BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 2783 Hearing Date: 6/21/2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Eduardo Garcia | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |4/25/2016 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Sarah Carvill | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program DIGEST: This bill requires the Strategic Growth Council to consider changing the guidelines and selection criteria for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program to reduce barriers for rural projects. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Establishes the Strategic Growth Council (SGC), composed of the secretaries and directors of seven agencies and departments, to coordinate the activities, policies, and funding programs of those entities in order to better achieve specified policy goals. These goals include reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, building affordable housing, improving transportation, and encouraging sustainable land use planning. 2)Establishes the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) to reduce GHG emissions by funding projects that implement land use, housing, transportation, and agricultural land preservation practices that support infill, compact development, and the following related policy objectives: a) Reducing air pollution AB 2783 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 2 of ? b) Improving conditions in disadvantaged communities c) Supporting public health and other specified "co-benefits" d) Improving connectivity among housing, jobs, and services e) Increasing mobility options, including active transportation f) Increasing transit ridership g) Preserving and developing affordable housing for low-income households h) Protecting agricultural lands 3)Directs the SGC to implement the AHSC by developing guidelines and selection criteria reflective of program goals in consultation with member agencies and departments and the State Air Resources Board (ARB). 4)Requires the SGC to solicit input from stakeholders on the guidelines and selection criteria by: a) Conducting at least two public workshops prior to the adoption of the guidelines and selection criteria b) Publishing draft guidelines and selection criteria on its website for at least 30 days prior to public meetings c) Considering comments from local governments, regional agencies, and other stakeholders in adopting the guidelines and selection criteria d) Repeating these outreach steps if the guidelines are revised e) Conducting outreach to disadvantaged communities to encourage comments on the draft guidelines 5)Provides that projects must do all of the following to be eligible for AHSC funding: a) Achieve reductions in GHG emissions AB 2783 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 3 of ? b) Support the implementation of either a sustainable communities strategy or, in areas where one is not required, a regional plan that includes policies to reduce GHG emissions c) Demonstrate consistency with state planning priorities related to the environment, as specified in existing law 6)Requires that 50% of AHSC funds be spent on projects that benefit disadvantaged communities, and defines "disadvantaged communities" to mean communities identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) that may include, but are not limited to, either of the following: a) Areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation; and b) Areas with concentrations of people that are of low income, high unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent burden, sensitive populations, or low levels of educational attainment. This bill: 1)Instructs the SGC to consider the following changes to the AHSC guidelines and selection criteria for projects proposed within the program's Rural Innovation Project Area (RIPA): a) Allow projects to meet nonmetropolitan density requirements b) Revise the definition of "net density" to exclude the area in a development devoted to permanent streets, drainage facilities, sidewalks, parks, public rights of way, easements, encroachments, and dedicated open space c) When calculating the loan limit for projects that receive 4% low- income housing tax credits, allow $100,000 AB 2783 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 4 of ? to be added to the base amount for each restricted unit in the project d) Modify scoring so that points will be awarded to proposals based on the extent to which an application demonstrates that walkable corridors and features that encourage biking will exist upon the completion of a project 2)Requires the SGC to provide a written explanation to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development by March 1, 2017, if it determines that it will not revise the guidelines and the selection criteria as described. 3)Requires the SGC to conduct outreach to stakeholders, including disadvantaged communities, when program guidelines are revised. COMMENTS: 1) Purpose. According to the author, rural communities throughout the state have been placed at a competitive disadvantage when attempting to access AHSC funds, and changes in the law are needed to ensure that AHSC monies are equitably distributed and can reach rural and disadvantaged communities in the state. The author argues that these communities have been overlooked, and that if this trend continues they will not be adequately prepared to face climate change. Also, the author states that lack of investment in rural communities will widen the gap that exists between inland and coastal communities in California. The author points out that in the first AHSC funding cycle, only 2 of the 36 funded projects were located in rural communities. Despite the subsequent establishment of the RIPA, the author states that there are threshold barriers that impede rural communities from accessing AHSC funds. One of these is the requirement that rural projects in non-rural or metropolitan counties build to the same density as suburban areas. The author argues that this is a major barrier that will continue to hinder rural communities from receiving the necessary investments they need from AHSC. AB 2783 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 5 of ? 2) Background: What is AHSC? AHSC is administered by the SGC and funded by a 20% appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. These funds are allocated by a competitive process to projects that reduce GHG emissions by supporting more compact, infill development patterns, encouraging active transportation and transit usage, and protecting agricultural land from sprawl development. HCD is responsible for implementing the transportation, housing, and infrastructure components of the AHSC program, and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) is also involved in program development. The first funding cycle (2014-2015) saw 146 applications, of which 36 were funded. After those awards were announced in fall 2015, the SGC held four stakeholder meetings and revised the guidelines based on the feedback it received. SGC received 130 for the second funding cycle (2015-2016) and awards will be announced in the fall. 3) AHSC and rural projects. In the 2014-2015 cycle, 12 projects were proposed for rural areas, of which 2 (17%) were funded. In contrast, the success rate for non-rural projects was 27%. Recognizing that rural projects were not able to compete well against urban projects, SGC established the RIPA, an application category specifically for rural projects, for the 2015-2016 funding cycle. The SGC set aside 10% of the total funding for projects in this category. Applicants in rural areas now compete against other rural projects rather than against urban projects that can generally show a greater reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However, they must still meet "threshold" requirements to be funded, and projects may not be able to earn points toward their overall score if they are rated on metrics that are not appropriate for rural areas. 