Guest Commentary: Response to Davis Enterprise on Senior Housing

Special to The People’s Vanguard of Davis

By Elaine Roberts Musser

____________

It was with some disquiet that I read Claire St. John’s Jan. 2, 2009 article in the Davis Enterprise, entitled “Senior Living”. I immediately fired off a clarification of my position to the Enterprise that same day. I wanted to make clear the reader understood 1) I was speaking as an individual and not in my capacity as the Chair of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission; 2) the issue of how much senior housing is considered necessary in the future was left completely out of the article.

Because I have no 350 word limit as is required in the Enterprise, it would be my privilege to take this opportunity to more fully express my individual opinion. I was asked by Claire St. John what I thought were the most pressing senior needs in Davis. The list I gave included four items: 1) senior housing; 2) transportation; 3) elder abuse prevention; 4) greater fiscal responsibility with respect to city finances.

A lengthy discussion ensued about each item on the list, and what was being done on a city and county level to address these four issues - since I wear both a city and county hat. (I am Chair of the Triad Task Force, the action arm of the Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services.) I mentioned transit mobility training and roving legal clinics at the county level, and talked of my concerns about the city budgeting process. I offered to Claire contact information for various people, to facilitate follow-up discussions - in an effort to assist the research process about her proposed article on senior needs.

However, Ms. St. John’s article only dealt with senior housing, and in my opinion left out the critical element the two of us had thoroughly discussed. How much senior housing is necessary? I doubt anyone would disagree that between now and the year 2013 that some more senior housing options would be nice, as was suggested in the article. Especially to give some desired competition to already existing and very expensive assisted living or continuum of care facilities in Davis. But what specific number of senior housing units would be essential is the million dollar question, the big fat elephant in the room!

In the article, only one number was discussed. The plan under contemplation at the old Covell Village site would have about 800 units of senior housing over ten years. This is an all or nothing approach. Are we only left with two possible options: 800 units or zero growth? In fact a city staff report put the internal need for more senior housing at an estimated maximum of 150 units between now and the year 2013, which from my perspective seems considerably more realistic than 800.

Claire St. John’s article relies heavily on the notion of “downsizing”, i.e. moving to a smaller home to cut down on maintenance needs. Ironically, statistics show that people prefer to remain in their home until the day they die. Often there is an emotional attachment to one’s residence. It is where children are raised and grow up. I doubt very many seniors would want to sell their home for the good of the community just to free up housing for younger families, as was put forward in the article as a reason for development of more senior housing. Nor do many seniors want to live in an age-restricted complex, preferring to live among younger folks.

Some months ago, I strongly advocated for the Davis Senior Citizens Commission to create a set of housing guidelines. The idea was to give developers and the City Council some guidance as to what seniors were interested in, and delineate their concerns. I felt it was time to reverse the trend of new housing in Davis being developer-driven. Such principles that involve sensible planning might also cut down on the divisiveness that seems to come with every discussion in Davis about growth. These guidelines are very close to being finished, but still require a bit of tweaking.

The gist of the guidelines, without getting into specifics, is as follows: 1) provide housing options for seniors of all income levels, with an eye toward meeting “internal” rather than “external” demand; 2) taking into account the fiscal impact of an increase in cost of city services that will entail. Too often residential growth has been initiated under the policy “ build it and they shall come”. Ultimately the developers reap a handsome profit. However, the inherent costs of such a careless strategy have not been fully borne by developers, but rather city taxpayers are forced to make up the difference, which has been substantial.

We are now facing a city budget crisis of epic proportions. Much of that cost is for road repair, and city employee benefits. Costs intrinsic to residential development. To put it bluntly, a massive influx of seniors would further strain the county social welfare system, city fire and ambulance services, city and county medical facilities, etc., above and beyond normal city and county services. Shouldn’t we be trying to further commercial development first, to bring in more tax revenue to pay for existing city services, let alone pay for any new ones created by more development?

Another issue raised in the article is of deep personal concern. “Part of their concept is a community…managed by residents. Maintenance would be paid for out of a homeowners association fund.” As a Board member of the Center for CA Homeowners Association Law (CCHAL), I can tell you from personal experience as an attorney, homeowners associations are rife with opportunities for elder abuse. A homeowners association is not the panacea many assume it is. In fact homeowners associations, and the management companies and debt collection agencies they hire, can perpetrate some of the worst cases of abuse on record. It can include taking away a person’s home and selling it for as little as $1.20; and can result in the death of the homeowner from the stress of any foreclosure proceedings.

I would strongly advise the City Council to tread very carefully, when planning future housing in general, and senior housing in particular. My hope is our commission’s guidelines will serve as a set of talking points, to begin appropriate discussion on projected residential development of senior housing. If the City Council finds these guidelines useful, I would encourage the planning commission to come up with a similar set of guidelines for overall residential development. It serves for better long range planning, should cut down on incivility in community discussion, and will better provide for actual community needs.

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, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.

Commission Looks At a Variety of Senior Housing Needs

The Senior Citizens Commission met on Thursday. Along with the Social Services Commission they have been working on a proposed set of housing guidelines that will become increasingly important in the city as we move toward a full blown discussion on Senior Housing Needs. It is important to identify such needs independently of developer driven housing demands that we have already begun to see come forward such as the one we saw last week in the Davis Enterprise which is pushing for an 800-unit complex at the Covell Village site. The city of Davis on the other hand, has projected the senior housing needs for the next five years or so at a much more modest 150 units.

However it is important to recognize that Senior housing has a very particularized array of specific housing needs, and these needs need to be understood and incorporated into the general discussion on housing.

For example:

"The Commissions support the expressed preference for a variety of housing options that allows individuals to remain in their own homes, more commonly referred to as aging-in-place."

Part of that means that houses can be built in such as a way that they can be adapted and modified to meet the needs of an aging population. That means doorways wide enough to potentially accommodate wheel chair access, that means that the general housing structure is made so that they can be modified to accommodate a senior occupant without having to rip the house apart.

The report goes on to say:

"The Commissions place importance on providing housing that can address the specific needs of seniors and other special needs populations within the city's general housing stock, while also recognizing the need for some specialized housing options."

Here are some of the key issues that highlight this report.

The issue of accessibility and visitability is crucial. A lot of older homes, people with wheel chairs simply would not have access to in order to even visit. They discuss making a checklist of desirable features that would provide better access and usability in the housing unit.

These features could include:

"zero threshold entry, exterior and interior paths of travel, accessible half or full bathroom, accessible common room on the ground level."

They also put in language to "ensure affordable rental projects include fully accessible and visitable units..."

Transportation is crucial of course:

"Continue to promote and encourage public transit as an affordable and environmentally-sound alternative to personal vehicles."

Issues that are raised include good access to public transit, provisions for electric and alternative fuel vehicles for shared resident use and the infrastructure to support the use of these vehicles. Finally ensure adequate greenbelt and bike path connectivity.

Affordability:

"Provide a variety of housing types and prices, including city subsidized, affordable and middle income housing requirements in an effort to provide housing opportunities at a range of income levels."

Housing options:

"Promote various housing models in new housing developments that could accommodate seniors and other special needs groups."

The report suggests that there needs to be a determination of the need for housing.

"Determination of housing type should be accomplished in response to the expressed desires of the community through local outreach and measurements of local demand...

Independent Market analysis--market analysis of the true community need for housing should be done by an independent consultant."

The analysis should speak to issues of affordability, marketability, senior or special needs preferences, and current waitlists.

A couple more key senior-specific issues when looking at development of senior housing facilities.

One is on-site support staff:

"The need for medical, clinical, or psychological supportive staff and program planning and referral staff should be considered...."

Other services:

"The need for meal services, health services, recreational services and other basic life services being provided on-site should be considered."

A big issue that came up with the Eleanor Roosevelt project had to do with the location and proximity to busing. It appears that busing is close. But as the commission pointed out that is deceiving. The distance requires a walk that is prohibitive for the less physically able. Moreover it requires navigation across a busy city street.

