 36.6% 1,047 35.6% 1,816 36.0% No disability 1,332 63.4% 1,890 64.4% 3,222 64.0% 75 years and over: With a disability 926 54.7% 1,707 63.2% 2,633 59.9% No disability 768 45.3% 993 36.8% 1,761 40.1% Source: 2000 Census

According to the 2000 Census, 1,616 persons in the City reside in “group quarters”. Of these, 955 are institutionalized. The Census Bureau classifies all people not living in households as living in group quarters. There are two types of group quarters: institutional (for example, correctional facilities, nursing homes, and mental hospitals) and non-institutional (for example, college dormitories, military barracks, group homes, missions, and shelters).

Fourteen residential care facilities for the elderly are located in the City, which provide assistance to persons 60 years of age and older and persons with disabilities. In addition, there are five adult day care facilities (facilities that provide programs for frail elderly and developmentally disabled and/or mentally disabled adults in a day care setting), 35 adult residential facilities (facilities that provide 24-hour non-medical care for adults who are physically handicapped, developmentally disabled, and/or mentally disabled, ages 18 through 59), and four small family home (provide 24-hour-a-day care for six or fewer children who are mentally disabled, developmentally disabled, or physically handicapped, and who require special care and supervision) that offer services to persons with disabilities. See Table HE-31.

In conclusion, by 2010 it is projected that Richmond will have approximately 690 additional persons with a disability3. According to the Census 2000, the City had an average of 2.82 persons per household. Therefore, it can be calculated that between 2000 and 2010, the City will have approximately 244 additional households with a disabled person, assuming only one disabled person per household.

3 Calculated from ABAG population projections for 2010 of 102,700 and calculated from Census 2000 data showing 19.8 percent of the population has a disability.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-29

Homeless Persons. Homeless individuals and families have perhaps the most immediate housing need of any group. They also have one of the most difficult sets of housing needs to meet, due to both the diversity and complexity of the factors that lead to homelessness, and to community opposition to the siting of facilities that serve homeless clients. California State Law requires that Housing Elements estimate the need for emergency shelter for homeless people.

The 2001-2006 Contra Costa County Homeless Continuum of Care Plan estimates that approximately 14,757 persons in the county experience homelessness each year, and about 9,700 of these homeless are members of a family and include almost 7,000 children. Based on Richmond’s percentage of the total County population in 2000 (10.5 percent), approximately 1,549 persons are homeless in Richmond over the course of year of which 1,019 are in a family household, including 735 children. On any given night in Richmond, approximately 170 individuals may be homeless in Richmond. In addition, approximately 95 families, including 179 children, may experience homeless in Richmond on any given night. While portions of the homeless community are visible, there is a component of the homeless that may not seen on a street corner or receive services from a shelter or other community organization. Some persons and families will live in a car, a motel, or stay on a friend or relative’s couch.

Three factors are indicated in the 2001-2006 Contra Costa County Homeless Continuum of Care Plan as the root causes of homelessness: shortage of affordable housing, lack of access to support services, and low incomes.

There are a variety of resources, described in Table HE-35, in and/or available to the homeless in the City of Richmond, which provide housing options ranging from emergency shelter to transitional housing and also offer services including meals, jobs training, housing assistance, supportive services, basic life skills, and a variety of services for homeless persons. Bay Area Rescue Mission (maximum stay of four to six weeks), Brookside Shelter, Richmond House (overnight stay), and Richmond Endeavor (overnight stay) each operate a permanent facility that provides services to the homeless community, including year-round beds, meals, case management, housing and job assistance and other general services. Emergency motel vouchers are available through the Contra Costa Crisis Center while Greater Richmond Interfaith provides a winter shelter program. Deliverance House operates a transitional housing facility with maximum stays from 12 to 18 months and supportive services, including meals, and job, life and basic skills training. Lodging and meals are also offered by several local churches.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-30 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-35 SERVICES AND HOUSING RESOURCES FOR HOMELESS PERSONS Facility Name Address Capacity Services 50-bed facility year-round, Bay Area Rescue 224 Macdonald individual and families, Meals, Case Management, Housing Mission Avenue maximum stay of four to six and Jobs Assistance, Referral Services weeks Assists approximately 100 Meals, On-job Training, Life Skills 847 Brookside adults, and youth aged 14- Brookside Shelter Training, Case Management, Referral Drive Ste. C 17 when space is available, Services, Housing Assistance on a year-round basis Churches Various addresses Varies Lodging and Meals Contra Costa Crisis Center Provides Emergency Motel 24-Hour Homeless Hotline, Referral Walnut Creek Homeless Vouchers to Assistance Organizations Hotline Transitional Housing with Supportive Services, Showers, Deliverance 113 Macdonald four beds, women and Laundry Facilities, Meals, Job House Avenue children (0-8 years) only, 12- Training, Living and Basic Skills 18 month maximum stay Training Free Meals Year-Round, Showers, Greater 35-bed Winter Shelter Voice Mail, Winter Shelter Program Richmond 165 22nd Street Program (4.5 months) including Meals, Referral Services, Interfaith available for families only Counseling and Care Management, Program Services Other Services Multi-Assistance, Showers, Laundry Richmond Overnight lodging and meals Facilities, Lockers, Food Pantry, Mail, 501 9th Street Endeavor for twelve persons Drop-In Day Room, Computer Training, Job Assistance Various addresses, Multi-Assistance, Transitional Richmond House Three 6-bed facilities 735 12th Street Housing, Job Assistance Phoenix 20-bed facility for clients Case Management with Housing and Programs San Shelter Located in who meet certain mental Job Assistance, Life Skills and Job Pablo Multi Antioch health criteria for a Training, Referral Services Service Center maximum stay of 30 days Source: City of Richmond; Pacific Municipal Consultants 2003.

Agricultural Workers. Agricultural workers earn their primary income through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. The 2000 Census indicates that of the employed persons in the City of Richmond (42,769 persons), 0.2 percent, or 90 persons, were employed in agriculture, forestry, or fishing. The Census does not distinguish between the various categories. According to the 1990 Census, 1.3 percent, or 514 persons, of all employed persons in Richmond (38,823) worked in the farming, forestry, and fishing occupation. The number and proportion of persons in the farming, forestry and fishing occupations decreased between 1990 and 2000. If this trend were to continue, it is believed that the persons employed in the agricultural business would decrease in the coming years. Therefore, no additional housing would be need for agricultural workers in Richmond.

Regional Housing Needs Determination

A Regional Housing Needs Plan is mandated by the State of California (Government Code, Section 65584) for regions to address housing issues and needs based on future growth projections for the area. The plan is developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), called the

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-31

Regional Housing Needs Determination for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2001-2006 Housing Cycle and allocates to cities and the unincorporated county their “fair share” or Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) of the regions projected housing needs. The Plan allocates the RHND based on household income groupings over the five-year planning period for each specific jurisdictions Housing Element. The RHND, which covers a span of 7.5 years, also identifies and quantifies the existing housing needs for each jurisdiction.

The intent of the RHND is to ensure TABLE HE-36 that local jurisdictions address not only REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION FOR the needs of their immediate areas but 1999-2006 also fill the housing needs for the New Construction Current Income Remaining Allocation Units* entire region. Additionally, a major Group goal of the RHND is to assure that Number Percent Number Number every community provides an Very Low 471 18.1% 818 0 opportunity for a mix of affordable Low 273 10.5% 501 0 Moderate 625 24.0% 604 0 housing to all economic segments of its Above population. The RHNP jurisdictional 1,234 47.4% 4,713 0 Moderate allocations are made to ensure that TOTAL 2,603 100.0% 6,636 0 adequate sites and zoning are provided Source: ABAG, Regional Housing Needs Determination, to address existing and anticipated 2001; City of Richmond housing demands during the planning Note: *Current units = constructed, under construction, units period and that market forces are not in planning process, or proposed units as of June 2005. inhibited in addressing the housing needs for all facets of a particular community. Table HE-36 provides the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) target for the planning period 1999 to 2006 (also referred to as “basic construction needs”) for each of the four household income groups for the City of Richmond. Also presented in Table HE-36 is a summary of units constructed or pending in the City during the 1999 through 2006 period and the remaining RHND need.

Based on ABAG’s RHND projections, the City of Richmond needs to provide 744 housing units affordable to very low and low income households, or 28.6 percent of all new housing units, from 1999 through 2006. In addition, the City will have to provide 1,859 housing units available to moderate and above moderate income households. A total of 2,603 new housing units have been allocated by ABAG for the City of Richmond from 1999 through 2006.

Since 2000, the City had 1,497 dwelling units completed and 5,139 are under construction, in the planning process or proposed. Currently there are 818 very low income and 501 low income units, 604 moderate income units, and 4,713 above moderate income units either constructed, under construction, in the planning process or proposed. . If all projects are completed in the 2001-2006 planning period, the City will more than doubled its RHND housing need.

The City of Richmond currently has approximately 58.23 acres of vacant land designated in its General Plan to accommodate multi-family development within the City limits. The total number of multifamily units that could be developed on available sites is 1,494 based on an 80 percent lot coverage rate. The majority of vacant land in the City is designated for single family use. There are approximately 99.4 vacant acres in the combined SFR districts allowing for a potential 691 units.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-32 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

This page is intentionally left blank

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-33

SECTION IV HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES

Constraints to Housing Delivery

This section of the Housing Element analyzes constraints to the housing market and in the region that may play an important role in the effectiveness of City of Richmond to satisfy its regional housing needs. This section is divided into two parts: governmental and non-governmental constraints.

The production of housing is a complicated process affected by a number of government, economic, and private influences. Among these influences are the availability and cost of land, zoning and other development standards, availability and cost of providing infrastructure and services, the cost and availability of credit, the number of potential consumers with adequate incomes to purchase or rent the proposed housing, and the cost and availability of labor and materials. In addition to these measurable influences are subtler, but often less quantifiable factors, such as community attitudes, environmental mitigation requirements, and even builder perceptions of the market.

The purpose of this section is to identify those measurable factors that have the greatest impact on the cost and availability of housing.

This chapter of the Housing Element assumes that the primary producers of housing are private developers. This statement may seem obvious, but it is important nonetheless. The reader of this document should not be misled into believing that because City of Richmond has an obligation to accommodate its regional share of housing and to remove constrains to housing production, that the City takes on the responsibility of actually supplying the needed housing.

Governmental Constraints

State and Federal Policy. Actions or policies of numerous governmental agencies, whether involved directly or indirectly in the housing market, can impact the ability of the private sector to provide adequate housing to meet consumer demands.

State agencies and local government compliance with state statutes can complicate the development of housing. Statutes such as the California Environmental Quality Act and sections of the Government Code relating to rezoning and General Plan amendment procedures can also act to prolong the review and approval of development proposals by local governments. In many instances, compliance with these mandates establishes time constraints that cannot be altered by local governments.

Local governments exercise a number of regulatory and approval powers which directly impact residential development within their respective jurisdictional boundaries. These powers establish the location, intensity, and type of units that may or may not be developed. The City's General Plan, zoning regulations, project review and approval procedures, development and processing fees, utility infrastructure, public service capabilities, and development attitudes all play important roles in determining the cost and availability of housing opportunities in Richmond.

November2005 Background Report PAGE HE-34 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

Land Use Controls. In terms of land use controls, the General Plan is of paramount concern. This policy document not only establishes the location and amount of land, which will be allocated to residential development, but also establishes the intensity of development (in terms of unit densities and total number of units), which will be permitted. While all components or elements of the General Plan contain goals and policies that influence residential development, it is the Land Use Element, which has the most direct influence.

General Plan Land Use Designations. The Richmond General Plan establishes policies that guide new development including residential development. These polices along with zoning regulations control the amount and distribution of land allocated for different land uses in the City. The land use designations established by the General Plan allow single-family and multiple family residential developments. A total of five residential land use designations provide for a range of residential densities ranging from single family densities to multiple family residential densities.

Very Low Density Residential (0 to 5 units/net acre): These single family residential areas are typified by relatively large lots greater than 6,000 SF and are principally located in outlying undeveloped areas of the city. These areas are generally located in the El Sobrante area where special topography, geologic conditions or urban service limitations make a more intensive form of development inappropriate.

Low Density Residential (5 to 9 units/net acre): Residential areas with developable lots generally sized 5000 SF or more. This density constitutes most of the developed area of the city proper. These areas, coupled with areas of medium density residential, make up the urban fabric of the city. New development occurs primarily on vacant infill parcels. Allowable housing types include single family residences, townhouses, and duplexes.

Medium Density Residential (9 to 28 units/net acre): This density is typified by townhouses, duplexes, apartments, and other types of low rise multifamily housing. Development of this type usually occurs on undeveloped sites associated with Planned Area developments and on small infill vacant parcels.

High Density Residential (28 to 43 units/net acre): This density is typified by apartment complexes of three or more stories, usually built over parking. Designated for development in or near major transportation routes, shopping, public facilities and regional draw employment or commercial activities. It permits mixed use commercial and residential development.

Specific Plans. The Tiscornia Estate Specific Plan, the City Center Specific Plan, and the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan all build on the General Plan Land Use framework. Both the Tiscornia Estate Plan and the City Center Specific Plan incorporate housing. The City Center Specific Plan encourages revitalization, enhancement, and integration of the urban core of the City with housing, community facilities and commercial land use. The North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan limits residential development on the environmentally sensitive shoreline. None of these plans contain policies or development standards that would constrain the development of housing.

Zoning Regulations. City of Richmond determines the number of housing units that can be built per acre through the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. There are six residential land use designations identified in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, multifamily residential uses are also permitted in the Commercial Zones without conditional use permits. All zoning designations and

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-35 their implementing zoning requirements as they relate to residential living situations are described below:

Single Family Rural Residential District (SFR-1): is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for single family dwellings at low densities on large estate sized lots of 11,000 square feet or more due to limitations of topography, geologic conditions or urban service limitations that make more intensive development inappropriate.

Single Family Very Low Density Residential District (SFR-2): is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for single family dwellings in outlying, undeveloped, suburban settings on lots of 6,000 square feet or more.

Single Family Low Density Residential District (SFR-3): is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas containing primarily single family dwellings and a limited number of two-family dwellings on large lots of 7,500 square feet or more in an urban setting.

Multifamily Residential District (MFR-1): is intended to create, preserve and enhance apartment, townhouse and duplex areas for multifamily living at medium densities.

Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MFR-2): is intended to create, preserve and enhance apartment living in areas with accessibility to major transportation routes, shopping and community centers.

Multifamily High Density Residential District (MFR-3): is intended to create, preserve and enhance high rise apartment living in areas with accessibility to major transportation routes, shopping and community centers.

Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1): residential uses as permitted in the MFR-2 District and live/work1 residential dwellings are permitted by right in this district.

General Commercial District (C-2): residential uses as permitted in the MFR-2 District and live/work residential dwellings are permitted by right in this district.

Regional Commercial District (C-3): residential uses as a part of mixed-use development and/or as permitted in the MFR-2 District and live/work residential dwellings are permitted by right in this district.

Coastline Commercial District (C-C): residential uses allow live/work dwellings by right.

Planned Area District (PA): the purpose of the Planned Area District is to promote development of large areas in substantial compliance with the Richmond General Plan. This includes permitting appropriate variety and diversity in the composition and relationship of land uses, building types,

1 Live/Work: An occupancy by an individual or a family maintaining a common household consisting of one or more rooms or floors in a building originally designed for industrial or commercial occupancy or in a new building specifically designed for live/work and which includes cooking an sanitary facilities and adequate working space. The live/work units are meant for joint living and working quarters for individuals and families engaged in art-making, small scale custom manufacturing, and similar creative endeavors.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-36 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT structures, lot sizes and open spaces. The minimum area for a PA District is two contiguous acres. Density cannot exceed the General Plan designation for the area.

General Residential Standards. The City of Richmond has General Standards for residential development that include provisions for fencing, landscaping, homeless and transitional shelters, and second dwelling units.

Fencing: Fencing or hedges are allowed in the front yard up to 3.5 feet in height, interior side yard 6 feet in height and rear yard 6 to 8 feet in height. The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to the allowable fence/hedge height.

Landscaping: Landscaping I considered to be a major component of site design and provisions for the landscaped area, street trees, open parking areas and landscape maintenance are stipulated in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. All landscaping is to be placed in the required setback areas. At least one street tree, with a minimum caliper of 1½ inches or a minimum 15-gallon container size, for each 50 linear feet of street frontage must be provided. Open parking areas must be screened from adjacent properties by a fence, wall or hedge of at least 3.5 feet in height when the parking area is within 20 feet of the side or rear property line.

Homeless and Transitional Shelters: A homeless or transitional shelter for 10 or fewer persons may be located in all residential and commercial zones. Shelters of more than 10 persons may be located in the MFR-1, MFR-2 MFR-3 and all commercial zones with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Second Dwelling Units: Second dwelling units are allowed in all residential, Planned Area, and Excusive Agricultural districts in the City as a permitted use.

Development Standards. Table HE-37 summarizes the various zoning specifications that are used throughout the City. As indicated, the residential zones allow for a broad range of housing types and densities. Height limits for the multifamily zones allow for three- or four-story buildings, which provides sufficient flexibility for developers to construct a number of multifamily housing types.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-37

TABLE HE-37 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE

Zone Minimum Setbacks* Density Minimum Lot Maximum Designation Lot Width Area Height Front Side Back 4 SFR-1 11,000 sq. ft. 35 ft. 180 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. units/acre 7.3 SFR-2 6,000 sq. ft. 35 ft. 60 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. units/acre 11.6 SFR-3 3,750 sq. ft. 35 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. units/acre 26.4 MFR-1 1,650 sq. ft. 35 ft. 50 ft. 15 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. units/acre 34.8 MFR-2 1,250 sq. ft. 35 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. units/acre 54.5 MFR-3 800 sq. ft. 45 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. units/acre All development standards adhere to the base zoning. However, these PA varies standards may be modified as a part of an approved PA District. Source: Richmond Zoning Ordinance Note:* Unless otherwise specified, front and rear setbacks are 20% of the lot depth with a maximum of 20feet required. Interior side yard setbacks are 10 percent of the lot width with a 3 foot minimum and a 5 foot maximum. Required minimum interior yard space (IYS) for single family units is 16 percent of lot area.

