Rob Fredericks: Executive Director of the Housing Authority

What are the goals of the housing authority and why have you been so involved with it for over 25 years?

I fell in love with the mission of helping other people in their housing situation and you know, I came from the private business world which was more concerned about the bottom line of having a return on investments for housing rather than helping an individual or a household succeed in life and I just totally fell in love with that. My predecessor Rob Pearson indeared/imbued in all of us in our DNA a real mission driven approach — even though we’re a government agency, we don’t operate like most do in the bureaucratic sense. We really push the mission of providing safe and decent, affordable housing for individuals and families while also providing pathways to self-sufficiency and support systems for people to continue to live successfully. We have really good track record with folks who come to the housing authority, falling in love with the mission like I did, and staying with us for so many years because it becomes more than just a job. We all work as a team to really help improve our community.

What are some of the programs you offer and how do people qualify for them and then receive assistance? 

The Section 8 Program is our main and largest program. We receive $35 million dollars a year to provide rental subsidy for low-income individuals that need help with housing, most likely because they are not paid enough to afford the market rents and they are our most vulnerable so they are able to get the vouchers because qualify income-wise for low-income. We recognize that, years ago, that there is a whole group of people that are over-income for the low-income programs, but they also can’t afford the market rents because they’re way too high. So, we started this local workforce housing program, or essential workforce housing program, where we started purchasing a few complexes here and there that have no affordability covenants that say you have to rent to low-income individuals and that’s really what housing authorities have done throughout the nation is they stick to that low-income bracket. That will always be our main mission as well, is helping the low-income because they need help the most, but there’s also that other segment. There are hardworking individuals or families that just can’t afford the market rents, and if they can’t afford these market rents they’re going to leave the community, might commute in back-and-forth from Ventura or further up north in the county, and after a while they will get tired of that and they will find another place to live. So, it causes a whole bunch of different issues when you don’t take care of your local workforce. We started buying complexes without using the allocated government money, our own reserve money, so there were no reserves on it so we could rent to those higher income individuals. Low-income is 80 percent of area-median income and below, and that moderate income is 80 percent to 120 and our workforce housing program will go all the way up to 160 percent. Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of apartment complexes that will serve that income group. We have a few and we just purchased one out on Hollister that are small studios but an individual such as a new graduate who wants to stay in the area might be happy with that. You can apply directly online for either of these programs and you will be added to the waitlist.

How many people are on these waitlists and how long does it take to actually receive assistance from the housing authority?

On the workforce waitlist, there are over 400 people on the waitlist and we don’t have that much turnover or apartments available and the same goes for the Voucher 8 Program which has about 4,000 people on the waitlist. If someone is able to get affordable housing in Santa Barbara, they tend to stay there because it’s golden to get that type of rental assistance in this area. When you come up on the waitlist, we contact you when we have a unit available and we will do an eligibility review for the income and we must conduct a criminal background check as well as we are a government program. Sometimes it can take two or three years to get through that waitlist, so unfortunately it’s not like we have immediate assistance for everyone. The problem is there is not enough supply for the demand, so we are always trying to increase the supply. The city recognizes it as well and that is something we are working on with them. For instance the city owns a commuter parking lot and they have agreed to give that to the housing authority to build workforce housing on which we will build 63 units on — a mix of studios, one-bedrooms, and two-bedrooms so we can serve different household sizes. Having the city give us the land is key because the land is valuable in Santa Barbara because it’s a built-out community, so where you’re going to build next is a difficult thing to come by. Land cost also factors into the cost of housing, and affordable housing can cost up to $800 thousand dollars a unit so it’s very expensive and part of what plays into that is the land cost. So, if you can take that land cost out of it you can keep your rental prices down. We are excited about this as a model and can’t wait to get people housed there where their rental costs will be 20 to 30 percent below market rate. We want to show this as a successful model so the city will continue to provide us with land to continue helping the community.

Are there any new housing projects coming to Santa Barbara that can assist with more housing needs?

​

There is the La Cumbre mall proposal is with a private developer and the city needs more housing of all types, whether it’s market rate, moderate, or affordable. Malls are a dying beast so if a private developer goes in and creates a nice housing plan that works, then it will be a win for the whole city. The city has an inclusionary housing ordinance that 10 percent of units have to be affordable. So, if you took that whole area and took it to max density, they’re saying they could get 500 units out there and 50 of them would be considered affordable. That’s not very much, but the developers are willing to go more than just the inclusionary 10 percent — they’re looking at 20 to 25 percent which really makes a difference to help that moderate workforce. It wouldn’t be necessarily the “affordable” to the low-income, but that type housing development would help the missing middle. 

How long does it take the housing authority to actually get people into housing from the point of first getting a plot of land?

It takes us, generally from the time we acquire a piece of property to getting approvals and funding to breaking ground which is a huge process, about four years and then another year of construction. So you’re looking at a good five years from the time you purchase to the time you’re ready to bring residents in. The process is extremely difficult to go through entitlements and to get the approvals to build, and even harder to get all the funding we need to build these needed units. And as you push it out further, costs continue increasing because of inflation so it’s an extremely expensive process even for affordable housing. Building housing is now double the cost than what it was a decade ago, so what you pay for today you’re going to save tomorrow — or ten years from now. Luckily the city has priority processing for Capital A affordable housing, so we are supposed to move to the top of the list for approval meetings but it still takes a long time. 

There is a senate bill that allows for lot splits. Is this bill able to increase affordable housing units or do you think this will simply be an opportunity for property owners to make a larger profit? 

​

The Senate Bill 9 or SB 9 had no affordability requirement. If an owner wanted to subdivide their lot and create a second lot they could do that — affordable or not. The city went a step further. If you create a lot split, you must provide that second unit as an affordable unit which I was very happy that the city did because we need more affordable housing options. This is something that residents who own property could do to assist their community directly. I personally think there are a lot of accessory dwelling unit possibilities for owner to create a little more housing here and there to get people into housing and they prevented it from the high fire areas like the riviera, but other areas if there is room to put another unit on then allow that. We have also added accessory dwelling units, not under SB 9, but under the state law of accessory dwelling units which predated SB 9 on our multi-family properties where we may have had an extra community room that wasn’t being used and converting that into a housing unit. One development we bought near Cottage Hospital had an illegal art studio that we are now converting into a housing unit right on the property we own and have other apartments there. So there’s ways to put in units here-and-there that are very valuable to adding affordable housing. 

Do you believe that rent control could be a viable option for Santa Barbara?

​

This is a touchy subject because I was explaining to a group of people who are very pro-rent control because they wanted to know where I stand on it and I told them that when I see people hurting and I see the invisible free-hand of capitalism not helping the most vulnerable in our community, my heart says we need to help them and that there should be more rent control. But my brain, from all the studies and journals and economic courses I’ve read and completed, tells me that long-term rent control doesn’t work. I’m afraid that more rent control will push owners of rental properties out of the business. There is a state law already in place that states there is a 10 percent overall rental cap that you can only raise the rents locally the CPI plus one or two percent. That’s already limiting what owners can charge so that is rent control. What I would rather see is more incentives for landlords to rent to low-income or moderate-income tenants rather than having restrictions. Having incentives to keep rents low for landlords, such as a tax relief of some kind or something, could be a real benefit. I’m all for tenant protections like I believe there shouldn’t be any rent gauging. There needs to be clear laws against rent gauging, there needs to be clear controls on written leases to protect the residents. Those kinds of things that haven’t been done by landlords in the past. It’s a touchy issue because the housing authority partners with the private landlord community with the voucher program and landlords don’t need us — they could rent all day long market-rate to the student population at UCSB and make more of a profit if they wanted to, but they rent from our clients as well because they know we pay on time, they know our rental assistance payments are going to be in their bank account on the first of every month, we complete inspections and ensure our residents are taking care of the properties, so those are things that help the landlord community keep their rents low. If we didn’t have the state law in place, I would think yes we need it locally but if you go too far on the cap then that will lead landlords to convert their units to condominiums and selling them and I don’t want to see that because we need as many units as possible. People already can’t afford the condominiums or for sale and when the median income of Santa Barbara is $1.8 million dollars, it’s just crazy the housing prices themselves are out of control.

UCSB has continued to increase the amount of student acceptances each year and their next solution to provide more housing is the infamous Munger Hall. What are your thoughts on this dormitory set to house over 4,500 students?

The ‘Munger mansion’ in concept is great because they’re going to provide housing for thousands of students in one building. But I get concerned as well that there is not enough natural light coming into the building to provide a nice living environment. That’s something on our developments that we always ensure. Our developments fit into the community, to each neighborhood, and actually beautify the surrounding area because we like to have it architecturally beautiful and environmentally beautiful for the residents that live there so they can hold their heads up high and say, “Yes I live in affordable housing. Here’s where I live and it’s nice.” Munger Hall I think needs some redesign. UCSB needs to provide a lot of housing, but it needs a little bit of rework. If they can obtain another site to build on so they could have the same number of additional units but also add more natural light and air, which is important because I’m not sure how these artificial lights will actually do. I can understand why a lot of architects came out against Munger Hall, but I personally like the concept but it just needs some adjustments. School is hard enough without living in a crowded — I don’t know what you want to call it — little spaces where you’ll get depressed and overworked. Being shoved into tiny cubicle spaces to live may not be the best option though.