What Was The Upshot?
What Was The Upshot? By E. Roberts Musser (private citizen) –
History:
- The City Council proposed the idea of a senior housing strategy committee, which was ostensibly abandoned due to time and staffing constraints.
- The City Council majority voted against conducting an independent $20,000 senior housing survey, which the CHA group opposed as well.
- As a result, city staff was instructed to come up with some sort of senior housing strategy as best they could, despite these severe restrictions and limitations.
Various Davis Senior Citizens Commissioners expressed a good deal of concern about the rush to develop a senior housing strategy without the proper time for consideration and ability to gather the appropriate information. However, commissioners also recognized if they did not weigh in on the current rendition of a senior housing strategy, their opinions on the issue would never be heard. Thus the commission passed the following motion unanimously:
The Davis Senior Citizens Commission is highly supportive 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, as modified in the motions that follow.
Do you agree with the emphasis on age-restricted housing as one of the major strategies?
The commission agreed with the emphasis on age-restricted housing as only one of several major strategies
Is 55+ the appropriate age range for consideration?
The commission felt those aged 55 to 64 generally do not live in age-restricted senior housing, so deemed it more appropriate to set the age range for age-restricted senior housing to begin at age 65. In consequence, the commission passed the following motion unanimously:
The Davis Senior Citizens Commission recommends that the appropriate age range for consideration of age-restricted senior housing be set at 65+.
Do you recommend other strategies not related to age-restricted senior housing? What strategies?
The commission felt very strongly if all new housing were subject to Universal Design requirements, making new development handicapped accessible, this would obviate the need for much of the proposed age-restricted senior housing. Such an ordinance would be in keeping with the preference of most seniors (89% according to an AARP study) to age in place in their own homes. (CHA made the argument that “aging in place” means staying in the same town, not necessarily the same home.)
Commissioners also were keenly aware that both an independent market analysis and fiscal impact examination still needed to be completed for any proposed project – to make sure it would conform to the internal needs of current Davis citizens. It was recognized to import a great number of seniors from outside Davis, to live in a newly proposed large senior housing project, would require a mammoth increase in city services, county social services and infrastructure costs. Such expenses would most likely have to be paid for with steep tax and fee increases. For those seniors on fixed incomes, such tax and rate hikes could result in an inability to afford the intensification in costs, driving lower and middle income elderly right out of town. This would be a highly undesirable result.
Thus the commission passed the following two motions, the first one unanimously and the second one on a 6-1 vote in favor (I believe there was one abstention):
The Davis Senior Citizens Commission recommends the city adopt a Universal Design Ordinance, that requires designing new housing units so that future modifications to increase unit accessibility, functionality, and visitability can be made in an economical and efficient manner that accommodates aging in place.
The Davis Senior Citizens Commission 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.
Agree with general methodology and determination of 200 unit deficiency?
City staff assumed there was a 200 unit deficiency in 55+ age-restricted housing. Since the commission felt it was more accurate to begin the age range for age-restricted housing at age 65+, statistically that would remove an estimated 185 units designated as an “under supply” from the “cap” or maximum number allowable over twenty years. Nevertheless, commissioners recognized there needed to be more investigation of waitlists in current senior facilities, to determine if there were truly any deficiencies in 65+ age-restricted housing for Davis seniors. It is predictable that waitlists often contain names of those seniors living outside of Davis, whereas the primary focus of the commission’s concern is for those seniors residing within the city. Consequently, the commission passed the following motion unanimously:
The Davis Senior Citizens Commission recommends assuming there is no current deficiency of 65+ senior age-restricted housing subject to further investigation.
Agree with assumptions for target?
- 1% growth –
The commission noted that the 1% growth rate assumption was a “cap” rather than a “target”, which would be in keeping with the City Council’s terminology about the growth rate in Davis. Thus the numbers given would represent how much senior housing “could” grow as a maximum limit or “cap”, not how much it “should” grow or the “target” to be strived for. Thus the commission passed the following motion:
The Davis Senior Citizens commission recommends the 1% growth rate represent a “cap” rather than a “target”.
