For over 10 years, DCS Design has hosted an annual DC Sustainability Summit (DCSS) which aims to inspire and educate the real estate community to be more sustainable at work, home, and play by showcasing pioneering speakers and presenting innovative green products.
At the 2024 DC Sustainability Summit on September 18, 2024, W+A’s Justin Schor and Marie Cox will join our colleagues Jordi Fabian with APAH, Michael Davis with Fairfax County Government, and Scott Adams from McGuireWoods on a panel that addresses “Affordable Housing: How to Build and Operate It More Sustainably”.
While DCSS is focused on the environmental and green components of sustainability, this panel will specifically address how new affordable housing developments can both minimize their environmental impact while creating a much-needed affordable housing supply if they are designed, constructed, and operated with careful thought.
Each of the panelists will examine what is required to achieve more sustainable affordable housing from their different professional perspectives, taking into account the economic and social elements of sustainability.
In other words, when developing affordable housing in the Washington, DC region, all three of these elements of sustainability must be considered: environmental, economic, and social.
In the lead-up to this session, we’ve asked the panelists to examine opportunities for economic, social, and environmental sustainability in affordable housing in this Q&A.
Q: Many environmentally sustainable construction strategies cost more than traditional ones. How can housing be constructed affordably and still be environmentally sustainable?
A (Scott E. Adams, McGuireWoods):
There is always a tension between elevated expectations, including environmental sustainability and being able to build and preserve affordable housing. That tension typically results in a balancing of various priorities. The impact of environmental sustainability commitments plays out differently depending upon the project. For dedicated affordable projects using Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), there is typically a financing gap that is made up by local governments or other finance sources. Enhanced expectations for sustainability measures make those financial gaps larger. That can result in additional money supporting fewer units.
That said, there are also green requirements within the state’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) that, if met, can make LIHTC projects more competitive. The balance is typically needed when sustainability expectations exceed what is necessary to make projects competitive under the QAP.
In my view, there should be a recognition that we are facing a housing crisis at the same time we are facing a climate crisis. Anyone that is in a position of approving projects should recognize the need to balance priorities to make sure we are addressing both issues, even if we may not be pushing as far as possible on either one.
“In my view, there should be a recognition that we are facing a housing crisis at the same time we are facing a climate crisis. Anyone that is in a position of approving projects should recognize the need to balance priorities to make sure we are addressing both issues.” – Scott E. Adams, McGuireWoods
Q: How can expensive environmentally sustainable operating systems benefit residents affordable housing project?
A (Jordi Fabian, P.E., Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing):
Energy insecurity is a growing issue for low-income households. The average American household spends approximately $2,170 per year on home energy costs representing about 3% of their household income. Households that pay more than 6% of their total income are considered to be a “High” energy burden.
Low-income households, 60% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) or below, are disproportionately more likely to be energy-burdened than non-low-income households.
Energy efficiency is a way to tackle the challenges of high energy costs. APAH is able to implement energy efficiency through new construction or rehab projects.
“Low-income households, 60% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) or below, are disproportionately more likely to be energy burdened than non-low-income households. Energy efficiency is a way to tackle the challenges of high energy costs.” – Jordi Fabian, P.E., APAH
Low-income housing tax credits as well as other state sources such as Housing Innovations in Energy Efficiency (HIEE) require us to implement and also allows us to fund sustainable improvements for our new construction and rehab developments which ultimately provides for a reduction in energy costs which is an ultimate benefit for our residents.
So how does this work?
These funding sources typically require specific thresholds in sustainability, such as achieving a green building certification, meeting Zero energy Ready Homes and Energy Star certifications.
There is always a premium to achieving sustainability requirements. Without getting into the technicalities many of the building components that come at premium are windows, HVAC systems, ductwork, lighting and appliances.
APAH is able to layer the different available funding sources, allowing us to finance the construction and the implementation of these sustainability components. In addition, sources such as HIEE are one of the many sources that allow us to close the finance gap which is also a common challenge we face in the development of affordable housing.
In summary, the net benefit of sustainability in affordable housing is that our residents benefit by paying lower utility bills throughout the cycle of their lease.
Q: What environmental benefits come from the reduction in the amount of parking constructed?
A (Michael Davis, AICP, Parking Program Manager, Fairfax County):
There are no environmental benefits gained from requiring or building more parking than necessary. Reducing the footprint of parking allows more efficient use of developed land areas that can create opportunities for more landscaped and open public spaces. It provides an opportunity to create places for people instead of cars.