4) The trouble with density. This bill urges the SGC to make two changes to the guidelines that would ease density requirements for affordable housing projects in rural communities. Supporters of this bill characterize density requirements as a "threshold barrier" because GHG reductions are calculated in part based on project density. In the existing guidelines, projects that are located in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are subject to higher minimum density requirements than projects that are not AB 2783 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 6 of ? located in MSAs. MSAs are designated at the county level, however, so they may capture smaller geographic areas that are "rural" by one of the definitions that are used to qualify a project for submission under the RIPA. This bill aims to address this discrepancy by encouraging the SGC to allow any project that is "rural" enough for the RIPA to use the non-MSA minimum density requirement of 15 units per acre. This bill also urges the SGC to consider changing how density is calculated for rural projects. Current density requirements are based on "net density," which is specifically defined in the guidelines such that some uses of exterior space on a development site are included in the project area and some are excluded. This bill advocates changing the specific inclusions and exclusions for rural projects only, effectively increasing the "net density" of these projects and making it easier for them to meet minimum density requirements. Supporters of the bill claim this is necessary because basic infrastructure is already in place in urban areas, while rural projects often must build their own sidewalks, streets, parks, drainage ponds, and septic systems. This increases the physical footprint of rural developments, decreasing density. 5) Maximum loan-limit calculations. Under the current guidelines, projects that receive 4% low income housing tax credits may add $60,000 per restricted unit to the base amount when calculating maximum loan limits. The bill suggests adding $100,000 per restricted unit. Such a change would increase the maximum loan by $40,000 per restricted unit, making it easier to finance affordable housing projects in rural areas. 6) Scoring modification. This bill urges the SGC to consider changing how the walking and biking benefits provided by rural projects are scored in the application process. Currently, the guidelines utilize the "Walk Score" and "Bike Score" for the project site. These metrics are provided on a public website by a private company as a service to Realtors and prospective homebuyers and renters. Supporters of this bill argue that the methodology is not appropriate for all applications and does not accurately characterize many rural areas. Additionally, the company provides scores AB 2783 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 7 of ? for sites as they currently exist; walk and bike scores do not take into account improvements that would be made as part of the proposed project. The change this bill asks the SGC to consider reflects the way scores for active transportation access were calculated in the guidelines for the first funding cycle, which provided specific parameters for evaluating existing walking and biking infrastructure and incorporating project improvements. 7) Rural versus reductions. AHSC is funded by the proceeds of the cap-and-trade auction, and programs that receive these monies must reduce GHG emissions. Within the context of affordable housing projects, GHG reductions are achieved by housing that provides connectivity to public transportation and increases the density of existing development. The former is often more difficult to meaningfully achieve in a rural setting, and the changes urged by this bill would reduce density requirements. It is important to bear in mind that the SGC must balance the need for an equitable geographic distribution of projects with the goal of reducing GHGs as much as possible, and the changes suggested in this bill may undermine the latter objective. 8) Is the bill necessary? Existing law already requires that the SGC solicit and consider feedback from a variety of stakeholders in developing and revising the guidelines and selection criteria for AHSC. Additionally, after the first funding cycle, the SGC went above and beyond the required two public workshops, instead holding four events to inform revisions to the guidelines. In response to the concerns of rural stakeholders, the SGC established the RIPA and dedicated funding to rural projects. While the author has drawn attention to additional changes that may be necessary to support strong proposals from rural areas, the robust public process that is already in place for this program and the SGC's responsiveness to the rural issue indicate that legislation may not be necessary to address ongoing difficulties. 9) Report to the Legislature. While this bill does not force the SGC to revise the guidelines, it does require it to provide a written explanation to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development if the suggested changes AB 2783 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 8 of ? are not made. The implementation of AHSC has implications for transportation and environmental policy as well as housing and community development, however, and there is broad interest in both the Senate and the Assembly in these policy areas. The author and the committee may wish to consider amendments that direct the SGC's explanation of a decision not to revise the guidelines to the Legislature as a whole. 10) Clean up. An earlier version of this bill would have required the SGC to make the specified changes to the AHSC guidelines. When the bill was amended to direct SGC to consider revisions, the wording of the suggested changes was not altered, and they are still phrased as commands. The author and committee may wish to consider minor, nonsubstantive amendments that align the presentation of the suggested changes in the bill with the fact that the SGC is only being asked to consider them. 11) Double-referral. This bill is double referred to the Committee on Environmental Quality. Assembly Votes: Floor: 67-0 Appr: 20-0 H. & C.D.: 7-0 FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 15, 2016.) SUPPORT: California Coalition for Rural Housing (sponsor) A Better Community Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Comite Civico del Valle La Union Hace La Fuerza AB 2783 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 9 of ? Pueblo Unido CDC Rural Community Assistance Corporation OPPOSITION: None received -- END --