- Student population in city is kept stable
The commission agreed with the assumption that student population in the city would remain stable.
The commission agreed with the assumption that shifts in age brackets within age groups in the city mirrored trends in the county overall.
Target based on 15.3% of households with at least one senior person.
There was some disagreement about the figure 15.3% as the percentage of households in Davis with at least one senior person, since the actual figure for Davis is currently 12.7%. Thus the commission came to a majority consensus the figure 15.3% would be used.
Agree with the amount of 1,000 units over 20 years (average 50 units per year) and to distribute over time?
Because the commission decided to assume an age range begins at age 65, rather than 55, it required reducing the number of units over a twenty year period by 185 units. Thus the commission passed the following motion unanimously:
The Davis Senior Citizens Commission recommends the average over twenty years be reduced by 185 units for 65+ age restricted housing.
Agree with concept to distribute unit types?
In concept, the commission agreed there should be a distribution of unit types, such as a certain number of assisted living units, skilled nursing units, and the like.
Agree with general methodology of moving closer to national percentages as a rationale for distributing unit types? If not, what?
The commission felt Davis is a unique town with special requirements that may not mirror national trends. Subsequently, it would be important to look at waitlists to make a better determination of what types of housing were needed in Davis. Thus the commission passed the following motion unanimously:
The Davis Senior Citizens Commission 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.
Agree that this is a general goal but not an absolute “cap” or minimum for any given year?
The commission did not agree with staff’s attempt to allow a developer to front-load development over a five year period to twice its allotment. Thus the commission passed the following motion unanimously:
p7, Other Aspects of Strategy 1, b: eliminate second sentence, which states
“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.”
Agree to adopt and implement “Guidelines for Housing that Serves Seniors and Persons with Disabilities”.
The commission agreed City Council should adopt and implement the Senior Citizens /Social Services Commissions’ Senior Housing Guidelines, with one additional proviso. It was determined the Senior Citizens Commission should be allowed to weigh in on whether a proposed senior housing project is suitable for elderly Davisites, and be permitted to pass that recommendation on to the Planning Commission and City Council. A motion was passed unanimously as follows:
The Senior Citizens Commission recommends that a development application submitted on one of these sites, for 16 or more units, should be reviewed by the Senior Citizens Commission for a 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.
Agree with identifying the list of sites for further review?
As long as any proposed site was subject to rigorous review with respect to the Senior Housing Guidelines, the commission had no problem with any of the listed potential sites as worthy of consideration, all of which were green light sites except the Cannery and Covell Village, which were yellow light sites.
Agree with concepts of minimum/maximum sizes?
- Minimum size – 16 units
- Maximum size – 250 units
- Maximum size for one general housing type and density – 150 units
Commissioners believed it was important to set some type of limits on senior housing size, especially in view of imminent, upcoming applications.
City staff will now take into consideration the comments of both the Senior Citizens Commission and Social Services Commission, incorporating suggestions at staff’s discretion. Then the finalized version of the senior housing strategy will be presented to City Council, for approval. Both city staff and the Senior Citizens Commission recognize this is a very flawed process, but did their level best to present as balanced a view as was possible under difficult circumstances. The commission believes this is only the beginning of what is hoped to be an ongoing process that can be improved upon by periodic review.
Elaine
Kudos to the Commission and to you for capturing the output of what must have been a long, productive meeting.
The work of the Senior Citizen Commission here is very impressive. This kind of civic citizen involvement is what has(and will keep)Davis a very special community in which to live.
1) None of the current or possible developments include any senior housing. The subject isn’t ever discussed.
If it’s such a crucial need, why not?
2) When I become a Senior Citizen (soon enough), I hope to live with an interesting variety of people. Young professionals. Little kids. Other retirees. Students. To me, “age restricted” limits social opportunities and participation.
3) There seems to be an underlying assumption that seniors have a standard set of special needs. Do the studies include the many physical active people that want the independence of living in their own homes in long established neighborhoods? Those in assisted living situations? Those w/ family support?
