Edhat Staff
The Average Unit-size Density Incentive Program (AUD Program) has achieved its stated objectives, but that might not match the public’s expectation, a new report by the City of Santa Barbara states.
The City’s Planning Commission compiled this report to analyze data and gain insights on how well the AUD Program met its goals since being adopted in July 2013.
From the City’s General Plan, the AUD Program’s key objectives are to produce smaller units with the idea it would be more attainable than residential development, locate units close to transit and other services, and encourage “workforce housing” for middle-income households that are overqualified for subsidized affordable housing yet cannot afford the average market-rate housing.
More AUD units are in the permitting pipeline (pending or approved), but have not yet been issued a permit. Overall, 1,439 units have been proposed in the 10 years the AUD Program has been available, and over two-thirds of all submitted AUD units have been issued building permits (973 units). Of all the proposed AUD units, almost half have been completed and may be occupied (697units).
While comparing data to the AUD objectives, the report states the program successfully created smaller units of 716 sq. ft., down from an average unit size of 1,468 sq. ft. from comparable Variable Density units.
The AUD Program also increased the production of studio units, up from 2% previously to 28% of all AUD units proposed. Less encouragingly, AUD produced fewer variation in unit mix than was seen in comparable projects before the Program. Two-bedroom units are the most prevalent type in the AUD Program, but very few three-bedroom units are being produced—only 6% of AUD units are offered with three bedrooms.
The second objective stating units should be close to transit and other services is a bit difficult to measure as the program was only allowed in areas that are already close to these amenities.
However, additional scrutiny of AUD Program location showed the approved number of lots were relatively small compared to the city’s total inland lots, the program did not include all lots zone for multi-unit residential use, three-quarters of the available lots are in the medium-high density tier, and the Priority Housing Overlay comprises just 0.09% of all inland lots that are zoned for highest densities.
For the third objective of “Encourage Workforce Housing,” the report states it’s complicated by a lack of agreed-upon definitions and measurable outcomes.
“The AUD Program’s objective to encourage workforce housing was never intended to create affordable housing for low-income households; it was designed to deliver attainable, market-rate housing for middle-income households without subsidy,” the report reads.
The Program aimed to do this by incentivizing higher-density housing with smaller unit sizes and reduced standards to decrease project costs. However, increased densities alone cannot create attainable housing; it is the shortage in units that results in high and rising housing costs, according to the report.
Although the term “workforce housing” was never clearly defined, it is used by the Planning Division to mean households in the region’s middle- and upper-middle-income categories.
The results of the informal AUD rent survey show a two-bedroom AUD unit is attainable to middle-and upper-middle income workforce households in Santa Barbara, based on monthly rent as a percent (30%) of annual household income ($4,292 to $5,365, respectively).
The report goes on to state that high rental prices alone do not necessarily indicate a housing crisis. Costs must be considered in relation to incomes—if incomes are high, high housing costs may still be considered attainable.
“Using the target of middle-and upper-middle income households, the AUD Program successfully achieves the objective to encourage workforce housing. The misalignment of public perception with the Planning Division’s definition of attainable workforce housing signifies a critical topic to reconsider,” the report states.
Overall the report states the AUD Program’s successes and shortcomings can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the Program’s initial intent and a lack of measurable objectives with trackable targets.
With this report, the Planning Division identifies potential changes to consider for future Program amendments. To achieve successful outcomes, clear direction must be provided on how the city should meet quantifiable goals.
This information will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for comments and direction as the City looks to implement a permanent multi-unit housing program to be undertaken in 2024.
What I understand is the City is patting themselves on the back for meeting the vague and unclear objectives, but we still have a housing shortage.
Planning considers “workforce” housing to be what middle to upper middle income people can afford? Is that anyone else’s definition of “workforce”?
I was also confused by this. I looked at the report and here’s the full statement:
“Although never defined in the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Division produced several AUD update reports in which the term “workforce housing” was defined as including households in the region’s middle- and upper-middle-income categories. However, there has yet to be a consensus on this definition, with many housing and land use experts also including households earning the area median income (AMI) in the moderate-income category in the description of workforce housing.”
Also many non-experts with an ounce of common sense.
It seems to me that the original concept of AUD was to create small units (“mother in law quarters” or “granny flats”). It is disconcerting to see the city complain that there were few three bedroom units built. My support of this concept was as supplementary housing, not family permanent housing. These supplementary housing are valuable for low income workers, not middle class families, who are the worst affected by the cost of rooms in our community. This should be the thrust of the program going on.
I think you have confused AUD with ADU. How is that even possible? I did also. ADU (Accessory Dwelling Units = granny flats.) I think this is working as planned.
AUD = Average unit density – plan was to allow increased density with less parking and smaller units than would normally be allowed. (I assume with the thought that smaller units = cheaper, but that hasn’t happened.)
With respect, mm1970, I don’t think I confused the programs but I did confuse the acronyms for what that’s worth. But your comments really don’t go to the merits of the issue I think. The “plan” and the promise was to create small affordable housing near jobs that lower income folks performed as well as creating a place for older adults to live and thereby free up their unwieldy homes for larger families. I don’t see that this is what is happening and I don’t see the city pushing that purpose when they want to build more three bedroom homes on urban lots already occupied by full size homes.
Good point, RHS. This AUD program is not helping the housing crisis nor is it helping the working people who most need that help. When it is catering to upper-middle class families earning over $5000/month, I do not call that program successful.
The AUD concept was not for mother-in-law quarters or granny flats. That the ADU program. But neither guarantees low-income housing, nor even moderate-income housing. The units may be small, but they can be sold or rented at market rate, and the market rate continues to be unaffordable for many.
The market rate would come down if there was an income restriction. I favor an income restriction for Priority Housing Overlay units. The City already has other zones (SP-5 “Westmont” and SH “Senior Housing”) with income restrictions. Note: income restrictions, but not rent restrictions.
The most valuable information in the Progress Report is the bar graph on page 39.
It shows that the bulk (67%) of new units are located in the Priority Housing zone.
The intent of the Priority Housing was to promote “affordable by design” housing.
The actual outcome was high density expensive housing.
A simple fix: change the density table.
– allow only projects with Maximum Average Unit size of 400 sqft
– double the allowed density
For an extra measure of caution, impose an income restriction on all units: at most 150% of AMI.