3.0 housing and homeless needs assessment - City of Richmond, CA [PDF]

Achieving the dream of home ownership is impossible for many, as Richmond's ... Elderly Richmond residents are more like

18 downloads 17 Views 2MB Size

Recommend Stories


City of Richmond, CA
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that

CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT and
This being human is a guest house. Every morning is a new arrival. A joy, a depression, a meanness,

Invermere Housing Needs Assessment
Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation. Rumi

Dane County Housing Needs Assessment
If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished? Rumi

City of Richmond Heights
It always seems impossible until it is done. Nelson Mandela

CITY OF RICHMOND
This being human is a guest house. Every morning is a new arrival. A joy, a depression, a meanness,

Housing Needs
Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself. Rumi

Housing Homeless Floridians
You have to expect things of yourself before you can do them. Michael Jordan

Flanagan v. City of Richmond
You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks

Crowsnest Pass Affordable Housing Needs Assessment
It always seems impossible until it is done. Nelson Mandela

Idea Transcript


CITY OF RICHMOND CONSOLIDATED PLAN

2003-2008

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

1.0 1.1

Executive Summary

Key Plan Elements

The Consolidated Plan consists of six major sections. They are: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

1.2

Introduction Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment Richmond Housing Market Analysis Community and Economic Development Needs Assessment Housing and Community Development Five Year Strategic Plan First Year Action Plan

The Jurisdiction

The 56 square mile City of Richmond is located 16 miles northeast of San Francisco. Richmond is the largest city in west Contra Costa County both in terms of population and land area. The 2000 census found Richmond’s population to be 99,216, with tremendous diversity of race and ethnicity. Incomes, however, are only about 70% of those elsewhere in the county, and poverty rates are higher.

1.3

Needs Assessment 1.3.1 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Housing Needs Affordable rental and ownership housing for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households has been identified as the single greatest need in Richmond. Owner occupancy levels have declined over the past decade, but housing of both types is economically burdensome for much of Richmond’s population. Rental units in Richmond are more likely to be overcrowded than owner-occupied units. Less than 20% of the City’s housing stock is comprised of multi-unit buildings Achieving the dream of home ownership is impossible for many, as Richmond’s housing prices have doubled over the past five years. Elderly Richmond residents are more likely to own their own homes than others, but often lack the resources to maintain their property. Those with supportive housing needs are underserved. Public housing remains the most viable option for Richmond’s poorest households. Homelessness is a tremendous problem in Richmond.

2

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan ƒ ƒ

1.3.2 ƒ ƒ ƒ

Lead-based paint is also an issue in Richmond, where most dwelling units were built prior to 1978. Lower-income households are more likely to live in housing where lead-based paint is present than are higher-income households, putting lower-income children at greater risk for lead poisoning. Community/Social Needs Richmond has a large population of racial and ethnic minorities, and these populations tend to be disproportionately poor. Richmond has identified Target Area Neighborhoods, which coincide with census tracts with high concentrations of minority residents and of poverty. As the racial and ethnic composition of Richmond has become increasingly Hispanic and Asian, the need for multi-lingual and culturally sensitive services has greatly increased.

Richmond has identified sub-populations as well as issues that are of concern to the residents of Richmond. They are: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

1.3.3

Youth Services (Including those targeted at homeless children and youth) Senior Services Fair Housing Anti-Poverty Services/Strategies Crime and Substance Abuse Child Care Facilities and Services Health Services Accessibility Needs

Economic Development Needs

Richmond’s economy is diverse and in transition from its former heavy industrial character towards more light industry and high technology. ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Richmond’s primary barrier to economic growth has been negative public perception. However, the City’s image has shifted, and Richmond has experienced an influx of research and development industries, with growth expected to continue. To continue to attract and retain business and residents, Richmond must also continue to upgrade its infrastructure, including recreational facilities and parks. The economic development needs of Richmond are directly related to addressing some of the root causes of poverty, so prevalent in the community. The City experiences higher levels of unemployment than do surrounding communities, with minorities disproportionately affected. There is a major need to create economic and business development opportunities that are linked to an array of educational and training opportunities to insure that

3

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

ƒ

economic development benefits accrue to those residents who are most disenfranchised. The greatest employment needs for Richmond residents will be in entry and re-entry jobs.

The benefits from increased economic opportunities include: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

1.4

Increased employment. Improved level of retail facilities and services. Improved transportation systems serving the target areas and linking neighborhoods and established commercial centers. Increased opportunity for small business development and ownership by target area residents. Job development and training initiatives designed to prepare residents for anticipated employment growth in regional and local job markets.

Goals & Priorities

Based on the Housing and Community Development Needs identified in the Consolidated Plan document, the City has established the following goals and priorities: ƒ

ƒ

For Community Development Block Grant and other federal housing and development funds, the goal is to preserve and expand the housing available to extremely-low, very low and low- income households. This includes the following priorities: ƒ Increasing the opportunities available to the homeless for securing affordable housing and for homelessness prevention services. ƒ Increasing both rental and homeownership housing opportunities for extremely low-, very low- and low-income households. ƒ Increasing the livability of residential neighborhoods. ƒ Reducing concentrations of housing opportunities for lower-income households by promoting mixed-income neighborhoods. With respect to Community Development and other federal funds that will be used for non-housing programs and activities, the primary goal of the City is to provide economic development opportunities for the provision of jobs and development of public facilities which address need of extremely low, very low and low income persons. This includes the following priorities: ƒ Emphasizing services for youth as a means to increase economic options and reduce generational poverty, thereby reducing crime as well as long-term reliance on public assistance. ƒ Economic Revitalization of commercial and mixed-use neighborhoods.

The Five Year Strategic Plan is broken down as follows:

4

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Priority Needs Resources Affordable Housing Strategies Homeless Strategies Community Development Strategies Implementing Structure

To address the housing needs, the City of Richmond has established that the primary focus of the five-year Consolidated Plan strategy will be: Improving access to affordable housing and improving housing quality --thus reducing the incident of excessive housing cost. The City identifies the following 5 priorities: PRIORITY # 1 Provide adequate and affordable housing opportunities to extremely low-, very low- and lowincome households. PRIORITY # 2 Assist low and very low-income first-time homebuyers. PRIORITY # 3 Ensure that housing is available and accessible to all segments of the population. PRIORITY #4 Provide services for and to youth and seniors to lessen the impacts of poverty on both segments of the population, thus enhancing the ability of these populations to be fully integrated, contributing members of the community. PRIORITY #5 Provide economic development assistance to facilitate accessibility to jobs for all Richmond residents, particularly extremely low, very-low and low-income persons and develop public facilities which will be beneficial to the community as a whole but which particularly address the needs of persons with low incomes. From a strategic point of view, Community Development funds not committed to housing programs will be allocated toward the following priorities over the next five years: 1. 2. 3.

Infrastructure improvements, particularly as they relate to improving housing marketability and enhancing neighborhood development. Programs to keep youth in school and to provide positive and constructive activities outside of school hours. Services to allow seniors to live independently and with dignity, including home repair, legal services, and transportation and in-home support.

5

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan 4. 5.

City sponsored projects such as childcare to support those in employment and training programs. Economic development activities.

The central focus of the community development strategy is a comprehensive, focused neighborhood revitalization approach to upgrade and preserve neighborhoods in the Community Development target areas.