Thus they suggest two provisions:

"If public transit access is located in excess of 200 feet from the housing project, then an on-site shuttle service should be considered for use by residents.

All multi-unit housing projects should consider providing a shuttle for use by residents."

It is understood that this is cost prohibitive and that small facilities would have greater difficulty doing this, however, they believe the term "should consider" mitigates that consideration and they want these guidelines at least considered and these issues raised at the time of development.

Location is important and they identify the need for housing to be built near public transit lines if there is no on-site shuttle, near a neighborhood shopping center especially with a grocery store and pharmacy, and near a medical facility that could provide both general health services and prescriptions.

I think this gets back to the issue of the need for neighborhood grocery stores but also neighborhood pharmacies. If we are going to have an aging population in Davis, having convenient pharmacies will be increasingly important.

These will be guidelines as the commission pointed out throughout the discussion, they will not be requirements. But I think all housing projects should keep these issues in mind for both seniors, but also for people with a variety of disabilities. This is a good start the housing discussion we are going to need to have over the coming months and years as our population continues to age.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Enterprise Pushes For Senior Housing On the Covell Site

Last night, the Davis Enterprise ran a full-1200 word front page special on the push by the Covell Partners to re-package their failed 2005 project as Senior Housing. The push which began with a new proposal before the HESC (Housing Element Steering Committee), continued with a letter writing campaign that eventually nullified the HESC workshop, and continued this fall with a number of handpicked Seniors coming before the city council asking for a senior housing facility at the site formerly known as Covell Village.

The Enterprise article features Janice Bridge, the former School Board Member, who has been on the fore of pushing for a senior housing project. Of course those with a fairly good memory will recall that Janice Bridge was one of the leaders of the Covell Village project as well, serving as Secretary of the group Neighbors for Covell--a very different project that did not offer the senior housing and scale-down options that just three years later Ms. Bridge is now pushing for.

The argument made by Janice Bridge is that their 4000-square foot house is too big for them and they need a smaller house.

'If you could move us old fogeys out of our house and into an age-appropriate space, then instead of creating a new development that is family-oriented that needs new parks and new schools, the kids could go to the parks and the schools that are being underutilized in our area,' said Janice Bridge.

Bridge and her husband, Adam, live in a 4,000-square-foot home on B Street. The house served them and their three children well, but now that the kids are grown up and out, the house is too big.

'I am sitting in a house that is 4,000 square feet,' Bridge said. 'For me, my home is not appropriate for the lifestyle I want to lead. This house should have lots of active kids running up and down the stairs like it did 20 years ago. I look around and all I see are more houses like this one.'

The Enterprise goes on to write that the Covell Village developers have been meeting with almost 600 people who are "curious about or interested in a plan to build a senior-oriented community north of Covell Boulevard between J Street and Pole Line Road."

Interesting that it is not until about halfway through the article that the real agenda appears(although as soon as I saw the article's headline last night, it was obvious where this was going).

The Enterprise continues:

The community would include 'micro-neighborhoods,' a care-continuum, services for seniors and recreation options for a healthier, more active lifestyle than many senior communities offer, according to Project Coordinator Lydia Delis-Schlosser.

The concept has not yet been submitted to the city, but the developers - who also proposed Covell Village on the site, a 1,864 housing unit project that voters rejected in 2005 - hope to submit something to the city soon.

'If we're comfortable with how we're progressing with meeting the needs of the community, then we would like to submit a pre-application in about a year,' Delis-Schlosser said.

According to this article, the plan includes about 800 units and will be built out over 10 years. Sounds reasonable, until you realize it is only on the southern-third of the property, something that does not appear to be mentioned in the article.

The Enterprise continues:

'The biggest benefit to non-seniors is these big houses are opened up,' said developer Bill Streng, one of the owners of the property. 'My block used to have 20 kids, and now it only has four.'

The biggest benefit to seniors, Streng said, is a neighborhood that would have all their needs in one place. Seniors, like everyone else, have different needs and desires, and Streng said he and his partners want to address them all in one place.

'This is something John (Whitcombe) and I want to do, aside from financial reasons, you want to have something to leave,' said Streng, who is 82. 'The more we study and the more we see, the more we want to do it.'

The problem with this article is that it once again appears to slant the article. The article does quote Elaine Roberts Musser (senior citizens advocate and Chair of the Senior Citizen's Commission) a few times.

They bury her skepticism of the project until the very end of the article:

Good transportation is key for seniors, said Roberts Musser, so a senior development would have to include plenty of options - other than personal vehicles - for getting around.

But Roberts Musser would also like the City Council to consider how to pay for all this. The question is, will Davis be able to support a large, senior neighborhood?

'Honestly, and this is personal, but my feeling is I would like to have us worry more about commercial development right now, whatever generates tax revenue,' she said. 'We're so strapped right now. I'm not willing to build more residential when we really haven't built up our tax revenue.'

The problem with this article is that it portrays quite heavily the perspective of Janice Bridge and the Covell Partners. However, there is a whole other side of the story that is either buried in the case of Elaine Roberts Musser or completely untold.

Back in November the Vanguard ran a story on this and suggested that many seniors are not interested in this kind of housing. Much of this push appears to be developer driven. Indeed, Janice Bridge is not a developer, but does anyone else find it interesting that one of the strongest advocates for Covell Village I is now the leading spokesperson again, this time as a citizen pushing for Senior Housing as a means to downsize?

The developers of Covell Village have suggested we need a seniors-only facility. As the Vanguard suggested in November, many seniors do not want to live in a seniors-only community. They enjoy a more mixed community where families with children and even students also live.

That thought was backed up with a slew of email received from senior readers of the Vanguard, many of whom whole heartedly agree.

The question is what type of housing would work best for seniors. Some have suggested instead of facility like an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, a series of smaller condominiums and townhouses may be the best fit. An added advantage there might be that we could build a small amount over time which would serve the senior population.

The big issue here is that we are again facing the prospect of developer driven development. It is clear that the Covell Village partners are driving the discussion here and in so doing, we are not getting perhaps a clear picture of what seniors in this community actually want.

Thus my first suggestion would be to find out what seniors actually want. How many people are looking to downsize from their current homes? How many people would like to live in a Senior-only community? How many people would be willing to trade for a smaller existing home with another resident?

This type of inquiry should occur not at the behest of a developer, but rather with leadership from groups like the Senior Citizen's Commission. Let us determine what the internal housing demand really is for seniors, what seniors really want, the numbers that we are really talking about, and the time frame that we are really looking at.

Unfortunately, once again, the Enterprise really only brings us one side of the story. They bring us the Janice Bridge story, which many have to view with skepticism given her past support for a very different Covell Village project. What would she have done had Covell Village I passed, pushed for a Senior Housing facility in the Northwest Quadrant?

The Enterprise could have interviewed others from the Senior Citizens Commission to give us a very perspective, perhaps someone like Tansey Thomas,a commissioner, would offer her a very different take. But unfortunately, we do not get that perspective.

For those who want to try to argue that this is a fair and balanced article, consider this, there was a total of 1269 words in the article only the last 79 words of the article expressed any kind of skepticism or alternative viewpoint to the dominant position. The only even remotely skeptical comments are buried at the end. That's fair and balanced? That's objective?

The Vanguard gives you the other side of the story here, talk to seniors, you find a variety of different perspectives on this issue, unfortunately we do not get to hear them in the Enterprise, maybe we will in the comment section of the Vanguard.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

The Campaign for Senior Housing at Covell Village Continues

Given the election last week and slew of issues surrounding the election that came up, the Vanguard is just now getting around to what turned out to be a very interesting and important meeting on Wednesday night.

Three years ago this month, a proposed development at Covell Village was defeated by a massive grassroots effort. The overwhelming defeat of Measure X by nearly a 60-40 margin has not slowed efforts to develop the property that is bordered by Pole Line and Covell Blvd.

Instead, the would-be developers of the property have changed tactics and changed the form of the would-be development. Now they are looking at a senior development.

