Senior Housing Guidelines Are Approved – With Nary a Whimper!

I said my peace in support of the Senior Housing Guidelines, during the public comment period once the item came up on the agenda. Much to my surprise, the City Council didn’t have much to say in rebuttal. Don Saylor merely thanked our commission for working on the Guidelines. So I am left wondering why the Guidelines were pulled from the Consent Calendar in the first place? In the hope no one would show up to argue in favor of keeping the Guidelines as written – to be gutted with abandon and made useless? Would they have been approved so effortlessly had the former City Council majority been up at the dais? I suppose my arguments in support of the Guidelines could have been so powerful, it swayed the decision overwhelmingly in my favor. Nevertheless I am left totally perplexed, so the reader can decide if my arguments were all that persuasive:

“In brief, the Senior Housing Guidelines encompass the following basic principles in regard to senior housing development in Davis:

• Promotes accessibility/visitability in new housing development.
• Encourages senior housing projects to be located near public transit, downtown, shopping centers, and medical facilities.
• Requests provision of affordable housing for seniors.
• Promotes a variety of housing types, supportive services and amenities suitable for seniors and the disabled.
• Supports determination of the internal demand for senior housing through independent market analysis; a fiscal impact analysis; and an EIR considering the special needs of seniors and disabled.”

Simple and straightforward. Nevertheless, there was mention of a concern the policy paragraph in the Guidelines focuses on “aging in place” too much, restricting more specialized housing types. Yet the Guidelines are merely restating what is already in CA Assembly Bill 2787, which states “California’s population is aging, and most aging persons prefer to stay in their homes…” The Guidelines are then replete with a plethora of ideas for specialized housing types to meet senior needs. So objections to mentioning the preference of “aging in place” deny reality and is contrary to CA law.

A second worry was the Guideline’s mention of a need for middle income housing, the city having suspended its middle income housing requirement. However, middle income housing for seniors is precisely what is desired but not readily available in this town. Why should we ignore the truth and fail to take this need into consideration?

A third concern raised was mention in the Guidelines of the desirability of an independent market analysis, fiscal impact analysis, and consideration of the special requirements of seniors in any EIR. What is being said here, that the city doesn’t need to determine if there is an internal demand for proposed senior housing? There is no reason to ascertain if proposed housing will adversely effect the finances and access to social services of seniors on fixed incomes currently living in Davis? Just build it, and they shall come – and to heck with the needs of the elderly already living here? This makes for shortsighted planning, and will not meet the needs of anyone, let alone seniors.

“It must be stressed the Senior Housing Guidelines are not mandates, but essentially a wish list of what issues should be considered carefully by citizens, developers, city staff, and the City Council BEFORE any senior housing is built. I urge the City Council to approve the Guidelines without change, as a useful planning tool – that realistically reflects what the elderly wish to be considered when senior housing is proposed.”

It should also be noted the agenda was long that night, yet the substantive part of the City Council meeting lasted only until approximately 9 p.m. Council members were unusually and uncharacteristically quiet. However, I did sense a very different dynamic – a subtle power shift. The usual majority of three who held complete sway over the decision-making process did not appear to be present. Mayor Don Saylor did run the meeting rigidly, not allowing a single person to go past three minutes by so much as one second. He stumbled a bit by forgetting the public comment period for some items, but was reminded of his duty to allow attendees to speak. It does take time to “get the hang” of being Mayor.

Perhaps this is nothing more than a “honeymoon period”, when newly elected officials are duly respectful of each other. But my sense is this is a very different City Council. I didn’t necessarily agree with some of the decisions made that evening, yet each Council member seemed to know his own mind. There didn’t seem to be any manipulation behind the scenes occurring, as was often the case with the previous City Council majority. The two new Council members Rochelle Swanson and Joe Krovoza were extremely well prepared – a definite improvement. Let us just say I am cautiously optimistic about the future of our city with this particular Council in the driver‘s seat. But then of course hope springs eternal!