It should be noted, however, that for all zones, the maximum densities shown in Table HE-34 are theoretical limits under ideal conditions. The actual density at which projects are built will be determined by the configuration of a lot, the spacing between buildings, how parking is accommodated, and how minimum yard requirements are met. The financial feasibility of various construction designs will also affect the actual density at which a residential project is developed.

Height restrictions in the residential zones allow a maximum height of 35 feet for Single Family Zones and 45 feet for Multifamily Zones, thereby easily accommodating three and four story structures.

Residential Development Standards are imposed on development through the Subdivision Map Act of the State, Quimby Act, Local Subdivision Ordinances and Zoning requirements. The Subdivision Map Act allows for certain dedications, improvements for roads, utilities, as well as lay- out design to assure opportunities for energy efficiency building orientation and solar energy systems. Generally, the Quimby Act provides for the dedication of parkland equal to 5 acres per 1,000 residents. However, these requirements have been deemed the minimum to assure orderly development within the City.

In addition to the development requirements listed above, the City has open space, parking and site improvements requirements for all development. Listed in Tables HE-38 and HE-39 are the parking and open space requirements for residential development in the City.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-38 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-38 PARKING STANDARDS Type Required Parking Single Family 2 spaces per unit* Duplexes 2 spaces per unit* Multifamily 1 Bedroom 1 space per unit 2 Bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit 3 Bedroom 2 spaces per unit Guest 1 space per 5 units Senior 1 space per 2 units** Source: Richmond Zoning Ordinance Note: * Garages, carports, or covered parking is required of off street parking located in the front half of the lot or within 25 feet of the side street of a corner lot except as approved by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). **Multifamily senior parking standards require an additional 1 space for each employee per main shift; parking requirements may be modified with a CUP.

Provision of two off street parking spaces is required for single family and duplex units. Multifamily development requires one parking space for each dwelling unit containing no more than 1 bedroom, and 1.5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit containing 2 bedrooms and two parking spaces for 3 or more bedrooms.

Open space areas are required of all residential development in the City. All single family zoning designations require at least 16 percent of the total lot area as interior yard space which can be made of the rear or side yard or within the building envelope (such as a courtyard). Multifamily zoning designations require private and common open space. Private open space can include decks and balconies. Ground level private open space must be at least 100 square feet. Units with two or more bedrooms require an additional 100 square feet of common or private open space per unit.

TABLE HE-39 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS 2+ bedroom Minimum Interior Private Open Common Open Zone Required Additional Yard Space Space per unit Space per unit per unit SFR-1 16% of lot area - - - SFR-2 16% of lot area - - - SFR-3 16% of lot area - - - 100 sq. ft. common MFR-1 20% of lot area 75 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. or private MFR-2 20% of lot area 60 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. common or private MFR-3 20% of lot area 60 sq. ft. 100-200 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. common or private Source: Richmond Zoning Ordinance

Provision for a Variety of Housing. The Housing Element must identify adequate sites that are available to encourage the development of various housing types for all economic segments of the population through appropriate zoning and development standards. Housing types include single- family residential housing, multiple family residential housing, residential accessory dwelling units, mobile homes, duplexes, and residential care homes. Table HE-40 shows the housing types permitted in the various residential zoning districts of Richmond.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-39

TABLE HE-40 HOUSING TYPES PERMITTED BY ZONING DISTRICT Zoning Districts Housing Type SFR-1 SFR-2 SFR-3 MFR-1 MFR-2 MFR-3 Single Family Units P P P P P P Duplex C P P P Apartments P P P Second Dwelling Units P P P P P P Senior Housing C C Mobile Homes P P P P P P Congregate Care Facilities, P* P* P* P* P* P* Limited Congregate Care Facilities, C C C C C C General Planned Residential Group C C C C C C Homeless/Transitional P P P P & C P & C P & C Shelters** Recovery Facility, Limited P* P* P* P* P* P* Recovery Facility, General C C C C C C Source: Richmond Zoning Ordinance Note: *Primary use remains residential **Shelters for 10 persons or fewer are permitted by right in all residential and commercial zones. A shelter for more than 10 persons may be located in the MFR-1, MFR-2, MFR-3 or commercial zones subject to a use permit. P = Permitted use R = Requires Planning Commission review C = Permitted use subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit

Performance Standards. The City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance includes Performance Standards for all development in the City. Included in these are standards for noise, odor, particulate matter and air contaminant, lighting and glare, tree preservation, creeks/streams/riparian corridors, design, fire hazards, liquid or solid waste, sidewalk and street trees, construction operations, screening of activities and mechanical equipment and maintenance. Table HE-41 lists the performance standards for each of the categories. None of the standards are considered a constraint to development and are in place in order to ensure that all development activities in the City will occur in a manner to protect public health and safety and which does not produce adverse impacts on surrounding properties or the community at large.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-40 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-41 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Item Standard Noise Maximum noise level (not to exceed more than 30 minutes per day): 60 dBA – single family, 65dBA - multifamily Odor, particulate matter No continuous, frequent or repetitive odors are permitted which are perceptible on or and air contaminant beyond adjacent property lines. No dust or particulate matter shall be emitted that is detectable at boundary lines or property by a reasonable person without instruments. Exhaust air ducts shall be located or directed away from abutting residentially-zoned properties. Lighting and glare All lighting, reflective surfaces or any other sources of illumination shall be utilized in a manner which produces no glare on public streets or on any other parcel. Lights shall be shielded at lot lines so as not to be directly visible from an adjoining residential district. Tree preservation All projects, both new development and additions or renovations to existing properties, shall adhere to the requirements of the Urban Forest Management Plan and related city or any other specific ordinances and guidelines. Landmark trees and major groves will be preserved as required by the Director of the Department of Public Works and the Richmond Municipal Code. Creeks/streams/riparian Building setbacks from top of bank of all creeks, streams and riparian corridors identified in corridors preservation the Richmond General Plan shall be required as determined by Department of Fish and Game Standards. This section shall not apply to storm drainage, erosion control, and creekbank stability improvements. Every effort shall be made to preserve and enhance the vegetation that naturally occurs in riparian corridors. Design Projects shall be subject to site and development review. Particular emphasis shall be placed on project design, site planning, building elevations, and neighborhood/area compatibility. Projects shall conform with specific design standards included in area and specific plans as applicable. Fire hazards The storage, use, transportation or production of products which, either in the raw or finished state, constitute a flammable or explosive material shall be subject to the fire codes and approval of the City of Richmond's Fire Department. Liquid or solid waste The use, handling, storage and transportation of waste materials, including hazardous wastes, shall comply with the provisions of the California Hazardous Materials Regulations and any other applicable laws. Discharge at any point into a public or private sewage disposal system, stream, or the ground, of any material which could contaminate any water supply, or otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or offensive elements is prohibited. Sidewalk and street trees Sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be provided on all public streets, as required by the Director of Department of Public Works. Street trees shall be provided in accordance as described above under ”General Residential Standards” Construction operations During the construction of a project, all portions of the site shall be watered as necessary to reduce emissions of dust and other particulate matter and all stockpiles shall be covered. Streets shall be made dirt free at the completion of construction. All construction and transport equipment shall be muffled in accordance with state and federal laws. Construction and transport equipment shall be operated so as to minimize exhaust emissions. Grading and pile driving operations within 1/4 mile of residential units shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., or as otherwise restricted as part of an approval. All water runoff from construction site shall be controlled. During construction trucks and equipment should be running only when necessary. Screening of activities All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. Equipment to be and mechanical screened includes but is not limited to heating, air conditioning, water tanks, transformers, equipment satellite receiving antennas (greater than 3' in height and 12" in diameter). Screening materials may be solid concrete, wood or other opaque material and shall effectively screen mechanical equipment so that it is not visible* from a street/adjoining lot. Maintenance Each person, company or corporation residing in and/or utilizing a property in the City of Richmond shall, at all times, maintain such property in good order. This shall include a litter management program and repair and maintenance of all structures, fences, signs, walks, driveways, lawns, landscaping, painting, etc. as may be necessary to preserve a quality environment. Source: Richmond Zoning Ordinance

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-41

Design Review. The City of Richmond requires Design Review of all residential projects greater than 500 square feet (Res. No. 30-99, March 23, 1999). The purpose of Design Review is to promote a high quality of design and to assure that new construction is compatible and enhances its surroundings. The City has developed Design Review Guidelines in order to establish a general guide for development. See Appendix A-3 for Design Review Guidelines. The Guidelines have general directives for five different areas of development: general principles, site planning, architectural design, architectural design for sloping lots greater than 15% slope and for dwelling units above the toe-of-hill, and moving of buildings. The Design Review Guidelines offer no specific design requirements and are objective in character and are not in place to constrain development in the City, but to ensure that any new construction is in concert with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses. As the Guidelines are very general in character, the Guidelines are not considered as a constraint on the development of housing nor would the Guidelines have any impact on the cost of such housing. In addition, all residential projects greater than 500 square feet but less than 1,200 square feet of total floor area, now only require Administrative Design Review, which reduces application fees and processing time (Ordinance No. 32-03, September 30, 2003). The Design Review Board acts on Design Review Applications, which are subject to a public hearing process. In reviewing a Design Review Application, the Design Review Board considers architectural design, mass and scale, the arrangement of buildings, building elements circulation, signs, quality and type of materials, colors, parking, and landscaping. The Design Review Board has the authority to impose reasonable conditions related to design impacts cause by a proposed project when approving the design review application. The reasonable conditions are required to be based on the following:

1. Achieve the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the project is to be located, the general purposes for the zoning ordinance, and consistency with the Richmond General Plan.

2. Protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Richmond.

3. Ensure that the design of the proposed project will be compatible with area surrounding where it will be located.

All Design Review Applications, except for remodels, minor additions, and signs, are subject to environmental review. The project may be categorically exempt by the State, or a Negative Declaration may be prepared if the specific project will not cause an effect. The Planning Staff approves projects that are exempt from Design Review, which are unlikely to have a significant visual or environmental effect.

Complete Design Review applications, which are categorically exempt, usually can go to the Design Review Board within two months. The Board’s action, following a public hearing, may be appealed to the City Council, unless the Design Review Board’s decision is advisory to the Planning Commission. If there is no appeal during the 10-day appeal period, the Design Review Board’s hearing becomes final.

Homeless and Transitional Shelters. The City of Richmond has specific guidelines for homeless and transitional housing. A homeless or transitional housing facility may be located in all residential and commercial districts in the City. Homeless and transitional housing for 10 persons or less are allowed by right in all residential and commercial districts. Shelters for more than 10 persons are not allowed in the SFR-1, SFR-2, and SFR-3 districts, but are allowed in the MFR-1, MFR-2, MFR-3

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-42 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT and commercial districts subject to a conditional use permit. The following are guidelines for the establishment of a homeless shelter or transitional housing:

Physical Characteristics

1. The facility must have adequate private living space, shower and toilet facilities and secure storage areas for its intended residents. 2. The facility shall have at least one room which has 120 square feet of floor area. Other habitable rooms shall have an area of not less than 70 square feet. When more than two persons occupy a room used for sleeping purposes, the required floor area shall be increased at the rate of 50 square feet for each occupant in excess of two. 3. The facility must have either a natural barrier (e.g. a mature hedge) or a fence enclosing yard area, especially if the facility is located on as major thoroughfare. 4. To ensure that a particular neighborhood does not become impacted with such facilities, the facility shall be located in an area which currently has a minimum of social services facilities. In addition, there shall be a minimum distance requirement of 300 feet between facilities. 5. Smoke detectors must be provided in all sleeping rooms. 6. Facilities for 10 or fewer persons must have at least two standard off-street parking spaces. Facilities for more than 10 persons must have two off-street spaces plus one-space for every two employees.

Programmatic Characteristics

1. If the facility is proposed for location in an area zoned or developed as a residential area, all intake and screening must be conducted off-site. 2. The program must provide accommodations appropriate for a minimum stay of 28 days and maximum stay of 180 day per client. 3. The program must identify a transportation system that will provide its clients with a reasonable level of mobility including, but not limited to, access to social services and employment opportunities. 4. The program must provide on-site supervision and counseling services (only applicable to transitional housing facilities). 5. The program must provide specific mechanisms for residents to contact social services and employment programs (only applicable to transitional housing facilities). 6. If a program includes a drug or alcohol abuse counseling component appropriate State licensing is required. 7. The program must include an outline for a 24-hour schedule of residents’ activity during their use of the facility. 8. The program must include clear and acceptable arrangements, for facility residents, such as on-site meal preparation or providing food. 9. The program must, were applicable, provide a child care service and ensure that school- aged children are enrolled in school during their stay. 10. The program must have an identified administrator and liaison personnel. 11. Administrators and operators of the program must demonstrate experience in successfully running social-related facilities. 12. The program must provide clear and established operational standards and rules. 13. The program must included identified funding mechanisms which are sufficient to ensure compliance with required siting and program criteria.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-43

Subdivision Standards. Subdivision standards have been established by the City of Richmond in order to provide policies, standards, requirements and procedures to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the City. These standards attempt to preserve and protect, to the maximum extent possible, the unique and valuable natural resources and amenities of the city's environment, including topographic and geologic features, open space lands, waterfront recreational areas, fish and wildlife habitats, historical and cultural places, and scenic vistas and attractions; and to maximize the public's access to and enjoyment of such resources and amenities.

Richmond has a number of site improvements that are required for new subdivisions, these include:

1. Storm drainage system. 2. Sanitary sewer system. 3. Water distribution system. 4. Streets and sidewalks. 5. Street lighting system. 6. Planting of street trees and slope protection. 7. Electric and gas distribution system. 8. Telephone and cablevision system. 9. Street and boundary monuments. 10. Park and recreation dedication.

Street Standards for Subdivisions The City of Richmond requires curb, gutter, sidewalk and street construction for all new subdivisions. Class A streets require curbs, gutters and sidewalks, while Class B streets have no curbs, but gutters and sidewalks may be required. Class A streets are to be used everywhere except in industrial areas; however, Class B streets may be used where permitted by the director of public works. Streets are to have the following standards:

TABLE HE-42 STREET STANDARDS – CLASS A Class A Streets Minor Streets Collector Streets Parking Parking Parking Parking 1 side 2 sides 1 side 2 sides Right-of-way width 44 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. Curb-to-curb width 28 34 34 ft. 44 ft. Planting strip width 3.5 ft. 3.5 ft. 3.5 ft. 3.5 ft. Utility strip width* 3 ft. 3 ft. - - Sidewalk width 4.5 ft. 4.5 ft. 4.5 ft. 4.5 ft. Sidewalk width* 5 ft. 5 ft. - - Source: Richmond Subdivision Ordinance Notes: * Where sidewalk is immediately adjacent to the curb, items with asterisks shall be used. Sidewalk widths given include the width of the curb. The utility strip is the area within the right-of-way between the sidewalk and the property line. 1. Arterials. Dimensions of arterials shall conform to the requirements of the director of public works. 2. Split Streets. Dimensions of split streets shall conform to the requirements of the director of public works.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-44 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-43 STREET STANDARDS – CLASS B Class B Streets Minor Streets Collector Streets Right-of way width 50 ft. 60 ft. Traveled-way width 22 ft. 24 ft. Gutter width 4 ft. 4 ft. Shoulder width 5 ft. 9 ft. Sidewalk width 5 ft. 5 ft. Source: Richmond Subdivision Ordinance Notes: Class B streets may be used in single-family residential areas where eighty percent of the lots have an area of twenty thousand square feet or more and where the average size of all lots is twenty thousand square feet or more.

Park and Recreation Dedication for Subdivisions. The City of Richmond also requires TABLE HE-44 PARKLAND DEDICATION park and recreational dedications for REQUIREMENTS subdivisions. If there is no park or Acreage Required Per Type of Dwelling Units recreation facility designated in the Dwelling Unit Single Family (detached or General Plan to be located in whole or 0.0108 acres in part within the proposed townhouse) subdivision, the subdivider is required, Duplex, medium low 0.0093 acres in lieu of dedicating land, to pay a fee Condominiums and clusters 0.0075 acres equal to the value of the land as Apartments 0.0054 acres Source: Richmond Subdivision Ordinance prescribed in Table 44 and in an amount determined to be $40,000 per acre.

Inclusionary Zoning. In October 2001, the City of Richmond adopted Ordinance Number 28-01 N.S., which provided for inclusionary housing within the City. Among other things, this ordinance set forth the standards for the inclusion of housing affordable to lower income households in all new housing developments of 10 or more units. The Ordinance allowed a developer a number of options to fulfill this requirement as follows:

1. At least 17 percent of the new total housing shall be available to moderate-income households; or 2. At least 15 percent of the new total housing units shall be available to low-income households; or 3. At least 10 percent of the total new housing units shall be available to very-low-income households; or 4. At least 12.5 percent of the new housing units shall be available to a combination of very- low and low-income households, including at least two affordable to very-low-income households; or 5. In the case of senior housing project, at least 25 percent of the new total housing units shall be available to very-low- or low-income senior citizen households; or 6. The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee towards the City’s low and very-low income affordable housing program.

A requirement to include affordable units in a new development may increase the cost of that development. However, the City offers incentives or concessions to developers to offset such costs. These incentives/concessions are as follows:

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-45

1. A Density Bonus. As provided by Section 65915(b) of the Government Code and Chapter 15.04.810.050 of the Richmond Municipal Code. 2. Flexibility in development standards. 3. Consideration of approval of mixed use zoning within a housing development in a “PA” zone district. 4. Assistance in obtaining any available Federal of State subsidies. 5. Waiver of building permit fees and other City fees as approved by the Richmond City Council. 6. Other incentives or concession proposed by the applicant or City resulting in identifiable cost reductions, such as priorty permit processing, use of redevelopment funds or powers, or other public local financing where available.

