The No on Measure L crowd has repeatedly claimed that West Davis Active Adult Community’s Affordable Housing Program is in violation of the city ordinance. However, according to the city manager and confirmed by a reading of the Affordable Housing provisions for “Project individualized programs,” it would seem that the affordable housing proposal of 150 units is in compliance with those standards.
During the forum on Measure L, Alan Pryor argued that the developer is not even meeting the minimum requirements of the city’s low income housing ordinance. One of the points he made was, “Since this is a for sale housing project, they should be required to provide for sale housing units. The city code says that half of those units should be three bedroom for sale units, half should be two bedroom for sale units.”
Mr. Pryor had previously made the point that “the Affordable Housing Ordinance for ‘For Sale’ housing projects (under which the WDAAC clearly falls) specifically requires a mixture of 2- and 3-bedroom units to be provided to low income ‘buyers’ at affordable prices…
“A proper analysis of the WDAAC affordable housing obligations shows that they should provide 66 affordable for-sale units – half 2-bedroom and half 3-bedroom homes. If you converted these into single bedroom units it would require a total of 166 one-bedroom apartments not merely the 55 one-bedroom and ‘studio’ units that David Thompson claims is required.”
David Thompson during the forum countered: “The 150 units that we get to build, are for seniors. Seniors do not need two or three bedroom units. Elderly low income seniors are usually single people. HUD and other requirements are that we can only build a one-bedroom unit for them, they cannot live in a two-bedroom unit.”
Doubling down on this point, Rik Keller yesterday cited: “City of Davis Municipal Code, Article 18.05 AFFORDABLE HOUSING… “Housing Mix. The developer must provide a mix of two- and three-bedroom units, with 
a minimum of fifty percent of the units as three-bedroom units…”
However, in talking with David Thompson, he pointed out that Eleanor Roosevelt was single-bedroom apartments and that it too was a land dedication site connected to a broader commercial project.
Based on that it seemed reasonable that the opponents were simply missing something in the admittedly complicated ordinance, and they had apparently not consulted anyone from the city about the requirements.
City Manager Mike Webb explained, “The portion of the code cited… is not applicable.”
Why? “If the project proposed inclusion of ownership housing to meet its affordable requirement, then the City would require the mix of two- and three- bedrooms. However, the developer proposed instead a separate land dedication with 150 senior rental units, which allows for a lower level of affordability (80% Area Median Income and below rather than the 120% that would be required for ownership housing).”
He explained, “It’s a project individualized plan to address the needs of a specific group (low income seniors).”
If you look at the Affordable Housing program under “OWNERSHIP UNITS” there is a section of “Project individualized program” where: “All ownership project types may meet the affordable housing requirement with a project individualized plan as specified in Section 18.05.050 (a) (3). Such plans, however, must generate an amount of affordability equal to or greater than the percent specified above and meet the same income targets.”
18.05.050
(3) Project Individualized Program.
(A) The developer may meet the city’s affordable housing requirement with a project individualized program that is determined to generate an amount of affordability equal to or greater than the amount that would be generated under the standard affordability requirements. The affordable units must, at a minimum, meet the same income targets specified in the standard ownership affordable housing provisions.
(i) A project individualized program shall be developed by the developer and city staff, taken action on by the social services commission, and if the main project application requires, heard before the planning commission for decision.
(ii) If the main project is requesting planning entitlements that require city council approval, it shall then be heard before the city council for final decision.
(iii) If the main project does not require a city council hearing, the planning commission’s or the social services commission’s determination may be appealed to the city council by any member of the public.
(B) The project individualized program is not intended to allow exception to a public input and review process. The project individualized program is intended to be viewed thoroughly and scrutinized in public forums, allowing for input and competition from the public, other community-based nonprofits, staff, and at a minimum, the social services commission. The public hearing at the social services commission shall be noticed to all community-based housing nonprofits in the area, to the greatest extent possible, regardless of their involvement in the project. This public hearing shall scrutinize the project based on the following criteria:
(i) Need for government subsidy;
(ii) Sustainability of the project and its services;
(iii) Community need of the project type based on recent needs assessments and recent projects completed;
(iv) Uniqueness/innovation of the proposed project;
(v) Overall benefits and drawbacks of the project;
(vi) Project’s compliance with the standards as outlined within the affordable housing Sections 18.05.010 through 18.05.070 of the Davis Municipal Code.
These meetings shall be carried out without any finite contracts in place between the parties involved, allowing for the potential direction to the developer to change the project. If the social services commission finds that the proposed project does not satisfy one or all of the criteria listed above, it may choose to direct the developer to fulfill his or her affordable housing requirement through a land dedication process. This decision may be altered at either the planning commission or city council public hearing, if the project requires review by either of these deciding bodies. Decision of either the social services commission or the planning commission to direct the developer to do a land dedication to meet his or her affordability requirement, may be appealed to the city council.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
.
