The Climate for Affordable Housing Lessons Learned from the Implementation of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program INTRODUCTION Affordable housing is lacking throughout the state causing people to commute further to less expensive communities by driving automobiles, inevitably increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The integrated approach to link housing, transportation, and green infrastructure are viable to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program furthers the goals of AB 32 and SB 375 by funding land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to develop compact and infill development, increase mobility options, and reduce land conversion. The purpose of this project is to identify the concerns made by different stakeholders regarding the implementation of the program and the equitable distribution of funding for the first year in order to derive lessons and criteria for other states interested in developing an integrated approach to address sustainable and affordable housing.
$120 million
What LESSONS can be learned from sustainable programs in California and Washington that REDUCE greenhouse gas emissions and ENSURE affordable housing for all households?
$760+ million
Available for Fiscal Year 2014-15
50%
Statutory set aside for AH
RESEARCH QUESTION
FIRST YEAR FUNDING DEFICIT
50%
$301+ million
147 applications requesting funding
54 concept proposals chosen for full proposal phase
Statutory set aside for DAC
METHODOLOGY
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Analysis of data collected from: Public comment letters on the draft guidelines • Policy briefs • News articles • CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0 to identify disadvantaged communities (DAC) in the top 25% of census tracts •
Case study California and Washington • States with or are in the process of implementing a cap-and-trade program • Investmentment revenue plan for sustainable and affordable housing •
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC): CA and WA both dedicate funds to benefit DAC however, WA created an Economic Justice and Environmental Committee composed of low-income citizens, members of communities of color, and workers in fossil fuel-dependent sectors to monitor socioeconomic effects and ensure that future funding investments be modified towards vulnerable communities Financial Disparity: Cities with less staff and financing need additional assistance to remain competitive for funding
Geographic Distribution of Accepted Concept Proposals The proposals represent projects in urban, medium sized cities, small towns, and rural areas designed to reduce VMT and GHG. Out of 58 counties, 22 are selected for the full proposal phase. Source: Strategic Growth Council GIS map by Precy Agtarap
Multistakeholder Collaboration: Overall support of the AHSC Program and efforts made by SGC to include different stakeholders towards addressing statewide issues with an innovative solution
22 Counties Accepted to Full Proposal Phase
Metro Planning Organization (MPO)/ Regional Entity Roles: Ensure equity and inclusion by providing additional support for smaller cities/agencies and rural communities
DAC Top 25% Census Tracts
Counties Selected for Final Funding Proposal Phase
76-80% 81-85% 86-90% 91-95% 96-100% (highest scores) Metro Planning Organizations AMBAG
Climate Protection Goals: Program should consider language such as mitigation, adaptation, and resiliency to further align the projects with climate goals that additionally increases reductions of GHG emissions
BCAG FCOG KCAG
NEXT STEPS
KCOG MCAG MCTC MTC SACOG SANDAG SBCAG SCAG
Qualitative Analysis: Complete review of public comment letters and case studies and analyze results
SJCOG SLOCOG SRTA StanCOG TCAG TMPO
Recommendations: Develop recommendations and policy options to identify equitable solutions and strategies for the second round of funding
Counties
Images: Strategic Growth Council 0 15 30
60
90
120 Miles
¯
Precy Agtarap, MURP • Advisor: Paavo Monkkonen • Client: Southern California Association of Governments