Affordability terms are required of all inclusionary units produced through this Ordinance, unless the in-lieu fee option is used by a developer. All of the units whether for-sale or rental units, are required to have a term of affordability for 30 years. However, the first resale of an inclusionary for- sale unit during the 30-year term may be sold as a market rate unit provided the difference between the inclusionary unit and the market-rate unit price is deposited in the City’s affordable housing fund. The purchaser of the unit at market-rate prices is not subject to any affordability terms.

According to the Richmond Community and Economic Development Department approved budget, there was $1.115 million in the affordable housing fund prior to July 1, 2004. The City has budgeted $500,000.00 more in 2004-2005 for a total of $1.615 million. In addition, it is forecasted that $100,000.00 will be allocated in 2005-2006, and $200,000.00 in 2006-2007 for a total of $1.915 million.

These monies will be allocated for the following expenditures:

2005-2006: - $200,000 for the Transitional Housing portion of GRIP's new Multi-Resource Center; - $200,000 for Transitional Housing portion (known as Hope House) of Neighborhood House's Multi-Resource Center; - $447, 000 for Infill Housing Initiative lot development by CHDC (10 homes @ 80% AMI and 4 homes at 120% AMI); - $500,000 for the due diligence and purchase of homes under the City's Portfolio Management Program (these homes may be up to 120% AMI).

2006-2007: - $326K for development subsidies for affordable units (120% AMI) at Olson's Metro Walk Phase II.

Development Process. The development process and type of review necessary is dependent on the type of project, and what, if any, entitlements are necessary. For example, a project to construct a single family home located in a residential the SFR-1, SFR-2, or SFR-3 zoning district submits an application to the City, City staff reviews the application to determine whether the application is complete based on requirements established in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Once the application is deem complete, the project is reviewed by the various City departments to ensure compliance with City codes. The Design Review Board then reviews the project and an environmental review is completed for the project (individual single family projects are usually categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)). After the project has been approved by the

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-46 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

Design Review Board and completed the environmental review process, and the proper fees are paid to the City, building permits are issued and the project can proceed. Multifamily projects in the MFR-1, MFR-2, and MFR-3 zoning districts submit to basically the same process as single-family projects, though multifamily projects, because of their size, might need a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report depending on the environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study as required by CEQA. Projects that require variances, conditional use permits, General Plan Amendments, rezones, etc. are required to go before the Planning Commission and/or City Council for approval. Any decision of denial made by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board can be appealed to the City Council.

Local Permit Processing Fees and Timeframes. Two aspects of local government have been criticized as placing undue burdens on the private sector’s ability to build affordable housing. These are: (1) the fees or other exactions required of developers to obtain project approval and, (2) the time delays caused by the review and approval process. Critics contend that lengthy review periods increase financial and carrying costs and that fees and exactions increase expenses. These costs are in part passed onto the prospective homebuyer in the form of higher purchase prices or rents.

Fees, land dedications, or improvements are also required in most instances to provide an adequate supply of public parkland and to provide necessary public works (streets, sewers, and storm drains) to support the new development. While such costs are charged to the developer, most, if not all, additional costs are passed to the ultimate product consumer in the form of higher prices or rents.

The significance of the necessary public works improvements in determining final costs varies greatly from project to project. The improvements are dependent on the amount of existing improvements and nature of the project.

State law requires that local permit processing fees charged by local governments must not exceed the estimated actual cost of processing the permits. The table below shows many of the development fees that would apply to various types of new projects in the City. These are application and permit fees that the City of Richmond Planning and Building Departments charge for various types of development approvals or reviews. The following table indicates the typical development fees and time required for land use development approvals.

TABLE HE-45 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEES Service Deposit Fee Planning Fees Environmental Review Initial Study Application Review $1,000 $124/hr., billed to recover actual cost Negative Declaration Cost of study plus 25% Admin fee Environmental Impact Report Cost of study plus 25% Admin fee Mitigation Monitoring $1,000 $124/hr., billed to recover actual cost Fish & Game fee - Neg Dec $1,275 Fish & Game fee - EIR $875 Environmental Appeal $200 General Plan Amendment Review $2,000 $124/hr., billed to recover actual cost Specific Plan Amendment $2,000 $124/hr., billed to recover actual cost Rezoning Review $2,000 $124/hr., billed to recover actual cost Variance Review

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-47

Service Deposit Fee Minor Variance Project $500 Major Variance project $1,000 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $1,075 Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 Certificate of Compliance $500 Subdivision Tentative Map Review $1,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Vesting Tentative Map Review $1,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Preliminary Plan Review $1,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Development Plan Review $1,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Planned Area Prelim. Dev. Plan Review $2,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Planned Area Tent. Dev. Plan Review $2,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Planned Area Final Dev. Plan Review $2,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Conditional Use Permit Minor Project (1-4 units) $750 Major Project (4 or more units) $2,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Design Review Projects under 500 sq. ft. floor area $125 Administrative Design Review (Projects 501-1,200 sq. ft. floor area, under $350 15 ft. in height) Design Review 1 (Projects 501-1,200 sq. ft. not satisfying $750 Admin. Design Review criteria) Design Review 2 $2,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost (Projects 1,200 sq. ft. or larger) Special Use Permit Review $2,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Pre-Application Review – Small Projects $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost (Development less than 5,000 sq. ft.) Pre-Application Review – Large Projects $1,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost (Development 5,001 sq. ft. or larger) Planning Commission Study Session $1,000 $180/hr., billed to recover actual cost Building Fees Type Fee Building Permit Fee Based on valuation of unit, e.g. $200,000 = $1553.75 Electrical Permit Fee Based on valuation of unit, e.g. $200,000 = $194.22 Plumbing Permit Fee Based on valuation of unit, e.g. $200,000 = $155.93 Mechanical Permit Fee Based on valuation of unit, e.g. $200,000 = $ 116.53 Based on valuation of unit, Building Plan Checking Fee e.g. 1 or 2 family dwellings at $200,000 = $776.87 Multifamily dwellings at $200,000 = $1,553.75 Based on valuation of unit, Landscaping Plan Checking Fee e.g. 1 or 2 family dwellings at $200,000 = $116.53 Multifamily dwellings at $200,000 = $233.05 Based on valuation of unit, Engineering Site Review Fee e.g. 1 or 2 family dwellings at $200,000 = $116.53 Multifamily dwellings at $200,000 = $233.05 Based on valuation of unit, Energy Conservation Site review Fee e.g. 1 or 2 family dwellings at $200,000 = $194.22 Multifamily dwellings at $200,000 = $388.44 Occupancy Certification Program Fee $20 per unit plus t10% of total fees

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-48 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

Service Deposit Fee Miscellaneous Fees West Contra Costa School District Fees $3.51 per square foot Installation Fee $2,580 East Bay Municipal Utilities District System Capacity Charge $2,850 (example; per single family residence) Wastewater Capacity Fee $605 Account Fee $25 Source: City of Richmond

The time required to process a project varies from one project to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal and the number of actions and/or approvals necessary to complete the process. The City has made extensive efforts to streamline the development process and thus reduce the time and cost of such development. Figure HE-4 identifies the steps and time required in the entitlement process. It should be noted that each project does not necessarily have to complete each step in the process (i.e., small scale projects consistent with General Plan and zoning designations do not generally require Environmental Impact Reports, General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, or Variances and may only require staff action). Also, certain review and approval procedures may run concurrently such as General Plan Amendments and Environmental Impact Reports.

FIGURE HE-4 DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE AND TIMEFRAMES

Prepare Appropriate Drawings, Project Description, Photographs, etc

Resubmit Submit Application/Pay Fee

City Staff review

(30 days)

Environmental Review (if necessary), Application Application the time required for a full EIR may be Incomplete Complete as long as one year.

Or Or Or (4 weeks) (2 weeks) (8 weeks)

Staff Design (3-4 weeks) Planning Commission action Action Review action (1 month) City Council action

Source: City of Richmond

Compliance with numerous governmental laws or regulations can also add top the cost of housing development. Requirements that relate to site coverage, parking, and open space within developments can indirectly increase costs by limiting the number of dwelling units on a given piece of land. This is especially true with larger units when the bulk of the building and increased parking requirements occupy a large share of the site. In some instances, developers must decide

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-49 whether or not to build smaller units at the maximum allowable density or fewer larger units at a density less than maximum. Either solution can have different impacts on the housing market.

Building a higher number of small units can reduce costs and provide additional housing opportunities for smaller households but does not accommodate the needs of larger families. Bigger units can be made available to families but because of their size and lower density, the cost of these units is higher.

Other development and construction standards can also impact housing costs. Such standards may include the incorporation of additional design treatment (architectural details or trim, special building materials, landscaping, and textured paving) to improve the appearance of the development. Other standards included in the Uniform Building Code state regulations regarding noise transmission and energy conservation can also result in higher construction costs. While some of these features (interior and exterior design treatments) are included by the developer to help sell the product in the competitive market, or some features (energy conservation regulations) may actually reduce monthly living expenses, all add to the initial sales price, which is becoming an increasingly difficult hurdle for many new homebuyers.

Codes and Code Enforcement. City of Richmond, in accordance with the State Housing Law, establishes certain minimum requirements for residential construction. The City of Richmond Building Department currently administers codes and code enforcement under the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Amendments to the UBC have been made by the City and are based on the 2001 California Building Code. These amendments are not considered a constraint to housing production and amendments to the UBC have been made in order to comply with the building standards of the State of California.

The City’s code enforcement program, run by the City Community Affairs Code Enforcement division, is reactive as well as proactive. When a violation is reported, the City responds, but the majority of code enforcement is proactive wherein an officer observes a violation in the field and takes immediate steps to abate it. The code enforcement activities are not considered a constraint to housing development, but enhance the sustainability of the housing stock in the City. The following is the code enforcement procedure:

Property violation enters Code Enforcement work load via complaint or Code Enforcement Officer, Code Enforcement Officer investigates complaint/violation, Clerical staff generates abatement notice, Clerical staff tracks new, Notice of Abatement filed with CCC Recorder, Clerical staff generates invoice/work order if property is vacant, Abatement of property, Operation & Maintenance Supervisor completes invoice and forwards invoice to Code Enforcement clerical staff, If property is occupied Forcible Entry Warrant is required prior to abatement, City Attorney’s Office obtains warrant and forwards warrant to Code Enforcement Officer, Code Enforcement Officer re-inspects property. If non-compliance exists, property is invoiced for abatement, and If property owner files an appeal, all actions are ceased until Board of Appeals renders a decision.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-50 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

The City has a number of Code Enforcement standards which are exhibited on the City’s website and listed below.

YARD MAINTENANCE: Overgrown weeds, bushes, trees, grass and vegetation are fire and safety hazards. Yard maintenance is the responsibility of every property owner and includes the maintenance of any right of way abutting the property. Grass must be obtained at six inches or less. All shrubs in the right of way and on the right of way must be maintained. The branches of any tree extending over any public sidewalk, street, and any other public way should be trimmed so that they do not obstruct vision or the travel of motorist and people, all dead trees and vegetation must be removed and disposed of properly. The city of Richmond surveys all vacant properties for weed/rubbish control, notices are mailed to owners advising them to cut the weeds. For those who do not comply the City sends out work crews to remove the weed. The cost to do this, plus an administrative charge is billed to the property owner and is usually added to their taxes if they fail to pay when billed.

FENCES: Fences and screening walls must be sound and made from the same materials. They also must be weather tight and free from deterioration and blight. Fences in residential zones cannot be higher than 3 feet in the required rear yard. This rule also applies to fences on street corners or areas adjacent to driveways. A wrongly placed fence could prevent a card driver from observing an oncoming vehicle or pedestrian traffic.

OUTSIDE STORAGE: Outside storage that can be seen from beyond the bounds of the property line is not allowed. Generally, any equipment, building or landscaping materials; parts/auto parts; appliances; or any scrap items may not be visible. No inoperable vehicles may be visible from beyond the property boundaries.

GRAFFITI: Graffiti must be removed from all sidewalks, walls, fences, signs and other structures or surfaces visible from beyond the bounds of the property line. This is the responsibility of the property owner.

INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLES: Inoperable vehicles must not be seen from beyond the bounds of the property. An inoperable vehicle is a vehicle that is not equipped with all parts that are required to legally and safely operate it on public streets and/or cannot other similar types of materials are not acceptable screening.

OPEN AND VACANT BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: The property owner is responsible for maintaining building, structures and grounds of property, windows, doors, and other openings must be kept secure so they cannot be opened from the outside. A property owner is required to board up a building/structure if it becomes vacant and is not secure. Accessory buildings/structures on the property; such as storage sheds and garages, also must be secured to city specifications.

PARKING: There are limits to the amount of yard area that can be used for a drive way or parking. Parking vehicles anywhere other than these designated area may be a violation. Vehicles parked on streets must be in running conditions, must have current license and registration, and can only park for a maximum of 72 hours.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-51

Commercial trucks and trailers cannot park on the street in a residential neighborhood except when loading or unloading campers, trailers, boats, etc. can be parked in the driveway if they are in running condition (no flat tires) but not on grass, dirt, or other unpaved areas.

JUNK, LITTER AND DEBRIS: Junk, litter and debris cannot be left in the yard. It must be disposed of properly. This includes junk auto parts, appliances, furniture, building and landscaping material; and tires; litter such as discarded paper, cardboard, plastics, etc; debris such as tree trimmings and fallen tree limbs; or any other items that have been discarded. Persons seen dumping trash, junk, or littering in public or private places can be prosecuted.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-52 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

Nongovernmental Constraints

Cost of Construction. Construction costs can vary widely depending on the type of development. Multiple family residential housing generally costs less to construct than single-family housing. Labor and materials cost also have a direct impact on housing costs and makeup the main component of housing costs. Residential constructions costs vary greatly depending on the quality of materials used and the size of the home being constructed. Table HE-46 shows construction costs for California regions from 1990 to 2000.

TABLE HE-46 HOUSING CONSTRUCTION COSTS Housing Type 1990 1994 1996 1998 2000 Average – Wood Frame $47.66 $51.04 $55.17 $57.43 $62.17 Good Quality – Wood Frame $67.49 $73.23 $75.76 $78.87 $85,50 Average – Masonry $55.46 $57.15 $62.04 $64.58 $70.03 Good Quality – Masonry $71.16 $73.32 $79.33 $82.72 $89.70 Source: Building Standards

According to Richmond’s Housing and Community Development Department, in 2000 the average cost of rehabilitation of multiple family residential units in Richmond was $58,745 per unit. The average cost for constructing a multiple family residential unit at that time was $124,877. Today, construction of a single-family residence for low- to moderate-income families is estimated at between $275,000 and $280,000.

If labor or material costs increased substantially, the cost of construction in Richmond could rise to a level that impacts the price of new construction and rehabilitation. Therefore, increased construction costs have the potential to constrain new housing construction and rehabilitation of existing housing.

Cost of Land. The cost of land has a direct impact on the cost of residential development and is, therefore, a potential non-governmental constraint to housing development in the City.

According to local realtors in the City, the cost of land varies greatly and is dependent on area. In the City’s 1990 Housing Element the cost of land was estimated at $2.50 to $4.50 per square foot in the City’s distressed neighborhoods; from $4.00 to $6.00 in Central Richmond east of 23rd Street; and from $10.00 to $15.00 per square foot in the shoreline areas such as Point Richmond. Local realtors suggest that the price of land has risen greatly since this time and cost approximately $25 per square foot below 23rd Street; $30 per square foot in the north and eastern portions of the City; and $37 to $40 per square foot in the shoreline areas.

The current estimated land prices may have increased tenfold since the 1990 Housing Element. To a certain degree, this is a function of inflation, however the cost of housing has increased substantially in the San Francisco Bay area in recent years. This, along with the lack of available land, is the dominant factor in the increasing price of land. The net result of this is that land prices are clearly a constraining factor to residential development, especially housing affordable to lower income households in the City.

Availability of Financing. There is no data to indicate that financing is less available in the City than elsewhere in the region or the state. The ability of low-income households to finance home improvements is limited, due to their inability to meet the income and credit requirements of most

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-53 conventional lenders. In the early 1990's national financing trends, including federal banking and savings and loan regulations, have decreased the amount of financing available to home builders, and this leads to a reduction in the amount of capital in some parts of the state. However, recent assessment of the availability of financing indicates that bankers and regulators assert that financing is currently available for well-planned projects that are financially sound and target a demonstrated market demand. The City has no control over this national trend or the financial feasibility of a project. However, it is anticipated that demand for housing will continue during the five year planning period and thus financing supply should similarly be available to meet market demand.

The cost of borrowing money to finance the construction of housing or to purchase a house affects the amount of affordable priced housing in Richmond. Fluctuating interest rates can eliminate many potential homebuyers from the housing market or render a housing project infeasible that could have been successfully developed or marketed at lower interest rates.

The median sale-price for housing in Richmond through December 2002 was $282,205. Table HE-47 illustrates the loan amount a household may qualify for based on their annual income at various interest rates. According to the table, households in the City must earn almost $80,000 annually with a six percent interest rate to qualify for a $282,205 home loan with a 5 percent downpayment. This assumes that the borrower has good credit and no other debts. According to the 2000 Census, only 10.0 percent (6,987 households) of the households in the City earned more than $80,000 annually at that time. Approximately 10.8 percent (1,720 households) of the renter households earned more than $80,000 in 2000.