1.5 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ

Implementation The City of Richmond’s Community and Economic Development Office at the Housing and Community Development Division is the Lead Agency for the Consolidated Plan. The Housing and Community Development (HCD) Division of the Redevelopment Agency serves as the lead agency for the City of Richmond in implementing the City's housing programs. The Richmond Housing Authority conducts and administers housing programs within the City on behalf of the City of Richmond. The Richmond Planning Department and Planning Commission have responsibility for the development and administration of the City's General Plan, Housing Element and Zoning Ordinance. The inclusionary zoning/housing policies and density bonus programs are administered by the Planning Department. Building Division of the Public Works Department has responsibility for the enforcement and administration of the City’s vacant and abandoned properties ordinance and will be responsible for the Rental Inspection Program, once implemented. In addition to the City departments listed above, more than a dozen non-profit organizations, as well as financial institutions, will be instrumental in the successful implementation of the Consolidated Plan. Citizens will have the opportunity to monitor all aspects of the Consolidated Plan.

6

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

2.0 2.1

INTRODUCTION

Consolidated Plan Planning Process 2.1.1

Background

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Consolidated Plan regulations establish a single application and reporting process for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) and Housing Opportunities for Person with AIDS (HOPWA) Programs. These rules do not replace existing program eligibility regulations. The City of Richmond is required to prepare a five-year Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan includes an analysis of: (1) priority affordable housing needs; (2) priority homeless needs; (3) priority special needs populations; and (4) non housing community development needs for which CDBG funds may be used, including public improvements, public facilities, social services, and economic development. 2.1.2 Identification of Lead Agency The City of Richmond’s Community and Economic Development Office at the Housing and Community Development Division is the Lead Agency for the Consolidated Plan. 2.1.3

Process For Development of The Consolidated Plan

On October 21 2002 and January 13 2003, public hearings were held to obtain resident and service providers input into the housing and non-housing community development needs in the City of Richmond by the Community Development Commission. Comments made at the hearings included: ƒ

ƒ ƒ

A representative of the California Autism Foundation expressed thanks for being included in this year’s funding recommendations as well as the agency’s desire to continue to work in Richmond. She explained that CAF works with a special needs population whose numbers are growing dramatically. Most of their clients are very low income. CAF provides vocational services to both (students and adults) with the goal of helping them become self-supporting. A representative of the “A Better Chance” school expressed thanks for support in their service of 45 autistic children, who have gone from being diagnosed at the rate of 1:10,000 to 1:250. A representative of Deliverance House expressed thanks for being included in this year’s funding recommendations, explaining that Deliverance House serves homeless women and children. A letter was submitted that explained that these services are a high priority in the Homeless Continuum of Care, and that the agency has served over 30 women and 58 children in the Richmond area since 1998. 7

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

A representative of Housing Rights, Inc. expressed thanks for being included in this year’s funding recommendations, and commented on two issues: (1) Diversity in Richmond is increasing, which increases the need for multi-lingual services. The Consolidated Plan needs to address the growing diversity within the community. (2) Richmond is seeing pressure from gentrification. Much of the existing housing stock is substandard, but those who can afford to rehabilitate the housing stock will displace those people living in the substandard housing. There is a great need to ensure codecompliant housing stock that is affordable to the population currently living in Richmond. The organization will be starting its seventh year of service in Richmond, where it works on landlord-tenant issues, providing outreach in English, Spanish, and Chinese (and expanding to Laotian. (Both meetings) A representative of the Contra Costa Childcare Council expressed thanks for the recommendation to increase the agency’s funding. He stated that childcare is important here and everywhere, and mentioned a new study on the economic impact of childcare in Contra Costa County, which identifies childcare as a critical part of the infrastructure if people are to work. Increasing supply and quality are very important. (Both meetings) Representatives from Bay Area Legal Aid expressed thanks for the recommendation to increase the agency’s funding. They stated that the best cure for homelessness is prevention, and that fair housing laws are only as good as their enforcement. They also stated that they are unable to provide help to all who need it. (Both Meetings) A representative from the Police Activities League expressed thanks for being included in this year’s funding recommendations, and for making the job of the Richmond Police Department easier by making community relationships easier and better. A representative from Rubicon Programs expressed thanks to the City for continuing to see the need for the services the agency provides. A representative from Community Housing Development Corporation expressed interest in the demographic data that was presented, and requested more detailed information for the Iron Triangle and North Richmond neighborhoods. A representative from Lao Family Community Development expressed thanks to the City and explained that they serve refugees with limited English language. A representative from the Northern California Family Center described their program of serving runaway/homeless youth, who cannot utilizes adult shelters, General Assistance, or food stamps, and pointed out that their cost of $1,700 per child sheltered is both cheaper than the $40,000 per year it costs to serve these youth in group homes, and provides high success rates in transitioning participants into stable housing. The program’s 90% success rate in short-term transitions to permanent housing includes 79 Richmond children served, and an additional 26 diverted from institutionalization.

8

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan Members of the City Council made the following comments: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Concerns from the City Council about program priorities, including painting programs that were not funded, and a desire to be involved earlier in the allocation process. The ratings system used for City programs and non-profit programs, and comparisons of the effectiveness of the two respective programming sources. The level of resources committed to administration to meet reporting and monitoring requirements. The need for a consolidated application process for Federal and local funding sources. The need to look at whether, in these difficult economic times, programs paid for from the General Fund can be funded through CDBG. Appreciation for the quality of the Consolidated Plan and the priorities it reflects. Desire to see more resources funneled towards housing and homeless programs. Desire to provide the Greater Richmond Interfaith Program with $100,000 in additional funding. Appreciation for the discussion of Special Needs Populations. Hope that “brick and mortar” projects are developed in a cohesive way to support the City’s economic development goals, rather than piecemeal.

Additionally, to insure coordination between City Departments, the final Consolidated Plan draft will be submitted to City departments for review and comment. Comments will be incorporated into the final document. Copies of the Draft Consolidated Plan were made available for public review in the Main Library, the City Clerks Office, and the Community and Economic Development Department. Additionally, anyone interested in receiving a copy of the Draft Consolidated Plan could do so by calling the Community and Economic Development Office at Housing and Community Development Division at (510)307-8140. In developing the Consolidated Plan, the City also used documents that have been prepared through extensive public planning processes such as the: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

1997 Fair Housing Plan 1996 Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies for Iron Triangle/Woods 1994 Neighborhood Strategic Action Plan and Neighborhood Strategic Concept Plan for Iron Triangle April 2001 North Richmond Livable Communities Urban Design and Transportation Plan City of Richmond PHA Plans for FY 2002-2006 and the Annual Plan for FY 2002 Contra Costa County Homeless Continuum of Care Pan for July 2001-June 2006 Annual Evaluation Report for Students Identified as Living in Homeless Situations Title I and Non-Title I Funded Schools McKinney Homeless Grant 1999-2000 Multi-Service Resource Center Annual Report January-December 2002 City of Richmond Five-Year Capital Improvement Program covering the period 1996-2001 City of Richmond Consolidated Plan 1997-2002

9

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

City of Richmond Consolidates Action Plans for 2001-2002, 2002-2003 Enterprise Community Strategic Planning document 1999-2006 Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Housing Needs Allocation HOME Investment Partnerships Program Descriptions 1994 and FY99/00-03/04 City of Richmond Implementation Plan for the Redevelopment Agency 2000 HOPE VI Application for Easter Hill 2000 Richmond Main Street Initiative Assessment Visit Report and 2002 Main Street Initiative Economic and Community Prospects Report City of Richmond In-Fill Housing Initiative Strategy 1994 City of Richmond Housing Element

