1. JOBS/ HOUSING BALANCE: EQUITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION BENEFITS Research and Analysis from the Center for Neighborhood Technology(CNT) and the California Housing Partnership Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Conference, October 3 rd, 2014

2. California Housing Partnership | 2 Housing Need Reports CHPC reports available on 4 Bay Area counties highlight affordable housing need: Rental housing deficit for VLI renters Divergence between rents and incomes Cuts in local, state, and federal funding

3. California Housing Partnership | 3 Housing Need in the Bay Area County VLI Renter Households Affordable & Available Rental Homes Deficit of Rental Homes Alameda County98,90038,465(60,435) Contra Costa County47,32518,585(28,740) Marin County15,4105,690(9,720) Napa County6,9102,685(4,225) San Francisco County87,47046,625(40,845) San Mateo County36,04012,265(23,775) Santa Clara County91,41035,755(55,655) Solano County17,5605,615(11,945) Sonoma County25,1807,960(17,220) Total426,205173,645(252,560) CHPC Analysis of 2007-2011 HUD CHAS data based on NLIHC Template Deficit of Homes Serving Very Low Income (VLI) Renters

4. California Housing Partnership | 4 Housing Need in the Bay Area CHPC Analysis of 2007-2011 HUD CHAS data County Severely Rent Burdened VLI Renter Households Alameda County56,840 Contra Costa County27,620 Marin County9,010 Napa County3,820 San Francisco County39,575 San Mateo County19,765 Santa Clara County49,270 Solano County11,685 Sonoma County15,300 Total232,885 The shortage of affordable rental housing means 57% of the Bay Area’s VLI renter households are “severely rent burdened”- paying more than 50% of income in rent.

5. California Housing Partnership | 5 Housing Need in the Bay Area Who are VLI workers? Jobs with median earnings less than 50% AMI for a family of 3 in Bay Area Counties: Alameda County: Substitute Teachers ($42,070), Dental Assistants ($37,670), Childcare Workers ($21,970) San Francisco & San Mateo Counties: Medical Assistants ($40,940), Preschool Teachers ($35,870), Cashiers ($23,800) Santa Clara County: Substitute Teachers ($41,810), Security Guards ($30,970), Retail Salespeople ($22,330)

6. California Housing Partnership | 6 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential of Locating Housing Near Jobs and Services New Research on Location Efficiency from the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and California Housing Partnership

7. California Housing Partnership | 7 Prior Research Efforts CHPC/TransForm/CNT previously documented the strong correlation between VMT, income and proximity to high quality transit. Findings supported investing GGR funds in TOD affordable housing. Prior research did not look at VMT reduction potential of areas less well served by transit that have VMT reduction potential by locating homes near jobs and services.

8. California Housing Partnership | 8 California Household Travel Survey Data 2010-2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) surveyed over 40,000 households in all of California’s 58 counties between January 2012 and February 2013. Households reported on all travel for a 24- hour period. Surveys were conducted every day of the year.

9. California Housing Partnership | 9 Context: Three Place Types Rural: USDA designation of areas eligible for rural housing assistance (Sonoma, Cloverdale) Major Region: Non-rural households of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties Small/ Medium Size City: All remaining non-rural households including Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Vallejo, Fairfield, Vacaville, Fresno, Stockton, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Riverside, San Bernardino,

10. California Housing Partnership | 10 Small/ Medium Size Cities Maps Major metros shown in blue Small/ medium size cities shown in brown Rural areas in yellow

11. California Housing Partnership | 11 Key Research Questions 1. How close does a home need to be to jobs and essential services to significantly reduce VMT? 2. How big are the VMT differences?

12. California Housing Partnership | 12 Quantifying Location Efficiency Tried two ways to quantify VMT impacts, by-- 1. Sites of essential services (libraries, banks, schools, grocery stores, etc.), examining distance to CHTS households, and comparing VMT effects. 2. Using employment data from Census (LODES) to find job density around CHTS households then analyzing VMT – job density offers potential to reduce trips to work and serves as proxy for access to goods and services

13. California Housing Partnership | 13 Choosing an Approach Job Density was always a stronger predictor of VMT reduction. For this reason, CNT’s proposed model emphasizes job density rather than specific amenities. Tested many combinations of employment types and different buffer widths around households. Employment density within a two mile buffer of a household (which results in about 12.5 square miles) produced the most statistically significant results.

14. California Housing Partnership | 14 Job Density Findings For each place type, job density is a strong, statistically significant predictor of VMT reduction. Average Rural and Large Metro Households at 80 th percentile of job density drive about 6 miles less per day than the same household at the 20 th percentile. The reduction is 7 miles per day in Small Cities.

15. California Housing Partnership | 15 Major Regions Job Density- VMT Findings 20 th Percentile: 1339 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 40 th Percentile: 2371 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 60 th Percentile: 3536 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 80 th Percentile: 5596 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 15.1 VMT/day 8.8 VMT/day

16. California Housing Partnership | 16 Major Region VMT by Job Concentration ELI and VLI households have the greatest elasticity of VMT reduction in relation to increasing job density. All income groups tend to have lower VMT when living in areas of greater job density and higher transit service.

17. California Housing Partnership | 17 Small/ Medium Size Cities Job Density/VMT Findings 20 th Percentile: 545 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 40 th Percentile: 944 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 60 th Percentile: 1373 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 80 th Percentile: 2003 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 21.7 VMT/day 14.6 VMT/day

18. California Housing Partnership | 18 Small/ Medium Size Cities VMT by Job Concentration All income groups tend to have lower VMT when living in areas of greater job density. ELI and VLI households have the greatest elasticity of VMT reduction in relation to increasing job density.

19. California Housing Partnership | 19 Map of Small/Medium Size City Areas with Highest Job Density CHTS households living in small/ medium size cities with greater job access are shown in red Many small to medium size cities throughout the state have areas where households are close to denser concentrations of jobs Fresno Stockton Salinas Santa Rosa Modesto

20. California Housing Partnership | 20 Rural Job Density-VMT Findings 20 th Percentile: 22 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 40 th Percentile: 81 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 60 th Percentile: 204 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 80 th Percentile: 401 jobs/mile within 2 mile buffer 14.0 VMT/day 8.0 VMT/day

21. California Housing Partnership | 21 Rural VMT by Job Concentration All income groups tend to have lower VMT when living in areas of greater job density. ELI and VLI households have the greatest elasticity of VMT reduction in relation to increasing job job density.

22. California Housing Partnership | 22 Key additional finding: Multi- family Housing = Lower VMT Even while controlling for income and household demographics, households in multiunit residences drove less in all three place types. These impacts were almost twice as large in the rural areas than the other two place types.

23. California Housing Partnership | 23 Conclusions 1. Locating housing near greater density of jobs is associated with lower VMT in all regions of the state. 2. ELI and VLI reduce VMT by greater percentages in response to higher job density and increased transit access. (greater elasticity of VMT to job density) 3. ELI and VLI households in small cities show greater differences in VMT when living in jobs rich areas than higher income households. 4. Multifamily housing provides heightened VMT reduction benefits.

24. CONTACTS California Housing Partnership Corporation James Pappas Housing Policy & Preservation Associate jpappas@chpc.netjpappas@chpc.net or 415-433-6804 x 320 Megan Kirkeby Sustainable Housing Policy Manager mkirkeby@chpc.netmkirkeby@chpc.net or 415-433-6804 x 316 24