California Air Resources Board

Background

Over the years, in California, various efforts have been made by the State and other levels of government to promote sustainable growth through coordinated land use and transportation planning and by encouraging investment that advances those plans. These efforts can help achieve public goals such as economic development, public health and safety, reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, fair housing and affordable transportation choices, and more. Where and how growth is allocated is an important way to promote sustainable regional development that can help make it possible for residents to afford homes in neighborhoods of their choice, from which they can efficiently and affordably reach daily destinations.

A strategy for meeting these challenges in a coordinated way has been to undertake efforts to foster residential development and other investment in strategic locations. This has been undertaken at different levels of government in various forms over the past decades. For example, from 1945 through 2012, California allowed the formation of redevelopment agencies to coordinate and fund development in specific neighborhoods. More recently, some metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have designated specific geographic areas as priority areas for growth in their regional transportation plan / sustainable communities strategies (RTP/SCS), and in some cases, used this as a framework for public investment. For instance, Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) identifies green zones that have infill capacity yet currently face market or other barriers to development, then used this as a framework for investing Regional Early Action Plans (REAP) 2.0 funds. Other regions have similar concepts, with names such as priority development areas or priority growth areas.

These efforts have been accompanied by work to quantify the benefits of focusing growth in specific locations. Much research, including several research projects sponsored by the California Air Resource Board (CARB), have sought to examine the quantifiable benefits of growth in specific locations and how various values or benefits overlap spatially. Recently, an Executive Order (N-2-24) directed several State agencies to accelerate and streamline infill development projects to transform undeveloped and underutilized properties statewide into affordable housing for Californians. As part of this, the order specifically directed CARB to develop and propose metrics to assess the climate and environmental benefits of infill housing development.

More research is needed to understand how the State can overcome barriers to housing and other development and effectively foster investment in strategic places to advance public goals. This contract will help CARB understand policies that can be used to overcome barriers and accelerate development in priority areas. This contract will build upon a number of recent CARB research projects and CARB’s work to respond to EO N-2-24 to identify metrics to assess the climate, environmental, and equity benefits of infill housing development.

More research is needed to understand how the State can overcome barriers to housing and other development and effectively foster investment in strategic infill areas to advance public goals. This contract will build upon a number of recent CARB research projects and CARB’s work to respond to EO N-2-24 to identify metrics to assess the climate and environmental benefits of infill housing development. This contract will help CARB understand how metrics can be used to identify designated infill areas that advance climate, environmental, and equity benefits. Then, after creating a typology of past and current policy efforts to promote growth in designated infill areas, make recommendations as to how State, regional, and local policies / programs could utilize the metrics to accelerate housing development in these places.

Objective

This contract aims to support and build upon efforts to accelerate growth in locations that advance climate, environmental, and equity benefits, via two areas of work. First, the researchers will review what policies have been or could be used to support growth in designated infill areas. Second, the researcher will summarize metrics that can be used to identify designated infill areas where growth would advance climate, environmental, and equity benefits; provide relevant publicly accessible data and technical information for CARB staff to quantify or measure the associated metrics; and identify how State, regional, and local policies / programs could utilize the metrics to accelerate development in designated infill areas.

Scope of Work

Task 1: Review of policies to facilitate housing production in designated infill areas

In consultation with CARB staff, the researchers will conduct a review of policies used in California and across the United States aimed at promoting growth in designated infill areas, particularly when that approach could serve to advance climate, environmental, and equity benefits. For this task, researchers will first identify different existing designated infill area types, with a focus on those that could advance climate, environmental, and equity goals. Designated infill area types might include transit-oriented development hubs, infill sites, green zones, opportunity zones, mobility hubs, priority growth areas, redevelopment areas, and similar concepts. In consultation with CARB staff, researchers will finalize this list of designated infill area types. The researchers will then outline state, regional, and local policy/strategies used to facilitate growth in designated areas. For example, policies/strategies might include but are not limited to financial incentives (e.g., discounted permit fees), funding pot eligibility, “regulatory easing” (e.g., California Environmental Quality Act streamlining), direct changes to land use (e.g., local zoning changes, California Senate Bill 79), and more. To conclude this task, the researchers will work closely with CARB staff and solicit feedback from experts and practitioners to develop an organized taxonomy of policies with key examples of each, outlining their degree of success, their pros and cons, the level of government (federal, state, local) that undertook them, and other key considerations in a digestible format. Furthermore, researchers will identify how these strategies seek to address barriers that otherwise hinder growth / development / investment in those locations. This inventory should particularly seek to identify which approaches have been most successful, any approaches that are emerging or practiced now, and those that are best poised to advance climate, environmental, and equity goals. Experts might include academic researchers, staff from varying levels of government, or staff from nonprofit organizations such as non-profit housing providers or advocates, community leaders, and the business community such as infill housing developers. The researchers will then make recommendations regarding how metrics such as those to be discussed in Task 2 could be utilized in State, regional, and local policies and programs

Interim Deliverable

The researchers will provide the following:

• Draft list of designated infill growth area types that advance public goals, with a focus on those that could advance climate, environmental, and equity benefits.
• Draft inventory / taxonomy of state, regional, and local policies / strategies for accelerating growth in designated infill areas, with key examples of each, outlining their degree of success, their pros and cons, the scale of applicability, and other key facts in a digestible format.
• Feedback from experts on draft inventory.
• Recommendations regarding specifically how metrics could be used in State, regional, and local policies and programs to accelerate residential growth in these areas.

