In June, the question of Senior Housing was launched onto the Davis radar with the help of a developer-created and controlled group, CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging). As a result, the issue of Senior housing has been pushed to the fore.
The Council had originally agreed to create a special committee to the develop the senior housing strategy, however this process was suspended ostensibly due to a re-evaluation by the City administration of workloads and staffing commitments. So instead, the staff is taking these proposals to the Senior Citizens and Social Services Commission.
At last night’s Social Services Commission meeting, City Planner Bob Wolcott first presented a report on the current staff thinking about Senior Housing, there was a brief counter-presentation by CHA members Don Villarejo and Mary Jo Bryan, and then a lengthy discussion by the Commission itself.
While the Commission never made any formal recommendations, it was a fairly lengthy discussion that will be used to help guide the process.
Mr. Wolcott’s report began with assumptions about the Senior growth rate in Davis, using the “American Community Survey” released by the Census Bureau on October 27, 2009, they project a growth rate among those 55+ to be between 3,815 to 7,913 depending on whether the city ever reaches the 1% growth rate that the council has advocated. In the latter group, the percentage would increase from 17 to 24% of the total population.
National estimates suggest approximately 15% of those 65+ live in age restricted senior housing. Age-restricted housing requires that the units be occupied by persons of a specified age however there are other housing types that are not age-restricted but may be compatible with senior needs including aging in place accommodations.
Mr. Wolcott’s report broke down Senior Housing into three strategies which were also subdivided.
The first strategy suggested a target of 1000 units built out over a 20 year period to create an annual average of 50 units per year. This figure represents 1000 age-restricted units. This strategy is based on two factors–first the 1% growth rate assuming the student population living in the city is held constant. And second, it assumes that 15.3% of seniors are interested in age-restricted housing types. They are also assuming that currently there is an under-supply of roughly 200 units of senior age-restricting housing.
The second strategy breaks down the age-restricted housing units by type. They suggest roughly 150 units for continuing care, 50 for independent living, 100 for assisted living, 50 for subsidized senior apartments, 500 for active adult residents.
The third strategy is multifactored. First they suggest the adoption and implementation of the “Guidelines for Housing That Serves Seniors and Persons with Disabilities” which was developed by the Social Services Commission and the Senior Citizen Commission for age-restricted and also general housing that will meet the needs of seniors and those with disabilities.
The guidelines include a recognition of the desire for many to age in their current home, promote options within housing projects for accessibility, visitibility, transportation, and affordability, promote appropriate specialized housing for local seniors based on a number of factors, and recognize that many do not have personal transportation and therefore will be reliant on public transportation and should be near transit lines, neighborhood shopping, and a medical facility.
The strategy then goes on to list ten possible sites. The first eight were green light sites including: DJUSD, Kennedy Place, Nugget Fields, Sweet Briar Drive, Downtown, PG&E, Corporation Yards and Civic Center Fields. The other two are Cannery and Covell Village, both yellow light sites.
Wolcott argues that the ten sites “are substantially consistent with the locational criteria in the “Guidelines for Housing that Serves Seniors and Persons with Disabilities” as sites potentially suitable for age 55+ senior housing…” as they are near public transit lines, neighborhood shopping, and a medical facility (within half mile of the site).
Finally, he presented the size of the projects. He suggested a minimum size for age restricted projects to be 16 units. The maximum size for age restricted projects was 250 units. And the maximum size for general housing type to be around 150 units.
As Wolcott explained:
“The General Plan has for years spoken to a diversity of needs being provided through a mix of housing types in new neighborhoods. We thought that if we restrict the ages in the neighborhood how many units – when is a certain amount too much? We arrived at about the number of 250… Much beyond that it would be creating an enclave of a certain type of community, of age group. Some mixing is desirable accounting to the general plan.”
Needless to say, this was a point that did not sit well with CHA.
Don Villarejo speaking on behalf of CHA seized on this point.