I have noted before that this is an overstatement. Seniors who need a live-in aide or caregiver, potentially a family member, are eligible for a two-bedroom apartment as a reasonable accommodation. But, as the name clearly says, WDAAC is only for “active” seniors, not for those who may have disabilities or age-related needs. Just one more example of how WDAAC is exclusionary, not inclusive, even when it comes to low income seniors.
Greenwald has no credibility on this. Just another poorly researched hit piece put together hastily, like his recent assertion that a fair housing organization in existence for over 50 years that receives annual federal funding in excess of $400K is not “official.”
Alan Pryor put together a detailed analysis weeks ago to walk through the city’s requirements and show how the project is trying to skirt them . This article does not address that analysis. And the WDAAC developers were never able to develop an adequate response.
Bottom line: the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requires the inclusion of the calculations of the project’s affordable housing requirement in an affordable housing plan, and WDAAC has not even provided a summary of that in the paltry 1-page “Affordable Housing Plan” attached to the Development Agreement.” Likewise, there is no “project individualized program” as required as detailed in the city code excerpts above. Alan Pryor conducted a very detailed analysis in the absence of this information being provided by the project.
To further demonstrate how the project developers are trying to avoid affordable housing requirements, David Thompson recently claimed in the Vanguard—with no supporting evidence—that the project’s land donation was twice that required, meaning that he believes the project only needs to donate 2 acres to meet its affordable housing obligation.
One wonders why Greenwald finds it necessary to try to do work for the developers, work that they are not even bothering to do for themselves.
I fail to see how your response addresses the code sections cited here nor the quotes from the city manager. In fact, it appears that a number of the affordable housing claims by the opposition are refuted here. I would like to see an accounting of that and to see the opposition own up to their mistakes rather than act like politicians and simply attack the author here.
Please read my lengthy response below.
I read your response. The city is claiming (through the city manager) that they followed the requirements of an project individualized program. Under those provisions which are laid out and linked in the article, it would appear that they are not required to provide two to three bedrooms per room. Are you claiming that is inaccurate?
I also believe you misinterpreted this statement:
“The developer may meet the city’s affordable housing requirement with a project individualized program that is determined to generate an amount of affordability equal to or greater than the amount that would be generated under the standard affordability requirements.”
Mike Webb: “However, the developer proposed instead a separate land dedication with 150 senior rental units, which allows for a lower level of affordability (80% Area Median Income and below rather than the 120% that would be required for ownership housing).”
If you look at Mike Webb’s quote, the city takes that to mean that they have to provide affordability in excess of the 120 percent of median that they would be required under standard requirements. You are interpreting it to mean the number of affordable units, not the amount of affordability. That seems to be a key difference.
As for this point:
“Further, a simple reading of the provisions under which a Project Individualized Program could be allowed clearly shows that the requisite steps were not followed when the affordable plan was submitted by the applicant because neither the Social Services or Planning Commission or City Council “scrutinized” the Project Individualized Program as specifically required in the Affordable Housing Ordinance, as follows:”
Wouldn’t the April 2018 Social Services meeting where they went over the affordable plan suffice?
You write that Mike Webb is not a lawyer, but of course he has access to the city attorney and the city attorney has specific land use attorneys who are on her staff as well. Did you consult with an attorney? Did you talk to the city? That seems to be the heart of David’s complaint that you failed to do due diligence here that would required in making an accusation as you have.
Craig – For some reason, my entire post this am has been completely removed from the Comment section without explanation. As soon as it is back up, I’ll respond directly to your questions by referencing the specific points in my post that answers those questions.
[moderator: I think I found it. Let me know if it’s the copy you wanted]
I believe they have the option under the AHO to alternatively put in a prescribed number of low income housing rental apartments instead of for-sale 2- and 3- bedroom homes.
Yes, we are interpreting the phrase “amount of affordability” differently.
Not in my opinion because they did not review a proposed Project Individualized Program. They apparently reviewed a plan presented to them as being in compliance with the AHO and so did not scrutinize the specific requirements of a Project Individualized Program. In particular, they did not scrutinize the “Project’s compliance with the standards as outlined within the affordable housing Sections 18.05.010 through 18.05.070 of the Davis Municipal Code” specifying how many affordable units are required. Nor is any consideration or review of the affordable plan reflected in the agenda or their minutes of their April 16, 2018 meeting. Not sure what is going on there.
I find it interesting how much you have backtracked without acknowledging it.
You write: “I believe they have THE OPTION”… That’s a big difference from believing they are required
Second, you acknowledge the difference in interpretation – the difference is that the city drafted the ordinance, had an attorney review, etc. You didn’t.