TABLE HE-47 LOAN AMOUNT BY ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME ANNUAL INTEREST RATE 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% INCOME House Price $142,100 $130,500 $120,200 $111,200 $103,200 $40,000 Monthly Payment $1,086 $1,079 $1,073 $1,067 $1,062 House Price $177,700 $163,200 $150,500 $139,100 $129,200 $50,000 Monthly Payment $1,360 $1,350 $1,342 $1,335 $1,330 House Price $213,300 $195,800 $180,600 $167,000 $155,000 $60,000 Monthly Payment $1,631 $1,620 $1,611 $1,603 $1,595 House Price $248,700 $228,500 $210,500 $194,700 $180,800 $70,000 Monthly Payment $1,902 $1,890 $1,878 $1,869 $1,860 House Price $284,500 $261,200 $240,800 $222,700 $206,700 $80,000 Monthly Payment $2,175 $2,161 $2,148 $2,137 $2,127 House Price $320,100 $293,200 $270,900 $250,600 $232,600 $90,000 Monthly Payment $2,448 $2,431 $2,417 $2,404 $2,393 Source: http://r.searchhippo.com home affordability calculator Note: Loans are considered to be 30 year fixed with a 5% downpayment, Hazard insurance is calculated based on yearly fee of 0.4% of the loan amount, Property tax is 1% of the purchase price per year, Mortgage insurance is calculated based on a yearly fee of 0.5% of the loan amount if the down payment is less than 20%, Closing Costs are calculated based on 3% of the loan.

Between January 2000 and January 2003, there were 2,834 residential sales in the City. Home sales have decreased since 2000 from an average of 99 per month in 2000 to 74 per month during 2002.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-54 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-48 HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL SALES - ALL TYPES Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg 2000 62 67 102 102 102 133 109 111 92 106 104 98 99 2001 74 53 59 71 96 79 88 75 51 66 64 52 69 2002 54 62 67 87 88 80 97 0 81 86 57 59 74 Total 190 182 228 260 286 292 294 186 224 258 225 209 2,834 Source: Rand California

Constraint Removal Efforts

Richmond has no locally imposed restrictions such as "no growth" limitations, growth management plans or annual development quotas on the supply of new housing. The high rate of new housing construction in Richmond is a strong indicator of the favorable conditions for new housing development. Over 33 percent of the land in Richmond has been designated for residential land use.

The City has begun to take a more aggressive role in alleviating governmental constraints to the construction of affordable housing. City building, planning and subdivision fees and fees required by other public entities such as the West Contra Costa Unified School District, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, and BART remain an impediment to the development of affordable housing. The Planning Department introduced legislation to the City to waive fees for affordable housing projects, however, because of the City's present budget problems, the measure has not been implemented. Land write down and other types of subsidies have been used to develop recent projects and will be considered for continued use in order to increase affordability.

In October 2001, the City of Richmond adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that requires from 10 to 25 percent of units in new developments of ten or more units are affordable, or that the developer pay an in- lieu fee.

The 1990 Housing Element indicates that much of the City's target area neighborhoods are zoned at higher densities than existing development reflects. These areas could accommodate much more intensive uses. While the Zoning Ordinance does regulate the development of housing in Richmond, it in no way deters or poses significant constraints on such development in the City.

The City is also developing the In-Fill Housing Initiative Strategy (IHI). This is a strategy to develop 400-500 housing units on vacant lots and abandoned properties in developed Richmond neighborhoods and make them available for sale to low- and moderate-income households. As part of this strategy, the City is developing a selection of architectural plans for sub-standard in-fill lots (25 feet in width). These plans, which adhere to City development standards, would be made available to applicants, thus expediting the permitting process for these lots. To further facilitate development of these in-fill lots, the City Council approved a $500,000 community investment agreement with Wells Fargo to assist in acquiring and developing these in-fill units for low-and moderate-income ownership. This investment will provide revolving acquisition pre-development funds to allow the City to develop housing on in-fill lots.

Enforcement of building codes, while resolving code violations, may have a negative impact on preserving a city's existing affordable housing stock by requiring the relocation of lower income tenants. The City has alleviated some of the relocation anxieties, initiated code enforcement and

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-55 abatement, by offering relocation services to tenants and rehabilitation loan assistance to the absentee landlords.

Environmental impact review is a necessary but often expensive and time-consuming process. Projects constructed in whole or in part with federal funds require an environmental assessment. As an older industrial city, Richmond has a higher incidence of sites that require environmental clean up prior to development. This is particularly true for affordable housing development projects, where the economics of land costs often result in these developments being sited in areas that have historically been more likely to be environmentally contaminated due to their closer proximity to industrial areas. Environmental mitigation adds to the cost of development. State mandated regulations call for detailed documentation, analyses and public participation requirements in the determination of environmental impacts and their mitigation and the City has no control over this requirement.

The City provides cost reductions to developers through the Density Bonus Ordinance when low and very-low income family and senior units are proposed. The Ordinance was recently amended to parallel the State’s most recent requirements. Further cost reductions occur in the form of increased densities and in incentives such as flexibility in site development standards and zoning code requirements. Reductions in development fees and dedication requirements, public financing, and/or accelerated plan checks may also used to provide incentives to developers for the construction of affordable housing.

Further cost reductions occur through the more efficient use of land in the Planned Area district. For example, the Planned Area district of the zoning code allows design flexibility through, but not limited to, small lots, cluster developments, and mixed unit types.

The City provides cost savings through financing options to lower income households. Activities include, but are not limited to homebuyer assistance, owner rehabilitation loans and emergency loans, the REAL (Richmond Effort to Abate Lead) Program, rental rehabilitation loans, and the Ebb Everrett Helping Hand Program.

In an effort to provide additional housing affordable to lower income households, the City has sponsored or required of developers ten existing and/or proposed affordable housing projects since 2000. Specifics on these projects are shown in Table HE-50.

Identification of Possible Constraints to the Development, Maintenance or Improvement of Housing for Disabled Persons. Senate Bill 520 requires all jurisdictions, as a part of the Housing Element update process, to examine and identify any city policies or procedures which may constrain the development, maintenance or improvement of housing for disabled persons. This examination includes an evaluation of existing land use controls, permit and processing procedures, fees and exactions and building codes. The City of Richmond incorporates the Federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1964 and the 1997 Uniform Building Code and ADA requirements as a part of its building requirements. These three statues address the fair housing practices adhered to by the City, which included practices against housing discrimination towards persons with disabilities.

Congregate care homes are identified in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Congregate care homes of six or less persons are allowed by right, in compliance with state regulations, in all residential zones. Further, the City does not have any established conditions or use restrictions established for group

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-56 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT homes of greater than six persons, however a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for these homes. Any project within the City, which requires a CUP for approval, must be approved by the Planning Commission. This may be considered a constraint to housing development for disabled persons, however, the CUP process is not implemented to constrain housing development of this type but to ensure that proper staffing and care is provided at these type of facilities. The City does not have any specific guidelines for a congregate care home conditional use permit, other than general conditions of approval required of all projects requiring a CUP. Individual conditions may require specific design features to meet the special ADA needs of its occupants and is based on the structure such as; the installation of emergency and fire alarms and exits, roof shingles meeting or exceeding 30-year performance standards, roof water drainage, etc. See Table HE-40 for specific land use standards for congregate care. There are no restrictions on the siting of this type of housing.

The City does not have occupancy standards for unrelated adults. The City does not regulate the siting of special needs housing in the Land Use Element or the Zoning Code. The City has no specific processes to make reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities, in either the Planning or Building Departments, however the City will accommodate any reasonable request for assistance. A minor retrofit of a home to allow for accessibility is an over-the-counter permit process, and any major retrofits may require building department review. The City has no policies, or programs to reduce parking standards for facilities designed for disabled persons.

Adequate Sites

This section provides the inventory of vacant land that is available in the City of Richmond for both multi- and single-family residential development. Table HE-49 provides the number of acres, zoning, density, potential units, and affordability levels for vacant residential land in the City. Table HE-49 provides the characteristics of the available vacant sites by zoning designation. There is a total potential for 616 single-family dwelling units and 3,544 multifamily dwelling units based on current zoning designations in the City, including commercial zones. In addition to the vacant sites identified in Table HE-49, the sites in Table HE-50 have either approved or proposed projects that are anticipated to result in new single-family and multifamily construction during the planning period.

Infrastructure and public services are available for virtually all vacant residential land parcels in the City. Most of the sites have utilities available or nearby, but must provide interior distribution services. Infill sites are already fully provided with utilities.

Available Multifamily Sites. The City of Richmond currently has approximately 57.87 acres of vacant land zoned for multi-family development within the City limits. The total number of multifamily units that could be developed on available sites is 1,510 based on an 80 percent lot coverage rate. Additionally, multifamily development is allowed in the commercial zoning districts in the City. These zones are permitted to allow densities equal to that of the MFR-2 zone or up to 34.8 units per acre and the available vacant commercial land could accommodate 2,034 multifamily units. The details for multiple family vacant sites by zoning designation are provided in Table HE-49. In addition to the vacant sites identified in Table HE-49, the sites in Table HE-50 have either approved or proposed projects that are anticipated to result in new multifamily construction during the planning period. These new projects are not included in the total available vacant land inventory.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-57

The MFR-2 and MFR-3 zones have historically been developed at densities and units affordable to lower income households, and thus are identified in Table HE-49 as area most likely to provide a substantial amount of affordable housing. There is a total of 41.14 vacant acres in MFR-2 and MFR- 3 zones with a unit potential of 1,157.

Available Single Family Sites. The majority of vacant residential land in the City is designated for single family use. There are approximately 93.28 vacant acres in the combined SFR districts allowing for a potential 617 units. The SFR-1 and SFR-2 designation (1 to 4.0 units per acre and 1 to 7.2 units per acre, respectively) have approximately 51.47 vacant acres, which if developed, and using a 75 percent probable density, would contribute approximately 253 dwellings to the City’s housing stock. These districts are most likely to accommodate housing that is affordable to above moderate income households. The SFR-3 zone, which is identified as the zone most likely to accommodate housing units affordable to moderate income households, has 41.81 vacant acres and a potential 364 dwelling units. Infrastructure is available for all vacant residential acreage within the City.

TABLE HE-49 TOTAL VACANT RESIDENTIAL SITES* Probable Potential Afford-ability Residential Zones Acres Max. Density Density** Units*** Level SFR-1 12.01 4.0 3.0 36 Above SFR-2 39.46 7.3 5.5 217 SFR-3 41.81 11.6 8.7 364 Moderate Subtotal 93.28 617 MFR-1 16.73 26.4 21.12 353 Moderate MFR-2 40.40 34.8 27.84 1,125 Lower MFR-3 0.74 54.5 43.6 32 Subtotal 57.87 1,510 C-1 5.35 34.8 27.84 149 C-2 33.36 34.8 27.84 929 Lower C-3 26.37 34.8 27.84 734 CB 7.97 34.8 27.84 222 Subtotal 73.05 2,034 Total 224.20 -- -- 4,161 -- Source: City of Richmond *As of September 2004. **Probable density is 75 percent for SFR districts and 80 percent for MFR districts as established in the Richmond General Plan. ***Potential units are calculated using the probable density.

Completed, Pending, and Proposed Residential Projects

Table HE-50 identifies the residential development projects since 2000 in the City of Richmond as of June 2005. Completion of these projects will provide 6,636 new housing units in the City, of which 1,319 are affordable units to low and very-low income households. The total RHND goal for the City is 2,603 units of which, 1,859 are for moderate and above-moderate income households and 744 are for very-low and low-income households. Based on the median housing price in the City, it has been assumed that market rate housing units will be aimed at the moderate and above- moderate household. This would indicate that 100 percent of the RHND housing goal is currently being met by completed or pending housing projects in the City.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-58 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-50 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS SINCE 2000 - AS OF JUNE 2005 Income Range Name Type Funding Total Status Above Moderate Low Very Metrowalk at Transit Village, Townhomes RDA; LMIHF 132 66 66 0 0 Cplt. 2005 Phase I Metrowalk at Awarded Transit Village, Townhomes RDA; LMIHF 99 50 49 0 0 Local Phase II Subsidy; ??? Seacliff Estates Single family Private 140 140 0 0 0 Complete Bayfront Single family LMIHF 162 142 20 0 0 Cplt. 2000

Heritage Park Apartments LMIHF;LIHTC 192 0 0 192 0 Cplt. 2001

City Center Apartments RDA;LIHTC 64 0 0 24 40 Cplt. 2001 Apartments

LMIHF; HOME; Parkway Estates Single family CDBG; CCC RDA, 90 0 62 28 0 Cplt. 2001 CDBG & HOME

LMIHF; Woods Estates Single family 18 0 7 11 0 Cplt. 2001 HOME;CDBG

Jelani Park, Phase I Ownership HOME; LMIHF 5 0 0 5 0 Cplt. 2000

Jelani Park, Phase II Ownership HOME; LMIHF 8 0 4 4 0 Cplt. 2004

Chesley Mutual CDBG; LMIHF; Hsg Rental Co-op 30 0 0 0 30 Cplt. 2006 Bonds, LIHTC 802 Chelsley Ave Scattered Infill Awarded HOME; LMIHF; Housing Program Ownership 66 23 1 42 0 Local CalHFA; Bonds Sites Subsidy Scattered Infill HOME; LMIHF; By Housing Program Ownership 100 50 20 20 10 CalHFA; Bonds 6/30/2007 Sites

HUD 202; LMIHF; Community HOME;CDBG; Rental 52 1 0 0 51 Cplt.2000 Heritage Senior CCC RDA, CDBG & HOME

On-site Easter Hill Rental HOPE VI;; HA 36 0 0 0 36 Cplt.2000 HOPE VI, Rehab On-site Easter Hill HOPE VI; CalHFA; under HOPE VI, Phase I Rental LMIHF; Bonds; 240 0 0 0 240 construction & II* LIHTC; HA

On-site Easter Hill HOPE VI; CalHFA; under Ownership 40 22 7 11 0 Homeownership* LMIHF; Bonds; HA construction

LMIHF; Hoffman Estates Single family 23 5 7 11 0 Cplt.2001 HOME;CDBG

Total Complete 1497 499 243 348 407 Note: *On-site Easter Hill HOPE VI, Phase I & II and On-site Easter Hill Homeownership are replacement units.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-59

TABLE HE-50 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS SINCE 2000 - AS OF JUNE 2005 (CONT.) Pending Projects

Income Range Name Type Funding Total Status Above Moderate Low Very

Marina Way Live Live/work 65 65 MND Prep.

Forest Green Single family Private 121 121 0 0 0 EIR Prep Canyon Oaks II Single Family Private 36 36 0 0 0 EIR Prep

Point Richmond Condos Private 350 350 0 0 0 EIR Prep Shores

Seacliff Marina Condos Private 289 289 0 0 0 EIR Prep

Anchor Cove Townhomes Private 128 128 0 0 0 EIR Prep

Westshore Marina Condos Private 269 269 0 0 0 EIR Prep

Anchorage at Townhomes Private 208 208 0 0 0 MND Prep Marina Bay

Awarded Local HOPE VI, Phase III HA;CalHFA; Rental HOME; LMIHF 60 0 0 0 60 Subsidy; Applying @ Fire Training Site LIHTC for tax Credits 7/05

Site Purchased; HOME; Awarded Local Garrity Ownership 35 0 30 0 5 LMIHF; Bonds Subsidy; Concept Site Purchased; Lillie Mae Jones HOME; Awarded Local Rental LMIHF; Bonds; 21 1 0 10 10 Plaza LIHTC Subsidy; Concept Site Purchased; HOME; Awarded Local Nevin Ownership 10 0 8 2 0 CalHFA; Fund Subsidy; Concept HOME; Site Purchased; Rental & CDBG; Section Awarded Local Miraflores 170 90 0 10 70 Ownership 108/BEDI; Subsidy; LIHTC; Private Concept

The Oaks Single Family Private 51 51 0 0 0 Final Map Prep

LMIHF; EDI; Awarded Local Macdonald Senior Rental Section 108, 66 1 0 0 65 Subsidy; 4% bonds Concept Total Pending 1879 1544 103 22 210

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-60 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

TABLE HE-50 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS SINCE 2000 - AS OF JUNE 2005 (CONT.) Proposed Projects Income Range Name Type Funding Total Status Above Moderate Low Very Site Purchased; Macdonald Mixed- CalHFA; Awarded Local Condos 3 0 0 3 0 Use LMIHF Subsidy; Concept Site Purchased; Bonds Awarded Local Vernon-Castro Ownership 50 25 0 5 20 Subsidy; Concept Townhomes Parkway Transit Live-work Private 1,000 700 200 50 50 Initial Study Prep Village Single Family Total Proposed 1,053 725 200 58 70

Under Construction Income Range Name Type Funding Total Status Above Moderate Low Very

Acacia Apartments Private 504 504 0 0 0 Under Const.

Brickyard Condos Private 69 69 0 0 0 Under Const.

Country Club Vista Single Family Private 645 645 0 0 0 Under Const.

Fairfield Apartments Private; In-lieu 200 166 34 0 0 Cplt. 2005 Communities

The Villas at Hilltop Single family Private 172 172 0 0 0 Under Const.

Pinole Pointe Single family Private 211 211 0 0 0 Under Const.

HOPE VI; Cortez CalHFA; Ownership 40 24 10 6 0 Under Const. Homeownership LMIHF; Bonds; HA

Anchor Cove Townhomes Private 138 138 0 0 0 Under const.

Ford Assembly Plant Live/work Private 29 15 14 0 0 Under const.

LMIHF; Bonds; Pullman Pointe* Rentals 199 1 0 67 131 Cplt. 2005. LIHTC

Total Under Const. 2207 1945 58 73 131

Note: *Pullman Pointe are affordable units preserved in part with City funding which underwent substantial rehabilitated. See Appendix A-4 for SB 438 evaluation.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-61

TABLE HE-50 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS SINCE 2000 - AS OF JUNE 2005 (CONT.)