“I strongly object to the arbitrary and unrealistic figures presented in strategy three. I don’t think it’s wise to set a maximum number of units for any project without considering what a specific proposal contains. In words why are we going to think about things and make a judgment about how large they going to be without understanding what the possibilities might be. In order to have a multigenerational community with a variety of services including continued care on site, a minimum number of age qualified units would have to be constructed to create a suitable economic base, otherwise it wouldn’t work. And only a portion of such a development would be for age qualified seniors.”
He also disagreed with the growth projections presented by Mr. Wolcott that were derived from the Census data and the “Bay Area Economic Estimate.”
“As my professional opinion, based on my experience in epidemiology and demography, that this report has seriously underestimated the future growth in population of Davis residents age 55 and over. The evidence upon which I base this assessment is that the actual annual average compounded rate of growth of this age group in Davis as determined from census data from 2000 and 2006-08 is about twice as large as the Bay Area Economic Estimate.”
He contends that the actual growth rate for age 55 or over has been around six percent where as the Bay Area Economic Estimate report suggests it is closer to three percent.
He also argues that we are underestimating the number of seniors who would want to move into a future form of retirement community. He argues that these surveys do not ask the question, asking people if they plan to remain in their home, which he considers more ambiguous than the alternative question which is what type of housing people plan to live in the future. He argues that the latter question is a better question and yields a much higher affirmative response rate.
Some of the members of the commission, particularly, Eric Gelber, suggested that the appropriate discussion should not be limited to age-restricted developments. That we ought to look more generally and create housing that the general population can utilize while at the same time, are senior-friendly. This gets to the notion of aging in place and the ideal of affordability, accessibility, visitibility, and also near enough to transit lines and other facilities to make it possible for seniors and others without personal transportation to live in.
Commentary
In objecting to the size limitation, Mr. Villarejo actually tipped the hand of CHA and the Covell Village developers. One of the points that Mr. Wolcott made when discussing the issue of maximum size was to point out the size of places like Rancho Yolo and also University Retirement Community. URC remains within that size framework and yet presents the kind of continued care and assisted living that Mr. Villarejo was suggesting (though not outright saying) would require a larger facility.
Remember that Covell Village II is supposed to be around an 800 unit facility for seniors. Therefore the idea of size limitation is going to be problematic if the true purpose is simply to promote Covell Village rather than merely advocate for senior housing opportunities.
Perhaps sensing the danger of the Mr. Wolcott’s suggestion of a senior enclave, Mr. Villarejo deftly added that “only a portion of such a development would be for age qualified seniors.” Does that suggest that in fact, the Covell Village development will not be an actual 800 unit senior project, but rather a much smaller senior project with a larger general population project? That perhaps the senior issue is being used as a wedge issue to move forward this project? The possibilities are there. We will find out soon as the project application is due in January.
Overall I think Eric Gelber’s points had a lot of merit. We need to look more generally at filling housing needs. Our future housing should be accessible to seniors and enable seniors to age in place. That would be far more valuable for a diverse and multifaceted population such as Davis.
Naturally this was a Social Services discussion not a planning or land use discussion, but one point missing was the fact that Davis residents have said no to peripheral developments both in terms of the sprawling original 2000 unit Covell Village and the more modest 191 unit Wildhorse Ranch. It seems unlikely that the voters would approve a peripheral development project in the near future and so the push for a large senior-only facility would be premature at best.
Along those lines the eight sites listed–though many of these are also unlikely–are the best way to proceed if the goal is truly to get senior housing rather than use the issue as a means to promote a specific project by a specific developer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You’ve provided the linkage to the astroturf group and CV Partners over the past few months, so why bother framing this as a question? And we are a long, long, way from looking at possible sites for dedicated housing.
That’s the point, we’re not a long way. We’re two months from an application from Covell and in the meantime they have framed this issue.
In my opinion there’s no great need for senior housing, it’s all just being hyped in the interest of certain parties who stand to profit. Even though they’re persistent, in the end if they try a Covell II I feel Davis voters will see through this and vote it down. Once again, it’s a 1% growth “cap”, not a mandatory growth rate or a target.