Reduced parking requirements decrease the required impervious parking infrastructure. Decreasing impervious surfaces reduces heat island effects. It provides opportunities to convert surface parking to natural planting areas or areas with lower heat retention properties. It also encourages repurposing of surface parking to provide better stormwater management and mitigation infrastructure during development or redevelopment. This reduces nonpoint source pollution which enters our ecosystem through stormwater runoff from surface parking areas. Further, a new parking adjustment option is available that allows a reduction of parking rates below minimum requirements in exchange for the conservation or enhancement of greenspace and tree canopies.
“Reducing the footprint of parking allows more efficient use of developed land area that can create opportunities for more landscaped and open public spaces. It provides an opportunity to create places for people instead of cars.” – Michael Davis, AICP, Fairfax County
A benefit of lower requirements is the opportunity to reduce vehicle emissions, which is a chronic problem in the metropolitan area. Providing less parking reduces induced car trips because drivers will no longer see the availability of ample, free parking as the easiest option for accessing a site or area. Reducing the influence of parking in high-density areas creates opportunities to build compact developments that allow people to travel by non-auto modes to access goods, services, and employment. The creation of a tiered parking framework, which reduces parking rates in densely populated areas and around transit hubs, supports the use of existing and proposed public transportation.
Implementation of bicycle parking minimum requirements and standards encourages the use of this cleaner mode of transportation. The implementation of bicycle parking requirements with safe and convenient places to store bicycles will support non-vehicular travel alternatives.
Q: Are there opportunities after a development is constructed to enhance environmental benefits by reducing the number of cars parked?
A (Marie Cox, TDM-CP, Senior Program Manager, Wells + Associates):
While we have seen a considerable uptick in electric vehicle ownership in recent years, 82.4% of cars sold in May 2024 were gas-powered.1 As stated by the EPA, “A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.2 This number can vary based on a vehicle’s fuel, fuel economy, and the number of miles driven per year.” So every car that can be removed from use at an affordable housing development after it is constructed is likely to reduce carbon dioxide by an average of 4.6 tons annually. Or the equivalent in weight of an Asian elephant per year per car.
Q: How can parking impact the financial viability of an affordable housing project?
A (Jordi Fabian, P.E., Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing):
Parking is always a significant cost for any new development, especially for a project of the size of Dominion Square (note: now called The Exchange at Spring Hill Station).
When the project started, we were required to meet a 1:1 parking ratio. Our team was able to navigate through the parking reduction process and received approval to reduce the parking requirement from a 1:1 to 0.70 ratio. This essentially reduced a full level of parking, approximately 154 spaces. Essentially, we were able to go from 5 levels to 4 levels below ground. This was a key factor in closing the gap and getting the project to move forward.
“We were able to shave about a month and half from the project schedule by eliminating a full level. The reduction in the schedule allows for a further reduction in general conditions costs, as well as a reduction in construction interest, and delivering much needed affordable housing faster.” – Jordi Fabian, P.E., APAH
In addition to the savings in hard costs, there are other benefits associated with a parking reduction. For instance, at Dominion Square, we were able to shave about a month and a half from the project schedule by eliminating a full level. The reduction in the schedule allows for a further reduction in general conditions costs, as well as a reduction in construction interest, and delivering much-needed affordable housing faster.
Q: In recent years, Fairfax County has made a concerted effort to help reduce the amount of parking that new developments need to construct. How has Fairfax County’s “Parking Reimagined” initiative examined parking requirements for affordable housing?
A (Michael Davis, AICP, Parking Program Manager, Fairfax County):
Creating opportunities for more affordable housing options is a critical goal of the county. Minimum parking requirements play a role in limiting these opportunities. The cost of providing unnecessary parking has a direct effect on the cost of construction and the ability to provide affordable housing.
For every required parking space, additional capital is needed to fund this development cost which translates to higher rents and purchase prices for housing. Further, dedicating land and structures to unnecessary parking can limit the ability to construct more housing in general (and part of the affordable housing problem is an overall housing supply problem).
Parking research indicates that low-income households, first-time home buyers, disabled people, young adults, single parents, and older people need affordable housing options the most. These are also the groups that generally own fewer autos and are therefore more likely to pay for parking they do not need through higher rents and purchase costs.
“Parking research indicates that low-income households, first-time home buyers, disabled people, young adults, single parents, and older people need affordable housing options the most. These are also the groups that generally own fewer autos and are therefore more likely to pay for parking they do not need through higher rents and purchase costs.” – Michael Davis, AICP, Fairfax County
Research has further shown that people with incomes below 30% of the poverty line are even less likely to own a vehicle as these use and maintenance costs cannot be accommodated in household income. Senselessly, minimum parking is required for people who create little demand for it.