Third, so you’re only real complaint comes down to whether the Social Services reviewed a proposed Project Individualized Program or whether it was in “compliance with the AHO” – to me that’s essentially the same thing. But you’ve gone from accusations of massive violations to whether or not they followed all the process for a meeting. Pretty thin.
You need to fact-check yourself here, David(s). The project that created that land dedication site, was a mix of uses, including public (PD station), commercial, and multifamily residential. A pretty big apartment complex, just south of the Eleanor Roosevelt project. Commercial property development does not trigger AH requirements.
That was an error, meant to write, “market rate” not “commercial” Good catch.
I have seen the term “commercial” used in different ways by quite a few people (both in government and in the private sector) over the years with many calling apartments/multifamily “commercial” property and many real estate brokers that sell “apartments” will say they are “commercial” real estate brokers (not the more common “residential” real estate brokers that sell individual homes and condos)…
On September 16, I wrote an article claiming that the low-income senior housing project at WDAAC did not meet the statutory requirements of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (see Guest Commentary: Erroneous Assumptions and Hyperbole Are Used to Justify WDAAC’s Illegal Affordable Housing Program). Readers are urged to review that article in detail.
Subsequently, in David Greenwald’s Exclusive Opening Thoughts this morning, he made the following statement in reference to that article,
Wow! Could David Greenwald possibly find a taller self-aggrandizing soap box on which to stand. This whole diatribe by Greenwald is simply beyond the pall.
Let me explain
Firstly, I find it almost incomprehensible that David Thompson of Neighborhood Partners acknowledged that “he wasn’t exactly sure why” he was in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance but he “he was certain that they did not have to build two and three bedroom apartments”. Mr. Greenwald have been repeatedly telling us for months now that Neighborhood Partners LLC (Mr. Thompson’s firm) are the acknowledged experts in this affordable housing business and they have never not completed a project they started.
And he has been essentially been claiming that, as a result of this track record, for us to even question their understanding of the details of the Affordable Housing Ordinance or whether or not they can secure necessary funding project financing for the WDAAC low-income project is over-the-top insulting. Yet now he here admits that Mr. Thompson does not even know why his project is in compliance with the Affordable Housing Ordinance but he is just sure it is. I sure some readers see a cloud of incomprehensibility building here.
Even more strange is Mr. Greenwald’s admission that he then decided to go out and carry Mr. Thompson’s water bucket for him and defend him just as he has done with the Taormino’s this entire project. Does Mr. Greenwald not even see how this completely removes him from any vantage of impartiality and objectivity on this whole matter?
But that nonsense aside and to the core of his argument:
If readers bother to read through my entire article referenced above, you will read in the very last section the following statement,
“Now I will grant that even though I believe these affordable housing requirement provisions in the Development Agreement are in direct violation of the Affordable Housing Ordinance, I will concede that the City Council can waive these requirements and essentially do whatever they want. However, there is a very rigidly prescribed process for such waivers including procedures and findings which must be followed if such waivers are to be legal. In the case of the WDAAC project, the process of entitlement was so rushed to get the project to the November ballot such that the process of waivers was completely abandoned”.
I then reviewed section “18.05.080 Exemptions from affordable housing requirements” in the article and concluded, “None of these provisions for obtaining such a waiver have been completed by the developer or Council so any such waivers granted by Council are illegitimate.”
These same statements are exactly applicable to the now newly advanced argument that the affordable housing program is in compliance with the Affordable Housing Ordinance because it falls under the Project Individualized Program sections of the ordinance. Mr Greenwald claims I overlooked this provision in the ordinance. This could not be further from the truth. I admit that I did not think it was necessary to also add in my earlier article that there was a 2nd process by which the applicant could modify their affordable housing program under the provisions of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (that being the Project Individualized Program which is referred to by Mr. Greenwald in this article). This intentional omission of discussion of the applicability of the provisions of the was not an oversight as alleged by Greenwald. Rather it was due to two simple reasons:
1) The article was already very long. Indeed, in his comments about the article, David Greenwald actually mocked me for writing a 4,000 word article that nobody would read. Well, apparently I should have made in longer in his estimation now.
2) But more importantly, it seemed so totally obvious to me that the affordable program offered by WDAAC did not come even close to meeting the primary requirements of the Project Individualized Program that it simply did not seem remotely applicable.
Well, since Mr. Greenwald has now brought it up, I will go through a somewhat similar rigorous analysis of that applicability that Mr. Greenwald could have easily done himself were he not so intent on just getting any potentially damaging information out there to justify his support of the project.
The in-applicability of this provision to the WDAAC affordable housing program is evident in almost the very beginning of the section,
“The developer may meet the city’s affordable housing requirement with a project individualized program that is determined to generate an amount of affordability equal to or greater than the amount that would be generated under the standard affordability requirements.”