Total Projects

Total Above Mod Moderate Low Very Low

RHNA 2,603 1,234 625 273 471

Total Complete 1,497 499 243 348 407 Total Under Const. 2,207 1,945 58 73 131 Total Comp & Under Const. 3,704 2,444 301 421 538 Pending 1,879 1,544 103 22 210 Proposed 1,053 725 200 58 70 Total 6,636 4,713 604 501 818 Source: City of Richmond *All projects include private (bank, developer, foundations, etc) sources of funding. This chart is meant to demonstrate where the City has provided subsidy or assistance. Some County and State sources of subsidy are also listed.

Affordable and At-Risk Housing

California Housing Element Law requires all jurisdictions to include a study of all low-income housing units which may at some future time be lost to the affordable inventory by the expiration of some type of affordability restrictions. The law requires that the analysis and study cover a ten-year period, and be divided into two periods, coinciding with updates of the Housing Element. There are three general cases that can result in the conversion of public assisted units:

1) Prepayment of HUD mortgages: Section 221(d)(3), Section 202 and Section 236 – A Section 221 (d)(3) is a privately owned project where the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides either below market interest rate loans or market rate loans with a subsidy to the tenants. With Section 236 assistance, HUD provides financing to the owner to reduce the costs for tenants by paying most of the interest on a market rate mortgage. Additional rental subsidy may be provided to the tenant. Section 202 assistance provides a direct loan to non-profit organizations for project development and rent subsidy for low-income elderly tenants. Section 202 provides assistance for the development of units for physically handicapped, developmentally disabled, and chronically mentally ill residents.

2) Opt-outs and expirations of project based Section 8 contracts – Section 8 is a federally funded program that provides for subsidies to the owner of a pre-qualified project for the difference between the tenant’s ability to pay and the contract rent. Opt-outs occur when the owner of the project decides to opt-out of the contract with HUD by pre- paying the remainder of the mortgage. Usually, the likelihood of opt-outs increases as the market rents exceed the contract rents.

3) Other – Expiration of the low-income use period of various financing sources, such as Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), bond financing, density bonuses, California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds and redevelopment funds. Generally, bond financing properties expire according to a qualified project period or when the bonds mature.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-62 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units. The City of Richmond contains a variety of assisted rental units and complexes, which utilize a range of funding mechanisms. As described in Table HE-51, there are twenty affordable complexes in the city with a total of 1,928 assisted units. Of these complexes, five complexes, representing 548 units, are operated by the Richmond Housing Authority, which currently has a waiting list of 231 households for its public housing units. The Easter Hill complex, also owned by the Richmond Housing Authority, is currently being demolished and reconstructed through HOPE VI funds with a variety of affordable and market rate housing options. A total of 237 units will be demolished. By 2010, the Easter Hill project will consist of 402 townhouses, apartments and retail ground floor sites available to the City’s residents.

The Richmond Housing Authority also administers the Housing Choice Rental Assistance Voucher (formerly Section 8) program. Persons using these vouchers are not restricted to the type or location of housing that they may chose to live in, so the vouchers can be used for housing units in multi- family complexes and single-family detached housing units. As of March 2004, 1,675 households were enrolled in the program and there were 441 households on the waiting list.

Of the complexes described in Table HE-51, the facilities that are at-risk are Section 8 and Section 202 contracted rental complexes. Each of the ten Section 8 apartment complexes were contacted in an effort to determine whether they intended on maintaining their Section 8 contracts into the foreseeable future. Of the ten identified Section 8 and Section 202 apartment complexes, seven are on an annual renewal basis, one will expire in 2005, one will expire in 2006, and one recently signed a five-year contract extension. Though each complex stated that they intend to annually renew their contracts, it is possible that any of these complexes may opt out of Section 8 subsidy and return to market rate rent at the time of annual contract expiration. This conversion may occur during the lifetime of this Housing Element. A total of 904 Section 8 units are at-risk of conversion during the next ten years. In Contra Costa County, the opt-out rate of Section 8 units has dramatically increased over the past five years, indicating a trend away from preserving existing Section 8 units.

TABLE HE-51 AFFORDABLE AND AT-RISK HOUSING PROJECTS Assisted Expiration Anticipated Project Assistance Type At Risk Units Units Date Renewal Heritage Park 192 LIHTC 2055 None The Summit at Hilltop 144 Mortgage Revenue Bonds None Carquinez Senior Apt 36 LIHTC 2045 None City Center Apts 64 LIHTC 2046 None Nystrom Village 100 PHA N/A None Liberty Village 40 LIHTC 2053 None Friendship Manor 58 PHA N/A None

Nevin Plaza 142 PHA N/A None Deliverance Temple I 82 LIHTC 2055 None Deliverance Temple II 32 LIHTC 2055 None Community Heritage 51 Section 202-811 5/31/2030 None Senior Apartments Triangle Court 98 PHA N/A None Hacienda Senior 150 PHA N/A None At-Risk Units Barrett Plaza Town 58 Section 8, 236 8/31/2003 Yes 58 Barrett Terrace 114 Section 8, 236 6/30/2004 Yes 114

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-63

Apartments Crescent Park 186 Section 8, 221d3 12/31/2002 Yes 186 Richmond Townhouse 192 Section 8, 236 9/30/2003 Yes 192 Rubicon Homes 10 Section 202-811 9/1/2007 Yes 10 St Johns Apts. 156 Section 8, 221d3 10/31/2005 Yes 156 Arbor Apts. 23 Section 8, 221d3 8/31/2003 Yes 23 Totals 1,928 790 Source: City of Richmond; Richmond Housing Authority; California Housing Partnership Corporation

Preservation Costs.

1) Rehabilitation – The primary factors used to analyze the cost of preserving low-income housing include: acquisition, rehabilitation and financing. Actual acquisition costs depend on several variables such as condition, size, location, existing financing and availability of financing (governmental and market). Recent multifamily rehabilitation costs in Richmond, including Liberty Village, Barrett Terrace, Barrett Plaza, and Monterey Pines, have ranged from $54,065 to $69,078 per unit with an average cost of $60,641 per unit.

2) New Construction/Replacement – New construction implies construction of a new property with the same number of units and similar amenities as the one removed from the affordable housing stock. Costs estimates were prepared by using local information and data. The construction of new housing can vary greatly depending on factors such as location, density, unit sizes, construction materials and on-site and off-site improvements. Several multifamily new construction projects, Community Heritage Senior Apartments and Heritage Park, were developed in Richmond in 2000 and 2001. Total development costs, including land acquisition, ranged from $90,246 to $115,136 per unit, with an average cost of $102,691 per unit.

3) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance – This type of preservation largely depends on the income of the family, the shelter costs of the apartment and the number of years the assistance is provided. If the typical family that requires rental assistance earns $18,450, then that family could afford approximately $461 per month for shelter costs. The difference between the $461 and the typical rent for a two bedroom apartment of $981 would result in necessary monthly assistance of $520 a month or $6,240 per year. For comparison purposes, typical affordable housing developments carry an affordability term of at least 20 years, which would bring the total cost to $124,800 per family.

The rehabilitation of existing units, which averages $60,641 per unit, is the most cost-effective approach toward the preservation of “at-risk” units when compared with the cost of $102,691 and $124,800 per unit for new construction and tenant-based rental assistance, respectively.

Preservation and Affordable Housing Resources. Efforts by the City to retain low-income housing must be able to draw upon two basic types of preservation resources: organizational and financial. Qualified, non-profit entities need to be made aware of the future possibilities of units becoming ''at risk.'' Groups with whom the City has an on-going association, such as Community Housing Development Center of North Richmond, BRIDGE Housing, and the Richmond Housing Authority,

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-64 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT are the logical entities for future participation. Federal and state funding sources are also available for the preservation of affordable housing and creation of new affordable housing.

Resources and Incentives for Affordable Housing. Efforts by the City to assist in the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing would utilize organizational and financial types of resources. The following programs include local, state, and federal housing programs that are valuable resources in assisting in the development of affordable housing, preserving “at-risk” housing, and for housing rehabilitation.

• HOME Program: The Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) was created under the Cranston Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act enacted in November 1990. HOME funds are awarded annually as formula grants to participating jurisdictions. HUD establishes Home Investment Trust Funds for each grantee, providing a line of credit that the jurisdiction may draw upon as needed. The program's flexibility allows States and local governments to use HOME funds for grants, direct loans, loan guarantees or other forms of credit enhancement, or rental assistance or security deposits.

Participating jurisdictions may choose among a broad range of eligible activities, using HOME funds to provide home purchase or rehabilitation financing assistance to eligible homeowners and new homebuyers; build or rehabilitate housing for rent or ownership; or for "other reasonable and necessary expenses related to the development of non- luxury housing," including site acquisition or improvement, demolition of dilapidated housing to make way for HOME-assisted development, and payment of relocation expenses. Also, participating jurisdictions may use HOME funds to provide tenant-based rental assistance contracts of up to 2 years if such activity is consistent with their Consolidated Plan and justified under local market conditions.

The City receives approximately $827,000 in HOME funds each year. The funds are used for single family housing construction, rental housing rehabilitation and construction, and to provide assistance to first time homebuyers.

• Public Housing Authority (PHA): The local PHA is the Richmond Housing Authority, which manages rent-restricted public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher (formerly Section 8) program.

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The Department of Housing and Urban Development awards Community Development Block Grant funds annually to entitlement jurisdictions and States for general housing and community development activities, including housing construction, housing rehabilitation, public services, and economic development activities. HUD also offers various other programs that can be utilized by the City, non-profit, and for-profit agencies for the preservation of low- income housing units such as Section 202 and Section 108 loan guarantees.

The City of Richmond is an entitlement community, receiving CDBG funds directly from HUD. The City’s annual entitlement is approximately $1,583,000. CDBG funds are used to provide housing rehabilitation assistance, housing new construction, loans to correct code violations, emergency repair loans, fair housing services, transitional housing, and homeless services.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-65

• Community Reinvestment Act: The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted by Congress in 1977 is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. The CRA requires that each insured depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

• Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC): In 1986, Congress created the federal low income housing tax credit to encourage private investment in the acquisition, rehab and construction of low-income rental housing.

Because high housing costs in California make it difficult, even with federal credits, to produce affordable rental housing, the California Legislature created a state low income housing tax credit program to supplement the federal credit.

The state credit is essentially identical to the federal credit. The Tax Credit Allocation Committee allocates. State credits are only available to projects receiving federal credits. Twenty percent of federal credits are reserved for rural areas, and ten percent for non-profit sponsors. To compete for the credit, rental housing developments have to reserve units at affordable rents to households at or below 46 percent of area median income. The assisted units must be reserved for the target population for 55 years.

The federal tax credit provides a subsidy over ten years towards the cost of producing a unit. Developers sell these tax benefits to investors for their present market value to provide up-front capital to build the units.

Credits can be used to fund the hard and soft costs (excluding land costs) of the acquisition, rehab or new construction of rental housing. Projects not receiving other federal subsidy receive a federal credit of nine percent per year for ten years and a state credit of 30 percent over four years (high cost areas and qualified census tracts get increased federal credits). Projects with a federal subsidy receive a four percent federal credit each year for ten years and a 13 percent state credit over four years.

• California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA): The California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) offers permanent financing for acquisition and rehabilitation to for-profit, non- profit, and public agency developers seeking to preserve “at-risk” housing units. In addition, CHFA offers low interest predevelopment loans to non-profit sponsors through its acquisition/rehabilitation program.

• Federal Home Loan Bank System: The Federal Home Loan Bank System facilitates Affordable Housing Programs (AHP), which subsidize the interest rates for affordable housing. The San Francisco Federal Home Loan Bank District provides local service within California. Interest rate subsidies under the AHP can be used to finance the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of rental housing. Very-low income households must occupy at least 20 percent of the units for the useful life of the housing or the mortgage term.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-66 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

• California Department of Housing and Community Development: The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) conducts the Urban Predevelopment Loan Program, which provides funds to pay the initial costs of preserving existing affordable housing developments for their existing tenants. Priority is given to applications with matching financing from local redevelopment agencies or federal programs.

HCD also conducts the acquisition and rehabilitation component of the Multi-family Housing Program to acquire and rehabilitate existing affordable rental housing. Priority is given to projects currently subject to regulatory restrictions that may be terminated. Assistance is provided through low interest construction and permanent loans. Eligible applicants include local government agencies, private non-profit organization, and for- profit organizations.

• Richmond Redevelopment Agency: The Richmond Redevelopment Agency’s project areas total 3,630 acres and include: Merged Project Area (Eastshore Park, Potrero, Galvin, Harbor Gate, Hensley, Downtown, Nevin Center, The Harbour, and North Richmond), Pilot Project Area, and Terrace Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency’s Affordable Housing Program funds will be used in a flexible manner to respond favorable development opportunities. The type of financial assistance to be provided may include cost write-down and gap financing for projects utilizing federal and state funds, as well as, loans for property acquisition, development renovation, on- and off- site improvements, predevelopment costs and development costs.

The Agency has four primary affordable housing programs; new construction - owner occupied units, new construction - rental housing, acquisition and rehabilitation - first- time homebuyers, and rehabilitation - rental housing. The actual and projected housing set-aside is as follows: Year Actual Amount 2001/2002 $2,139,901 2002/2003 $2,474,168 Estimated Amount 2003/2004 $2,560,000 2004/2005 $2,772,000 2005/2006 $3,336,000 2006/2007 $3,543,000 Total $16,825,069

The California Community Redevelopment Law requires that he Agency formulate annual housing production goals over the next five years. The Agency expects to take full advantage of the various opportunities as they are presented and to initiate actions necessary to preserve and facilitate the development of housing for households whose basic needs are not met by the private housing market. The Agency plans to achieve the following annual housing production goals over the 2000-2006 period (each year’s figures include the annual set-aside requirement, plus additional Redevelopment Agency tax increment and bond).

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-67

TABLE HE-52 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION Income Level Project Expenditure Very Low Low Moderate Fiscal Year Ending 2001 Parkway Estates** $1,076,000 0 25 62 Woods Estates $400,000 0 11 7 Hoffman Estates $280,000 0 11 12 45 1st Street $1,200,000 0 8 0 Sub-total $1,880,000 0 55 81 Fiscal Year Ending 2002 Cortez School $600,000 0 15 15 Richmond Townhomes $3,000,000 125 73 0 Sub-total $3,600,000 125 88 15 Fiscal Year Ending 2003 Transit Village* $1,605,000 0 15 92 Subtotal $1,605,000 0 15 92 Fiscal Year Ending 2004 Transit Village* $5,253,000 0 0 115 Chesley Mutual Housing* $4,341,000 0 30 0 HOPE VI $2,360,000 300 12 22 Jelani Park* $57,000 0 4 4 Subtotal $12,011,000 300 46 141 Fiscal Year Ending 2005 Transit Village* $1,330,000 0 0 115 Garrity $200,000 84 0 0 HOPE VI $3,184,000 300 12 22 In-Fill Development* $230,000 0 19 0 Macdonald Mixed-Use $164,000 21 0 0 Subtotal $5,108,000 405 31 137 Fiscal Year Ending 2006 Macdonald Mixed-Use $172,000 21 0 0 Metrowalk(Transit $1,600,000 0 0 115 Village) Subtotal $1,772,000 21 0 115 Total $25,976,000 530*** 193*** 222*** Source: City of Richmond, Richmond Implementation Plan, June 2000 and Draft Implementation Plan FY 2004/05 – FY 2008/09 Note: *Within the Richmond Redevelopment Project Areas. **Previously committed by agency – from funds generated prior to FY 1999/00 ***Unduplicated figures

• Private and non-profit agencies preservation resources: (see Appendix 1 for a list of preservation resources in Contra Costa County)

CHDC of North Richmond: The Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC) of North Richmond was incorporated as a community-based nonprofit affordable housing developer in 1990. CHDC emerged from a Housing Development Committee of Neighborhood House of North Richmond, where there were growing concerns about the lack of good quality affordable housing in the area. Several other

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-68 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

community churches and organizations involved in the formation of CHDC include Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP), Sojourner Truth Presbyterian, and Davis Chapel C.M.E. The collaboration of these organizations assisted with the start-up research and fundraising activities, resulting in a seed grant from Presbyterian U.S.A., which allowed CHDC to organize and incorporate as a nonprofit organization. CHDC of North Richmond has been very active in the City of Richmond in the development of housing for lower income persons. CHDC has a number of programs to address the need for affordable housing such as; first-time homebuyers housing, senior housing, housing rehabilitation, and commercial development. CHDC developed the Park Estates and Wood Estates (two first-time homebuyers projects), Heritage Community Senior Apartments and various infill rehabilitation sites in the City.

Bridge Housing Corporation: Bridge Housing is the largest non-profit affordable housing developer in California, and a nationally recognized leader in cutting edge housing development practices. Since its inception in 1983, BRIDGE has participated in the development of over 9,500 homes serving over 20,000 Californians. Bridge Housing has a history and positive track record for housing development affordable to lower income households and management of affordable projects throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Bridge developed and manages Richmond’s City Center project.

EAH: EAH is a nonprofit public benefit corporation, which develops, manages and advocates for affordable housing. With a staff of over 300 people, EAH is one of the largest and most productive nonprofit housing development corporations in the State of California. EAH has developed over 4,300 units and manages over 5,400 units located throughout the State of California and in Hawaii. EAH currently owns the Crescent Park Apartments in the City and was instrumental in the preservation of these affordable at- risk units.

Residential Energy Conservation

State Housing Element Law requires an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. Energy efficiency has a direct correlation to affordable housing because the more money spent on energy, the less available for rent or mortgage payments. High energy costs have particularly detrimental effects on low-income households that do not have enough income or cash reserves to absorb cost increases and many times they must choose between basic needs such as shelter, food, and energy. While energy efficient construction could have an impact in reducing the utility bills for many new home buyers, it could also increase the total cost of construction. Another form of residential energy conservation would involve the addition of energy efficient improvements to existing housing units (retrofitting). All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 1998 (effective date July 1, 1999). Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process. All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date of the building application is made.