Did Mr. Wolcott actually state that his calculations were premised, in part, on a 1% annual growth rate? If so, he needs to be publicly called on this and pressed(from the dais) to publicly acknowledge that 1% is an annual GROWTH CAP and is therefore irrelevant to his calculations.
To his credit, at the beginning, he talked about the issue of the growth cap versus the growth rate. Regardless, the CHA people were not happy with his figures and felt they were way too low.
I continue to believe that there is a fundamental conflict-of-interest with city staff whose future salary levels, benefits and very jobs are under threat unless there is major residential development that brings significant SHORT-TERM developer monies into Davis’ coffers. This conflict-of-interest is aggravated by our city manager whose previous career experience and focus, as our Development Planning Director,was Davis residential expansion. A diligent, in-depth examination of staff reports laced with a healthy dose of skepticism by our Council members is essential.
Someone sent me a list of all the planners and what they are working on–a few weeks ago. I’ve been trying to figure out how to use it.
I couldn’t agree more with davisite2. I also strongly support a well-designed survey to understand what Davis Seniors or soon-to-be Seniors actually need and want.
Lively university towns with excellent cultural opportunities and medical services rank high nationwide as ideal communities for retirement. This is the type of town where developers and investors that specialize in senior housing and services and church groups, such as the Quakers, have built retirement complexes across the country. The fact is – these projects will be widely marketed and may not actually be purchased or lived in by local Senior Davisites or Senior relatives of current residents.
Also completely agree with davisite2. Have felt for a long time that there is potential conflict and job security there in planning dept.
Do we know if they have trimmed that dept in this time of little growth or ???? I seem to remember hearing they transferred one person or similar.
It looks like we have ten planners in our department that has produced just a handful of actual projects in the last five years.
Bingo ! How does that compare to 6 yrs ago?
If we have ten planners surely they could put together a survey. Also, Nancy’s point that Srs with no connection to Davis would come is valid.
Sr housing is likely to be a fiscal drain for the city–if it’s serving the needs of people who live here now (either Srs retiring or parents of people who live in Davis) I am sure that people would have a different attitude than if it turns out to be a subsidy for people who have no connection to Davis (and may be quite well off as well).
This has not been well thought out and appears to be the latest attempt by a developer to build homes on Ag land in Davis.
The results of the 2010 Official US Census within Davis should be useful for future planning decisions. Let’s use the data when it becomes available.
I am personally neutral the idea of a senior housing village for Davis. I think the original Covell Village concept was better. And I’m sympathetic to those folks who think, “let’s just leave Davis the size it is, now. I am opposed to all forms of growth because I would much rather live in a city of 65,000 people than one with 75,000 or 100,000.”
As long as folks are honest in their selfishness, I have no problem with making arguments based on self-interest. If you think any new developments along Covell will make your drive on Covell worse, then just say that: You got here first; and eff you to the guy who comes later and makes your drive slower.
However, I think the opponents — who I suspect are a large majority of voters — are mostly making non-sensical points designed to put a shiny wrapping on their selfish arguments. [quote]Nancy’s point that Srs with no connection to Davis would come is valid. [/quote] It may be perfectly true, but who cares? Is your argument that the seniors who live in those places will live there but not care about Davis once they arrive? It seems to me that as they move in (from Redding or Woodland or Sacramento or San Rafael) they will be Davisites just like everyone else who lives here.
(Before I came to Davis in 1965, I was an Oaklander. By 1968 when I rose to the top of my class at the UCD preschool on 1st Street, where I dominated fingerpainting, I was “connected” and 100% a Davisite.)
With the new seniors, if they are retired and healthy, it’s quite likely they will want to live here in order to take advantage of and be a part of all that Davis and UC Davis offer. That will connect them as much as anyone else who lives here. [quote]Sr housing is likely to be a fiscal drain for the city–if it’s serving the needs of people who live here now (either Srs retiring or parents of people who live in Davis). [/quote] The only way I would expect senior housing to be a fiscal drain is if it were a non-profit (as the URC is) or if it were for low-income. Otherwise, senior housing should be revenue neutral or even positive, just the same as any market-rate housing is. It’s not as if seniors demand a large police presence. Surely you don’t expect the elderly to be signing up for membership with the Norteños or Sureños, mugging tweens and tagging their neighbors’ electric golf carts? [quote]I am sure that people would have a different attitude than if it turns out to be a subsidy for people who have no connection to Davis (and may be quite well off as well). [/quote] That is no doubt true. But it largely suggests the majority of insiders are prejudiced against [i]the outsider.[/i]
Rich, problem is they’re trying to sell this senior housing as something that’s needed by Davis senior residents. If in reality there’s really not much of a local need then why build it?