Information provided by various service providers in the City of Richmond and a number of other documents and data sources were also used in developing the Consolidated Plan. It is worth noting that HUD has requested that the Census Bureau tabulate Census 2000 data to assist local governments with housing planning as part of their Consolidated Planning Process. These data sets were compiled from the 1990 Census and comprised what are typically referred to as the “CHAS Data.” These data, for example, provided information on housing need variables split by HUD defined income limits and HUD specified household types. According to HUD, it is anticipated that these tabulations will not be completed until the fourth quarter of calendar year 2003. Because these data sets are not available at the time that this Consolidated Plan is being prepared, there are gaps in the information presented. Comparisons between 1990 and 2000 figures may be “apples to oranges” or missing, and 2000 data may be difficult to reconcile with program parameters. Based on the Housing and Community Development Needs identified in the Consolidated Plan document, the City has established the following goals and priorities: ƒ

ƒ

For Community Development Block Grant and other federal housing and development funds, the goal is to preserve and expand the housing available to extremely-low, very low and low- income households. This includes the following priorities: ƒ Increasing the opportunities available to the homeless for securing affordable housing and for homelessness prevention services. ƒ Increasing both rental and homeownership housing opportunities for extremely low-, very low- and low-income households. ƒ Increasing the livability of residential neighborhoods. ƒ Reducing concentrations of housing opportunities for lower-income households by promoting mixed-income neighborhoods. With respect to Community Development and other federal funds that will be used for non-housing programs and activities, the primary goal of the City is to provide economic development opportunities for the provision of jobs and development of public facilities which address need of extremely low, very low and low income persons. This includes the following priorities:

10

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan ƒ ƒ

Emphasizing services for youth as a means to increase economic options and reduce generational poverty, thereby reducing crime as well as long-term reliance on public assistance. Economic Revitalization of commercial and mixed-use neighborhoods.

The City Council held a public hearing on the Draft Consolidated Plan to obtain comments on the needs identified, strategies suggested and recommended activities and programs to be funded for the Fiscal Year March 1, 2003 to February 29, 2004. The public hearing was held on February 11, 2003. The public comment period on the Draft Consolidated Plan closed on March 12, 2003. The public comments and review process used in developing the Consolidated Plan was the Citizen Participation Plan that was adopted by the Community Development Commission and City Council. The Citizen Participation Plan is included in Appendix A. In the 2003-2004 Consolidated Plan Year, the CDBG budget is anticipated to be: Entitlement Grant Program Income Reprogrammed Funds Available TOTAL

$1,689.000 $ 650,000 $ 550,000 $2,889,000

The HOME budget for the same period is anticipated to be: New HOME Funds Reprogrammed Funds Available TOTAL

$ 890.000 $ 636,000 $1,526,000

No funds are left unallocated. The First Year Action Plan includes a description of the activities for the 1st Consolidated Plan Year.

2.1.4

Content of Plan

The Consolidated Plan consists of six major sections. They are: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

2.2

Introduction Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment Richmond Housing Market Analysis Community and Economic Development Needs Assessment Housing and Community Development Five Year Strategic Plan First Year Action Plan

Richmond's Aspirations

11

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan 2.2.1

General Characteristics of The City

The City of Richmond is located 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, on a peninsula that separates the San Francisco Bay and the San Pablo Bay. The City encompasses a 56 square mile area of which approximately 35 square miles represent land area and the other 22 square miles are water area. Approximately 33% of the land area in Richmond is designated for residential use. This is the second largest land use category -- open space is first with approximately 34% of the land area. Richmond is the largest city in west Contra Costa County both in terms of population and land area. There are a number of facilities of regional importance located in the Richmond area including: three regional freeways, several regional parks, over twenty miles of shoreline area, and a regional shopping center. To understand Richmond as it is today, one must revisit the past to view how Richmond developed. Historically, Richmond has been viewed as an older residential community with heavy industrial uses and distribution centers circumscribing its coastline area. Incorporated in 1905 with a population of just 2,000, by 1940 Richmond was a tidy industrial town of 23,000, centered around the western terminus of operations of the Atchinson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, the Port and the Standard Oil Refinery. The African American population of the City at this time was 270 persons, almost all of whom lived in a 4-block area in the northern part of the City. World War II and the urgent needs of the shipping industry brought explosive growth to Richmond and the population increased to 99,200 in 1950. However, after the shipyards closed in 1945 and the economy changed, people began to leave Richmond, and by 1960, the population had decreased to 71,900. The population of Richmond remained within the 72,000-79,000 range from 1960 to 1986, with little new development until the early 1980’s. Recent trends show that the City population can be expected to continue to increase substantially during the next 10 years. The 2000 census found Richmond’s population to be 99,216, almost exactly its population at its zenith in 1950. This represents an increase of 13.5% over the 87,425 residents in 1990. This rate of growth is less than the 18.1% population growth Countywide, however, most of this growth took place in the eastern County; the population growth for the cities in the West County averaged 11.94%. Because it offers (within the context of the San Francisco Bay Area) relatively affordable housing and development opportunities, Richmond can expect to continue to grow. West Contra Costa County is the most densely populated region in Contra Costa County and is home to 25% of the County’s residents. West Contra Costa County is also the most ethnically diverse area of the County and it's population is lower income and encounters a higher incident of social problems such as crime, drugs, housing deterioration, etc. The majority of the County’s social problems are in West County, and the majority of those problems are in Richmond.

12

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan Because the East Bay Hills separate the West County area from the rest of Contra Costa County and the ethnic diversity of its population, the West County area, including Richmond, has a stronger relationship to cities in Alameda County such as Oakland, Berkeley, and Albany than to the central, southern and eastern Contra Costa County cities such as Walnut Creek, Concord, San Ramon and Antioch.

2.2.2

The City’s Aspirations

The City of Richmond continues to strive to realize its vision of balanced and sustainable neighborhood development by using existing local resources to the maximum extent to build a strong community. This vision, was articulated in the City’s Enterprise Community Planning process in the 1990’s, and remains current. It includes: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Well kept safe, pedestrian scaled neighborhoods; Commercial centers linked by small business activity and well maintained thoroughfares; Community residents fully integrated into every facet of community life; Extensive array of neighborhood based educational and supportive services in schoolbased settings that operate year round creating pathways to opportunity; Partnerships with financial institutions that stimulate sustainable neighborhood development and vibrant, resident owned small business development; Community based agencies co-located at multi-service centers within the neighborhoods providing improved access to needed services; Corporate involvement in partnerships with local residents resulting common goals and increased resident employment and entrepreneurship; and Youth actively involved in the community in a broad range of activities

As part of the Enterprise Community Planning process both a Housing and Community Development Vision were established. Those visions, which are as follows, have been used as guiding principles in the development of the Consolidated Plan strategies and action plan: 2.2.2.1

Housing Aspirations

The City of Richmond is committed to the development of a viable urban community by providing, revitalizing, and maintaining decent housing affordable and accessible to Richmond citizens/residents with emphasis on those who are very low to moderate income or who have special needs, especially those who are homeless. Housing includes quality single-family homeownership, rental housing and housing services.