Although the energy regulations establish a uniform standard of energy efficiency, they do not insure that all available conservation features are incorporated into building design. Additional measures may further reduce heating, cooling, and lighting loads and overall energy consumption. While it is

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-69 not suggested that all possible conservation features be included in every development, there are often a number of economically feasible measures that may result in savings in excess of the minimum required by Title 24. Alternatives that are available to the housing industry to meet the energy standards include:

• A passive solar approach that requires suitable solar orientation, appropriate levels of thermal mass, south facing windows, and moderate insulation levels.

• Higher levels of insulation than what is previously required, but not requiring thermal mass or window orientation requirements.

• Active solar water heating in exchange for less stringent insulation and/or glazing requirements.

Land use policies also affect the consumption of energy for transportation. The historic pattern of growth and development in the San Francisco Bay area (urban sprawl) has made necessary an intricate network of freeways and surface streets. As the region becomes more decentralized, residences and places of employment become more scattered over large areas and mass public transit (trains, subways, etc.) become less feasible. The private auto becomes a necessity.

Although the regional pattern has already been established, opportunities still exist for energy sensitive land use and transportation decisions on a local level. Concentration of higher density housing and employment centers along major transportation corridors increases the convenience of public transit and may encourage reduced use of private automobiles with a corresponding reduction in vehicular fuel consumption. Integrated, or mixed-use developments provide the opportunity for people to live within walking distance of employment and/or shopping. By its nature, of course, this technique is more feasible and more effective when applied to large parcels of land, which are practically non- existent in the City.

Energy price fluctuations in the late 1990s and energy price increases in early 2001 combined with rolling electricity blackouts have led to a renewed interest in energy conservation. The City of Richmond receives both electricity and natural gas services from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

PG&E offers energy assistance programs for lower income households to help lower income households to conserve energy and control utility costs. These programs include the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and the Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH).

The CARE program provides a 15 percent monthly discount on gas and electric rates to households with qualified incomes, certain non-profit organizations, homeless shelters, hospices, and other qualified non-profit group living facilities.

The REACH program provides one-time energy assistance to customers who have no other way to pay their energy bill. The intent of REACH is to assist low-income households, particularly the elderly, disabled, sick, working poor, and the unemployed, who experience hardships and are unable to for their necessary energy needs.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-70 RICHMOND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT

In addition, the State Department of Health and Human Services funds the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP). HEAP provides financial assistance to eligible low-income persons to offset the costs of heating and/or cooling their housing unit.

PG&E has a number of energy reduction tips and information available such as: home weatherization, energy saving tips, residential energy guide and more. All are available through PG&E and on their web site at http://www.pge.com.

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-71

SECTION V: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ELEMENT

State law requires the City of Richmond to review its Housing Element in order to evaluate:

1) “The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal.” 2) “The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives.” 3) “The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the Housing Element.”

Appropriateness

Attainment of the State’s housing goal is approached by passing down gross allocations of housing unit goals to regional governments, which in turn allocate the housing unit goals to counties and cities. The document produced by regional governments that allocates housing unit goals is referred to as the “Regional Housing Needs Determination” (RHND’s). The most current RHND is discussed in Section 3.0 Housing Needs.

TABLE HE-53 HOUSING NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES NEW CONSTRUCTION 1990 - 1995 1990 Housing Element According to the 1990 Income Group 1990 – 1995 RHND Quantified Objectives Housing Element, the City Very Low 53 145 set quantified objectives of Low 280 355 a total of 3,200 new units, Moderate 1,553 1,250 which included 2,290 Above Moderate 2,937 1,450 ownership and 910 rental TOTAL 4,823 3,200 units. The City also identified rehabilitating 735 units, abating 100 substandard buildings, and assisting 1,141 multifamily at-risk units. While the quantified objectives were less than the new construction need provided by the ABAG RHND of 4,823 units, the quantified objectives provided an estimate the City felt would be attainable during the 1990 to 1995 Housing Element period. The City’s quantified objectives show the City’s commitment to contributing to the State’s goals of increasing affordable housing, through new construction, and maintaining and preserving affordable housing, consistent with the state legislature’s finding that “The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.”

Effectiveness

The effectiveness of Richmond’s Housing Program, in regards to meeting regional housing needs, can be measured by a level of achievement. The level of achievement is simply the actual construction divided by the RHND goal. However, many uncontrollable factors influence the City’s effectiveness, such as market recessions, available programs, available lenders, available developers and the political climate.

November 2005 Background Report PAGE HE-72 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT

From 1990 to 1998, the City of Richmond gained 1,553 housing units as shown in Table HE-54. This represents a 4 percent increase in the total number of housing units over the eight-year period. New construction of housing units from 1990 to 1998 represents 32.2 percent of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Determination. Housing markets within the ABAG region, like most metropolitan markets in the State, did not keep pace with anticipated demands. However, the housing markets have started to rebound over the last few years and some areas are beginning to benefit.

TABLE HE-54 1990-1998 TOTAL UNITS BUILT Unit Type 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Single Family 503 63 101 6 4 48 53 41 29 848 Multifamily 106 104 102 49 15 112 80 98 39 705 TOTAL 609 167 203 55 19 160 133 139 68 1,553 Source: RAND California, 2003

In addition to the construction of housing units, the City created housing units through the addition of rehabilitated and preserved units and achieved 100 percent of its 1990 RHND objective for very low and low income households. However, the City only achieved 24 percent of its affordable (low and very low) new construction goals and 33 percent of its market rate (moderate and above moderate) new construction goals in the 1990-1998 period. When considering the effects of the economic downturn in the Bay area and other uncontrollable factors, Richmond was effective in meeting their fair share of the housing needs determination.

The number of affordable housing units created was much less than the number of market rate housing units between 1990 and 1998. While 1,471 units were created for moderate and above moderate-income households, only 82 units affordable to very-low and low-income households were built during the 1990-1998 period.

TABLE HE-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS CREATED BETWEEN1990-1999 # of Above Name Moderate Low Very Low Year Built Units Moderate New Construction Park Circle 34 34 1998 Bay Front Condo 100 80 20 1997 Northpoint 8 8 1995 Sunset Pointe 84 84 1998 Jelani Park Townhomes 4 2 2 1995 First Time Homebuyer 67 30 29 5 3 various Units Other projects: Richmond City Center 64 24 40 1992 (Bridge) Apartments Breakers 1997 Rehabilitation 550 110 385 55 various Preservation 99 99 1998-1999 Total 1,010 110 279 424 197 Source: City of Richmond Housing and Community Development Department, 2003

Background Report November 2005 RICHMOND 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT PAGE HE-73

Progress of Richmond’s 1994 Housing Goals and Programs

The following table provides an overview of Richmond’s 1994 Housing Element goals and programs designed to achieve those goals:

TABLE HE-56 1994 HOUSING GOALS AND PROGRAMS Housing Element Goals Housing Element Programs Goal 1: Housing Supply and Variety – 1. Aftercare Rental Assistance Program Maintain and develop an adequate supply of 2. Countywide Homeless Family Transitional housing that varies sufficiently in cost, style, Housing Initiative tenure and neighborhood type to meet the 3. Housing Referral Directory economic and social needs of existing and 4. State of California Housing Program future residents within the constraints of 5. Stewart-McKinney Homeless Assistance Act available land. 6. Federal Housing Program 7. Housing Opportunities Program 8. Infrastructure Provision and Financing 9. Land Acquisition for Housing 10. Tax-Exempt Housing Revenue Bonds 11. Development Processing System Review 12. Housing Development Finance Program Goal 2: Equal Housing Opportunity – 1. Housing Discrimination/Affirmative Action Promote equal housing opportunities for all 2. Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment persons without discrimination regardless of Program race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status or household composition. Goal 3: Encourage activities that conserve 1. City Redevelopment Agency and improve existing residential 2. Cooperative Rehabilitation neighborhoods including a housing stock 3. Block Grant Home Improvement Program that is well-maintained and structurally 4. Residential Energy and Water Conservation sound, and with adequate services and Retrofit facilities provided and having a sense of 5. Property Maintenance Ordinance community identity. 6. Voluntary Minor repairs Program 7. Home Improvement Rebate Program Goal 4: Housing Coordination – Participate 1. Consistency Review Program in the coordination of activities which 2. Housing Element Periodic Review and benefit housing, community and economic Upgrade development with other public agencies, the private sector and citizen groups on a countywide and regional basis. Source: City of Richmond Housing Element, 1994

November 2005 Background Report Status,

P In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the 1994 Housing Element, an investigation of the Housing Element Programs was AGE

done. This investigation examined the past and current status of the Programs. The following R table, Housing Programs and HE-74 lists the results of this investigation.

TABLE HE-57 1994 HOUSING PROGRAMS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Goal HG-A: Make decent, safe, and affordable housing available to all existing and future Richmond residents. Program HG-1: Land Assembly Project Description Objective Performance The Redevelopment Agency acquired sites appropriate for affordable housing, such as the Woods School site, which resulted in 18 affordable units, and the Cortez nursery site currently planned for affordable housing development. During A city program to secure and make available sites for affordable housing the implementation period, the construction, especially for Very Low and Low Income families. Program will ICHMOND City funded predevelopment include purchase of privately owned sites as well as public properties. Under studies for these and other sites, public lands component, the City will analyze the inventories of City and 100 affordable including North Richmond, Redevelopment Agency owned public lands, and promote City actions to housing units Jelani Park, Park Circle, South 2001-2006 make appropriate sites available for affordable housing. The City will either Richmond/Iron Triangle, and the develop affordable units on the secured sites or make them available to Fire Academy site. 126 units affordable housing developers, particularly nonprofit corporations. were constructed during the

H

implementation period and OUSING another 171 units were constructed after 1999 or are in E

the planning process. This LEMENT program has been effective and will be included in the updated Housing Element.

R

Program HG-2: Inclusionary Housing Program ICHMOND Description Objective Performance

The City adopted its Inclusionary 2001-2006 Housing Ordinance which was If adopted, the program will require that all residential developments of 10 or revised in 2001 to include an in- 200 Very Low or more housing units comply with the City’s policy by constructing some units lieu fee component. While no

Low Income affordable to Very Low and/or Low Income households. Amount or percentage units have been built to date, H housing units OUSING of affordable units required in each development will vary based on program developer fees are now being constructed guidelines. The program shall be incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance. collected and funds are available

for affordable housing E LEMENT development.

Program HG-3: West County Housing Corporation Affordable Housing Development PageHE-75 Description Objective Performance WCHC, a non-profit corporation, was created to develop new homeowner and 10 new affordable No action. Other non-profit rental housing units affordable to Low and Moderate Income families. WCHC housing units per developers such as CHDC and will work with other local non-profit agencies whenever feasible on specific year (40 housing RNHS have filled this role. projects to build or rehabilitate low-cost affordable housing units. units by mid-1995) Program HG-4: Residential Site Inventory Description Objective Performance The Planning Department makes available at nominal cost a listing of all land This information is now available Maintain inventory parcels in the Richmond Sphere-of-influence area that (A) are zoned for through the City’s Geographic and update it residential development and (B) were found to be vacant in the City’s 1994 Information System (GIS), which annually land use field survey as updated annually. is update periodically. Program HG-5: City Building Permits and Fees Description Objective Performance A Richmond City Council policy adopted in November 1989 states that the Develop a The City did consider waiving City shall consider waiving the payment of building permit fees, public definitive various fees associated with the facilities fees and other City fees associated with the development of low and procedure and development of housing for low moderate income housing, based on certain criteria. The City has been guidelines for City and moderate income projects.

P granting the waiver of building permit fees under this existing policy, on an Council However, due to budgetary AGE individual basis, to projects that meet the City’s criteria. consideration. constraints R a program was not HE-76 adopted and the City continues to review projects on an individual basis. No specific criteria or guidelines have been established for waiving of fees for affordable housing projects. Program HG-6: Affordable Housing Financing Program Description Objective Performance The Freddie Mac Lease-Purchase program, through a 6-jurisdiction Joint Powers agency, helped first- time homebuyers by purchasing and leasing homes for three Under this program, the City will pursue various approaches including (A) years, after which time the working with local lending institutions to commit to a shared pool of funds Report to City homebuyer assumes the earmarked for affordable housing financing; and (B) exploring the feasibility of Council on housing mortgage. Before the program a City housing financing bond program to complement the County’s program. financing bond was suspended in 2001, four Local banks will be asked to take leadership in organizing a pool of loan funds ICHMOND program feasibility Richmond families were leasing for affordable housing; to consider somewhat less restrictive underwriting by December 1991. homes. The project has now standards; or to take other positive housing steps to support the local Housing loan pool been re-instated as “California community’s efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing. One area of 2001-2006 made available to Home Source” through the need is for short-term construction financing. Under the proposed bond banks by the end of ABAG Finance Authority. program, the City would issue bonds for housing mortgage and rehabilitation 1993. financing. The City will also look into innovative financing methods such as A development loan program shared-equity programs. that provides funds to developers H OUSING OUSING to create affordable housing on in-fill sites is nearly finalized, but E

no funds have been expended. LEMENT

R

Program HG-7: Zoning Ordinance Administration ICHMOND Description Objective Performance Throughout the 1990-1998 Housing Element implementation 2001-2006 period, projects have been reviewed in accordance with this

program. High-density H

ownership opportunities as well OUSING as multifamily developments have resulted from the City’s E In administering the Zoning Ordinance, working with applicants for housing commitment to encouraging low LEMENT developments, and working with the Planning Commission and the City’s and moderate income housing.

neighborhoods through the network of neighborhood councils, the Planning The City PageHE-77 has planned two Department staff will promote and encourage mixed low and medium housing projects, Transit Village and densities as well as the potential benefits of higher densities, such as increased None given North Richmond Heritage transit and other services, shopping facilities, and greater pedestrian access. Community, that provide The City staff will also work to ensure that the Ordinance and the regulatory affordable housing as well as process outlined therein encourages, and does not impede, the provision of services, shopping, and increased shelters and transitional housing. pedestrian access in accord with this program. The North Richmond project was developed in 2000 and 2001; the Transit Village is under construction and anticipated to be completed in 2004. This is a successful program and will be included in the updated Housing Element. Program HG-8: Design Review, Planned Area, Tentative Development Plan, and Subdivision Review Description Objective Performance The Planning Department will continue to provide educational forums for Planning Department, elected and appointed officials and staff on innovative design methods for None given Redevelopment Agency, Design higher density developments and for multifamily units that are compatible with Review Board and Planning single family areas. City staff, as part of the development review process, will Commission conducted

P encourage housing development applicants to integrate affordable units in architectural design studies that AGE their projects while maintaining excellence of design. produced R In-Fill Patter Book HE-78 designs. Staff continues to study how to improve and amend current design standards. Program HG-9: Zoning Ordinance Revision Description Objective Performance The City began work on a comprehensive revision of its Zoning Ordinance in 1990, intended to update the ordinance, correct obsolete regulations, introduce innovations and provide for greater flexibility in some areas, and in general produce a clearer, more easily usable document. A number of changes Zoning Ordinance was revised in proposed in the Ordinance are expected to assist in the production of and adopted in October 1997. affordable housing. Among these are more flexible requirements governing Revised Zoning New standards for second units, second units (see Second Units Program under Goal I.H.); more flexible Ordinance adopted parking, setbacks, density parking requirements including reduced minimum parking stall size and by the end of 1992. bonuses, live/work spaces, and reduced parking space ratios for large multifamily projects; relaxed setback zoning designations were requirements; regulations governing affordable housing density bonuses; incorporated into the revision. permitting “live-work” spaces in industrial areas; and a redefinition of the City’s residential districts to allow a more graduated, step by step increase in ICHMOND allowable densities and minimum lot sizes. Program HG-10: Zoning, Design Review, and Building Regulations

Description Objective Performance 2001-2006 Revised Zoning Ordinance adopted In revising its Zoning Ordinance (see Program H-9), the City and its

by the end of 1992. H

consultants have given particular attention to promotion of good quality design OUSING Explore feasibility and have proposed an improved design review process (a component of the The Zoning Ordinance was of reducing street Ordinance). Regarding residential street standards, including street width and revised and adopted in 1997. standards by the E

sidewalk requirements, City staff would explore possible ways to reduce the LEMENT end of 1993; standards where feasible and make them less rigid. implement by mid- 1994

R

Program HG-11: Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund ICHMOND Description Objective Performance Eight Redevelopment Areas were In the case of each new or expanded redevelopment area, the Agency will expanded during the 1990-2001 2001-2006 analyze the housing needs of very low, low, and moderate income persons time period and The Low and and families in the project area, and will address the housing needs and Moderate Housing Fund was

include an affordable housing component in the Redevelopment Plan for each developed. Four programs were H area. The Agency will on an annual basis re-examine its obligations under developed to address housing OUSING State law with respect to the set-aside of tax increment revenues for low and needs in these areas; new moderate income housing and, if in the future it determines that the construction (owner and renter E community’s “substantial effort” does not have an impact equivalent to that programs), first-time homebuyers LEMENT which would result from housing set-asides, the Agency will set aside tax None given acquisition and rehabilitation

increment revenues for housing and establish a housing L&M fund pursuant to program, PageHE-79 and rental rehabilitation State law. In the meantime, however, it will aggressively pursue opportunities program. Approximately $4.2 to increase and improve the supply of low and moderate income housing. A million was set-aside in the variety of approaches will be considered, depending on the financial L&MHF. 272 housing units were feasibility, and they may include direct payment of tax increment revenues to planned and have been assist in financing affordable housing development; land write-downs; below developed or are in the market rate loan programs; collaboration with local nonprofit developers; and development process with bond issues to finance housing development. Redevelopment Agency Assistance. Program HG-12: Bridge Housing Corporation/Memorial Park Development Description Objective Performance Carquinez elderly The City and Bridge Housing A large scale mixed use development on an 11 acre site in the Urban Renewal apartment units Corporation combined resources Project Area 10-A (“City Center”), combining retail commercial with affordable completed by to redevelopment the Richmond ownership and rental housing. Project includes an estimated 34 townhouse 1991. Residential City Center. This is an "urban units affordable to low and moderate income first-time homebuyers; 65 portion of village" which includes 34 apartment units, at least 40: of which will be affordable to low and moderate Memorial Park townhomes for first-time income renters; and 36 Very Low Income elderly apartment units in The development built homebuyers, a revitalized Carquinez, formerly the “Hotel Don” building located one block north of the out by 1993 and Veterans Memorial Park, a Memorial Park site. specific affordable 78,000-sq. ft. retail shopping housing objectives center, and 64 affordable

