By E. Roberts Musser –
By E. Roberts Musser – Of the 10 formal motions passed by the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, 8 of them were fully incorporated by City Staff into the revised Senior Housing Strategy; one motion was partially taken into account; and one was ignored as problematic. Of the two recommendations offered by the Social Services Commission, both were included. It is very encouraging City Staff worked closely with both commissions and the public, took into serious consideration what everyone had to say, and for the most part agreed and included the suggestions into the evolving Senior Housing Strategy. Such collaboration is essential to producing good work product.
So here is how things stack up in regard to the Senior Housing Strategy:
1. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission passed a unanimous motion in “support…of city staff’s general approach in setting some type of senior housing parameters as a guideline for City Council use. The burden is on the proponent of any project to explain why it would be necessary to depart from any of the given parameters…”.
City Staff concurred, and “recommended a justification be required for deviating from the parameters (incorporated into resolution)”.
2. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission passed a unanimous motion that “recommends that the appropriate age range for consideration of age-restricted senior housing be set at 65+”.
City Staff concurred and “recommend[ed] revised calculations of existing deficiency and number of new age-restricted units. It is reasonable to expect that fewer than 15.3% of ages 55-64 will demand age-restricted housing types. This is consistent with the ages of the residents of existing age-restricted units in Davis. It is reasonable to base the planning numbers on ages 65+, although this would not preclude a project restricting to ages 55+”.
3. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission passed a unanimous motion that “recommends the city adopt a Universal Design Ordinance, that requires designing new housing units so that future modifications to increase unit accessibility, functionality, and visit ability can be made in an economical and efficient manner that accommodates aging in place”.
City Staff agreed with studying and considering adoption of a Universal Design Ordinance as a new strategy.
4. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission passed a motion that “recommends, in keeping with its Senior Housing Guidelines, that an independent needs analysis and fiscal impact analysis be completed before approving any senior housing project”.
City Staff concurred and agreed to “rely on the implementation of the proposed Senior Housing Guidelines which require these analyses”.
5. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission unanimously passed a motion that “recommends assuming there is no current deficiency of 65+ senior age-restricted housing subject to further investigation”.
City Staff did not concur. Staff found “… there is current deficiency of approximately 60 units. Staff has compared the existing senior units in Davis in six ASHA categories to the proportionate number of units that would be needed using national averages. The existing units in four categories exceeded the proportions of national averages and the existing units in two categories (Assisted Living and Market Rate Senior Apartments) were deficient by a total of approximately 60 units”.
Clearly City Staff did some investigation as requested, and found there was indeed a deficiency – but of only 60 units based on the national averages and the revised assumption of age 65+. This revised figure was a far cry from the 200 units originally predicted. It should also be noted City Staff did not look at any waitlists of the various facilities in Davis in making their new determination.
6. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission unanimously passed a motion that “recommends the 1% growth rate represent a “cap” rather than a “target”.
City Staff concurred “that the City’s overall 1% housing growth cap would be adhered to, and that the targets in Strategy 1 are a guide for overall amounts and not numbers that would be provided in any one-year or five-year period. The targets for specific years or unit types are not proposed as absolute caps, but expectations with the recognition that there are senior housing needs as well as other housing needs”.
Personally, I find this language by City Staff a bit too squishy for my taste. As soon as the following language was added: “the targets… are not proposed as absolute caps, but expectations”, I was certain the gist of what the Senior Commission was trying to say had been lost. Commissioners felt waitlists need to be looked at, as well as national averages, fiscal impact and independent needs analysis, to determine how much more senior housing is needed – rather than an artificially created “target” based on 1% growth.
Any numbers should represent a “cap” or maximum amount allowed, rather than a “target” that is expected to be achieved (just because the national averages require it), whether there is a need for it or not.
7. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission unanimously passed a motion that “recommends the average over twenty years be reduced by 185 units for 65+ age restricted housing”.
City Staff revised their figures, and recommended the average over twenty years be reduced by 300 units for 65+ age restricted housing. Thus their updated recommendation for age-restricted senior housing needed between now and the year 2029 would be 700 units, rather than the original projection of 1000.
8. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission unanimously passed a motion that “recommends that more investigation be done in determining the waitlists for each type of facility as a better gauge of need than necessarily following national averages”.
City Staff did not concur. Staff found “that the consideration of national averages is a reasonable approach for the distribution of unit types. Staff finds that the use of waiting lists would require ongoing monitoring for changes and is limited by the accuracy of the survey information, duplicity of names, uncertainty of whether the waiting persons will actually accept the unit when available, etc”.
This is where there is major disagreement between City Staff and the Commission. We believe it is important to at least look at the waitlists, as a factor in determining need, rather than blindly following the national averages despite community desires.
9. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission unanimously passed a motion that the following language be stricken from the Senior Housing Strategy: “In order to distribute the units through time and to provide a limit in any five year period, consider limiting the number of approved units in a five year period to two times the targeted number of units”.
City Staff concurred.
10. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission unanimously passed a motion that “recommends that a development application submitted … for 16 or more units, should be reviewed by the Senior Citizens Commission for recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council (as required by the project application process) for recommendations on any aspect of the site plan or design that would determine whether the project is suitable for Davis seniors”.
City Staff concurred and recommended “the following modification: …review by the Senior Citizens Commission for recommendations on whether the project is suitable for seniors and how the site plan or design could be improved for seniors”.
The Social Services Commission made two recommendations, with which City Staff concurred: 1) Encourage “programs to promote aging-in-place in existing homes…such as retrofit loans, utilities subsidies, promotion of additions and second units”; 2) “Specifically support smaller homes for increased affordability and greater housing accessibility”.
There is still a long road ahead, with more public comment in the offing. The entire Senior Housing Strategy can be further modified. Ultimately the City Council must approve the finalized version. Thus it will be important for citizens to continue being engaged in this process, and make their voices heard.
Lessons to be learned
Vigorous citizen involvement will usually result in better policy overall.
Thanks for this followup article, Elaine.
“This is where there is major disagreement between City Staff and the Commission. We believe it is important to at least look at the waitlists, as a factor in determining need, rather than blindly following the national averages despite community desires.”
Using national averages to apply to a city where the demographic skews toward younger residents seems odd. I suppose monitoring waitlists would require more staff resources. But perhaps national averages could be adjusted for the different demographics of this college town, if they prefer to just use some simple numerical formula.
“The targets for specific years or unit types are not proposed as absolute caps, but expectations with the recognition that there are senior housing needs as well as other housing needs”.”
“Caps” are just that, CAPS! Emlen is clearly pandering to the current Council majority and “as well as other housing needs” is more than “squishy”, it is a subjective open door to a developer-driven Council majority. Caps will be defined as intended when we elect a Council majority that respects the political will of the Davis voters.