Average-Unit Density Rules Kickstarted Apartment Construction in Santa Barbara
Their Purpose Was Never Low-Income Housing

In response to Rob Fredericks’s Voice of July 25, 2023, much of which is on point, he appears to take a shot at our city’s Average Unit Density (AUD) program while making a case for a sales or temporary occupancy tax (TOT) hike to further fund the city’s Housing Authority.
The op-ed argues that AUD isn’t meeting low-income needs. He’s not exactly correct because AUD now requires a portion of the total units be deed restricted as affordable to lower-income families. True, the majority of new units are not “affordable.” But AUD was never meant to wholly target low-income families, nor was it meant as a funding source for low-income housing. Rather, its purpose is to incentivize construction of smaller “move-up” rental units in and around our downtown core — a far more sustainable program compared to what we had before AUD, when we incentivized 2,000-square-foot-plus luxury condos.
The writer states we’ve permitted 1,581 new housing units over the last eight years and then concludes, “Unfortunately, this new housing isn’t translating into lower housing prices.” High rents are plaguing all American cities, not just Santa Barbara. However, rents on an 800-square-foot (sf) apartment here are far more attainable and affordable than a 2,000sf condo. So technically, he’s wrong again if by “lower” we compare today’s rents with hefty down payments, mortgages, and homeowner association (HOA) dues for oversized condos.
But consider that of those “permitted” housing units, only 656 have actually been constructed. AUD hasn’t exactly dented our supply problem, but that shouldn’t translate into frustration with AUD, especially if you consider the long view.
In a red-hot housing market, it’s no wonder that when a brand-new unit comes out of the ground, complete with fine fixtures, splendid architecture, in highly desirable locations, that there’s sticker shock. That’s because prior to AUD, we effectively experienced a 50-year moratorium on apartment development. As a result, we have absurd and self-inflicted pent-up demand combined with “work from home” trends. AUD cannot fix history overnight and certainly should not be measured against national economic trends.
The real missing piece to our housing perspective is to remember that new units now will eventually convert to more affordable prices over time. Instead of yearning for immediate gratification, let’s take a longer view of our housing stock over a 50-year horizon. Remember, 88 percent of our current stock was built before 1990. Also, consider that new AUD projects are better bang for the buck in terms of water efficiency and residential density per acre, particularly when they replace obsolete land uses.
We need the vision to continue without a distraction, or worse, allowing the fallacy that high rents now should stop us in our tracks. We support Mr. Fredrick’s goal of more public financing sources, particularly at the state level. But let’s work together as a housing industry with all the available tools in our collective belts. AUD won’t dig us out of 50 years of history overnight. But if we consider the long view and slowly try to keep pace with demand, future generations will thank us.
Jay Higgins and Addison Thompson are former City of Santa Barbara planning commissioners.