P achieved (see apartments. The Carquinez AGE

“Description”) Apartments R were completed. HE-80 Program HG-13: Central Richmond Renewal Program Description Objective Performance As stated under Program HG-12, Comprehensive the Richmond City Center used a A multi-departmental, concentrated revitalization program aimed at program proposal variety of funding sources and strengthening the single-family residential character of the City Center and developed by June developers to revitalize and immediately adjacent areas. This program will build on and expand the 1993, analyzing rehabilitate the downtown area. Downtown Concentrated Rehabilitation and Improvement Program. The resources, This is an ongoing program and Agency proposed to combine redevelopment, federal and state funds, private priorities, and will continue to improve this non-profit developers, public improvements, and other components to outlining a strategic area. The Iron Triangle was rehabilitate and beautify the area, attract new affordable infill housing utilizing plan. Initiate designated an official HUD vacant lots, improve streets, and eliminate eyesores. The Agency will work implementation of Neighborhood Revitalization with non-profit developers whenever feasible on specific projects to build or program by January Strategy Area in 1996. It is also a rehabilitate low-cost affordable housing units. 1994. priority redevelopment area of the City. Program HG-14: Proposed I-580 Redevelopment area (Expanded Harbor Gate Urban Renewal Project Area 6-A)

Description Objective Performance ICHMOND Establish the Project Area 6-A was expanded revised to include 630 additional acres in 2001-2006 Redevelopment 1995. The Harbour Gate A new project area which is being developed along I-580 will be primarily Project Are and Shopping Center, Simeon non-residential in scope, promoting job producing business attraction and commence Properties project, and the state

expansion. implementation of Department of Health Services H the Redevelopment facility are the recent largest OUSING Plan by August projects in this redevelopment 1993. area. E LEMENT Program HG-15: Housing Coordination Group Description Objective Performance A Housing Coordination Group will be established under the direction of the Conduct periodic The interdepartmental Redevelopment Agency Director, to ensure that the City’s Housing policies meetings to Neighborhood Enhancement

R

and programs are effectively coordinated in order to (1) generate maximum coordinate the Team (NET) met for about one ICHMOND results in addressing Richmond’s housing needs and (2) implement the City’s housing year. An Anti-Blight Program has Housing Element policies and Five-Year Program. The Coordinating Group activities and to continued since that time to shall include all of the various City agencies and departments involved with review progress in improve housing, working mostly 2001-2006 housing. implementing the though code enforcement Housing Element mechanisms. policies and Five-

Year Program H OUSING OUSING Goal HG-B: Make available a wide range of housing types and residential densities to meet the needs of all age groups, income levels, and household sizes within the city’s population E Program HG-16: Make adequate sites available for a balance and variety of housing types LEMENT Description Objective Performance PageHE-81 During the 1990 – 1998 implementation period, 848 single family and 705 multifamily 1,250 new units were built for a total of The Richmond Zoning Ordinance currently provides a full range of zoned Moderate Income 1,553 new units. An additional districts allowing for residential development, including single family; multiple and 1,450 new 714 single family and 589 family; high rise residential; residential uses in community reserve, Above Moderate multifamily units were agricultural, and commercial areas; factory built (manufactured) homes; Income Housing constructed during the 1999 mobilehomes; second units; and emergency and transitional housing Units; 2,700 units through 2002 period. Currently combined there are 253 vacant acres in the City available for residential development. Program HG-17: New construction of Moderate and Above Moderate Income Housing Units Description Objective Performance Private sector residential construction activity produced an estimated 3,416 1,250 new Since the 1994 Housing Element, new Moderate and Above Moderate Income housing units in Richmond in the Moderate Income 1,397 multifamily and 1,208 1985-1989 period, or almost 700 Moderate or Above Moderate Income new and 1,450 new single family units were built for homes per year. A fairly high rate of home building activity in these income Above Moderate a total of 2,605 through 2001. Of categories is anticipated to continue during 1990-1995, although not as many Income housing these, approximately 740 as 1985-1989. units; 2,700 units multifamily units and 1,060

P combined single family were for moderate AGE

and R above moderate households. HE-82 Program HG-18: New Construction of Very Low and Low Income Housing Units Description Objective Performance Approximately 126 affordable housing units were constructed during the 1990-1998 Housing Element period using a variety of funding sources such as the Construct new Very Low and Low Income housing units through a variety of 355 Low Income LMHF, tax credits, HUD techniques including land cost write-down; assistance to non-profit builder to and 145 Very Low financing and private non-profit obtain sites; reduced financing costs; subsidies; efficiencies in site design, Income units; 500 and profit funding. Another 372 construction, building design, materials, etc. units combined units have been completed in the past 5 years. The City assisted non-profit developers in number of areas.

Program HG-19: Home Improvement Program (HILP) ICHMOND Description Objective Performance The City will continue housing rehabilitation assistance to low income owner 400 Very Low or 550 units, of which 55 were occupants through its HILP Program on a citywide basis with emphasis on 2001-2006 Low Income occupied by very low and 385 those families residing in the target area neighborhoods. An estimated 100 low homeowner units by low income households, were income families per year will receive assistance through HILP with rehabilitated and rehabilitated through the approximately $800,000 in CDBG (Community Development Block Grant),

Community and Economic

brought up to H Section 312, and other Federal, state, and local funds which may become building code Development Department. OUSING available. Other components of the HILP include an Emergency Repair compliance. Program and the Paint and Landscape Rebate Programs. E

Program HG-20: California Housing Rehabilitation Program LEMENT Description Objective Performance A program of housing rehab loans to low-income owner-occupants, funded by 50 very Low Project not implemented during the State “CHRP-O” program with an allocation of up to $250,000 in loan Income housing planning period. 550

R

funds available to Richmond. The City will use this source in conjunction with units rehabilitated homeowners had their homes ICHMOND its other loan programs such as HILP. rehabilitated through the HILP program above (HG-19).

Program HG-21: Purchase, Rehabilitation, and Resale of Vacant and Abandoned Structures 2001-2006 Description Objective Performance Homes in Southside were The NHS Program shall continue to provide housing rehabilitation loans to An average of 10

rehabilitated through the City’s H lower income residents residing in the Southside neighborhood, and shall units per year OUSING housing rehabilitation loan continue its Vacant and Abandoned Structures Program, whereby rehabilitated purchased, programs. The purchase & units will be sold to low income, first-time homebuyers. Funding sources to be rehabilitated, and

rehabilitation project continues E utilized shall include CDBG funds provided by the City; Neighborhood resold, or 50 units LEMENT to be a goal, but there was no Reinvestment Corporation; Neighborhood Housing Services of America; and total between 1990- action during the implementation any other available sources. 1995 period. PageHE-83 Program HG-22: CHAP New Construction Description Objective Performance

The City shall continue to seek funding under the California Homeownership The City did receive funding Assistance Program (CHAP) to construct a limited number of single-family through this program that Dependent on manufactured housing units for low income, first-time homebuyers. Proceeds resulted in the construction of 8 availability of State from the sale of units developed will be utilized to construct additional new homes at North Pointe in allocations. housing for low and moderate income families. All units will be constructed North Richmond. within the target area neighborhoods. Program HG-23: County Mortgage Revenue Bond Program Description Objective Performance On-going. These funds were rolled into the County- The City is participating in the 1989 Contra Costa County Mortgage Revenue administered Mortgage Credit Bond Program, a loan program utilizing mortgage funds generated by sale of Certificate program to assist first- None given tax-exempt bonds to assist first-time homebuyers to purchase new or existing time homebuyers. Approximately (resale) homes. 1-3 Richmond residents participate in this program each year.

P Program HG-24: State Bond Financed Affordable Housing Programs AGE

Description Objective R Performance HE-84 The City applied in 1990 for funds under the State Proposition 84 voter- approved bond issue (the “Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1988”), which provides financing for several affordable housing programs. Under one program, the State makes low-interest deferred payment loans to public and private developers to develop and finance affordable rental housing. The State in return required borrowers to rent at least 30% of the units to low-income Secure funds under households at affordable rents. Additional bond funds are available under No action was taken by the City both Propositions Proposition 107 approved by California voters in June 1990. Called the regarding this program. 84 and 107 “Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1990,” Proposition 107 provides for a bond issue of $150 million to provide funds for emergency shelters and transitional housing for homes persons; new rental housing including rental housing which meets the special needs of the elderly and disabled; purchase and rehabilitation of residential hotels; and home purchase assistance for first- time homebuyers. Program HG-25: Rental Rehabilitation Description Objective Performance The City provides financial assistance to owners of rental property to ICHMOND 250 rental units rehabilitate substandard units, in order to ensure that rental units are affordable On-going. City records going rehabilitated with to low and moderate income families. The City has a specific “Rental back to 1994 indicate 66 rental

assistance from this 2001-2006 Rehabilitation Program” using HUD Rental Rehabilitation Program funds, units were rehabilitated between program (an CDBG funds, and other resources when available such as HUD Section 312 1994 and 1997. average of 50 per loans (rental unit rehabilitation); HUD Section 8 Vouchers through the year)

Housing Authority; private investments; and other sources. H

Program HG-26: Default and Delinquency Counseling OUSING DESCRIPTION Objective Performance E

Provide default and The City has continued to fund LEMENT The City is a HUD-Certified Counseling Agency which provides delinquency financial (default and comprehensive housing counseling services to Richmond residents, focusing counseling for 100 delinquency) counseling, as well on the target area neighborhoods. homeowners, and as homeownership counseling tenant counseling through its CDBG and HOME

R

for 350 tenants, per programs. Hundreds of clients ICHMOND year. received one-on-one homebuyers counseling, attended homeownership 2001-2006 workshops, or received tenant- landlord counseling through a number of the City’s subrecipient

organizations. These programs H continue to assist hundreds of OUSING clients per year.

Program HG-27: Conventional Public Housing Program E LEMENT Description Objective Performance

On-going. PageHE-85 The Housing Authority has maintained these units and is in the process of a substantial renovation and The Authority currently owns and manages 819 units. Of these units, 350 are Manage, maintain, reconstruction of Easter Hill that for the elderly and 469 are family units for low-income housing constructed and systematically will increase the affordable under HUD’s Conventional Public Housing Program. The specific projects are: upgrade the units in housing supply as well as result Easter Hill (HOPE VI) Village (273 family units); Nystrom Village (98 family the conventional in the development of private, units); Triangle Court (98 family units); Hacienda (150 elderly units); projects market rate units. In addition, Friendship Manor (58 elderly units); and Nevin Plaza (142 elderly units). 401 units are in process at Westbridge Apartments at Hilltop. These units will be for elderly and disabled residents. Program HG-28: Section 8 Certificate Program Description Objective Performance Conduct annual inspections and The Housing Authority subsidizes rents of Very Low Income families through tenant eligibility the use of 1,168 Section 8 Certificates under the Housing Assistance Program On-going. reexaminations for of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). all 983 Section 8 Certificates

P Program HG-29: Section 8 Voucher Program AGE

Description Objective R Performance HE-86 The Housing Authority has maintained a high lease-up Maintain 100% average for its Housing Richmond had 307 HUD Section 8 Housing Vouchers including 40 portable lease-up average for Vouchers. Furthermore, the vouchers in the first half of 1990. The Housing Authority estimated it would all units subsidized Housing Authority currently have 300 units leased under the Housing Voucher program by the end of by the Housing assists 1,529 households through 1994. Voucher program the voucher program and has an additional 93 households on the waiting list. Program HG-30: Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program Description Objective Performance Maintain 100% lease-up for the 13 Moderate The Housing Authority did not Rehabilitation units. obtain the financing included in The Housing Authority had 13 units authorized and 13 units leased under this Obtain HUD the objective. However, the Section 8 program in 1990. The rehabilitation was done in 1982-83. Currently, financing under Housing Authority has submitted ICHMOND federal financing is available under HUD Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Section 8 Moderate an application for the renewal of Program for SRO Dwelling Units for Homeless Individuals. Rehab for a project Easter Hill under the HOPE VI providing program and has secured annual 2001-2006 additional SRO renewal of its Section 8 contracts. facilities for

homeless persons. H

Program HG-31: Units at Risk Program OUSING Description Objective Performance E

The City and Redevelopment Agency staff will continue to monitor the local None of the at-risk units LEMENT assigned housing projects and keep in touch with the owners, HUD, and with 1,141 units at risk converted to for-profit units. All Contra Costa Legal Services, so that the City can be forewarned of any preserved received funding through HUD situation where assisted units are in danger of converting to non-low income programs. However, many of the housing uses. The City/Agency will work with Local Initiatives Support Council units are still considered at-risk in

R

(LISC) on efforts to strengthen the capacity of local nonprofit housing the 2003 Housing Element ICHMOND corporations to purchase, develop, and manage affordable housing projects, update, such as projects annually including larger multifamily rental projects at risk of conversion. In the event funded by HUD or those where that units are at risk of conversion, the City/Agency will intervene and use any the affordability restriction is 2001-2006 available resources to preserve the units for lower income households. anticipated to expire prior to 2011. Program HG-32: Commercial-Industrial/Housing Linkage Program

H

Description Objective Performance OUSING By June 1993,

conduct study and E The Redevelopment Agency coordinates the City’s economic development report to City LEMENT program. The Agency works with major commercial and industrial developers Council on the No action was taken by the City and negotiates development agreements where applicable, which may include feasibility of a regarding PageHE-87 this program. growth mitigation requirements of developers. commercial- industrial/housing linkage program. Goal HG-C: Ensure that fair housing opportunities prevail for all city residents regardless of age, sex, family status, income or source of income, race, creed, national origin, or disabilities Program HG-33: Tenant Landlord Counseling Description Objective Performance Fund a fair housing An ongoing program providing advice to tenants and landlords regarding legal program rights and responsibilities related to evictions, security deposits, and component by the discrimination. The City provides pre-litigation counseling and Legal Services end of 1991. On-going. The City provides provides legal assistance and litigation services. The City’s Human Resources program will these services with information Department assists in resolving cases of discrimination and violations of fair include workshops, and links on the City web site. housing and equal housing opportunity. The City, in addition, promotes fair community, housing and equal housing opportunity by conducting workshops for residents presentations, and and addressing neighborhood groups and renter associations. newspaper advertisements.

P Goal HG-D: Provide community facilities and open space, commercial services, and amenities easily accessible to and from all AGE residential neighborhoods R HE-88 Program HG-34: Review of Residential Development Applications Description Objective Performance Residential projects are evaluated as part of the review process as to the adequacy of transit and other services planned for the development. Applicants may be required to work with transit agencies to increase the level of bus or other transit service to the project. The City’s Growth Management Adopt Growth The City adopted a Growth Element to the General Plan, a requirement under the voter-approved Management Management Element as a part of “Measure C” spells out levels of services and facilities that must be met before Element by May the 1994 General Plan. a development can be approved. Developers of elderly housing will be 1993 encouraged to provide a range of unit types, offering elderly residents different options ranging from complete independence to onsite medical care, as their health changes. Program HG-35: Review of Residential Development Applications Description Objective Performance Adopt revised The City’s first comprehensive update and revision of its General Plan, General Plan The General Plan was adopted in completed in 1994, will include revised goals, policies, and standards for including Growth August 1994 and included many ICHMOND residential areas and for proximity of shopping facilities and community Management revised and new goals, policies services. Element by May and standards. 1993 2001-2006 Goal HG-E: Conserve and maintain the existing housing stock to the maximum extent feasible Program HG-36: California Disaster Assistance Program (CALDAP)

Description Objective Performance H OUSING OUSING A State low-interest loan program for owners of earthquake-damaged Through this program, residents residential property. City of Richmond’s application received administrative submitted their loan applications E approval in March 1990. CALDAP provides 3% payment-deferred loans to 30 owner occupied to the City of Richmond, where LEMENT owner occupants (up to $30,000) and 3% loans for rental units with no and 5 rental units they were processed and maximum dollar amounts. Owners of rental units can opt to make the units rehabilitated forwarded to the State. affordable and thereby have the entire loan repayment waived, in 10-year Approximately 37 residents increments. participated.