13

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan 2.2.2.2

Community Development Aspirations

The City of Richmond is committed to the development of pleasant, well-maintained residential neighborhoods. Richmond’s neighborhoods will offer landscaped, clean, well-maintained streets, lined with street trees; city parks and community centers serving all corners of Richmond; several large regional parks nearby; sports and recreational programs for all ages; well maintained and equipped school facilities. Local schools and community centers will serve as focal points within the neighborhoods. Festivities will celebrate Richmond as a community with a diverse mix of different ethnic groups, lifestyles, and occupants.

14

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

2.3

Demographic Characteristics 2.3.1 Population and Ethnic Composition Richmond is a growing community. Between 1990 and 2000 Richmond's population increased from 87,425 to 99,216 or by approximately 13.5%. Richmond is the second largest city in the County with approximately 10.5% of the population for Contra Costa County. Richmond has a very diverse population. The majority of Richmond's residents are members of one of the non-Caucasian, ethnic/racial groups. As reflected in Table 2.1, Population By Major Ethnic Groups: Percent Change Between 1990 and 2000, there was a net increase in population for all the racial/ethnic groups. The Hispanic and “Other Race” population groups experienced the most significant increases of 107% and 106%, respectively. African Americans remained the largest racial/ethnic population group in Richmond. Richmond also has the highest percentage of African Americans population in Contra Costa County. African Americans comprised 9.4% of the population of Contra Costa County in 2000 and more than 40% of the African Americans population in Contra Costa County resided in Richmond in 2000.

15

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

Table 2.1 - Population by Major Ethnic Groups and by Hispanic: Percent Change Between 1990 and 2000 Population 2000 Population Population Percent 1990 Population % Change Change Population % 19901990-2000 2000 35,777 36.1% -6.5% 38,260 43.8% -2483

African Americans White

Am. Indian Eskimo & Aleut Asian & pacific Islander Population of two or more races

31,633

36.2%

31,117

31.3%

516

1.63%

522

0.6%

639

0.6%

117

22.4%

10,341

11.8%

12,696

12.8%

2265

21.9%

5,233

5.3%

6,669

7.6%

13,754

13.9%

7085

106.2%

Total

87,425

100.0%

99,216

100.0%

11791

13.5%

*Hispanic Or.

12,690

14.5%

26,319

26.5%

13629

107.4%

Other Race

*Hispanic is not an ethnic category. Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. The percentages of the population that are African Americans, White, American Indian, Asian, and other sum to 100.0%. Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census

2.3.2

Household and Income Characteristics

There were 34,625 households residing in Richmond in 2000 according to the U.S. Census. Of these, 40% were White, Non-Hispanic; 40% were African Americans, Non-Hispanic; 10% were Hispanic; and 9% were Asian and Pacific Islander. Compared to the City and County median income levels, White households were relatively well off, while African American households and Pacific Islander households were substantially

16

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan below median. Although these incomes do not correlate to household sizes, it is reasonable to conclude that Pacific Islander and African American households were more likely to be very low- or low-income than other racial/ethnic groups. Table 2.2 compares the household income characteristics of the major racial and ethnic groups.

Table 2.2 - 2000 Household Characteristics (Median Income by Race and Ethnicity) Median Income

All Households African Americans White Am. Indian Eskimo & Aleut Asian Pacific Islander Population of two or more races Other Race *Hispanic Or.

Percentage of Percentage of City Median County Median

$44,210

100.0%

$47,493 93.1%

$35,918

81.2%

75.6%

$53,096

120.1%

111.8%

$42,188

95.4%

88.8%

$56,558

127.9%

119.1%

$29,063

65.7%

61.2%

$45,143

102.1%

95.1%

$42,110

95.2%

88.7%

$41,362

93.6%

87.1%

Source: 2000 Census Tables

The average household size in Richmond increased by 7.2% between 1990 and 2000, from 2.63 persons per household to 2.82 persons per household. This modest increase may be attributable to the increase in housing costs over this period, which have caused people to share housing as a way to reduce housing costs.

17

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan Homeownership has declined in Richmond, both as a percentage and in absolute numbers. See Table 2.3:

Table 2.3 – Homeownership Rates by Major Ethnic Groups and by Hispanic: Percent Change Between 1990 and 2000

African Americans

% Owner- % Renter Owner Occ. % Renter 2000 % 1990 Occupied House- Occupied Occupied % Change House- Ownerholds holds Occupied 1990-2000 13,207 43.8% 56.2% 44.7% 55.3% 2.1% 13,676

14,284

63.6%

36.4%

12,887

62.1%

37.9%

-2.4%

171

48%

52%

193

45.6%

54.4%

-5%

Asian & pacific Islander

2,928

67.7%

32.3%

3,836

59.9%

40.11%

-11.5%

Other Race

1,690

41.8%

48.2%

4,502

48.2%

51.8%

15.3%

Total

32,749

54.5%

45.5%

34,625

53.3%

46.7%

-2.2%

3,431

47.5%

52.5%

6,083

49.1%

50.9%

3.4%

White Am. Indian Eskimo

*Hispanic Or.

*Hispanic is not an ethnic category. Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. The percentages of the population that are African Americans, White, American Indian, Asian, and other sum to 100.0%. Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census

The 2002 median income for a family of four for the Oakland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), based on HUD Census information, was $74,500. This represents a 57% increase over the 1989 median family income of $47,516 for the PMSA. The 2000 Census, which is not adjusted for household/family size, reports that median family income in Richmond was $46,659, 63.8% of the countywide median income of $73,039. Median household income in Richmond was $44,210, 69.4% of the countywide median income of 63,675.

18

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan Poverty rates are substantially higher in Richmond than in Contra Costa County as a whole. As a result, more than one fifth of the poor population of the county resides in Richmond. See Table 2.4. This represents a decrease in the poverty in Richmond, which was reported in the previous Consolidated Plan to be approximately 19% of the City’s population.

Table 2.4 – Poverty Rates in 2000 Richmond

Households Families Individuals

Contra Costa

Number % Number 4796 13.80% 22738 3141 13.42% 13068 15873 16.18% 71575

% of Total in % Richmond 6.60% 21.09% 5.36% 24.04% 7.63% 22.18%

Source: Census 2000, SF3 Samle Data, tables P89, P90, P92

2.3.3

Concentration of Racial/Ethnic Minorities and/or Low Income Persons

Within the City of Richmond there are areas with concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and poverty households. Table 13 below presents information on the census tracts with these concentrations and compares them to the City of Richmond as a whole. For purposes of this discussion, a minority person is defined as anyone who is not White according to the 2000 Census. Hispanic is listed separately. In general, the City of Richmond is highly heterogeneous, with no one racial or ethnic group comprising a majority of the population. Overall, approximately 69% of the City's population was minority as of 2000 and 27% was Hispanic. Approximately 16% of the population received incomes that placed them at or below the poverty line. If a census tract contained a population that was ten or more percentage points above the City's average for either the minority or Hispanic categories, it has been defined as an area that has a racial concentration. According to this definition, eight census tracts are racially concentrated, two fewer than reported in the 1997 Consolidated Plan. If a census tract contained a population that was proportionately higher in the percentage of persons that were at or below the poverty level, then that census tract was defined as having a concentration of poverty households.