4) In Davis, downsizing may not produce any money for the owners. In Chiles Ranch (approved) and Wildhorse Ranch (voted down), the cost of an attached wall townhouse started in the low 400’s. House to townhouse may often be simply a financial swap. As my health needs and age related costs increase, it would help if the move was economically advantageous.
5) Based on my personal experience, there are many active, healthy seniors in this town (perhaps an exceptional number). My 78 year old neighbor asked if she could borrow my trike for a test ride. She rode up and down the street w/ a big grin. Afterward she confessed it was the 1st time in her life that she’d ridden a bike. She walked daily.
I would really like to hear from folks who qualify for these developments. Is this an attractive way to live?
To SODA and davisite2: Thank you for your kind words. However, much credit must be given to Bob Wolcott and city staff for their hard work/mammoth efforts under trying circumstances as well. The other pleasant surprise in this process is how receptive Bob Wolcott was to suggestions from the commission. However, whether the suggestions will make it into the final draft of the senior housing strategy remains to be seen. I am ever hopeful.
To Jim Watson:
1) None of the current or possible developments include any senior housing. The subject isn’t ever discussed. If it’s such a crucial need, why not?
Carlton Plaza Davis, an assisted living facility proposed for location next to Konditerei, is under discussion currently. My understanding is that the former Covell Village developers will be making a proposal for senior housing in Jan. 2010. Eleanor Roosevelt Circle is a fairly recent senior housing project located across from the Davis Police Dept. So senior housing projects have been built recently, are currently under consideration, and will be proposed in the near future.
2) When I become a Senior Citizen (soon enough), I hope to live with an interesting variety of people. Young professionals. Little kids. Other retirees. Students. To me, “age restricted” limits social opportunities and participation.
I respect your preference, but the reality is that some frail elderly will need age-restricted senior housing, such as an assisted living facility, as is being proposed by Carlton. Some seniors do prefer to live in age-restricted senior housing, for whatever reason. Thus it is important to find out what all seniors in Davis want or need. But to go one step farther, it is also important to take into consideration the opinions and needs of those who are not yet seniors but will be someday. Senior housing is a very complicated issue.
3) There seems to be an underlying assumption that seniors have a standard set of special needs. Do the studies include the many physical active people that want the independence of living in their own homes in long established neighborhoods? Those in assisted living situations? Those w/ family support?
The Senior Citizens Commission has taken into account those seniors who want to age in place, w the suggestion of a Universal Design Ordinance; who will need special types of age-restricted housing by approving such a facility as Carlton would provide (assisted living w dementia unit); as well as seniors who want to remain physically active and living independently in an age-restricted or age-qualified setting. Thought was carefully given to caregiving, and various other issues involved with senior housing.
4) In Davis, downsizing may not produce any money for the owners. In Chiles Ranch (approved) and Wildhorse Ranch (voted down), the cost of an attached wall townhouse started in the low 400’s. House to townhouse may often be simply a financial swap. As my health needs and age related costs increase, it would help if the move was economically advantageous.
Agreed. All the more reason to make sure an independent needs analysis and fiscal impact analysis is done for any proposed project, to ensure its development does not result in driving current seniors out of town because of resultant hikes in taxes and city fees (e.g. water).
5) Based on my personal experience, there are many active, healthy seniors in this town (perhaps an exceptional number). My 78 year old neighbor asked if she could borrow my trike for a test ride. She rode up and down the street w/ a big grin. Afterward she confessed it was the 1st time in her life that she’d ridden a bike. She walked daily. I would really like to hear from folks who qualify for these developments. Is this an attractive way to live?
What type of development are you referring to? You have talked about assisted living, living independently in already established neighborhoods. I am not clear what you envision as the type of senior housing you want.
Correction – I should have put quotes around each numbered item in the above comment to delineate which words are those of Jim Watson and which ones are mine. Thanks for you patience.