In addition to the proposal for lower multifamily residential parking requirements in the tiered framework, staff proposes an option to permit the Board the ability to adjust the parking requirements for an entirely affordable building. This will permit additional housing options for those who need affordable housing and have lower parking demands. Lowering the cost of construction by eliminating unnecessary parking can also create incentives for developers to construct additional affordable housing that would not have been feasible with the current parking rates.
Q: Despite the progressive efforts made by Fairfax County to address parking requirements that have traditionally driven up development costs, there are often still other obstacles to getting parking reductions. What are some of the reasons you often encounter that stakeholders resist parking reductions and what their reasons are? How do you think those reasons can be overcome?
A (Scott E. Adams, McGuireWoods):
Fairfax County has done a great job of trying to right-size parking requirements. In general, affordable housing generates less parking demand when compared to market-rate projects. That is born out in actual utilization rates for local projects.
In my experience, if the data shows lower parking demand, there are no issues getting buy-in from staff for parking reductions. However, other stakeholders can be more difficult. Like many other things in the development process, there is an education that occurs with elected officials, community members, and other stakeholders. Concerns from neighbors generally relate to potential spillover parking from the project. This is something we run into with almost all residential projects, not just affordable deals.
“Like many other things in the development process, there is an education that occurs with elected officials, community members, and other stakeholders. Concerns from neighbors generally relate to potential spillover parking from the project. This is something we run into with almost all residential projects, not just affordable deals.” – Scott E. Adams, McGuireWoods
However, it is more acute for affordable projects. Additionally, we have heard well-intended, but misguided, comments about making sure Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) projects are parked at the same rate as market-rate projects. This is typically done when looking at projects through an equity lens under the belief that tenants in affordable units should be given the same opportunity to own multiple vehicles as their counterparts in market-rate units.
In many cases, we have been able to overcome these comments by utilizing the actual data to convince decision-makers that lower parking rates are supported for affordable housing developments.
In circumstances when decision-makers are not willing to support lower parking rates, the result is a more expensive and less environmentally sustainable project because it is built with excess parking. In circumstances where a project can absorb those costs, it typically results value engineering other aspects of the project or increased rents. In the case of LIHTC, the cost results in an increase in the financial gap, which in many cases would be covered by the locality. That results in less money being available for other affordable housing projects.
Q: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies help reduce the need to travel by car by educating tenants about their non-auto choices, as well as encouraging and incentivizing them to use them. How can TDM help support parking reductions and what are some locations in the region where that is already being done?
A (Marie Cox, TDM-CP, Senior Program Manager, Wells + Associates):
As Scott mentioned earlier in the conversation, concerns from neighbors generally relate to potential spillover parking from the project. This is something we run into with almost all residential projects, not just affordable deals. Many jurisdictions in the DC region and across the United States leverage TDM requirements on developments to ensure their tenants have more non-auto transportation choices and are educated about how to use them in-lieu of owning and parking a car on site. We recently completed a study in Fairfax County of over a dozen properties where W+A managed TDM programs over a ten year period and found that they were able to reduce peak hour auto trips by an average of 63% from what was forecasted would be generated by the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE). While not a direct correlation to reductions in parking, this demonstrates that even when parking is already constructed, travel behavior can be significantly altered to reduce reliance on autos to complete trips. Information like this can be used to demonstrate to the public that when parking reductions are combined with TDM requirements, spillover effects with parking can be minimized, if not eliminated.
One example of this was in Alexandria….
Panelists:
Jordi Fabian, Project Manager with Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing (APAH), will provide the affordable housing perspective and talk about the HIEE elements that go into constructing and operating affordable housing with greater energy efficiency.
Marie Cox, Senior Program Manager with Wells + Associates (W+A), will explain how TDM can be leveraged as a means to reduce mobile emissions as well as reduce the number of cars needing to park on site and thereby reduce the amount of parking that needs to be constructed and reduce emissions from concrete production.
Michael Davis, AICP, Parking Program Manager with Fairfax County Land Development Services, will explain how Parking Reimagined updated Fairfax County’s parking regulations to allow for a more sustainable approach to parking and affordable housing.
Scott Adams, Land Use Practice Lead with McGuireWoods, will provide a legal perspective about the policy challenges facing affordable housing projects, including parking requirements that encourage driving and discourage the use of more sustainable transportation choices.
Justin Schor, Vice President of Business Development with W+A, will moderate the panel.