Slowly and methodically, they are building toward a community consensus on the need for senior housing. They have done this by meeting with key stakeholders in the community and also senior groups, selling the case that the community of Davis is in need of more senior housing and that their property offers the ideal location for that development.

Earlier this year, we got a window into their tactics when an email sent to various prospective supporters was leaked to the Vanguard. The email contained instructions on how to raise the profile of Covell Village at the Housing Element Steering Committee's (HESC) workshop. They laid out in that email, very specific instructions for both demonstrating the need for senior housing as a priority as well as showing support for expanding city boundaries. However, the leak of that email to the Vanguard and the general public, thwarted efforts at that point to change the HESC's assessment of the feasibility and need for housing at Covell Village.

What is clear however is that while opponents of Covell Village sleep, the developers remain hard at work. We flash forward to Wednesday night, where a well organized group of seniors came forward to speak at city council during a discussion of the HESC's report and the next steps that the council would take with that report.

From this meeting, the group was clearly well-coached. They laid out the need for senior housing. This was done with two key points that were made. Seniors generally do not need large homes which are too bid for them to care for and inefficient in terms of energy usage--heating, electricity, and cooling. Second, that seniors wish to remain in the community but sometimes cannot due to lack of senior housing options in the community. They made these points and yet there was never one mention of Covell Village--the obvious focal point of this strategy.

At a certain and critical level, the seniors are correct on these two issues. Allowing seniors to downsize would free up larger housing for new home owners. And many Davis residents would like to stay in Davis, and the community ought to accommodate them.

However, from my experience not as a senior but talking to many seniors, the questions that need to asked and discussed are not whether we need more housing options for our seniors, but how best to provide them.

Here is where consensus breaks down. One idea is the senior-based community that would provide housing for seniors in a close-knit and segregated community. However, many seniors do not want to live in a seniors-only community. They enjoy a more mixed community where families with children and even students also live.

Second, it is the fear of many if we build a large senior-development that we would end up accommodating large numbers of people from across the region. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but if our goal is to provide for our current housing needs for local demand, building a large development may not serve that need very well. Even a somewhat smaller Eleanor Roosevelt Circle ended up serving more people from outside the city than from inside the city.

Third, the question is what type of housing would work best for seniors. Some have suggested instead of facility like an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, a series of smaller condominiums and townhouses may be the best fit. An added advantage there might be that we could build a small amount over time which would serve the senior population.

The big issue here is that we are again facing the prospect of developer driven development. It is clear that the Covell Village partners are driving the discussion here and in so doing, we are not getting perhaps a clear picture of what seniors in this community actually want.

Thus my first suggestion would be to find out what seniors actually want. How many people are looking to downsize from their current homes? How many people would like to live in a Senior-only community? How many people would be willing to trade for a smaller existing home with another resident?

This type of inquiry should occur not at the behest of a developer, but rather with leadership from groups like the Senior Citizen's Commission. Let us determine what the internal housing demand really is for seniors, what seniors really want, the numbers that we are really talking about, and the time frame that we are really looking at.

My fear is that if we were to say build a senior housing facility in the next five years, it would get filled up largely with people from outside of the area. I am not against people from outside of the area moving in, but there is a problem with that happening if our purpose is to first provide for our local senior housing needs.

To put it in concrete terms, Janice Bridge, the former school board member and proponent of Measure X, got up on Wednesday evening to suggest that she will be looking for senior housing in the next 10 to 15 years. Let us say we build Covell in the next five years. It fills up with people from outside the community since she is not quite ready to move in there. Where is she going to live?

These are some of the reasons that the community needs to figure out its housing needs independently of a developer driven campaign to create the impression that senior housing in this form is a critical need. Again, I am not suggesting that we do not need senior housing, what I am suggesting is that we need to find out what the real need is and we need to figure that out from a more independent source.

In the meantime, opponents of Covell Village better be aware that as they sleep at night, the Covell Partners are hard at work fostering strong community consensus behind their latest project. They have learned from past mistakes and are slowly and methodically bringing stakeholders into line. By the time Measure Y gets on the ballot, it might be too late to change things.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Models Conflict on Whether Davis Needs Senior Housing

Elaine Roberts Musser had an excellent column this week in the Vanguard. If you did not read it, you should. I am following up on it but I will not do it justice.

I start at a midpoint in her article which I think is actually the starting point for any discussion not just on senior housing but on development overall. I think it too often gets over-shadowed in the whole housing debate. The question is one of internal need.

Elaine Roberts Musser writes:

"Necessary to the process will be for developers to consider “internal” community needs rather than “external” needs of those who live outside Davis. (This is not an elitist attitude, by the way, but a recognition that the efforts of the City Council need to be directed toward addressing community problems first and foremost, if at all possible. This is the charge of the City Council.)"

What is interesting about internal need is that regional housing boards like SACOG do not use internal housing need, instead they use what is called a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) in order to figure out what the "fair share" of growth for a community is. Of course the problem is that at least in part those numbers are externally driven. SACOG like other "Councils of Goverments" is a pseudo-elected body made up of representatives from various governmental bodies. The very idea of a RHNA mandate for growth is a strict limit on local autonomy.

We started this week with a discussion on the reduction of sprawl at a state level. However, communities within that framework ought to have a good deal of say as to how, when, and how much they should grow. Some communities would like to grow quicker than others. I certainly believe that is something within their rights.

A true internal needs assessment for Davis is not surprisingly a matter of controversy. But there is quite a bit of locally driven demand from the university in the form of both faculty and staff as well as students. As I have mentioned at other points in time, the university could go a long way toward helping to alleviate the student housing crunch if they were willing to take up their own fair-share of proposed growths. According to statistics, UC Davis has among the lowest, if not the lowest, on-campus housing in the UC system.

Like any model, internal housing needs depends on the assumptions of the model. And here is where the article by Elaine Roberts Musser to me is so important.

The Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) determined that there would be "an “internal need” for somewhere between 200 to 400 units of senior housing between now and the year 2013."

Ms. Roberts Musser goes on to argue:

"The members I talked with and a person on city staff are indicating there is very little justification for the numbers arrived at, ostensibly because it is a difficult figure to quantify."

But here is the key point that I think underscores the problematic nature of such projections.

"The notion that all seniors want to downsize is fallacious. An AARP survey indicates otherwise. Actually 83% of those 45 and older would prefer to stay in their existing home, and not downsize."

This is consistent with a number of seniors or soon-to-be seniors I have spoken with. The other key point that many miss, is that a lot of seniors also do not want to live in what they think of as segregated communities or "Senior Ghettos" to use a more pejorative term (remember the original meaning of ghetto was simply a segregated community rather than a dilapidated one. Here is one definition: "a ghetto is an area, usually within a city, in which members of a particular cultural, ethnic, religious or national group live in high concentration, whether by choice or by force.")

Ms. Roberts Musser then raises the key point: if we re-orient the model to use the 83% figure, we come up with strikingly different results.

"If that statistic is applied to:

Tandem Properties’ alleged “internal need” of 800 units by year 2013, the “internal need” shrinks to 136 units;

HESC’s estimated “internal need” of 200-400 units by year 2013, the “internal need shrivels to between 34-68 units.

In fact, the current wait list for Shasta Point and Eleanor Roosevelt, both essentially low-income senior facilities, is virtually zero. As is the wait-list at Atria Covell Gardens, an assisted living facility for the elderly."

These assumptions are instructive however because they allow us to understand in concrete mathematical terms the nature of the debate and why I consistently hear from different individuals very different figures on the need for senior housing.

I want to bring up a second key point, one that was not raised in the Tuesday column, and that is about the nature of the Covell proposal.

Everyone knows the history of the original Covell Village proposal and the ensuing debate and campaign battle for Measure X. The Covell Partners, who I shall continue to reference as such, recognized some of the errors of their campaign and decided to scale-down their proposal.