Great summary, Elaine, thanks.
I am curious about this: “The commission agreed with the assumption that student population in the city would remain stable.”
As a proportion? or in raw numbers? What is this based on?
It is frustrating to me that there are commissions discussing the need for senior housing, when there appear to be no commissions discussing the need for housing for non-UCD, non-student residents of the city between the ages of, say 18 – 40. In other words: renters.
So if this commission decides that there is a deficiency in housing units for seniors, and the city has a cap of the number of units available, that reduces the number of units that would be allotted (informally) for young renters. Thus the findings of this commission may end up being used to exacerbate the existing deficiencies in the rental market for young adults.
Don, I serve on the Senior Citizens Commission and was present. These are my individual observations. There were many issues raised during the course of discussion but we tried to stay focussed on the agenda as this was a special meeting. I and others expressed our concern about rushing the process, the focus on seniors, the questionable data re seniors in Davis to the exclusion of the rest of the residents. I agree with you that Elaine has given a great summary and did a great job of chairing that meeting for the commission.
[quote]None of the current or possible developments include any senior housing. The subject isn’t ever discussed. If it’s such a crucial need, why not?[/quote]Actually, I did make motions that we require a certain percentage of units to be senior compatible for a number of our recently passed subdivisions. The motions failed.
Don Shor: “I am curious about this: “The commission agreed with the assumption that student population in the city would remain stable.”
As a proportion? or in raw numbers? What is this based on?
It is frustrating to me that there are commissions discussing the need for senior housing, when there appear to be no commissions discussing the need for housing for non-UCD, non-student residents of the city between the ages of, say 18 – 40. In other words: renters.
So if this commission decides that there is a deficiency in housing units for seniors, and the city has a cap of the number of units available, that reduces the number of units that would be allotted (informally) for young renters. Thus the findings of this commission may end up being used to exacerbate the existing deficiencies in the rental market for young adults.”
We agreed w city staff’s assessment that student enrollment will remain stable and not increase over the next twenty years, since that appears to be UCD’s stated policy looking forward.
I am in firm agreement with you that senior housing should not be looked at in a vacuum. However, as Tansey noted, we and city staff were charged with a very specific task, which we carried out to the best of our ability. If there is a concern that what we did would disproportionately impact the availability of rental housing, others will have to take up that fight, because that issue is not within the commission’s purview.
Our commission has to be concerned with senior developments that have been or will be proposed in the very near future (January), and make sure any proposed development is not to the detriment of current senior residents. We have our hands full trying to accomplish just that much.
Hi Elaine and Tansey,
Thanks for your replies. I certainly didn’t mean to sound critical of the commission; sorry.
I am genuinely curious where the numbers are coming from, because the university’s budget documents indicate an enrollment increase between 2009-10 and 2020-21 of nearly 2000 students. That is from the UC Davis Long Range Enrollment Plan as of August 2008. So the city staff assessment appears to be incorrect. It is possible they have updated numbers reflecting the current economic downturn, but I’d be curious if new projections really reflect a flat enrollment at UC Davis.
[url]http://budget.ucdavis.edu/data-reports/documents/enrollment-reports/current-enrollment/[/url]
Don Shor: “I am genuinely curious where the numbers are coming from, because the university’s budget documents indicate an enrollment increase between 2009-10 and 2020-21 of nearly 2000 students. That is from the UC Davis Long Range Enrollment Plan as of August 2008. So the city staff assessment appears to be incorrect. It is possible they have updated numbers reflecting the current economic downturn, but I’d be curious if new projections really reflect a flat enrollment at UC Davis.”
The exact wording of the city staff report on this issue is as follows: “One of the assumptions used in the projections is that the student population between ages 18 to 24 is held to 2008 throughout the projections. All students are assumed to be in the Under 55 category. This assumption was used because the UC Davis Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) projects there will be a neglible change in the number of students residing in the city and absent UC Davis plans for growth beyond the current LRDP, the campus is assumed to stabilize after 2015-16.”