19

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan Table 2.5 - Concentrations of Racial/Ethnic Minorities and Persons below Poverty Area

Population

City of Richmond Block 1, Census Tract 3650.01 Census Tract 3650.02 Census Tract 3671 Census Tract 3750 Census Tract 3760 Census Tract 3770 Census Tract 3790 Census Tract 3800 Census Tract 3810 Census Tract 3820

Percentage of Population that is Minority

Percentage of Population that is Hispanic

Percentage of Population that is Below the Poverty Level

99,216 1,919

68.60% 81.66%

26.50% 15.06%

16.18% N/A

4,076 5,326 4,502 5,959 7,596 6,329 6,002 6,222 7,256

81.11% 81.70% 73.55% 80.05% 72.13% 88.99% 64.48% 85.36% 88.30%

43.25% 14.50% 61.91% 36.73% 50.87% 23.51% 18.93% 23.48% 10.90%

38.80% 9.60% 24.30% 23.80% 31.00% 29.40% 21.20% 19.60% 23.30%

Source: 2000 Census

In most cases, the same census tracts contained both concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and poverty households. In 1990, those eight census tracts corresponded to the target neighborhoods. Among the target areas, Census Tract #3800 is highly divergent. Marina Bay, a new, middle-income development is located in this tract, along with extremely low-income areas. Thus, the fact that more than a fifth of the population is still living below poverty - in spite of the presence of Marina Bay - affirms the great need in this area. In 1990 there were three census tracts (3630, 3671, and 3820) that were racially concentrated but did not contain a higher percentage of poverty households. Since the incidence of poverty in these tracts did not exceed the City's average, they are not included with the other seven census tracts when defining target areas. As of 2000, 3630 was neither racially nor poverty concentrated, 3671 remained racially concentrated but did not contain a higher percentage of poverty households, and 3820 remained racially concentrated but showed a higher level of poverty concentration than it had a decade ago. 2.3.4

Target Area Neighborhoods

The City of Richmond has designated seven census tracts and a portion of an eighth tract (Parchester neighborhood) as target area neighborhoods based on concentrations of minority and poverty populations. These census tracts are designated as follows: ƒ

North Richmond (City and County) - Tract 3650.02

20

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Woods - Tract 37501 Iron Triangle - Tracts 3760 and 3770 Southside - 3800 Santa Fe - Tract 3790 Pullman Plaza - Tract 3810 Parchester - portion (Block Group 1) of Tract 3650.01

With the exception of Parchester, these census tracts were proposed as Enterprise Community Areas in the Richmond Enterprise Community Strategic Plan submitted by the City to HUD in June 1994 and this focus continues. See Table 2.6 (Note that Parchester is the only area included as a target area that is only a portion of a census tract (#3650.01). Because most of the data provided in the Table is not yet available at a Block Level, Parchester has been excluded from the Table. Parchester was built in the early 1950's when a group of East Bay ministers, in an effort to do something about housing discrimination, persuaded the landowners to build and sell the new homes to African American homeowners.)

1

Belding Woods is a frequently used neighborhood designation and encompasses two census tracts #3730 (Belding) and #3750 (Woods). Since the poverty rate in the Belding census tract is the same as the City's, it is not included in this discussion.

21

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

Table 2.6 - Demographic and Housing Characteristics

Target Area Neighborhoods Characteristics Tract Number Population Number of Households

N. Woods Richmond 3650.02 3750 4,076 4,502 1,042 1,188

Iron Triangle Santa Southside Pullman Fe 3760 3770 3790 3800 3810 5,959 7,596 6,329 6,002 6,222 1,752 2,198 1,894 2,653 2,016

Percent of Female Headed HH's Below Poverty

34.6%

26.1% 29.4% 26.5% 32.6%

14.7%

24.6%

Percent of Population Below Age 18

39.2%

37.3% 36.4% 35.5% 33.8%

23.2%

32.2%

1999 Median HH Income

$22,650

$60,625

$38,076

No. of Units % Units Renter-Occupied

1,129 68.8%

$33,689 $26,18 $30,389 $27,20 6 7 1,238 1,898 2,307 1,988 64.0% 64.3% 58.7% 53.2%

2,788 65.0%

2,121 49.5%

4.8%

5.0%

Vacancy Rate

8.1%

4.0% 7.7%

Source: 2000 U.S. Census

22

4.7% 4.7%

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

3.0

HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This section of the Consolidated Plan establishes the Housing and Homeless Needs within the City of Richmond. Present needs within the City are examined along with the projected needs over the next five years. Understanding the needs is key to developing affordable housing and homeless strategies and for establishing priorities in order to effectively allocate limited resources. Housing needs are discussed first because they form the core framework for the Consolidated Plan. Additionally, many of the funding sources governed by the Consolidated Plan statutes focus on the development and rehabilitation of housing. Community and Economic Development Needs are discussed in Section 5.0 of the Plan. The housing and homeless needs assessment section is divided into four sections: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

3.1

Affordable Housing Needs Special Population Needs Homeless Needs Lead Based Paint

Affordable Housing Needs

The Affordable Housing Needs section summarizes the housing needs of the extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in Richmond. The section is divided into five subsections: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Owners Renters Elderly Minority Population Anticipated Changes

As part of the Consolidated Plan regulations, HUD requires that the community define the population with greatest need. In Richmond, the City has determined that the extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households have the greatest need. Richmond has defined these households based on the HOME income regulations as follows: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Extremely low-income - defined as less than 30% of the median income for the area; Very low-income - defined as at or less than 50% median; Low-income - defined as at or less than 80% of median; and Moderate-income - defined as 80 to 95% of median income.

These income classifications are used throughout the document.

23

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

3.1.1

Owners

3.1.1.1

Extremely Low-Income, Low-Income, and Moderate-Income Housing Needs

Owning a home in the San Francisco Bay Area is not an achievable goal for many households due to the high cost of housing and land. Other factors that severely impact a lower-income household’s ability to retain the house they have purchased include: housing problems; excessive cost burden; and overcrowding. According to HUD's definition of housing problems, a household has a housing problem if it either lives in a housing unit with a physical defect (described as lacking a complete kitchen or plumbing), or lives in an overcrowded unit (defined as a housing unit with more than one person per room), or has a housing cost burden including utilities that exceeds 30% of gross income. The number of owner-occupied homes in Richmond has increased by 3.5% over the past decade, but the percentage of all households living in owner-occupied homes has declined 2.2%. In other words, as the population of Richmond increases, the overall percentage of the total population living in owner-occupied housing decreases. See Tables 3.1 & 3.2.

Table 3.1 – Numeric Change in Homeownership, 1990-2000

1990 Owner-Occupied Households 17,840

2000 OwnerOccupied Households 18,463

Numeric Change 623

Expressed as a % Change 3.5%

Table 3.2 – Percentage Change in Homeownership, 1990-2000

1990 Owner-Occupied Households 54.5%

2000 Owner-Occupied Households 53.3%

Percentage Change -2.2%

Of the 18,948 homeowners in Richmond in 1990, there were 4,156 non-elderly homeowners or 22% who were extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income. Of these Richmond homeowners, extremely low-income owners were much more likely to have a housing 24

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

problem. The incidence of problems was similar for the low-income and moderate-income groups, as Table 3.3 below indicates. Interestingly, the incidence of housing problems for moderate-income households in 1990 was actually higher than for either very low-income or low-income households.