Except that they really have not. What they have done is broken down the proposals by stages. The senior housing facility will only occupy the lower third of the property. Stages 2 and 3 would follow after successful approval of stage 1. They do not like to publicize this fact, but they have admitted it to various people that they have met with during the course of their outreach or focus group efforts.

In other words, if you were concerned about the Covell Village site because of the size and traffic impacts, then be mindful about how the big picture looks here.

From my perspective, it is going to take a long time to convince me that a senior facility at Covell Village really serves internal housing needs. In as much as I would be willing to support development, modest as that support would be, I would start with meeting internal needs for students and faculty through infill development. And I mean really infill development in properties that are already located within current city boundaries and that are already zoned residential. I do not see a need to develop Covell Village in the next general plan period. As the HESC showed us, we can meet our RHNA mandated growth by relying strictly on infill. I would suggest we bracket this discussion until after we have exhausted those possibilities.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Word To The Wise: Proposed Senior Housing Guidelines

by E.A. Roberts

____________

I usually leave the more controversial issues in DPD’s capable hands, and instead try to provide informative topics of interest on the subject of the elderly and disabled. However, senior housing seems to be a current hot button issue in this community, so I will dare to launch into troubled waters. In so doing, on occasion I will risk giving my opinion on the subject. A previous column I wrote for this blog discussed senior housing, but in a more informative format.

Recently I was invited by Tandem Properties to attend a “focus group”, ostensibly to obtain my view on what senior housing should look like in Davis. Because I am a member of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, I was very reluctant to attend. My feeling was that as a commission member, I did not want to give any appearance of impropriety in my actions. To attend a developer’s focus group might be construed the wrong way if I was not careful.

Unfortunately, I felt it imperative to go - once fellow commission members urged me to do so, after they had attended some of these focus groups. I began to realize it was necessary to find out what was going on. In the end, I am actually glad I chose to be present. It gave me a heads up on what is in the works for proposal by developers, and an opportunity for me to impart my views to them. As a commission member, it can be a fine line to walk.

It should be understood from the outset that I was the only member of the “focus group” I attended, which felt very uncomfortable. But it also gave me the opportunity to ask lots of questions, and I had many. Here is the gist of what I was told:

• Tandem Properties wants to propose a senior housing development on the former Covell Village site.
• The first phase would include 800 units. There is a second and third phase in the planning stages as well.
• All levels of affordability will be included.
• The developers are willing to kick in the costs of an AMR station, but not a fourth fire station. They feel to fund another fire station would be cost prohibitive.
• Many wonderful amenities are contemplated for this senior housing development, including the concept of “telemedicine” - doctor visits via the computer. Their vision is a veritable wonderland chock full of enticing goodies.
• Tandem Properties has formed a Healthy Aging group, that has put out a newsletter promoting good health for seniors. Naturally, Tandem believes their housing proposal will enhance the good health of any older adult who chose to live in their envisioned senior community.
• According to the developers, the “internal need” of Davisites should include elderly parents who wish to reside near their adult children already residing here.
• Downsizing is the common mantra of the developers, who insist -
• This is what seniors want;
• It will be for the good of the community because:
• It will free up more stock for workforce housing;
• It will bring in more young families to help do away with the declining enrollment problem in the schools.

Since that time, I have also talked with some members of the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC). One piece of information I have gleaned from them is as follows:

• They are projecting an “internal need” for somewhere between 200 to 400 units of senior housing between now and the year 2013;
• The members I talked with and a person on city staff are indicating there is very little justification for the numbers arrived at, ostensibly because it is a difficult figure to quantify.

At my strong urging, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission has elected to take up the issue of senior housing. The plan is to come up with some guidelines for the City Council to follow as it deliberates on any housing proposal. (City staff would prefer the creation of guidelines be done in coordination with the Social Services Commission, which could be problematic - since the constituencies they answer to are vastly different. The Senior Citizens Commission addresses the issues of all seniors, whereas the Social Services Commission concerns itself with the needs of low income and disabled.) This is so that whatever is built will not be “developer driven”, but rather have sufficient community input prior to its proposal being introduced for consideration. The hope is sufficient guidelines will preclude any future Covell Village debacle, as has happened in the past, where the City Council is not in sync with the community at large.

During the “focus group” I attended at Tandem Properties, my input was solicited. In general I remained fairly noncommittal, but did offer the following advice:

• It is important for any developer to first offer up proposed housing development plans for feedback at various city commissions, such as the Planning Commission, Senior Citizens Commission and other appropriate venues - before making a formal proposal to the City Council. In so far as Covell Village is concerned, there was a perception that developers were attempting to make an end run around process by going directly to the City Council majority for approval. With Measure J in place, that gambit will not be very effective.
• Necessary to the process will be for developers to consider “internal” community needs rather than “external” needs of those who live outside Davis. (This is not an elitist attitude, by the way, but a recognition that the efforts of the City Council need to be directed toward addressing community problems first and foremost, if at all possible. This is the charge of the City Council.)

To date, I am trying to keep an open mind on the subject of senior housing. I am not anti-developer by any stretch of the imagination. However, as things have unfolded, certain concerns have taken root. The ensuing discussion may help frame the issue of how much senior housing should the city of Davis build for the future.

Up until now, I strongly believe our community housing needs have been largely ignored in favor of a housing policy that is “developer driven”. It has resulted in some unfortunate byproducts, not the least of which is the present public school disaster. Home builders are promising new construction of schools as an enticement to homebuyers - without adequate assurance the school system will have enough in the way of operating expenses to run the new facilities. In consequence, too many schools were built in Davis, which resulted in the closure of Valley Oak Elementary and the threatened closure of Emerson Junior High.

Another unfortunate derivative of new housing is an increase in taxes - brought on by additional city services it inevitably brings. In this day and age of tough budget cuts, and the resulting decrease in state revenue to our city, the escalating tax burden factor becomes critical for our citizens on moderate or fixed incomes. It should be noted the City Council is proposing a new public safety tax. The School Board is proposing another parcel tax on top of the one we already are paying. Water and sewer rates are increasing at an astronomical rate.

Developers are in the business of making money for themselves, and there is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it must be remembered they are in the building industry first and foremost to maximize their profits. Thus if their proposals are not in the best interests of the city, it is incumbent upon the City Council to raise red flags where appropriate, and get the developers to rethink and revise their proposal. This did not happen with the original Covell Village project.

Instead, it felt as if some on the City Council had already had their minds made up by developers, and merely wanted the commissions to rubber stamp approval. This was an unfortunate position to take, especially in light of the impending Measure J vote. Because some on the City Council failed to first obtain sufficient community and commission input, the entire Covell Village matter ended in an embarrassing defeat at the polls.

Which brings up the issue of Measure J, which will be a thorn in the sides to developers unless it is somehow weakened with amendments. I am a strong supporter of Measure J in its present form, as a check on the abuses of process that often take place in local politics. It ensures that the City Council truly listens to the electorate when weighing in on the important issue of how much we should grow as a city, and in what direction. Any City Council member that tries to monkey with it does so at their political peril.

That said, there are a few disturbing arguments being bandied about by the pro-developer contingent, that I find quite disturbing. The notion that all seniors want to downsize is fallacious. An AARP survey indicates otherwise. Actually 83% of those 45 and older would prefer to stay in their existing home, and not downsize. If that statistic is applied to:

• Tandem Properties’ alleged “internal need” of 800 units by year 2013, the “internal need” shrinks to 136 units;
• HESC’s estimated “internal need” of 200-400 units by year 2013, the “internal need shrivels to between 34-68 units.

In fact, the current wait list for Shasta Point and Eleanor Roosevelt, both essentially low-income senior facilities, is virtually zero. As is the wait-list at Atria Covell Gardens, an assisted living facility for the elderly.

It is also completely inappropriate to argue seniors should downsize for the good of the community, to free up housing for the workforce and help end the problem of declining enrollment in our schools. Seniors have a constitutionally protected right to remain in their homes for as long as they want. Furthermore, seniors often use extra bedrooms for visiting relatives, live-in caregivers, and to rent for supplemental income. The elderly often have an emotional attachment to their home as well. Moreover, to sell to a stranger would eliminate the possible transfer of tax advantages of Prop 13 to the senior homeowner’s children.