My assumption was the student population within the city will stabilize for two reasons: 1) the economic downturn has caused a cut in state funding, resulting in a push to keep enrollment steady so it does not increase as it normally would, and may even decrease over time; 2) the buildout of West Village, which will provide more student housing.
Much has changed economically for the city/state/nation since August of 2008, and certainly not for the better. Both the UC and CSU systems have stated via the news media they are not increasing enrollments as they usually would. On top of that, it appears as if the state budget picture is going to get worse before it gets better. This will probably mean even more budget cuts for UC/CSU, and even less likelihood of an increase in enrollment. If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect there is going to be a push to encourage students to spend their first two years at a local junior college. UCD has increased the number of junior college transfer students it admits dramatically in the last year (from 15% to 30% if my memory serves me correctly).
In light of the above, I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume the student population will not increase over the next twenty years. However, our commission made it clear to city staff that we felt it important to revisit the senior housing strategy on a regular basis, to test any assumptions that were made, to tweak the senior housing strategy if necessary. Should student enrollment markedly increase down the road for some reason, then that would need to be taken into account when crunching the numbers for housing development.
Thanks Elaine,
One of the things your commission may wish to do is look at the UC figures independently from staff reports. The document I cited above shows a 6% increase in freshman population over the decade, a 36% increase in transfer student population, and a 43% increase in students in the professional and graduate programs.
The latter two categories are likely to have a higher proportional effect on city housing, while the campus houses the freshmen. So assuming UC adheres to its long-range plan, the changing demographics of the student population at UCD would have a greater impact on city housing units than it has in the past.
The board of regents only cut systemwide freshman enrollment for 2009-10 by 2300 students, spread across six campuses (including Davis), and mitigated that somewhat by increasing transfer students systemwide by 500 (Los Angeles Sentinel, Jan 24 2009). It is hard to say what they will do over the next year or so, but eventually the economy will rebound. Davis is one of the popular UC campuses, so my opinion is that assuming flat enrollment over the next two decades is probably not justified. On the other hand, as Sue Greenwald has pointed out elsewhere, UC has tended to overstate their enrollment projections in the past. But I would urge that you watch the change to a larger number of older students, as they affect city housing stock.
This is not intended to criticize the commission’s findings, but rather to provide some information you can use going forward. If staff says “we expect….” my inclination would be to ask for the UC planning document that supports their assumption (or not). Their change in enrollment could well be short-term, and some of their media releases were probably intended to support political positions such as Prop 1A or to emphasize the impact of current budget cuts on short-term enrollment changes. My real question would be what their longterm planners are saying, and my guess is they don’t consider the current economic slowdown to be a permanent condition.
I would not like to see a situation in the near future where projects for senior housing are being promoted as having evidentiary support from the senior commission findings, while the rental vacancy rate continues to drop and rents continue to climb.
In a related note, I’d be curious what proportion of seniors in Davis are renters, and how they are affected by the lack of rental housing. Do you have any figures on that?
Don, you certainly make some interesting points in terms of UCD student enrollment, looking forward. I don’t think any of us has a crystal ball and can see too far into the future at this juncture. I think it is very difficult to say if or when the economy will rebound, but currently it certainly seems that student enrollment will be flatlined for the next several years. I say this because I think there is a lot of denial about the national economy going on at the federal level. For example, foreclosures are expected to hit an all time record in the year 2012 (increase from approx 2 million in 2010 to 8 million in 2012). The jobless rates are going to climb as another round of budget cuts hit within individual states. The federal stimulus money cannot continue at current levels – the gravy train has to stop at some point – it is unsustainable.
Personally and at a more local level, I would have preferred an independent citywide survey, that looked at all housing needs, rather than focusing on just what seniors want, since the city is not operating in a vacuum. But you must understand, the City Council majority has hampered this process of determining a senior housing strategy to an extreme degree, so both city staff and the commmission did our absolute best to come up with a senior housing strategy really operating in the dark with virtually no current data collected from even Davis seniors about their wants and needs. Such a survey could have included input from students.