R

This program is now defunct. ICHMOND Program HG-37: Public Housing Modernization Description Objective Performance 2001-2006 The Housing Authority is systematically modernizing the units within its Complete Easter Conventional Low Rent Public Housing projects, with federal assistance under Hill Village and On going. Hacienda and the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP). Modernization

Hacienda project Friendship Manor modernization and landscaping of the 300-unit Easter Hill Village project was underway in H modernization by complete. HOPE VI continuing OUSING 1990; will consist of 5 phases; and will be completed in 1992. The 1992; Friendship rehabilitation and creation of 84 modernization work on the Hacienda elderly housing project (150) units was Manor affordable homeownership units scheduled for HUD approval in late 1990, and project completion in 1991-92. E modernization by slated for completion by 2006. LEMENT An application to HUD has been submitted for 1991-92 to modernize the 58 1994. elderly units at Friendship Manor. PageHE-89 Program HG-38: SRO Unit Rehabilitation Description Objective Performance Deliverance House was Endeavor to rehabilitated and now provides a preserve the 4-SRO facility capable of serving The City has an ongoing effort to work with owners of SRO units in Richmond existing stock of up to 20 women with children to assist them in rehabilitating and preserving their properties, including SRO units in per year. providing rehab loan financing. The City will continue to monitor the Richmond through availability and condition of existing SRO units in Richmond in collaboration intervention and On-going. This has not met with with the Housing Authority and with Contra Costa Legal Services. The City will rehabilitation success due to apparent lack of continue its efforts to encourage and assist the SRO unit owners to rehabilitate assistance, interest on the part of owners. their properties. consistent with This program will be revised in other City policies the Housing Element Update. and programs

Program HG-39: Additional SRO Units for Homeless Persons Description Objective Performance Federal financing is available under the HUD Section 8 Moderate None given See Program HG-38. Rehabilitation Program for SRO Dwelling Units for Homeless Individuals

P Goal HG-F: Preserve and upgrade residential neighborhoods so that they are attractive, safe, retain their distinct identities, and promote a AGE sense of community R HE-90 Program HG-40: Downtown Concentrated Rehabilitation and Improvement Description Objective Performance Complete code A program of concentrated code enforcement combined with housing inspections of 30 This project was implemented as rehabilitation loans and public improvements, focusing on the area west of 6th target area a demonstration project. The Street, south of MacDonald Avenue, and north of Bissell Avenue in the residences per year project was not extremely downtown Iron Triangle neighborhood. The City is working with the Iron and provide loan successful due to limited code Triangle Neighborhood Council (acting as a project committee) to expand the assistance to 20 enforcement capabilities and was program area and to expedite the public improvements. property owners not continued. per year. Program HG-41: Neighborhood Services Liaison Description Objective Performance Increase the number of active neighborhood councils; sponsor On-going. The City continues to workshops and involve its neighborhood ICHMOND training sessions for councils in housing and An ongoing program to promote and solicit community residents’ participation neighborhood community health and safety

in the Neighborhood Council system and the city-supported Crime Prevention 2001-2006 councils; increase activities. The City operates a and Community Drug Education programs resident web site for the neighborhood participation in the councils and encourages active

Crime Prevention participation. H

program and the OUSING Community Drug Education program E Program HG-42: City Housing Programs Marketing Program LEMENT Description Objective Performance The City developed a marketing plan for its housing programs for Implement Affirmative marketing policies implementation in late 1990 marketing plan by and procedures that are still in

R

the end of 1991 effect were established in the ICHMOND 1990s. Goal HG-G: Ensure that existing residents are not involuntarily displaced as a result of housing stock upgrading and neighborhood preservation 2001-2006 Program HG-43: Code Enforcement, Abatement, and Relocation Description Objective Performance

The City program provides State mandated enforcement of building and H The City continues to conduct construction codes and enforcement of local requirements related to land use, OUSING Increase notices for code enforcement activities and zoning, health, and safety. The City shall require and/or provide relocation correction/clean-up provides notices for violations, benefits and assistance whenever tenants are ordered to vacate a substandard E

to 200 per year averaging xxx per year. LEMENT or dangerous building in connection with code enforcement and abatement CAPERS/Redevelopment reports activity.

Program HG-44: Abatement of Substandard Buildings Project PageHE-91 Description Objective Performance Conduct abatement (in most cases rehabilitation) of 120 units in substandard buildings. Provide The project utilizes the City’s abatement process to expedite the rehabilitation relocation 99 units at Liberty Village (also or abatement of select, severely substandard occupied rental housing assistance and called Bay Pointe or Atchison structures in the City’s CDBG target areas. Abatement actions are coupled with payments to an Village) in the Iron Triangle were relocation assistance available to tenants, and rehabilitation loan assistance is estimated 10 rehabilitated and made decent offered to the absentee landlords. families per year, in and safe for residents. the City’s target area neighborhoods, who are displaced by code enforcement

P Goal HG-H: Make suitable housing available for residents with special needs such as elderly or disabled persons AGE

Program HG-45: City compliance with Fair Housing Act Access Requirements R HE-92 Description Objective Performance The Federal 1988 Fair Housing Act amendments contain new access City process requirements for disabled and physically handicapped persons. The City will reviewed and review its building application review and permit process, and update it if consistent with necessary, to ensure that it complies fully with the new federal requirements. federal Fair On-going. The Richmond Housing Authority will review its existing properties to ensure Housing access full compliance with the federal law access provisions relating to modifying of requirements by existing subsidized housing. mid-1991 Program HG-46: Second Units Program Description Objective Performance By exercising its authority to allow second units, the City may enable elderly residents to extend the time they can live independently. The City will None given On-going. encourage shared equity schemes allowing elderly persons to stay in their house. Goal HG-I: Ensure that temporary shelter and transitional housing is available

See programs HG-7, HG-9, HG-16, and HG-39 ICHMOND

2001-2006

H OUSING OUSING E LEMENT

Appendix A-1

Housing Preservation Resources Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person Code Contra Cost County ACLC, Inc 42 N. Sutter St., STE 206 Stockton CA 95202 (209) 466-6811 Carol J. Ornelas Affordable Housing Associates 1250 Addison St., STE G Berkeley CA 94702 (510) 649-8500 Ali Kashani or Jonathan A BRIDGE Housing Corporation One Hawthorne, STE 400 San Francisco CA 94105 (415) 989-1111 Lydia Tan C. Sandidge and Associates 143 Scotts Valley Hercules CA (510) 724-7845 Cherene Sandidge Christian Church Homes of Northern California, 303 Hegenberger Road, Oakland CA 94621- (510) 632-6714 William F. Pickel Inc. STE 201 1419 Community Housing Developers, Inc. 255 N. Market St, STE 290 San Jose CA 95110 (408) 279-7676 Bonnie Bamburg Community Housing Development Corp. 1452 Filbert St, PO Box Richmond CA 94802 (510) 412-9290 Donald Gilmore 1625 East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation 310 Eighth Street, Suite Oakland CA 94607 (510) 287-5353 Lynette Jung Lee 200 Eden Housing, Inc. 409 Jackson St Hayward CA 94544 (510) 582-1460 Catherine A. Merschel Eskaton Properties Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave Carmichael CA 95608 (916) 334-0810 Raymond Gee Foundation for Affordable Housing, Inc. 2847 Story Rd San Jose CA 95127 (408) 923-8260 Wallace K. Shepherd O.P.E.N. Inc P.O. BOX 43034 Oakland CA 94624 (510) 430-8103 Mucie L. Lackey Oakland Community Housing, Inc. 405 14th St, STE 400 Oakland CA 94612 (510) 763-7676 Austin Penny Pacific Community Services, Inc. 329 Railroad Ave, P.O. Pittsburg CA 94565 (925) 439-1056 Tom LaFleur Box 1397 Phoenix Programs Inc. 1875 Willow Pass Rd STE Concord CA 94520 (925) 825-4700 Carrie Sechler 300 Resources for Community Development 2131 University Ave #224 Berkeley CA 94704 (510) 841-4410 Dan Sawislak Richmond Neighborhood Housing Service Inc. 500 South 15th St Richmond CA 94804 (510) 237-6459 Carl B. Metoyer Rubicon Programs, Inc. 2500 Bissell Ave Richmond CA 90804 (510) 235-1516 Tom Matthews Rural California Housing Corp 2125 19th St, STE 101 Sacramento CA 95818 (916) 442-4731 Laura Kobler Satellite Senior Homes 2526 Martin Luther King., Berkeley CA 94704 (510) 647-0700 Kate Hartley Jr Way ext 118 Senior Housing Foundation 1788 Indian Wells Way Clayton CA 94517 (925) 673-0489 Tim L. Truesdale Vallejo Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc 610 Lemon St Vallejo CA 94590 (707) 552-4663 Renee Walton Statewide Affordable Community Housing Trust 7901 La Riviera Drive Sacramento CA 95826 (916) 381-2001 M. McClenaghan Alpha Property Management, Inc. 1755 East Martin Luther Los Angeles CA 90058 (323) 231-4174 Francis Rath King Blvd. American Baptist Homes of the West P.O. Box 6669 Oakland CA 94603 (510) 635-1786 Margaret Weitkamp ext108 Brian L. Fitterer, Inc. 4770 Campus Drive, No. Newprot Beach CA 92660 (949) 862-1500 Brian Fitterer 200

Housing Preservation Resources Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person Code Contra Cost County California Community Reinvestment Corp. 225 West Broadway, STE Glendale CA 91204 (818) 550-9800 George Vine 120 California Housing Finance Agency 1121 L Street, Room 207 Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 327-2731 Jim Liska

California Housing Finance Agency 100 Corporate Point, No. 250 Culver City CA 90230 (310) 342-1256 Kathy Weremiuk

California Housing Partnership Corporation 369 Pine Street, Suite 300 San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 433-6804 Janet Falk

Citizens Housing Corp 26 O'Farrell St. #506 San Francisco CA 94108 (415) 421-8605 Norrie Boyd, James Buck Community Housing Assistance Program, Inc. 3803 E. Casselle Ave Orange CA 92869 (714) 744-6252 Ken Robertson DML & Associates Foundation 6043 Tampa Ave, STE Tarzana CA 91356 (818) 708-2710 Myron Lieberman 101A EAH, Inc. 2169 E. Francisco Blvd., San Rafael CA 94901 (415) 258-1800 Alvin Bonnett STE B Foundation for Affordable Housing III, Inc. 2600 Michelson Dr, STE Irvine CA 92612 (949) 440-8277 Tom or Deborrah 1050 Willard Goldrich & Kest Industries, LLC 5150 Overland Avenue Culver City CA 90230 (310) 204-2050 Carole Glodney

HELP Development Corp. 30 East 33rd St New York City NY 10016 (212) 779-3350 John Maneval ext 226 Joshua's House 24111 NE Halsey St., STE Troutdale OR 97060 (503) 661-1999 Mark Miles 203 Mercy Charities Housing California 1038 Howard St San Francisco CA 94103 (415) 553-6360 Dave Latina

Mercy Housing, Inc. 601 18th Avenue, STE 150 Denver CO 80203 (303) 830-3374 Chuck Wehrwein/Jocelyn National Affordable Housing Trust 2335 North Bank Drive Columbus OH 43220 (614) 451-9929 Robert Snow

National Church Residences 2335 North Bank Drive Columbus OH 43220 (614) 451-2151 John E. Stock National Housing Development Corporation 10261 Civic Center Drive, Rancho CA 91730 (909) 291-1400 David Garcia First Floor Cucamonga National Housing Trust P.O. Box 3458 Walnut Creek CA 94598 (925) 945-1774 Donna Kelley

OSM Investment Company 5155 Rosecrans Avenue, Hawthorne CA 90250 (310) 676-0451 Michael Orwitz STE 120 Paramount Financial Group, Inc. 1655 North Main Street, Walnut Creek CA 94596 (800) 850-0694 Scott Fricker

Housing Preservation Resources Organization Address City ST Zip Phone Number Contact Person Code Contra Cost County Suite 220 Related Companies of California 18201 Von Karman Ave. Irvine CA 92612 (949)660-7272 William Witte STE 400 Retirement Housing Foundation 5150 E. Pacific Coast Long Beach CA 90804 (562) 597-5541 Dr. Laverne R. Joseph HWY., STE 600 Shelem, Inc 24111 NE Halsey St., STE Troutdale OR 97060 (503) 661-1999 Mark Miles 202 Solari Enterprises, Inc. 1544 W. Yale Ave Orange CA 92687 (714) 282-2520 Bruce Solari

Squier Properties 3129 6th St. Santa Monica CA 90405 (310) 581-9043 Gary Squier

SLSM, LLC 651 29th St. San Francisco CA 94101 (415) 826-0301 Stephen Matton

3R Real Estate 3605 Long Beach Blvd. Long Beach CA 90807 (562) 989-3730 Gary Kammer

The Trinity Housing Foundation 1399 Ygnacio Valley Rd. Walnut Creek CA 94598 (925) 939-5421 Bill Leone #21 Union Partners Realty Group, Inc. 24 Professional Center, STE San Rafael CA 94903 (415) 446-1811 Michael McDonnell 250 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 1/11/2002. Note: HCD does not evaluate or attest to any entity's qualifications

Appendix A-2 Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities

Preamble: Existing patterns of urban and suburban development seriously impair our quality of life. The symptoms are: more congestion and air pollution resulting from our increased dependence on automobiles, the loss of precious open space, the need for costly improvements to roads and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community. By drawing upon the best from the past and the present, we can plan communities that will more successfully serve the needs of those who live and work within them. Such planning should adhere to certain fundamental principles.

Community Principles

1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents. 2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. 4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. 5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents. 6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network. 7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses. 8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. 9. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night. 10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development. 11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic. 12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. 13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. 14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling. 15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community.

Regional Principles

1. The regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways. 2. Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of greenbelt/wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions. 3. Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core. 4. Materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region, exhibiting a continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity.

Implementation Principles

1. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles. 2. Rather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local governments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur. 3. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on these planning principles. 4. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals.

Source: Local Government Commission. http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/principles.html

Authors: Peter Calthorpe, Michael Corbett, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Moule, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Stefanos Polyzoides

Editor: Peter Katz, Judy Corbett, and Steve Weissman Appendix A-3

Appendix A-4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3177 FAX (916) 327-2643

AB 438 Compliance Checklist Per Government Code Section 65583.1(c)

HE Page # The provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c) (AB 438) are applicable only if a City/County has met at least a portion of the regional share for very low-income (VL) or low- income (L) households in the current or previous planning period. In the current period: In the previous period: Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2) Yes ___ No___ Identify the specific source of committed assistance funds. (refer to the definition on page 3. ______Indicate the amount and date when funds will be dedicated (legally enforceable agreement). $______Date: ______65583.1(c)(1)(A) Do the units qualify for a 1 to 1 reduction of the regional share of up to 25% of the VL & L income need by having affordability covenants greater than 20 years? Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(1) Unit costs/rents are to be affordable to: Very low-income households Yes ___ No___ Low-income households Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(1) Indicate the total number of units to be assisted with committed VL income units ___ assistance funds (by funding source). L income units ____

Will the funds be sufficient to develop the identified units at affordable costs or rents? Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(1)(B) Note: If you do not meet all of the general requirements listed above, your jurisdiction is not eligible to utilize the adequate sites provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c).

(A) Substantial Rehabilitation Include reference to specific program description in HE.______65583.1(c)(1) Units must result in a net increase of the affordable housing Net # of VL income stock. units _____ 65583.1(c)(2)(A) Net # of L income units___ Are units at imminent risk of loss to affordable housing stock? Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i)(I) AB 438 Compliance Checklist Page 2

HE Page # Will relocation assistance be provided to tenants? Temporary: Yes ___ No___ Permanent: Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i)(II) Will tenants will have the right to reoccupy units? Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i)(III) Are the units subject to a 3 to 1 substitution rate due to affordability covenants of less than 20 years (but greater than Yes ___ No___ 10)? 65583.1(c)(2)(A)(ii) Has a court or code enforcement agency found that the units are unfit for human habitation and vacant or subject to being vacated for 120 days because of following health and safety conditions Yes ___ No___ (must satisfy a minimum of 4 of the 7 conditions listed below): 65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i)(IV) (1) Termination extended interruption or serious defect of gas, water or electric utility systems, not caused by the tenant’s failure Yes ___ No___ to pay monthly bill. (2) Serious defects or lack of adequate space and water heating. Yes ___ No___ (3) Serious rodent, vermin or insect infestation. Yes ___ No___ (4) Severe deterioration rendering significant portions of the structure unsafe or unsanitary. Yes ___ No___ (5) Inadequate number of garbage receptacles or services. Yes ___ No___ (6) Unsanitary conditions (faulty plumbing or sewage disposal ) affecting significant portion of structure. Yes ___ No___

(7) Inoperable hallway lighting. Yes ___ No___

Affordability and occupancy restrictions will be maintained for ≥ 20 years. Yes __ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(A)(ii)

(B) Multifamily rental units are to be converted from non- Program No.: affordable to affordable. Include reference to specific program description in HE. 65583.1(c)(1) ______Will the city/county purchase the unit(s) with the use of Yes ___ No___ committed assistance, OR will the city/county purchase Yes ___ No___ affordability covenants? 65583.1(c)(2)(B) Project consists of multifamily rental complex of 16+ units converting from non-affordable to affordable. Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(B)

Is the acquisition an eminent domain action? Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(B) Will the units result in a net increase to the affordable housing Net # of VL income stock? units added____ 65583.1(c)(2)(B) Net # of L income units added ____ AB 438 Compliance Checklist Page 3

HE Page # Are the units currently occupied by VL income or L income Yes ___ No___ households? 65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iii) Will units will be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy. Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iv) Acquisition price is not > 120% of the median price of housing units within the city/county. Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(B)(v) Affordability and occupancy restrictions will be maintained for not < 30 years. Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(B)(vi)

(C) Affordable Units to be Preserved Include reference to specific program description in HE. ______65583.1(c)(1) Will the city/county purchase the unit(s) with the use of Yes ___ No___ committed assistance? Yes ___ No___ Or, will the city/county purchase affordability covenants? 65583.1(c)(2)(C) Affordability and occupancy restrictions will be maintained for not Yes ___ No___ < 40 years. 65583.1(c)(2)(C)(i) Describe/list the specific program that assist in the preservation of units. Federal programs: ______State programs: ______Local programs: ______65583.1(c)(2)(C)(ii) City/County, via the public hearing process, must find that the unit(s) is/are eligible and are reasonably expected to convert to market rate during the next 5 years due to termination of Yes ___ No___ subsidies, prepayment, or expiration on use. 65583.1(c)(2)(C)(iii) Are the units decent, safe, and sanitary? Yes ___ No___ 65583.1(c)(2)(C)(iv) At the time the unit was identified for preservation it was Yes ___ No___ affordable to very low and low income households. 65583.1(c)(2)(C)(v)

DEFINITION: Committed Assistance (alternative sites): When a local government has entered into a legally enforceable agreement during the first two years of the housing element planning period obligating funds for affordable units available for occupancy within two years of the agreement.

PREPARED BY:

Pacific Municipal Consultants 10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 Rancho Cordova, CA 95827

Contact: Beth Thompson and Mike Martin, Project Managers