Nor can one argue, with a straight face, that parents of adult Davisites represent part of the “internal need” of Davis. This line of misleading reasoning is as follows: parents who live outside the city will eventually want to move to Davis, to live where their adult children reside. But logic tells us that just as many elderly parents who live in Davis will want to move outside the city to be with adult children who live elsewhere. Not to mention those elderly in Davis who want to move AWAY from their adult children!

Be it good, bad or indifferent, here are a set of proposed guidelines I would like to see the City Council follow any time they are thinking of approving new housing, along with a checklist. I welcome any and all comments, constructive criticisms and new ideas.

General Housing Principles

A. General Housing Principles

• COMMUNITY PLANNED - Determination of housing requirements should not be “developer driven”, but accomplished in response to the expressed desires of the community.
• INDEPENDENT MARKET ANALYSIS - Market analysis of the true community need for housing should be done by an independent consultant who has no ties to the developer/city staff/city council members. The analysis should speak to:
• Affordability - in which the term is used in its broadest sense to include those of moderate income within the city of Davis.
• Marketability - determination if there is a true demand for specific types of housing proposed.
• BUILD IN SMALLER INCREMENTS - Build housing developments encompassing all housing types when practicable in smaller increments (phases), to better ascertain if it is meeting the true ongoing community needs of the city.
• COST TO TAXPAYERS FOR CITY SERVICES - An examination of cost in city services (additional tax burden) to all citizens, of a new development, should be mandatory as part of any application to build.
• City services to be investigated would include but is not limited to fire protection, law enforcement, parks maintenance, increase in water/sewer rate increases and the like.
• Developers should be required to pay mitigation fees in full, to decrease the cost of city services to residents of Davis.
• SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES - Implement sound planning principles that take into account what is best for the entire community, including but not limited to:
• Avoidance of development in larger flood plains or next to toxic sites;
• Air quality considerations;
• Good traffic management.
• ACCESSABILITY/VISITABILITY - The principles of accessibility/visitability should be incorporated into all new housing.

B. Senior Housing Guidelines

In determining the need for senior housing in Davis for its citizens, the following factors need to be taken into account in any market analysis:

• AGE DEFINITIONS - Age definitions or restrictions must be well defined, e.g. age 65 and over.
• PREFERENCE TO REMAIN HOME - Preference of 87% of seniors to remain in their homes, according to AARP survey.
• DOWNSIZING - A need to downsize - because either a) there is a medical crisis that requires it; b) the owner of a larger home recognizes s/he can no longer manage its upkeep; c) or there is simply a desire to be among peers.
• HOUSING OPTIONS - A need for different housing types for seniors, who cannot/do not wish to remain in their homes, should be considered.

• HOUSING SUITABLE FOR SENIORS - Many seniors are not in favor of living in age-restricted housing, preferring housing suitable for seniors. Creative options should be explored, such as cooperative housing or shared housing alternatives.
• AGE-RESTRICTED SENIOR HOUSING - Age-restricted senior housing types to be contemplated are as follows:

• Independent living: cottage, townhouse, mobile home, independent living facility;
• Assisted living facility (residential care facility for the elderly - RCFE);
• Skilled nursing facility (skilled nursing facility - SNF);
• Continuum of care facility.

• SUPPORT SERVICES - Nearby or accompanying support services should be taken into account for any senior housing built:
• Transit;
• Social services
• The impact of importing seniors from outside the county and the attendant drain on existing city/county social services should be assessed, in determining the overall “internal” need for senior housing.
• The wait-lists of current city facilities should be factored into the overall picture as to true community need.
• LOCATION - Because seniors often no longer drive a car, the preferred location for any proposed senior housing should be close to:

• public transit if there is no on-site shuttle;
• shopping (especially grocery store and pharmacy);
• a medical facility.

Lesson to be learned: Planning ahead and getting true community input about housing needs can head off a lot of potential problems in the future. It will also result in projects that are designed for the best interests of the community. While Tandem Properties’ proposal sounds like a veritable Disneyland for the elderly, it will bring with it high costs in additional city services. Without additional commercial development instituted to raise more tax revenue, current citizens in Davis may not be able to handle the greater tax burden required.

(Please note the opinions expressed are solely my own, and not stated as a reflection of the view of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission.)

Fraud Alert: An ad appeared in the Davis Enterprise some weeks ago entitled “The Disturbing Truth About Reverse Mortgages!!!”, touting a free report on the subject. I called the number given, only to connect with a recording that wanted me to leave my name and address. Not a single bit of information was imparted to make me aware of what I might be receiving or give some indication if I would even be interested.. I hung up immediately, since I did not want to take the chance of being placed on some mailing list (sometimes known as a ‘sucker list’), which could then be sold to who knows what unsavory financial predator. What is important here is to note the tiny print in the left hand corner which reads “Paid Advertisement”. If there is a product or service for sale, the retailer should be up front about it.

A notice appeared in the June 26^th Davis Enterprise, advising the public that a seminar on trusts had been conducted at the Davis Chamber of Commerce office. It wanted to make sure the public did not construe this as a Chamber of Commerce endorsement of whoever rented their facilities for this seminar. My terse comment would be such a notice was nothing more than “too little, too late”. The disclaimer would have been far more appropriate if stated directly before the seminar, on site. A 1.5 in. x 1.5 in. disclaimer buried among huge ads in a newspaper is hardly sufficient. As an attorney, I have dealt with several cases involving these trust mills, and the results have not always been what they should be. Trust mills tend to be a one size fits all operation, where most seniors have no idea what they purchased or whether it is suitable for their particular circumstances.

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 remark 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.

Housing Element's Plan Looks Bleak But There is Some Hope for Consensus Building

A fascinating story this morning the Sacramento Bee by Hudson Sangree.

In it, there is a discussion of the Housing Element Steering Committee's (HESC) housing plan. From the onset there were 15 members, 3 appointed by each of the councilmembers. The assumption was that with a 3-2 split on council between those aligned with local developers and those favoring less growth, that there would be a 9-6 pro-growth majority.

However, according to Vice Chair Mark Siegler, a Sue Greenwald appointee, that's not what happened.

According to the article:

"It came as a surprise when a committee of 15 residents, appointed by council members to help shape the future of Davis, worked together for a year and reached agreement on an innovative housing plan.

It proposes modest growth within the city's current borders. Infill projects deemed beneficial to the city would get priority."

Mark Siegler is quoted saying:

"It was sort of an amazing outcome... I was ready to go in there and just do battle to the death."

Instead now the fear is that the plan that was meticulously worked on over the course many months would be undermined by the city council with very different agendas and ideas than the committee members.

"Over the course of several months, we came to much more of a middle ground... I wouldn't be surprised if members of the City Council are not happy with the outcome based on who they appointed... I hope they don't just dismiss this thing out of hand."

HESC Chairman Kevin Wolf said:

"We have the political consensus to force the City Council in a new direction."

However, if the meeting last week is any indication, this consensus is about to break down into the usual fighting.

For example, Councilmember Stephen Souza and Don Saylor want to push for developing the Nishi property which was ranked No.17 by the steering committee. Mayor Ruth Asmundson complained that some of the properties like the PG&E site and the school district headquarters are not feasible since no one determined if the current occupants would be willing to move or develop their properties.

On the other side of fence, Councilmember Lamar Heystek worried that the list would lead to an artificial means by which to induce growth. Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued vehemently last week the city does not need to grow given the weak market.

However, in my discussion with Lamar Heystek on KDRT Radio last week, he agreed that the city council had considerable room for consensus building. There are clear philosophical differences between the two sides over the rate of growth and the willingness to develop on Measure J sites, however, there is also significant agreement on other areas.