I do not see how the developer can claim that providing 60 units of affordable one-bedroom and studio apartments, which is all that is required under the Development Agreement with the City, could even remotely be construed to be equivalent of what I considered to be the minimum number of units required by the provisions of the Affordable Housing Ordinance for the project – that being either 142 or 180 1-bedroom units (not studios) – as I clearly articulated and quantitatively calculated in my article.
I realize that neither David Greenwald or David Thompson or myself (nor City Manager Mike Webb for that matter) have legal training and are not lawyers, but this just seems somewhat self-evident that 60 units is not “equal to or greater than” either 142 or 180 units which I believe is the statutory minimum number of units required by the Affordable Housing Ordinance.
Further, a simple reading of the provisions under which a Project Individualized Program could be allowed clearly shows that the requisite steps were not followed when the affordable plan was submitted by the applicant because neither the Social Services or Planning Commission or City Council “scrutinized” the Project Individualized Program as specifically required in the Affordable Housing Ordinance, as follows:
“This public hearing shall scrutinize the project based on the following criteria:
(i) Need for government subsidy;
(ii) Sustainability of the project and its services;
(iii) Community need of the project type based on recent needs assessments and recent projects completed;
(iv) Uniqueness/innovation of the proposed project;
(v) Overall benefits and drawbacks of the project;
(vi) Project’s compliance with the standards as outlined within the affordable housing Sections 18.05.010 through 18.05.070 of the Davis Municipal Code.” (emphasis added).
It is apparent by a simple reading of the minutes of the Social Services and Planning Commission and City Council for the meetings in which this purported Project Individualized Program was supposedly considered, that none of these bodies in any way scrutinized all of these specifically identified criteria for a Project Individualized Program to be appropriately approved.
Indeed, there is not even any mention at all that there was a Project Individualized Program even being considered by them. Instead, Staff presented the applicants affordable housing proposal as if it were otherwise in full compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. There was certainly never any discussion about the “Project’s compliance with the standards as outlined within the affordable housing Sections 18.05.010 through 18.05.070 of the Davis Municipal Code.”.
In the absence of this specific review, it just seems laughable that David Greenwald would now come back and posthumously proclaim, “Oh, everything’s OK. It is actually just a Project Individualized Program after all” and amazingly claiming that I did not do my original homework in reviewing the ordinance.
David Greenwald is famous for accusing opponents of development projects of using “Straw Man” arguments to divert attention from the facts otherwise in evidence. For him to now come back and say that the affordable program approved for the project was actually just a Project Individualized Program all along but without showing a shred of evidence showing that this was the intent of the applicant, Neighborhood Partners, the Social Services Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council is even going beyond the “Straw Man” argument. It is entirely a fictionalized and made-up argument and certainly does not reflect well on Mr Greenwald’s self-proclaimed supposed understanding of the Affordable Housing Ordinance.
To Howard P.
To clarify, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (60 one bedroom apartments) was obtained by DSHC/NP as a result of the purchase of a parcel to the east of Cantrill. The developers of that parcel split it into two; one parcel for their market rate multi-family apartments and one parcel for their affordable component (ERC).
Those were the only two uses of the parcel, there was no commercial use of the parcel.
The Police Department is across the road and on a parcel developed earlier that had no relationship to ERC.
As a Council member, Michael Harrington played a critical role in getting ERC approved, for which we have always been very grateful.
Davis Senior Housing Communities will replicate the set of services it offers at ERC at the West Davis site.
David J. Thompson
Neighborhood Partners, LLC.
When David T. writes “Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (60 one bedroom apartments) was obtained by DSHC/NP as a result of the purchase of a parcel to the east of Cantrill” I’m wondering if he meant to write “west” of Cantrill since the Police Station is on the “east” of Cantrill and ERC and the market rate ‘The U” (originally University Village) apartments are on the “west” side of Cantrill.
Rather than printing a book, it might be advisable to simply state: “let me take a look and see if we have made an error here.” Look up the code section, oncult with advisors, etc. Because right now I’ve cited very specific code sections with links and your an is not responsive. Thanks.
OK, OK Tia. I admit there was maybe a teensy-weensy little bit of over-the-top hyperbole there. David just got me riled up by challenging my integrity and understanding of the issue.
I am anticipating the eye rolls that will follow this statement. For me, it really doesn’t matter who is technically right. There are bigger issues at stake here than just technical adherence to city code.
What the “no” side is pointing out is the suboptimal nature of the project. Could this be a better project if there were less sprawl, if there were better opportunities for those who need affordable housing but do not meet the “active adult” moniker, if the project were a product of evidence based need rather than anecdote? I think the answer to that question is “yes”. Which is why I will be voting “no” on this project.
OK, OK Tia. I admit there was maybe a teensy-weensy little bit of over-the-top hyperbole there. David just got me riled up by challenging my integrity and understanding of the issue.