⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 8 findings
F1
Page 15
By 2015, planning for the Peninsula Wellness Community (PWC) set aside ten percent of the senior housing as affordable housing; the vast majority of units were reserved for market-rate housing.
F2
Page 15
According to housing advocates, the District’s meetings and public events did not provide effective formats for real-time dialogue between District representatives and community members.
F3
Page 15
At its November 18, 2019, public meeting, the District responded to community and political pressure by announcing an increase in the percentage of affordable units in the project from ten percent to 39%.
F4
Page 15
Whether the PWC project could be structured to provide more than 39% affordable housing cannot be determined by the public. The District has failed to provide information regarding the financial feasibility of providing affordable housing in a ratio greater than 39% including whether it is possible for the District to accept decreased lease income from the developers.
F5
Page 15
The District failed to provide the financial analysis and assumptions that underpin the ratio of market-rate to affordable housing units, the projected income from the land leases, and the financial plan for use of that income once the project is complete.
F6
Page 15
If the project goes forward as currently configured it will still provide a substantial number of new affordable housing units.
F7
Page 15
While it is possible that continued demands by community advocates for a greater number of affordable housing units could impact the future of the PWC project, such concerns have not been communicated to the housing advocates.
F8
Page 15
Upon completion of the PWC, the income generated by the development will be reinvested into the community and may be used to provide community grants and other auxiliary health services, but these benefits have not been clearly articulated.
Recommendations 3
-
R1Page 15Starting November 1, 2020, with respect to the PWC project and future development projects, the District should: • provide opportunities during District meetings (whether in regular or special Board meetings, or during community outreach presentations) where community questions are answered in real time by the District, developers, and service providers and consider the use of a moderator to enhance those discussions; • clearly articulate the affordable housing limitations of each project as well as how the number of housing units were assigned between market-rate and affordable; • create a dedicated webpage to allow residents to follow the development of projects as they move forward including clear documentation of a conceptual and financial framework for determining community benefit, dollars allocated, timing and financing for current and future initiatives. In connection with such efforts with respect to the PWC project, for example, the District should highlight the new and ongoing health services envisioned for the community using the lease income from the PWC.
-
R2Page 16Starting November 1, 2020, the District should modify its outreach communication strategy, by proactively identifying and engaging with local housing advocates and experts and other stakeholders, as it develops future residential projects.
-
R3Page 16By November 1, 2020, the District should revise its mission statement to include the value of community input and involvement.
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 14A more forthcoming communication strategy moving forward could result in a higher level of satisfaction on the part of housing advocates and other stakeholders While it’s true that advocacy groups may not have asked the specific questions listed above, it’s also true that the District did not take the initiative to anticipate community concerns or provide the underlying assumptions and resulting consequences for the projected financial plan. Absent information regarding the District’s financial rationale, the community did not understand or support the reasons to constrain the number of affordable-rate rental units whether at the initial ten percent ratio or even the subsequently modified 39% ratio. Given the lack of trust on the part of the community, it may be difficult to build a consensus about the number of affordable units at this late stage of the planning process. However, the development of a well-informed partnership can still move forward if community members believe that the District is using financial resources for the greatest public benefit. Transparency about their financial analysis can go a long way towards convincing the community that the District is being a responsible steward of an extremely valuable piece of 43 Grand Jury interview 44 April 24, 2020 District press release: http://www.peninsulahealthcaredistrict.org/wp-content/uploads/042320- PHCD-COVID-Fund-Press-Release.pdf.
-
CL2 Page 15public land. Trust will continue to be important as the PWC project moves through a multi-year approval process including review by the City of Burlingame. Finally, if the District intends to buy additional properties, this trust could also result in robust community support and ultimately help the District avoid costly delays.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Peninsula Health Care District
Special District