The reason the HESC was able to come to consensus is that they avoided the more contentious "how much issue" and went toward the "where" issue. And in the immediate future, almost everyone agreed that we ought to grow in infill sites near the city's core and move out.

The council majority of Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson have a choice. They certainly have the votes and the recent election results to push forward with any agenda they see fit to seek. On the other hand, strategically speaking, they may be better off tackling development projects where they have basic agreement on location first.

As the HESC report makes clear, there are more than enough of these infill projects to meet either the low end RHNA numbers for the next five years or even the high end, 1% growth cap numbers without looking to a single peripheral project.

However, there are still a lot of pitfalls along the way.

Covell Village: The return of Covell Village is one thing to look at. The group formerly known as the Covell Partners has repackaged the project splitting the development into three segments. The first segment which would be on the lower third is looking towards senior housing. Senior housing is probably the next huge hot potato in general. There is a divide within the community about the need for senior housing and the type of senior housing. Some have suggested that senior housing internal needs are small and any big project would pull from a more regional and even statewide basis, others suggest that residents in Davis ought to be able to move their senior parents into closer proximity.

The form of senior housing is another question. Some have suggested that ideally smaller condos are better suited for seniors than senior-only segregated communities. The argument here is that many seniors want to downsize, but not live in senior-only communities. Some seniors do not even want to downsize.

Nishe: If one looks to location alone this Measure J project would be ideal. But there is a huge hurdle--that is lack of road access. The only access right now would be the narrow Olive Drive leading to the congested Richard Blvd interchange. The road access is so prohibitive that developers have suggested having only campus access for cars and otherwise only direct access to the rest of the city via bicycle or pedestrian traffic. Sounds good in theory, but recognizing the need for special traffic provisions illustrates the pitfall of the development. One alternative might be to give it to the university and have the university use it to expand it's on-campus housing base.

Lewis Property: This is the property that divides the progressive community. On the one hand, many believe that Lewis is an ideal place to develop as means to accommodate growth demands while at the same time not paving over farm land. The fact that it's already paved over and has some of the infrastructure needs plays into that desire. Still, others worry about provisions that Lewis is developed with a mind toward its more controversial eastern neighbor, Covell. While Lewis is considerably smaller than Covell, some of the same concerns that plagued Covell, apply to Lewis. Others such as Councilmember Sue Greenwald have been steadfastly pressing for high tech industry, arguing that we have few high tech zoned sites, that this is the ideal way to bring in new industry, and that the site is not conducive to residential development. The current owners however are pressing hard for a residential development. This is not a Measure J site, and it seems like that the residential side will eventually win this fight much to the chagrin of a number of others.

Wildhorse Horse Ranch: This is another peripheral site that would trigger a Measure J vote. The property came up for consideration early this spring and the meeting was largely an unmitigated disaster as neighbors complained about the project and even council would-be supporters seemed close to pulling the plug on the deal. However, the project has been re-worked. Many of the neighbors are if not supportive of the project, at the very least had their criticism muted. This is likely the next Measure J project Davis will vote on. Probably sometime in 2009. How will it go? It's only 40 acres. The project is said to be extremely environmentally innovative on the cutting edge. If the neighbors are brought along it could pass. If the neighbors remained as outspoken as they were at the last meeting before Council, it is a different story.

Those projects represent varying levels of political opposition. There are other projects within the city limits that would be slam dunks. I still believe one of the biggest mistakes of Covell Village was the timing. The council put all of their eggs into one basket on development and as a result, when Covell was voted down, there was nothing left in the queue. The result, few new housing permits the last three years of city council. The pro-growth majority, for a two-year stretch, a 4-1 pro-growth majority oversaw the period of the slowest growth in recent Davis history.

The question at this point is whether the council majority has learned a true lesson from Covell Village. The lesson is not that people do not want growth. However the lesson is also not that they did not explain the project or sell it well enough. The lesson is that the council tried to do too much, too quickly, with one project that was easy for people to understand the consequences of and easy for people to oppose. Moreover, it was polarizing. If the council can avoid polarizing future votes and issues, and instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do, they will be successful. If they cannot, their majority will likely be lost.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Housing Element Workshop Brings Growth Debate and Complaints About Process

The city council held a short workshop on the Housing Element Steering Committee’s recommendations along with recommended modifications posed by the Planning Commission and agreed to by the planning staff for the city.

Unfortunately, the Mayor Ruth Asmundson, only scheduled a short period of time for the workshop. It went from 5:00 PM to 6:30, with only a fifteen minute time period for public input. By the time the staff presentation finished, the council had only about five to seven minutes each to speak.

One has to question the usefulness of such a brief discussion on such an important issue. Nevertheless, even the brief time, sharp policies differences erupted between members on the council over the amount and direction of growth.

Councilmember Sue Greenwald questioned why we need these specified new sites. “We have dramatically decreasing home prices right now.” Median home sales prices since 2005 between first quarter of 2006 and first quarter of 2008, we have a 26% decline in home prices according to the Sacramento Bee home sales database. According to the San Francisco Chronicle—“Bay Area home prices plunge 27% in the last year.” She said these numbers are consistent with Davis. “These are areas that are considered higher end and immune to decrease.” Furthermore, she continued with the argument that there is no correlation between new housing permits and housing prices in Davis. Other trends are what are driving the market. She believes that this trend will continue for the next few years. So given the fact that we have already completed our regional fair-share of growth, she does not see the need to grow before 2013.

Councilmember Greenwald also discussed senior housing briefly. “In terms of senior housing, I think we need to separate out housing that is desirable for seniors from senior only housing complexes.” She suggests that a condo-complex downtown would be much more appealing to seniors, than a senior-only complex on the periphery of town.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor on the other hand, argued that we need more growth.

“I think that we do have needs for housing.”

He continued,

“I think there is several categories of need, and when I see the page in the report that you’ve just shared with us, I am concerned that we are not providing virtually any supply or addition. However, you cut it, building 44 in one year and 14 the next year, doesn’t get at the need that I believe that our community has.”

“As we work through this process, from my perspective, I am interested in balancing how we address those community needs for additional housing supply with a careful respect for the character of the community as we change.”

Mayor Ruth Asmundson:

“I also agree with Don, we need to have some housing. We can’t stay at zero housing. There has to be some growth to stay healthy.”

She wants to determine what our housing needs are and she wants them to determine how we grow and how much.

“There has to be growth in Davis to keep us healthy. I always have an analogy you know it’s like a baby. The baby is so cute, so adorable, that you wish that this baby wouldn’t grow. But if this baby doesn’t grow, then this baby will become retarded. And so it’s the same thing with the city.”

Sue Greenwald briefly said that we do not need to grow to be healthy. She cited the example of Pittsburgh, PA, which has declined in population but is now thriving as a city more so than several decades ago. She said we have to be realistic about growth and sustainability. She argued that more growth does not lend itself to sustainability.

A number of members of the public came to speak. Due to the abbreviated speaking period, some only spoke for one minute. Others spoke for two minutes.

Matt Williams made some interesting observations during this time.

“I was taken Mayor Asmundson about your comment about nurturing a child. One of the things that we do when we nurture a child is that we feed it. But we also take it to the doctor and we rid it of parasites. We treat the things that are eating up the city from the inside. One of the biggest effects on our city is UCD—in both positive and negative ways. Growth can happen by adding additional houses. What I’m hearing from Councilman Saylor and you, is that what would seem to be the only way to growth would be to add houses. It would seem to me that if UCD steps up and does what it needs to do. If it helps us rid the city of the negative effect of the university, by skewing the supply and demand curve. Using up all the supply of rental housing for students. Instead accommodates the students on the campus, the way other UCD’s do, we would indeed be able to grow. We would grow with our existing amount of housing. And we would see the people who would be added to the city, be close to the core, contribute to the businesses downtown by being more demand for their services, and their products. And we would end up with a more vibrant Davis.”

A numbers members of the public then came up during the public session of the regularly scheduled meeting to complain both about the timing of the meeting and the very short length of the public comment period for such an important issue.

