Word To The Wise: Senior Housing Guidelines In Limbo

In essence, the Senior Housing Guidelines encompass the following principles to direct the senior housing development process:

• Recognize that most seniors want to remain in their own homes, and thus promote accessibility/visitability in senior housing so that aging in place is more possible.
• Preferably locate housing projects near public transit stops, near downtown, near shopping centers, near medical facilities.
• Provide affordable housing.
• Promote a variety of housing types suitable for seniors and the disabled.
• Determine the internal demand for senior housing in Davis through –

• An independent market analysis;
• A fiscal impact analysis;
• An EIR that considers the special needs of seniors and the disabled.

• Age restricted, age qualified or other housing types that serve the needs of seniors/disabled should include independent living, supportive housing, assisted living, continuum of care, group care and crisis shelters.

• Supportive services should be considered, including a bus shuttle if the facility is large enough.
• Amenities important to seniors should be considered, such as small yards, sufficient heating and cooling, security/safety options, community rooms/gardens and the like.

Unfortunately, Council member Don Saylor pulled the Senior Housing Guidelines from the Consent Calendar. The Guidelines were to be scheduled as a regular agenda item for the next City Council meeting. However, I encouraged City Staff to reschedule at a later time when the two newly elected members would be seated. The Senior Housing Guidelines are now calendared to be heard at the City Council meeting on July 27, 2010. To their credit, City Staff is still strongly supporting the Guidelines as written, as are the Senior Citizens Commission, the Social Services Commission, and the ADA Subcommittee.

Meanwhile I learned what concerns about the Senior Housing Guidelines were being expressed by some on the City Council.

1. “The first is a mention of middle income housing which is now not relevant since the middle income housing requirement was suspended…”
2. “The second concern is with the policy paragraph… that…focuses on aging in place too much, restricting more specialized housing types. The footnote referencing the AARP study is also something that is being focused on [that documents a statistical preference of 86% of the elderly preferring to stay in their own home]…”
3. “The third concern is related to the amount of requirements put on specialized/senior-only housing (market analysis, fiscal analysis, extended EIR review)…”

So what is being said here? That seniors don’t have a preference to remain in their own home if possible? The facts say otherwise, pure and simple. However, the Senior Housing Guidelines recognize that once seniors reach a certain age or become infirm, they may prefer or have to seek more suitable kinds of housing. And thus the Guidelines specify that a variety of senior housing types should be included in the general housing mix, with an emphasis on promoting universal design.

What else is being intimated? That a developer should not have to show through an independent market analysis that there is an internal demand for senior housing? Build it and they shall come? Such thinking results in poorly planned “retirement” communities, that require additional infrastructure, city services and county social services. In consequence, taxes must be increased to accommodate the new influx of elderly, which becomes a heavy burden to the seniors already living here. For those on fixed lower incomes, it may drive them right out of town. Hence the need for a fiscal impact analysis for any new development.

The irony in all of this is the Senior Housing Guidelines are not a mandate that every issue raised by the Guidelines must be addressed. It only directs the City Council, developers and public to consider these issues when planning for senior housing. To remove mention of any limitations such as a preference for aging in place, or independent market analysis to determine internal demand, or fiscal impact analysis is to essentially gut the Guidelines and make them virtually useless. Without such parameters noted, the Guidelines become a permission slip of unfettered building for developers in contravention of what seniors want and need.

What has also been noticeably absent from the City Council agenda is the long lost “Senior Housing Strategy”. The reader will remember it was the strategy that finally determined, after input from the Senior Citizens Commission, only 700 senior units would be needed building in Davis between the years 2009 and 2029. Consequently, on June 10, 2010, the Senior Citizens Commission asked City Staff in the Community Development Department how progress was coming on this issue. The response the Commission received was as follows:

“The Department of Community Development delivered the draft strategies and commission recommendations to the Council on December 15, 2010. The staff report is available on the city’s web site in the packet for the December 15, 2009 meeting.

Status:

1. The Department is not currently working on the “Senior Housing Strategy” project. During the first quarter of 2010, the Department met with and attempted to resolve technical concerns and disagreements identified by a prospective senior housing developer. The technical concerns and disagreements are not resolved at this point, as responding to some of the concerns would require additional time and expense. Other unresolved issues are of a policy nature.

2. At a minimum, the strategies and the accompanying senior projections may be used in the future as an informational document in the review of development proposals or city initiatives…”

I have to assume from the response of City Staff that they received strong pushback from a developer and its supporters because the developer did not like the number 700. Seven hundred senior units permitted to be built in Davis, over the next twenty years – but according to the strategy only 35 houses can be built in any twelve month period. Those parameters cannot be deviated from unless the developer is able to show an internal demand for a greater number.

Ultimately, such a low number per year might preclude the building of a large housing development for seniors of 800 units, like the one envisioned for the old Covell Village site. However, the Senior Housing Guidelines did not prevent the approval of the Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility, which will add 125 senior units all at once. That is because the Senior Citizens Commission and the city felt the Carlton developers were able to demonstrate an internal need for the assisted living units, including 25 for those with dementia or Alzheimer‘s disease.

But remember, according to the Senior Housing Strategy staff report:

• “Council directed staff (by a 3-2 vote) to proceed with a “Strategy for Housing Seniors in Davis…
• The City Council decided to suspend a committee process to develop the senior housing strategy…
• The City Council decided not to conduct a sample survey of Davis seniors regarding their plans, preferences, concerns and needs related housing. Reasons included the costs, schedule impact, and questionable benefit [of such a survey]…”

Thus the City Council first asked for a committee process to explore how much senior housing was needed over the next twenty years. But when the makeup of that committee was not to the liking of the City Council majority, what happened? The committee idea was abandoned in favor of City Staff developing a “Senior Housing Strategy“. City Staff subsequently asked that a survey of senior needs in Davis be done. However, the City Council majority (on a 3-2 vote) refused this reasonable request.

So City Staff acted honorably and professionally, and went to the public, a consulting firm, the Area Agency on Aging and other resources for more information. They obtained input from various entities including two commissions, developers and the group CA Healthy Aging. In due course City Staff came up with the number 700 senior units to be built out over the next 20 years, the housing to be evenly spaced over the 20 years – based on data gleaned from these resources.

So now the question we are left with is what did the City Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza do with the Senior Housing Strategy they claimed they wanted so badly, when they didn’t get the answer/numbers they were looking for? The Senior Housing Strategy appears to be floating in the bureaucratic vortex someplace, where items relegated to permanent oblivion seem to gravitate towards…

Let us hope a new day has dawned when our freshly elected City Council members are seated at the dais, that will be conducive to an atmosphere that is less politicized and polarized. A City Council without a hidden agenda, in which there is no desire to obtain a preconceived result for political purposes. A City Council whose only aspiration is to do what is in the best interests of Davis.

Lesson to be learned: Citizens must make sure to participate actively in the city commission process. Commissions must persevere and develop policies for the public good, even when faced with opposition from a majority on the City Council. Commissions are directed to act independently from the City Council, representing its constituency and mission statement to the best of its ability.

Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who concentrates her efforts on elder law and aging issues, especially in regard to consumer affairs. If you have a comment or particular question or topic you would like to see addressed in this column, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.