[quote]Rich, problem is they’re trying to sell this senior housing as something that’s needed by Davis senior residents. If in reality there’s really not much of a local need then why build it? [/quote] I agree that the sales pitch — that this place would be filled up by long-time Davis residents who want to sell an empty nest — is largely bogus. Some small percentage of the residents will be long-time Davisites; most will come from elsewhere.
The “why build it” question to me needs to be looked at it from three different perspectives:
1) The developer: he wants to build it to make money. I have no problem with that. That’s human nature. He believes there is strong demand for the product he will supply;
2) The buyers/renters: They might not be long-time Davis residents, but if they choose to buy or rent one of these units, they are saying they would rather live there than anywhere else. So the “why build it” answer for them is obvious — they want to live there; and
3) The rest of Davis: For most, there is nothing in it for them. A small number may end up with jobs serving seniors or businesses selling them goods or restaurants selling meals now and then. A few will benefit from construction or maintenance jobs. But for most people, myself included, it will just be another neighborhood I don’t live in (or much visit). That’s why it will fail.
It won’t matter if it doesn’t add too much to traffic or if it is revenue neutral to the City. People vote their self interests — which is fine if they admit that — and that is what they will do with this project.
I’ll agree with rich in this case. we don’t need senior housing. the kind of housing they are pushing is not affordable. actually if you take a look at the new apartments across from the police department it’s not even to full capacity. they just want to build more units and bring people in from out of town. it’s just a big money making scam
i hope they reject it outright just as they rejected wild horse and covell village.
Dear Melanie:
Your comments about Eleanor Roosevelt Circle are not correct. ERC is 100% occupied and most of the residents were mainly from Davis with some from Yolo County. Some seniors did (and do)come from out of town to be with their children who live in Davis. That issue does present a dilemma if you only want to house people who have aged in Davis.
I have seen some lovely relationships at ERC between the senior resident and their helpful loving local children.
We encouraged my mother in law to come to live in Davis so that she would be closer, be part of our daughters’ life and be safer as she aged. Rents at ERC start at about $350 a month, far lower than URC or Covell Garden. Take a look at us at wwww.community.coop/davis/erc.
Wow. I can’t believe some of you people. What right do you have to object to “outside seniors” who have “no connection to Davis” moving here? Is this not a free country where people can live wherever they choose? Why doesn’t the city just start requiring people from out of town to obtain passports to immigrate here? They could take an exam to show their understanding of the wacky City government, and be required to show proof of hybrid automobile ownership and 1.5 bicycles per household resident.
I’ll NEVER understand this attitude that seniors have to have some kind of “connection” to Davis, as in, already living here or being related to someone who is, in order to partake of potential senior housing. It’s perfectly illustrative of the closed, snobby attitude that this town has – that you must fit some bizarre profile to be acceptable as a resident. I’ve lived here 10 years and have never been invited to the home of anyone who has lived here very long, even people from my supposedly “liberal” church, but my neighbors and I, who moved here about the same time, entertain each other often in our homes. I have also thrown parties to which I’ve invited long-time residents and none have ever attended. Or even RSVP’d, for that matter.
My home in another state is half-built, and I ALREADY have invitations to participate in a large group Thanksgiving dinner and a New Year’s get-together later this year. Now there is a welcoming place to live. I feel accepted and embraced and not like I have to meet some exclusive standards to live there. The town blows Davis away culturally and scenically, too. As a soon-to-be retiree, I could not in good conscience ever recommend Davis as a place for someone to retire who didn’t already have deep roots or family in the community.