One of those people was Eileen Samitz who made the point:

“Also the scheduling of these issues… to have a controversial issue like the general plan update, which was affecting the entire community, to schedule it at 5:00, when people like myself have to take off from work to get here… This is not what our city is about. Davis is supposed to be a model of democracy.”

Mayor Ruth Asmundson responded to these complaints from the public.

“Let me just talk a little about the public comment… At first this was supposed to be just a workshop. But we decided to put 15 minutes for those to speak that couldn’t make it to public comment at the regular meeting. If there are needs to have more discussion we’ll have it at the end. What I’m trying to do here is trying to juggle conflicting demands. Some council members don’t want to have too long meetings. Some council members don’t want to have that many meetings. But we are trying to make sure that we are having a healthy public engagement. And we’re going to be looking into how we can do that. The fifteen minute rule, if we have to go on, we have business to take care of. The council met at five o’clock, we have other business to do. I wanted to make sure council had an opportunity to have dinner before too long. And so that’s why the fifteen minutes.”

Councilmember Lamar Heystek asked for a future meeting to discuss some of the operating procedures. He is concerned about council communications being so late in the hour under the new policies.

Councilmember Sue Greenwald also disagreed with the new policy limiting public comment to fifteen minutes.

“I share the concerns that a number of the members of the public had. For example, when you said that initially you were going to have a workshop without any public comment, we always, when we discuss any item, have always had public comment. It’s been understood that it is not something that is at the discretion of the mayor.”

She continued:

“I personally feel that limiting public comment is a huge mistake in terms of time. There’s been very few times when public comment really is very long. And when it does, it’s usually because there is a room full of young children who want to keep a hockey rink open or something. And you’re not going to want to cut them off. I guarantee you. And it’s going to look very bad when you let them talk for a half an hour but you haven’t let other citizens talk for over fifteen minutes. It will look arbitrary and capricious.”

It is unclear what will come of the discussion of process. From a personal standpoint, I have always had much more grave concerns about process issues than policy issues.

From a policy standpoint, there will be future discussion in September on the Housing Element. There is a clear disagreement in the direction that the city needs to go. I think there is some opportunity however, even within that disagreement for consensus building.

There seems to be a joint desire for development in the core. I think the ideas that Matt Williams brought up about the university taking a larger share of the responsibility to house students, faculty, and staff, make a lot of sense. This came up during the campaign. I do not see disagreement on that particularly issue by the council. Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor, while suggesting that was not enough, did seem to support the idea of more housing on campus. If we begin where there is agreement, we can see a less rancorous council.

On the other hand, if we begin with some of the more controversial proposals, if we push Measure J projects like Covell and Nishe first, then we will see more discord on the council and a stronger divide between those who favor a more measured approach to growth taking into account current housing needs within the city, regional trends, and those who would like to see closer to the 1% growth cap.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Early Meeting Set for Housing Element Discussion

Covell Village II Big Issue on the Table

There will be a special workshop to open this week's council meeting from 5 pm to 6:30 pm. Then the council will begin its normal meeting with a full agenda including public comment at 6:30 or 6:45.

The question one might automatically ask, is why put the most important topic, that of the housing element discussion at 5 pm when people are not paying attention and many are just getting off from work?

One of the things that will happen during this meeting is that there will be modifications to the site rankings as laid out by the Housing Element Steering Committee.

A key change that will occur is that the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) rank ordered all the sites. They also divided the top 20 into "green light" sites where development would be given a priority and was expected to occur during this general plan cycle and "yellow" and "red" light sites where they saw develop occurring in future general plan cycles depending on the growth rate set by the city council.

Now the Planning Commission and city planning staff recommends removing the ranking numbers from the 20 "green light" sites.

According to the staff report:

"Development applications should be allowed for these highest ranked sites. Although the property owners of several of these sites are likely not ready to submit applications in the near term, development status will be monitored to ensure that the 1% growth cap resolution is not exceeded."

Other recommended changes:

• Move Oakshade Affordable Housing from #26 to green.
• Move Nugget Fields from #28 to Green.
• Keep Lewis Cannery at #21.
• Move Wildhorse Horse Ranch to #22 from #27.
• Willowbank Church: Move from green to yellow.

The rationale on Lewis Cannery and Wildhorse is:

"This site and the Wildhorse horse ranch site (below), with current development applications, are recommended for the top two rankings of the “alternate” sites because they are relatively large sites currently in the city not used for agriculture and can provide a mix of housing types to meet housing needs."

An additional reason might also be that both Lewis Cannery and Wildhorse Horse Ranch have been moving forward with actual development proposals while some other properties are in the more theoretical stage.

One of the groups hoping to move up as the result of this meeting are the Covell Village Developers. The Vanguard has received word that these developers have been working hard to mobilize a huge turnout of seniors who will advocate for the Covell Village Senior Project Proposal.

Having seen their large development that was proposed in 2005 voted down by a 60-40 margin, the Covell Village Developers have broken down their latest proposal into three phases. The first phase is to develop a senior housing facility on the southern portion of the 386 acre parcel.

Few of the seniors who have met with the Covell Village Developers have been told this is only the first part of their plan.

The Housing Element Steering Committee spent considerable time on the Covell Project. There are concerns about prime agricultural land in the bottom portion of the land, where the senior housing facility would be. And there are concerns that the upper two-thirds of the project rests in a flood plain that would represent considerable liability for the city both physically and financially. State legislation in recent years has placed the financial burden on cities who build in flood plains and will no longer bail out cities in the event of a flood.

In addition, the Covell Village developers have purchased additional land north of original property to act as their 2:1 Ag mitigation.

As a result, the Housing Element Steering Committee, composed of a number of very strong supporters of Covell Village including Chair Kevin Wolf, who was a huge advocate for the project in 2005, ranked Covell Village very low as a site. The developers who own the property have been working hard to change that ranking. And are expected to pack the chambers with seniors that they have worked with to bring on board.

Opinions by leaders in the Senior Community vary as to whether or not we actually need additional senior housing. Recent events at Covell Gardens have suggested the need for extreme scrutiny when building and opening senior care facilities. Many seniors have expressed an interest to not downsize and move into a senior community. Many like to live with the general population to begin with. The demand from the local senior population is unclear.

Personally, while I favor slower growth in an environmentally sustainable manner, if I am looking to add housing first, I would look to see infill projects on sites already incorporated within the city. As the HESC indicated, we have plenty of those type of sites and projects to meet our housing needs for the next general plan period.

Second, if we are to add housing I would look toward workforce housing, housing for UC Davis faculty, and student housing first. Those people who work in Davis but do not live in Davis should get the first priority for new housing. Concern has been expressed about the vacancy rate in Davis for apartments and student housing. This is where the priority should be.

It should be noted in the staff report, the only mention of Covell Village is the preference to plan for the Lewis Cannery site in consideration of the adjacent Covell Village site. This remains a chief concern of mine with regards to the Lewis Cannery site. Many have suggested that the site is better suited for high tech or light industrial use. I am circumspect on the type of development that needs to go there and for the most part agnostic. What I am bitterly opposed to would be the use of Lewis Cannery to facilitate development on the adjacent Covell Village site.

Any effort to get the property to move up is coming entirely from the developers and not from the HESC, the Planning Commission, the city planning department, or even the Davis City Council Majority.

I am not one who believes that the 2005 Measure X forever precludes development on the Covell Village site. However, there are many places that should be developed before we even start considering this. It appears that the Covell Village developers will not take no for an answer here. And that at some point we will go through this process once again.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Interview with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk--Part III

On Friday April 18, the Vanguard sat down and spoke with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, candidate for the State Senate, 5th District. In November she will face Republican Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian. This is the final of a three-part interview. In this segment, the Assemblywoman discusses land use, housing, seniors, health insurance, and her legislative accomplishments and goals.

9. How can the 5th Senate District balance the need for housing and jobs to accommodate huge projected growth with the need to preserve agricultural land and environmental protection?

