Gimme shelter: Richmond City Council says no to emergency housing project
Richmond City Council rejected an appeal Tuesday night for a conditional use permit to operate an emergency shelter at 207 37th Street, despite supporters' attempts to shout down the vote during the heated public hearing.
With District 1 Councilmember Jamelia Brown abstaining, the council voted 6-0 to deny the permit.
Lonnie Holmes, executive director of the California Portsmouth Square Association, claimed the Richmond Planning Commission abused its discretion in denying a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application in December.
Soren Hemmila
Holmes submitted an appeal challenging the commission’s decision to reject the permit, which sought to convert an existing office building into an emergency shelter for up to 25 people.
CPSA provided an emergency shelter at the location starting in May 2023 as the city attempted to address the Castro homeless encampment.
Soren Hemmila
However, the Fire Department’s inspection revealed that the office building was never converted for residential use and had several code violations.
The city discontinued its involvement with CPSA, and the occupants were moved out in August of 2023, at which point the use was discontinued.
Holmes said that unlike the old facility operated by the city and the Housing Consortium of the East Bay, the new facility will be part of CPSA’s program.
“Now we will run the facility. It’s our program,” Holmes said.
Neighbors of the project continue to speak out against the proposed reopening of a shelter, citing past experiences with crime, drug activity, and unsafe conditions when the facility previously operated without proper permits.
Community member Roxanna Molina voiced frustration, saying the shelter overwhelmed the area with disturbances, including vandalism, break-ins, and public safety concerns.
“We have suffered a lot,” Molina said. “All we want in this community is to live in peace. We work hard every day. We keep our block clean, and we don’t deserve to live in fear again.”
According to Molina, the shelter’s previous operation led to overcrowding, with far more people housed there than initially promised. She described instances of residents engaging in drug use, sex, and public defecation in the parking lot, creating an environment that left neighbors feeling unsafe.
“These people are not responsible,” Molina said. “They will not keep anything clean or keep us safe. All they care about is that building and the money they’ll be acquiring from it.”
Amanda Jenkins defended the homeless shelter and Lonnie Holmes, stating that the people who previously lived at the site had all been housed and were now successful.
“The stories that we just heard are completely false. I can tell you that the 15 people that were living at that site have all been housed,” Jenkins said. “Most of them have jobs. They’re all successful, and they’re doing well, and it’s because of Lonnie Holmes and his project. The City of Richmond and Way to Love put those people in there with no staff, no supervision, or nothing. That is not Lonnie Holmes’ job. He’s the landlord. He’s not the program manager.”
Jenkins said Holmes came every day to take care of the property, make sure the residents were okay, resolve conflict, and keep them on track.
Calling the site a “perfect building for this program,” Jenkins urged city leaders to reconsider their stance. “We’re not all drug addicts. We’re not all bad people,” she said. “With the right people in there, we could make this work, and a lot of people could have a chance to rebuild their lives.”
Councilmember Doria Robinson raised concerns over the proposal, questioning its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and the lack of community engagement. Robinson said that while security and parking issues could likely be addressed, the larger issue was the project’s relationship—or lack thereof—with local residents.
“What I keep hearing here is fighting, conflict, and is ‘not my problem,’” Robinson said during deliberations.
Robinson compared the Tiny Village Spirit transitional housing project, which gained strong community backing through extensive outreach. In contrast, this proposal appeared to lack a working relationship with neighbors.
Soren Hemmila
“If we approve this thing today, in the state that it’s in currently, we’re going to be hearing about this project over and over and over again because the fighting will continue,” Robinson said.
Robinson said that a supportive environment and community are needed to help people who are re-entering society, but those conditions don’t currently exist, and the groundwork hasn’t been laid to establish them.
“In fact, when y’all get in a room, you fight,” she said. “So I am unsure if there’s anything that the city or the attorney or whatever can offer us on this issue,” Robinson said. “But for me, just to name the elephant in the room, we will be back here dealing with fight after fight unless there is some resolution.”
Thanks to our subscribers, who help make this coverage possible.
If you are not a subscriber, please consider supporting local journalism with a Grandview Independent subscription. Click to see our monthly and annual subscription plans.
Copyright © 2025 Grandview Independent, all rights reserved.