Table 3.3 - Non-Elderly Owner's Experiencing Housing Problems (1990)

Households by Income Type

Percentage of Owners' Experiencing Any OverExcessive Problem Cost crowding Burden >30%

Non-Elderly Households Extremely low-income (N=894) Very low-income (N=766) Low-income (1,380) Moderate-income (N=1,116) All Non-Elderly Owner HH's (N=13,869)

66% 62% 50% 53% 35%

14% 18% 10% N/A 8%

61% 55% 44% 37% 29%

Excessive Cost Burden >50%

44% 32% 19% 7% 8%

Source: 1990 CHAS Census Tables Note: In this table and in subsequent tables, the definition of income groups is as follows: extremely low-income households earn 30% or less than the area median family income adjusted for household size; very low-income households earn at or less than 50% of area median family income; low households earn at or less than 80% of area median family income, and moderate-income households earn between 81% and 95% of area median family income.

Excessive cost burden (paying more than 30% of a household’s income for housing) is a major problem for Richmond homeowners. 32.5% of Richmond homeowners are cost-burdened. More significantly, 23.5% of households are spending 35% or more of their income on housing costs. In 1990 excessive cost burden, often a precursor to being “at risk of becoming homeless”, was more of a problem for owners than is overcrowding. In fact, more than half of extremely low-income households experienced cost burden in excess of 30%, and approximately one-third experienced cost burden in excess of 50%. Among owners, overcrowding did not significantly decline as a problem when incomes rise.

25

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

Table 3.4 - Overcrowding Total Numbers of Households Owners

% of Total Owners

Numbers of Renters

% of Total Renters

% of all Households

Total Households .5 or less Occupants per Room

34,705 18,616

18,528 11,744

100.0% 63.4%

16,177 6,872

100.0% 42.5%

100.0% 33.8%

.51-1.0 OpR

10,797

4,932

26.6%

5,865

36.3%

14.2%

1.01-1.5 OpR (Overcrowded)

2,516

1,037

5.6%

1,479

9.1%

3.0%

1.51 or more OpR (Severely Overcrowded)

2,776

815

4.4%

1,961

12.1%

2.3%

34,705

18,528

53.4%

16,177

46.6%

53.4%

Total Owners Source: 2000 U.S. Census

3.1.1.2

Housing Needs of First-Time Homebuyers

Having an adequate supply of affordable housing ownership opportunities is an important component of a balanced community and neighborhood revitalization strategy. First-time homebuyers are typically in the low- and moderate-income categories and experience the greatest difficulties in securing affordable for-sale housing. A home is considered affordable if the value does not exceed three times the buyer’s household income, adjusted for the unit size. Table 3.5 - Homeownership Rates, 2000

Total occupied Owner occupied Renter occupied Homeownership rate

Contra Costa Richmond United States Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 344,129 34,625 105,480,101 238,449 69.3% 18,463 53.3% 69,815,753 66.2% 105,680 30.7% 16,162 46.7% 35,664,348 33.8% 69.3% 100.0% 53.3% 100.0% 66.2% 100.0%

Source: Census 2000

President Bush has announced his goal of increasing homeownership by 5.5 million households by the year 2010, an increase of 7.8% over Census 2000 levels. The president has stated that he wants

26

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

particular efforts made to increase homeownership rates among minority households, with one million new minority homeowners targeted by 2010. The census tracts that comprise Richmond show substantial variance in homeownership rates. The tracts that show the highest and lowest levels of homeownership (tract 3560.02 at 89.9% and 3591.01 at 29.5% ownership) are only partially located within the City. Nonetheless, the range they show is substantial and must be viewed within the context of Richmond’s relatively low homeownership rates. In general, the highest percentage of homeownership occurs in the newly developed subdivisions in the El Sobrante, Hilltop, Brickyard Cove, and Marina Bay areas. The housing in these areas meets the needs of higher income households and is not affordable to lower income homebuyers or to many first time homebuyers. Richmond’s ownership problem is substantially worse in the older, lower income neighborhoods of the City. Homeownership rates drop substantially from the City’s already low average of 53% to range between 20%-50% in these neighborhoods. Table 3.6 - Home Purchasing Ability

Maximum Home Household Value Income Richmond Median (Census 2000) $44,210 $115,000 Contra Costa Median (Census 2000) $63,675 $165,750 Oakland PMSA 30% AMI (HUD 2002) $22,350 $46,902 Oakland PMSA Very Low Income (HUD 2002) $37,250 $96,776 Oakland PMSA Median (HUD 2002) $74,500 $194,000 Oakland PMSA Low-Income (HUD 2002) $58,000 $150,000 Income Needed to Purchase Home $115,000 $300,000

Median Richmond Home Price Dec. Affordability 2002 Gap $300,000 $185,000 $300,000 $134,250 $300,000 $253,098 $300,000 $203,224 $300,000 $106,000 $300,000 $150,000 $300,000 $0

Assumptions: 5% downpayment, 30 year fixed 7.25% mortgage.

The 2000 Census data points to a strong need in Richmond for assistance to first-time home buyers and the large gap between affordable housing supply and the demand for housing. See Table 3.7.

27

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

Table 3.7 - Affordability of Housing Stock Home Value per 2000 Census # of Units % of Housing Stock % Affordable at AMI Level Value less than $10,000 10 0.1% Value $10,000 to $19,999 58 0.3% Value $20,000 to $29,999 82 0.5% Value $30,000 to $39,999 87 0.5% Value $40,000 to $49,999 90 0.5% 1.9% Affordable at 30% AMI Value $50,000 to $59,999 165 1.0% Value $60,000 to $69,999 191 1.1% Value $70,000 to $79,999 246 1.5% Value $80,000 to $89,999 462 2.7% Value $90,000 to $99,999 469 2.8% 11.0% Affordable at 50% AMI Value $100,000 to $199,999 9005 53.5% Value $200,000 to $299,999 3780 22.4% Value $300,000 to $499,999 1867 11.1% Value $500,000 or more 330 2.0% Total Existing Owner-Occupied Houses 16842 100.0% Source: 2000 Census

It is worth noting that the Census data shows that approximately half of these homes are valued between $100,000 and $199,000. This data includes only those homes that were owner-occupied in 1999, when the data was gathered. Current sales data, which shows median home sale prices of approximately $300,000, are a more accurate reflection of the market conditions with which buyers are faced.

28

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

3.1.2

Renters

3.1.2.1 Extremely Low-Income, Very Low-Income, and Low-Income Housing Needs Excessive cost burden is a significant problem among Richmond’s renters, 42.5% of whom pay more than 30% of their income for housing. See Table 3.8. Table 3.8 - Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income and Percent paying greater than 30%

Total: Less than 10 percent 10 to 14 percent 15 to 19 percent 20 to 24 percent 25 to 29 percent 30 to 34 percent 35 to 39 percent 40 to 49 percent 50 percent or more Not computed Total paying 30% or greater Percent paying 30% or greater Percent paying 50% or greater

Contra Costa Percentage Richmond Percentage 105,389 100.0% 16,129 100.0% 4,768 4.5% 852 5.3% 11,149 10.6% 1,856 11.5% 15,039 14.3% 2,202 13.7% 15,231 14.5% 2,066 12.8% 11,981 11.4% 1,660 10.3% 9,211 8.7% 1,346 8.3% 6,560 6.2% 1,115 6.9% 8,015 7.6% 1,153 7.1% 19,030 18.1% 3,242 20.1% 4,405 4.2% 637 3.9% 42,816 40.6% 6,856 42.5% 40.6% 42.5% 18.1% 20.1%

Source: 2000 Census

Lower income households are substantially more rent-burdened than those with higher incomes. The census does not adjust household income by household size, but it is clear from the following Table 3.9 that those households with less income pay a greater percentage of that income for housing costs than those with higher incomes. As previously mentioned excessive housing cost is a precursor to “being at risk of becoming homeless.”