That’s a tremendous challenge and it’s a challenge we feel throughout the central valley. People are looking for housing, they’re moving to these areas, they haven’t stopped moving to these areas and we need to do a better job of planning. We need, and I hope we would have a resurgence of what we had years ago when we looked at regional planning, strong regional planning. The blueprint was a good example, but that’s only for the Sacramento region. We need that for the entire Senate 5th District. San Joaquin has done a very good job as well of beginning the process of a blueprint. They have strong transportation organization, but there needs to be an overall planning effort that connects transportation, land use, planning, all the agricultural preservation, and environmental preservation. All of the pressures that come from growth have to be looked at in a connective fashion—and we don’t do that. We don’t do a good job of that. We need to do more of that.

It is very difficult, but now is probably the best time to do that. The reason I say that is when you are in a recession that you are right now, and you don’t have the pressure of housing on you, the overheated market, you have an opportunity to take a step back if you are in local government, and look out several years. Look out five to ten years. Look out twenty years. Preferably, look out thirty years or more and do some fundamental planning for your region. We don’t do a good job of that in California. We should do more.

I have introduced 2501, that includes climate change in all water planning in the state at every level. I think that has to occur. That’s one response to what we know is coming and needs to be addressed. The other bill that was part of the flood protection package, was a change in general plan law, to require each community, city and county, to incorporate flooding in a comprehensive way into their general plans. Many communities still don’t do that, but they will have to do that by the end of next year, including the maps the maps that will be given to them of the different flood plains. So there are efforts to do that and there are some pieces of legislation currently that aim to do the same for transportation and air quality and housing. I support those, I think that they’re to put forward.

I recognize however, that much resistance comes from local communities because land use is a local prerogative. I would just encourage, as I did when I was on the city council and the board of supervisors, regional efforts that Davis can’t do it alone, Woodland can’t do it alone, it is important for Yolo County cities to be working together in partnership and to be working in the greater region on all of these issues—that’s essential. Sometimes it doesn’t work, but that’s what needs to happen. It’s a tension between the local government responsibility as a constitution for land use and the state’s overall overriding interest in making certain that the state as a whole deals with these challenges. There’s a tension there and it’s a healthy challenge.

10. Everyone it seems is for health care reform. What approach do you most advocate for and more importantly, how can you get it passed in the current climate or will you be looking toward 2011 with a Democratic Governor?

My greatest disappointment was that we were unable to enact health care reform. My position has always been, whatever health care reform comes to my desk in the Assembly, I will vote for—whether it is single payer, which I have supported, or the Speaker and Governor’s proposal, I supported that, and I co-authored John Laird and Darrell Steinberg’s bills to expand healthy families, to insure the children. My greatest disappointment is that this year, since we were unable to insure every citizen that we were unable to insure and expand healthy children, the healthy families program and thereby insure all children.

This will have to be done at the federal level. I am looking forward to the election in November. I think within a year after that, we will see a health care reform. It will be similar to the SKIP program, basically the federal government has to set a floor and then California will rise above that floor. Each state will or not depending on their needs and demands and values. I look forward to this election because I think that health care reform is on the national agenda. It is the number one for people. It has surpassed education in many polls statewide—not yet in my district. It is up there. It has risen dramatically. It has to be dealt with. I look forward to working on that before we have a new governor.

11. What other issues do you think are vital to your candidacy for the Senate and your record as a State Assemblywoman?

Well one of the areas has been my focus on seniors and elders. The elder abuse legislation which was landmark legislation to require banks and financial institutions to report elder financial abuse when they think it’s occurring. That took us two years, it was a difficult piece of legislation. We had a great deal of support for it. I’m very proud about that. I’m currently looking at end of life issues—nursing homes, assisted living facilities, issues. We are a growing and changing population. We’re growing older, we have a demographic surge, and people are living longer. They are not living next door to their relatives any longer. They need at times housing and medical care. They need continuums of care, they need services at certain times and not at others. They need the flexibility of being able to go back and forth between the housing and nursing home, homebound care, there are all permutations of the things that seniors need as they age.

I’d like to work on these, but we haven’t had a lot in that area. We haven’t had enough oversight. And it is a tremendous wave. The baby boomers are coming. We have to be prepared for that. What we saw in Davis was a very good example of that. We have two facilities we built in the 90s—one in ’89, the University Retirement Facility, which I was instrumental in getting approved and working toward. That was in the 1990s, it is twenty years later. When Atria took over Covell Gardens the rent increases were dramatic. That was very difficult for many of the existing residents. At that point, alternative were not and are not available. I think that’s a real lack in our community. We haven’t thought about the changes in our demographics that are coming upon us not just in Davis, but countywide and statewide, practically and statewide that would allow choices to be available to seniors.

Frankly, we have an expansion in the needs of children as well—childcare. Because of the changes in the family, there are very different demands that the family requires that we’re not confronting. Changes in home to school transportation for example, single-parent families have incredible demands on them, childcare, the need for preschool, there are a whole series of things that we have to do for children as well, that have to reflect changing times. So I look forward to working on those of those issues in the Senate.

(Follow up on the situation at Atria Covell Gardens regarding the power situation in January and rent).

I think there are two parts to that. I disagree with you that the Davis City Council couldn’t do anything. For the immediate, their fire department was absolutely wonderful in getting there, getting people out of the elevator who were trapped there, and being ready to be partners in whatever emergencies are provided, and that’s ongoing not just in crises, they’re always there.

I have introduced legislation to make certain that emergency plans have to be serious. If they provide services dependent upon electricity, in particular oxygen and a number of things that they have to have a backup generator. I’m sure that that will pass and be signed by the governor.

The issue of rents—whether adequate notice and adequate justification is given for these rents. There are a number of things that could be done better—mechanisms for appealing it if possible. Here’s the issue with Davis, yes there are problems that were highlighted by what happened. We don’t have enough facilities in Davis. It took a city council to approve ten acres of land for the University Retirement Community using the redevelopment agency and new development to make that happen. And it took a city council prior to mine—Mike Corbett, Anne Evans, and David Rosenberg—to approve Covell Gardens in 1988 or 87, recognizing the need for a senior facility. We need more of them. There was no place to go.

If you are 76 or 85 and you are faced with, and you’re relatively healthy and your rent goes up and you have a limited amount of income, you have no other place to go. Your choices were limited. That is something that the Davis City Council can directly assist with. I know that those are difficult conversations to have given the current view about growth, but if we’re committed to infill, what about infill projects? What about some vision in terms of creating alternatives for those seniors. There are going to be more and more people like that—are we going to send them away from Davis? That is what I was faced with as mayor in the 90’s. People were leaving the community because we did not have a university retirement community. And because Covell Gardens at the time was only senior housing. It did not have any assisted living. It changed over time. Where are those facilities? I don’t know of any in the planning process. That may be the case in Woodland as well, in fact, it may be true in California. We have to do a better job of anticipating demographic surge and the needs that that group presents and ready for it. That’s what a public official should be about, and especially at the local level where land use is in their control.

12. What accomplishment in your political career are you most proud?

I have a lot of them. I am very proud of the flood protection package, the Cache Creek Wild and Scenic bill, that Cache Creek will forever be wild and scenic. My grandchildren will be able to experience that creek and their grandmother had something to do with making it wild and scenic. Also the landmark bill on elder protection—elder financial abuse. I’ve accomplished a number of things that aren’t pieces of legislation. I’ve managed to solve a number of problems that resulted in making the school districts healthier financially. Getting the $4 million for Marguerite Montgomery was a wonderful success. I also years before saved $14 million for the Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District and I’m working now to help the Dixon School District achieve a reserve with their sale of property which needs legislation. A lot of these things gave me a great deal of satisfaction because they made lives and situations much better for people. I like to solve problems.

13. If you accomplish one thing as a State Senator what would it be?

I have two things. To insure every child in this state, that would be the first thing in the next two years. The second thing would be to develop a steward for the delta. A medical home for every child in the state of California.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting