A statewide turn toward denser, “infill” residential housing near jobs and public transit would allow California to meet its ever-growing housing needs and climate goals for emissions reduction by 2030, a new study says.
Such a shift toward developing compact, primarily multi-family dwellings would help stanch the sprawling suburban growth that necessitates long commutes to job hubs, and would even provide modest economic benefits to homeowners and renters, the study finds. The analysis is by UC Berkeley’s Center for Housing Innovation and Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE), in conjunction with the San Francisco-based public policy group Next 10.
“We can grow in a sustainable way that also helps people with their pocketbooks,” said Ethan Elkind, director of CLEE’s climate program. He said the study, titled “Right Type, Right Place” — shorthand for putting the right kinds of new residential development in the right places — upends “doom and gloom” predictions by the real estate and housing industry that a sustained infill program would create an economic drag on the state and its residents.
A shift toward infill housing, to be built within three miles of rail stations, would help avert at least 1.79 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, according to the report. That’s the equivalent of eliminating emissions from 378,108 passenger vehicles, or not burning more than 201 million gallons of gasoline annually, the report says.
Newly legislated state goals call for reducing emissions from a projected 431 million metric tons in 2020 to 260 million metric tons by 2030.
If the shift to development in areas ripe for infill housing were to occur immediately, it would mean the construction of more than 63,000 new units in San Francisco by 2030, as opposed to 37,000 units if current development patterns persist and developers build sufficient housing to meet projected statewide population growth.
In Oakland, the report finds, more than 23,000 units would be built, as opposed to 5,000.
The report does not include a specific projection for San Jose or the Peninsula.
As for economic savings, the report projects a $26 monthly savings for renters and a $13 monthly savings for homeowners as a result of concerted development of compact housing near jobs and transit. Those savings would accrue from reductions in utility and transportation costs, as well as the cost of rent or mortgages, according to the study.
“It’s not a huge savings — it’s almost a wash,” said Elkind. “Still, people come out ahead. Even building in more expensive markets, you’re providing economic benefits for the people who live there. And there are huge quality-of-life benefits. You’re allowing people to live close to jobs and services; somebody is no longer having to commute in from a place like Tracy, for example. They could live in Santa Clara.”
Of course, for the infill shift to happen, there would first need to be a significant shift in public policy — and overcoming the objections of homeowners who value traditional neighborhoods filled with single-family homes.
The report’s numerous policy recommendations suggest that local governments should relax zoning laws to promote multi-family land use, reduce parking requirements and shorten permitting timelines for planning and construction.
At the state level, the report recommends creating a program based on one in Massachusetts that lets developers override local regulatory barriers to affordable housing production in towns and cities that fail to meet regional targets for such housing. It also suggests establishing a regional tax-sharing system that would extend benefits to municipalities that meet regional housing goals.