However, Don Saylor wanted to save the money that would have been spent on a very modest senior survey for something “more important” (what that was he didn’t say); Steve Souza wanted to wait until a project was actually proposed before doing such a survey (what use that would be I have no idea); and Ruth Asmundson wanted to conduct a survey only on Facebook or Twitter at no cost (even though many if not most seniors do not own a computer). It is very difficult to work within those parameters, but those were the conditions under which city staff and commissions were asked to assume the task of developing a senior housing strategy.
To answer your other question, here are the statistics on current age-restricted senior housing in Davis:
Continuum of care – 13.1%
Independent living – 7.8%
Assisted living – 10.5%
Subsidized senior apts – 9.8%
Market rate senior apts – 13.1%
Active adult residences (Rancho Yolo; Glacier Circle) – 45.7%
It is difficult to state a percentage of renters, since you would be lumping in those living independently with those residing in assisted living. Furthermore, those living in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle have a Social Services Director, to help those residents who are mentally or physically handicapped, which is a particular level of care. URC is a continuum of care facility, which requires a sizeable buy-in, then there is a monthly “rental fee”. But URC has different levels of care, from independent living to assisted living to skilled nursing. This is part of the reason senior housing is such a complicated issue, and really needed a detailed survey and more investigation.
The waitlists for various types of facilities within Davis are rather instructive. There is a sizeable waitlist for subsidized senior apartments, and URC which is a continuum of care facility, and a very small waitlist for active adult residences at Glacier Circle Senior Community (home ownership). But even this is misleading, because many seniors sign up for more than one facility, and many (maybe even the majority) on the waitlists are from out of town. So those two factors must be teased out to come up with valid numbers to determine an internal need for Davis seniors based on the waitlists.
[quote][b]DON:[/b] [i]”I’d be curious what proportion of seniors in Davis are renters, and how they are affected by the lack of rental housing?”[/i]
[b]ERM:[/b] [i]”here are the statistics on current [u]age-restricted senior housing[/u] in Davis:
Continuum of care – 13.1%
Independent living – 7.8% … “[/i][/quote] Because the vast majority of seniors (I would guess) don’t live in “age-restricted housing, that list of percentages doesn’t answer Don’s question. (I’m certainly not faulting you for not having the numbers for all seniors.)
However, obviously, seniors who rent apartments, like anyone who rents an apartment (or rents a house) in Davis is negatively impacted by the low vacancy rate. And presumably, seniors who rent apartments in Davis are poorer on the whole than those who own their own places.
Rich Rifkin: “Because the vast majority of seniors (I would guess) don’t live in “age-restricted housing, that list of percentages doesn’t answer Don’s question. (I’m certainly not faulting you for not having the numbers for all seniors.)
However, obviously, seniors who rent apartments, like anyone who rents an apartment (or rents a house) in Davis is negatively impacted by the low vacancy rate. And presumably, seniors who rent apartments in Davis are poorer on the whole than those who own their own places. “
I can only give the numbers I do have, which are for age-restricted senior housing. I have no idea what percentage of seniors live in non age-restricted housing, and it would not necessarily be a majority. There does seem to be a need, based on waitlists, for subsidized age-restricted senior housing, except a closer look must be taken of those waitlists. As I said before, entries on the waitlist may be double or triple listed at more than one facility, and may represent people from out of town.
I also do not think it is clear that “presumably, seniors who rent apartments in Davis are poorer on the whole than those who own their own places”. URC is a case in point. It takes a sizeable and norefundable buy-in fee to reside at URC, much like a down payment on a house. Then seniors pay a monthly “rental fee” for an apt or cottage that is quite high. Those seniors who live in Atria Covell Gardens are “renting” an apt, but to afford the $3,000 per month and up, the senior must be reasonably well off. Some who live in Rancho Yolo, a mobile home park, are millionaires. This is why a survey of some sort is needed, because senior housing is such a complicated issue. The trends with respect ot senior housing are often counter-intuitive.