29

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

Table 3.9 - Rent Burden by Household Income % of Population Total Number Number of RentBurdened % of Population Paying Paying 30% or of Renter Households 35% or More for Rent More for Rent Household Income Households TOTALS 16,129 6,854 42.5% Less than $10,000 2,594 1,946 75.0% 70.5% $10,000 - $20,000 2,577 2,023 78.5% 72.8% $20,000 - $35,000 3,308 1,902 57.5% 40.9% $35,000 - $50,000 3,108 858 27.6% 12.3% $50,000 - $75,000 2,407 118 4.9% 2.9% $75,000 - $100,000 1,257 8 0.6% 0.0% More than $100,000 878 0 0.0% 0.0%

Table 3.10 - Renters' (Non-Elderly) Experiencing Housing Problems Percentage of Renters' Experiencing Any Overcrowding Excessive Problem Cost Burden >30% 82% 19% 78% Extremely low-income (N=4,158) 80% 17% 72% Very low-income (N=2,339) 64% 17% 49% Low-income (N=2,028) 42% N/A 30% Moderate-income (N=1,228) 55% 14% 47% All Renters (N=13,850) Households By Income Type

Excessive Cost Burden >50% 61% 28% 3% 2% 24%

Source: 1990 CHAS Census Note: In this table and in subsequent tables, the definition of income groups is as follows: extremely low-income households earn 30% or less than the area median family income adjusted for household size; very low-income households earn at or less than 50% of area median family income; low households earn at or less than 80% of area median family income, and moderate-income households earn between 81% and 95% of area median family income.

30

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

3.1.3

Elderly

3.1.3.1

Housing Needs of Elderly Owners

Homeownership is disproportionately high among the elderly in Richmond, where they represent 9.88% of the population but 18% of all homeowners. Of the 6,643 senior households in Richmond, 75.33% reside in owner-occupied housing. Elderly Richmond residents are less likely to be poor than the general population, with 11.8% of Richmond seniors at or below the poverty line, as compared with 13.4% of the population as a whole. However, because seniors are generally living on fixed incomes, they often lack the cash reserves necessary to maintain their homes, as evidenced by the fact that ninety percent of the homeowners who obtain loans from the City are seniors. Approximately one-fifth of all elderly homeowners experienced problems in 1990, primarily excessive cost burden. In general, in 1990 the frequency of excessive cost burden declined as income rose.

Table 3.10 - Elderly Owner's Experiencing Housing Problems Percentage of Owner's Experiencing Households By Income Type

Elderly Households Extremely lowIncome (N=1,238) Very Low-income (N=1,109) Low-income (N=777) Moderate-income (N=379) All Elderly Owner HH's (n=5,079)

Any Problem Overcrowding

Excessive Cost Burden >30%

Excessive Cost Burden >50%

50%

N/A

50%

27%

18%

N/A

18%

8%

7%

N/A

7%

0%

18% 21%

N/A N/A

16% 21%

6% 9%

Source: 1990 CHAS Census Tables Note: In this table and in subsequent tables, the definition of income groups is as follows: extremely low-income households earn 30% or less than the area median family income adjusted for household size; very low-income households earn at or less than 50% of area median family income; low households earn at or less than 80% of area median family income, and moderate-income households earn between 81% and 95% of area median family income.

31

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

Elderly renter households in Richmond number 1,639, according to the 2000 Census. This represents 5% of all households in Richmond, and 11% of all renter households. In 1990, more than half of all elderly renters (approximately 850) reported that they experienced problems. Nearly 70% of extremely low- and very low-income elderly renters reported that they experienced problems. Moreover, approximately half of all elderly renter households experienced housing problems (excessive cost burden greater than 50%) in 1990 (see Table 3.11).

Table 3.11 - Elderly Renter Households Experiencing Housing Problems Percentage of Renters' Experiencing Households by Income Any Overcrowding Excessive Cost Excessive Type Problem Burden Cost Burden >30% >50% Elderly Households Extremely low-income (N=937) Very low-income (N=458) Low-income (N=134) Moderate-Income (N=89) All Elderly Renter-HH's (N=1,702)

69%

NA

68%

47%

61% 36% 21% 56%

NA NA NA NA

60% 36% 21% 55%

28% 0 0 32%

Source: 1990 CHAS Census Note: In this table and in subsequent tables, the definition of income groups is as follows: extremely low-income households earn 30% or less than the area median family income adjusted for household size; very low-income households earn at or less than 50% of area median family income; low households earn at or less than 80% of area median family income, and moderate-income households earn between 81% and 95% of area median family income.

32

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan 3.1.4

Racial and Ethnic Disportionality

3.1.4.1

Concentration of Racial/Ethnic Minorities and/or Low Income Persons

Within the City of Richmond there are areas with concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and poverty households. Table 3.12 below presents information on the census tracts with these concentrations and compares them to the City of Richmond as a whole; Figure 3.1 presents this information graphically. For purposes of this discussion, a minority person is defined as anyone who is not White according to the 2000 Census. Hispanic is listed separately. In general, the City of Richmond is highly heterogeneous, with no one racial or ethnic group comprising a majority of the population. Overall, approximately 69% of the City's population was minority as of 2000 and 27% was Hispanic. Approximately 16% of the population received incomes that placed them at or below the poverty line. If a census tract contained a population that was ten or more percentage points above the City's average for either the minority or Hispanic categories, it has been defined as an area that has a racial concentration. According to this definition, eight census tracts are racially concentrated. If a census tract contained a population that was proportionately higher in the percentage of persons that were at or below the poverty level, then that census tract was defined as having a concentration of poverty households, three tracts meet this definition.

33

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan Figure 3.1 - Percent Minority Households by Census Tract

Note: Darker areas denote lower minority concentrations Table 3.12 - Concentrations of Racial/Ethnic Minorities and Persons below Poverty

Area

City of Richmond

Population

Percentage of Percentage of Population that is Population that is Below the Hispanic Poverty Level 68.60% 26.50% 16.18%

Percentage of Population that is Minority

99,216

Block 1, Census Tract 3650.01

1,919

81.66%

15.06%

N/A

Census Tract 3650.02

4,076

81.11%

43.25%

38.80%

34

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan Census Tract 3750

4,502

73.55%

61.91%

24.30%

Census Tract 3760

5,959

80.05%

36.73%

23.80%

Census Tract 3770

7,596

72.13%

50.87%

31.00%

Census Tract 3790

6,329

88.99%

23.51%

29.40%

Census Tract 3800

6,002

64.48%

18.93%

21.20%

Census Tract 3810

6,222

85.36%

23.48%

19.60%

Source: 2000 Census

In most cases, the same census tracts contained both concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and poverty households, and correspond to the target neighborhoods. Among the target areas, Census Tract #3800 is highly divergent. Marina Bay, a new, middle-income development is located in this tract, along with extremely low-income areas. Thus, the fact that more than a fifth of the population is still living below poverty - in spite of the presence of Marina Bay - affirms the great need in this area. 3.1.4.2 Target Area Neighborhoods The City of Richmond has designated seven census tracts and a portion of an eighth tract (Parchester neighborhood) as target area neighborhoods based on concentrations of minority and poverty populations. These census tracts are designated as follows:

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

North Richmond (City and County) - Tract 3650.02 Woods - Tract 37502 Iron Triangle - Tracts 3760 and 3770 Southside - 3800 Santa Fe - Tract 3790 Pullman Plaza - Tract 3810 Parchester - portion (Block Group 1) of Tract 3650.01

2

Belding Woods is a frequently used neighborhood designation and encompasses two census tracts #3730 (Belding) and #3750 (Woods). Since the poverty rate in the Belding census tract is the same as the City's, it is not included in this discussion. 35

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan With the exception of Parchester, these census tracts were proposed as Enterprise Community Areas in the Richmond Enterprise Community Strategic Plan submitted by the City to HUD in June 1994 and this focus continues. See Table 3.14 (Note that Parchester is the only area included as a target area that is only a portion of a census tract (#3650.01). Because most of the data provided in the Table is not yet available at a Block Level, Parchester has been excluded from the Table. Parchester was built in the early 1950's when a group of East Bay ministers, in an effort to do something about housing discrimination, persuaded the landowners to build and sell the new homes to African American homeowners. )

36

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan

Table 3.13 - Demographic and Housing Characteristics

Target Area Neighborhoods Characteristics Tract Number Population Number of Households

N. Woods Richmond 3650.02 3750 4,076 4,502 1,042 1,188

Iron Triangle Santa Southside Pullman Fe 3760 3770 3790 3800 3810 5,959 7,596 6,329 6,002 6,222 1,752 2,198 1,894 2,653 2,016

Percent of Female Headed HH's Below Poverty

34.6%

26.1% 29.4% 26.5% 32.6%

14.7%

24.6%

Percent of Population Below Age 18

39.2%

37.3% 36.4% 35.5% 33.8%

23.2%

32.2%

1999 Median HH Income

$22,650

$60,625

$38,076

No. of Units % Units Renter-Occupied

1,129 68.8%

$33,689 $26,18 $30,389 $27,20 6 7 1,238 1,898 2,307 1,988 64.0% 64.3% 58.7% 53.2%

2,788 65.0%

2,121 49.5%

4.8%

5.0%

Vacancy Rate

8.1%

4.0% 7.7%

Source: 2000 U.S. Census

37

4.7% 4.7%

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan 3.1.4.3

Racial and Ethnic Characteristics of Those With Housing Needs

Approximately 80% of all renter households below 51% of the adjusted median income experienced housing problems in 1990, and 75% of these households were minority households. Forty-nine percent (2,425 households) of the lower income minority households with housing problems were small households. The incidence of problems is not significantly different once minority status is considered, with the exception of Hispanic households, whose frequency of housing problems exceeds that of minority households in general and African American households specifically. Across all minority groups, large-related households experienced the highest rate of housing problems. Interestingly, all Hispanic elderly and large-related households experienced housing problems in 1990.

Table 3.14 - Renter Households Below 51% Adjusted Median Income Experiencing Housing Problems by Minority Status Total HH's All Renters No.

Elderly

Small

Large

6,497

1,306

2,826

1,020

81%

67%

80%

97%

4,900

710

2,425

921

82%

70%

80%

97%

3,710

605

1,862

490

Percent W/Probs. Hispanic HH's No.

80%

69%

80%

97%

681

66

294

258

Percent W/Probs.

92%

100%

83%

100%

Percent W/Probs. All MinorityHeaded HH's No. Percent W/Probs. African American, NonHispanic HH's No.

Source: 1990 CHAS Census Table Note: Only households whose adjusted incomes are below 51% of the area median family income area included on this table. Not all population sub-groups are included on this table; thus the ones included on this table, i.e., small, large and elderly households do not sum to the total number of households.

38

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan 3.1.5

Projected Changes in Housing Needs

3.1.5.1

Richmond’s Affordable Housing History

Richmond has long been considered a community with a good supply of affordable housing, compared to other Bay Area communities. 11% of Richmond's total households were subsidized households, which is the highest percentage of any medium or large sized city in the San Francisco Bay Area (City of Richmond Housing Element, 1992). While aggressively striving to balance the mix of housing options available in Richmond, the City has remained committed to providing increased housing opportunities to low- and moderate-income households. Between January 1, 1990, and April 30, 1994, the City exceeded its ABAG regional share allocation and its 1990 Housing Element Five-Year objectives for net addition of housing units for low- and moderate-income households. During this time period, an estimated total of 490 housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income households, were produced. Slightly more than two-thirds of these units were affordable to very low-income households. Richmond exceeded its regional share goal for low-income and moderate-income affordable housing units by 157 units on an aggregate basis for the 1990-95 five-year period. For the Period 1999-2006, ABAG has determined that Richmond’s regional fair share allocation is 2,603 housing units, targeted as follows:

Table 3.15 - ABAG Projected Fair Share 1999-2006

Low Moderate Above Average Very Total Projected Low Income Income Moderate Yearly Income Need Need Income Number of Units Percentage Annual Need

2603

273

625

100.00% 18.09% 10.49%

24.01%

347

471

63

36

83

1234 347 47.41% 13.33% 165

347

Source:ABAG

Balancing the housing supply to meet Richmond’s housing needs poses a much different issue for the City than is encountered in most of Contra Costa County. The majority of the communities in the County struggle with how to address their regional allocation of low-income housing. Under the ABAG formula, however, Richmond lacks housing for moderate- and above moderate-income households. The concept of a regional allocation of the market area was developed by the State primarily as a means by which to determine if cities are accepting responsibility for their share of lower-value housing and lower-income residents. Because Richmond’s residents are generally lower-income than those in surrounding communities, this issue is not in question. Nonetheless, because of the great needs 39

The City of Richmond 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan presented by Richmond’s lower-income residents, the City has determined that it will focus its scarce resources on maximizing opportunities for those residents, relying on market forces to serve those at higher income levels.

3.1.5.3 Projected Affordable Housing Needs Over Next 5 Years There are two methods to estimate Richmond’s housing needs over the next five years: 1) ABAG projections for population growth; and 2) the waiting list for housing projects. Consequently, the strategies presented in the Consolidated Plan for Richmond reflect priorities established by both types of housing needed based on Richmond's fair regional allocation of the market area housing and needs based on the existing lower-income population that has not yet been assisted. The first method involves estimating the number of housing units that are needed to provide housing opportunities for the anticipated increase in the number of households. ABAG has estimated that Richmond’s population will increase to 125,000 by 2010 and an additional 2,603 housing units will be needed by 2006. These estimates are based on growth as well as the price and cost of the housing stock already provided in a community. A second method for determining housing need is based on the real and continuing need for extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle income housing units. Table 3.16, below, summarizes the Richmond Housing Authority’s waiting list data for the Section 8 program. It is worth noting that this list is closed and remains closed. Table 3.16 - Housing Authority Wait Lists

Tenant Based Assistance Extremely Low Income 30% to 50% to

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.