Task 2: Review and compile metrics to identify designated growth areas that advance climate, environmental, and equity benefits

The researchers will then compile and review associated metrics that could be used to identify or map out designated infill area types to advance climate, environmental, and equity benefits, building upon CARB’s work for EO N-2-24 as well as the work completed for task 1. Along with reviewing and incorporating CARB’s work in response to EO N-2-24, this effort should seek to expand the work particularly in equity-related subject areas. The research shall provide a review of the existing literature, including but not limited to contract findings funded by the State, that examine key metrics that might help prioritize growth in specific areas. This shall result in a list of potential metrics compiled from CARB’s recommendations under EO N-2-24, past or ongoing policy practices, and other research. The list of metrics shall be accompanied by an evaluation of the metrics that identifies their pros and cons, scale (project-level versus neighborhood/community-level), applicability to multiple development contexts (urban / suburban / rural), public availability of regularly updated data at appropriate granularity to measure them, and other key points. In addition to a more comprehensive write-up, the researchers shall provide a well-organized, visually appealing summary for easy comprehension. Together with CARB, the researchers will also develop evaluation criteria for narrowing this list to a subset of metrics to study further. The researchers will then apply the evaluation criteria to the list of metrics together with CARB to identify a subset of metrics to examine further. The researchers will identify publicly available data and other relevant technical information to provide a methodology for measuring or mapping these metrics. Finally, the researchers shall identify the existing gaps/challenges in this field of work and how these gaps can be addressed.

Interim Deliverable

• Draft full list of metrics that could be used to identify designated areas for growth that achieve climate, environmental, and equity benefits including an evaluation regarding their pros and cons and other factors, including those from the evaluation criteria [see next deliverable], in both written form and with a visually appealing summary for easy comprehension.
• Evaluation criteria for identifying a subset of potential metrics to develop further.
• For a subset of metrics identified with CARB utilizing the evaluation criteria, relevant publicly available data and technical information for measuring or mapping the metric.
• Gaps/challenges in the field and how these gaps can be addressed.

Task 3: Develop the draft final report

The researchers will synthesize their findings from Tasks 1 and 2 in a report format. The final report should discuss the potential use of metrics to identify designated areas for growth to achieve climate, environmental, and equity benefits and outline a taxonomy of possible state, regional, and/or local policy strategies for utilizing metrics to incentivize this growth and addressing known barriers to growth in designated areas. It should summarize past research on metrics related to identifying designated areas for growth. It should then build upon the work that CARB conducted under Executive Order (EO) N-2-24 by examining a broader list of potential metrics, expanding on that work particularly in the area of equity, and providing the relevant technical information necessary to quantify or map a subset of these metrics. It should provide a summary of how specifically the metrics could be used in State, regional, and local policies and programs. In addition, research should provide suggestions for future work.

Interim Deliverable

• Draft final report for review

Minimum Expectations and Application Process and Requirements

Information on required material and process during the preproposal phase and expectations on the contract are found on the Solicitation landing page.

Timeline

This project is anticipated to be completed in no more than 24 months from the start date. Cost shall not exceed $350,000.

Scoring Criteria

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the pre-proposal solicitation(15 points)

The pre-proposal should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting the proposers’ expertise on the subject.

The pre-proposal should consider various aspects of the need and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Solicitation.

The pre-proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Solicitation: The primary objective of this contract is twofold. First, the researchers will review existing and emerging policies and associated metrics to support growth in designated areas. Second, the researcher will synthesize the associated metrics and provide relevant technical information for CARB staff to develop these metrics.

Policy relevance/benefits to the state(10 points)

The pre-proposal should describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to support the objectives of this contract in furtherance of CARB mission.

Previous work (15 points)

In the pre-proposal, researchers must demonstrate that they have relevant experience in this area. Is the team composed of a multi-disciplinary team of experts? Do they discuss how they will build on previous relevant work funded by CARB, other state agencies, and any other appropriate organizations If community engagement is included, the relevant contractor should describe prior experience in community engagement and provide letters of support, references or a community impact statement detailing how their previous work has benefitted communities. Five points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The project team is multi-disciplinary.
2. The project team includes members from various universities, non-academic institutions, or community-based organizations.
3. The project team includes one or more members who will contribute significantly to the project (e.g., a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time) who has not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Technical merit (25 points)

Describe the technical strengths and/or weaknesses of the pre-proposal. Proposers should demonstrate the logic and feasibility of the methodology and technical approach, outline the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain how the work will be carried out. The proposal should also explain how the proposed methods are robust and how the results will be validated. Consider how well the draft proposal addresses these areas:

1. Is the proposed measurement approach appropriate? Are the technologies being considered suitable, and will the proposed analysis yield relevant results?
2. Does the proposed work address all the deliverables outlined in the “Deliverables” section? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.
3. The review team will select only one pre-proposal for development into a full proposal. If this pre-proposal shows potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or further explained in the full proposal?

Level and quality of effort to be provided(15 points)

Does the pre-proposal allocate time and resources effectively to ensure the study objectives are met? Is the supervision and oversight sufficient to keep the project on schedule? Is the distribution appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation, analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel?

Cost effectiveness (20 points)

Is the cost appropriate for the proposed work? Does the proposed work appear feasible within the requested budget? Projects that include co-funding should be evaluated more favorably.

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to the needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to the interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.