CHA Not Happy with ConAgra Proposal

They entitle their op-ed, which was co-written by a list of people so long it would almost be easier to name the people who did not write it than the people who did, “Our last, best chance for development responsive to community needs.”

They write, “Davis may be missing an extraordinary opportunity to once again be a leader in innovative housing. ConAgra, the owner of the largest undeveloped land parcel within city limits, the former Hunt-Wesson cannery, wants to develop that 100-acre site for residential and commercial use.”

They continue, “Davis city ordinance requires that for a change of zoning, the City Council must find that the new use designation meet “ ‘… public necessity, convenience and general welfare…’ (Zoning chapter, section 40.36.070). Sadly, ConAgra’s current draft plan falls short of meeting community needs in many ways.”

CHA then challenges ConAgra to meet this public necessity test for a zoning change, which I believe has always been treated as mere formality.  After all, it would be easy enough for any council to simply state that we need new housing options in Davis.

Nevertheless, up until this point we largely agree with their point.  They argue that the proposal is a “rather dense” but “standard, suburban community,” with only 20 percent senior citizens in the mix.

One of our chief criticisms of ConAgra is that they have not incorporated into their design the senior housing guidelines developed by two commissions and approved by council.  We have argued that they have not addressed issues of universal design and made their project accessible and visitable to a growing segment of the population.

We have also pointed out that the project will not accommodate public transportation needs for a population unable to walk from their homes down to Covell Blvd for the nearest bus stop.

CHA argues, “This does not address the needs of the city’s fastest-growing population subgroup, people age 55 and older, nor the needs of the disabled in Davis. CHA recognizes that community design that benefits seniors also would serve the disabled well.”

It is at this point that CHA parts ways with our concerns.

“CHA proposes a fundamentally different land-use plan. The housing option that we envision, and that does not exist in Davis at this time, combines fee simple ownership of homes that are ecologically sound and incorporate universal design as well as in-home health technology,” CHA writes.

They continue, “These homes would form a community where exterior maintenance is provided via a neighborhood association and amenities such as a community center, transportation options, and easy and safe access to nearby shopping, health/wellness services together create a warm, inviting neighborhood plan.”

It sounds good but what CHA is still describing ultimately comes down to a largely, if not exclusive, senior housing community, similar to the one they have proposed for a 800-unit project at the neighboring Covell Village site.

They write, “To achieve such a neighborhood on the Cannery Park site requires a substantial number of seniors and disabled residents so that the amenities and services essential to health and welfare be economically feasible. These services may not be required, desired or affordable to younger members of the community.”

They pay lip service to the housing needs of young people, but they recommend an age-qualified program for 80 percent of the dwellings that would “serve households in which at least one member is age 55 or older, makes the most sense. The age-qualified designation allows multi-generational families to be included within the 80 percent. The remaining 20 percent would be available to younger households, including those of any age with disabilities.”

“The ConAgra design, while still sketchy, does not appear to provide the range of housing options that Davis seniors desire,” they continue.  “The housing market in Davis that has been totally neglected for 30 years is the Davis senior household, most of whom desire to downsize, with a median income of $59,000 and a paid-for or nearly paid-for home.”

They argue, “Seniors want to be able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle and enjoy the age-sensitive amenities that the CHA model offers. Also, we are aesthetically and personally opposed to ConAgra’s placement of the small share of affordable and market-rate senior housing and assisted-living housing on a site directly behind the mixed-use zone, largely sandwiched between the railroad tracks and multi-story, high-density housing. This location is also as far as it could be from neighborhood shopping and existing access to public transportation, two concerns of great importance to seniors.”

Here is the crux of their piece.

“CHA offers our concerns with the very best of intentions, and a sincere desire to engage in a citywide dialogue in a spirit of cooperation,” they begin.

CHA continues, “We greatly appreciated ConAgra’s willingness to conduct two lengthy meetings with CHA representatives, accompanied by senior city staff.”

The key point here, “However, in all frankness we do not believe that our objectives can be met with the current land use proposal for a ‘multi-generational’ project in which seniors constitute a small minority and the disabled are not specifically considered.”

“The proposed land-use plan does not, and cannot, offer the amenities that would make the project attractive to seniors,” they continue.

They conclude, “In short, ConAgra’s current proposed land-use plan fails to meet the ‘public necessity”’test that is required for a change of zoning for its 100-acre property.”

CHA has a very limited conception of senior housing needs that does not appear to be supported in the broader community – even the senior community.  The idea of a segregated senior community does not seem to be the desire of most seniors I have spoken to who would prefer to be able to age in place, in place being their own homes.

The way we can best achieve that is through concepts such as universal design, which will enable people to adapt their own homes to meet their own needs as they age.  That is why the senior housing guidelines have not recommended the construction of a large, seniors-only facility.

CHA basically has to oppose this project if they want their pet project at Covell Village.

We noted in December, however, that CHA, an astroturf organization fronting for the Covell Village developers, while biding their time waiting for the right time to pursue their choice project at Covell, has taken to the strategy of trying to extract from ConAgra a proposal mirroring their Covell proposal.

In a December letter, they wrote, “CHA has the opportunity to greatly influence the final outcome of the Cannery Park plan, ensuring that a new style of housing for seniors can become a reality within the next two years. Everyone will benefit if we share what we have learned and can convince ConAgra and the City Council members to incorporate a comprehensive senior housing neighborhood component into their development, implementing the CHA model.”

“If ConAgra fully commits to CHA’s concept, engages with us, and includes all of the amenities, health and wellness support services (not just universal design in the homes) that we regard as vital, we will have the beginning of a neighborhood community that meets our needs,” they continue.

However, lest one believe that ConAgra might be a substitute for development at Covell Village, “Our original commitment and vision for the Covell site remains strong.”

Apparently ConAgra is not biting on this.  Nor should they.  We have our own problems with the ConAgra proposal, as we have laid out many times here.  However, we do not believe the solution to those problems is to create an 80-percent seniors facility.

—David M. Greenwald reporting