Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

An exchange over misleading Village Farms promises about affordable housing

Greenwald concedes Village Farms could result in little or no affordable housing being built

By Roberta Millstein

I want to let readers know about some followups to my two previous posts about the toothless promises concerning Affordable Housing and affordable-by-design housing in Village Farms, which we will vote on in June as Measure V. One is that I meshed the two articles into one, did some more editing, and submitted the new article to the Davis Enterprise, where it appears, here. Now the analysis of affordable housing in Village Farms, which rests in large part on understanding the difference between Baseline Features and Development Agreements — and which “promises” appear where — is all in one place.

The second thing I want to highlight is a response of sorts to my DE article from the Davis Vanguard, here. What I find interesting about this response is that at each point David Greenwald actually agrees with what I say about the promises of affordable housing. Indeed, there really is no other interpretation — it’s in black and white that the affordable housing is so flexible that the project could end up with little or no affordable housing at all. And he agrees that our city councils have a history of giving in to developers. Quoting from Greenwald’s article (my emphasis added):

“Millstein’s argument focuses on the risks embedded in approving a project that does not lock in every promised benefit.” [yes, this is accurate]
…
“Millstein is correct to draw a distinction between capital “A” Affordable Housing—units that are deed-restricted and tied to specific income thresholds—and what is often referred to as “affordable-by-design” or “missing middle” housing.

She is also correct that the Development Agreement governing Village Farms allows for modifications, and that City Council decisions—both present and future—can alter the trajectory of a project.”

…

“In her piece, Millstein points to past developments, including the Cannery and Willowbank Park, as evidence that affordable housing commitments can be weakened or eliminated over time.

Millstein is focused on the risk that developers may weaken commitments later and that the City Council will probably allow it—I grant that point.”

…

“Millstein also challenges claims about “affordable-by-design” housing, noting that the 70% figure for smaller, attached homes is not in the Baseline Features but in the Development Agreement, where it can be changed.

That is a fair point.”

…

“Millstein questions whether Village Farms will deliver the full 360 affordable units referenced in campaign materials, noting that the Baseline Features specify “up to” that number and that only a portion of those units are tied to specific construction triggers.

That skepticism is understandable.”

So, Greenwald concedes literally all of the points I made. Greenwald’s main point seems to be that a project without affordable housing would be better than no project at all. (Maybe I’ll write about this in a separate article — it’s a much larger question that goes beyond my original article and requires a lot more discussion).

My view is that voters should know what they are voting for. Many are planning on voting for this project because they think it will include affordable housing — I believe that should be clear for the voters that they may not get that, that all of the housing may be out of reach for most young families, teachers, and local workers .

I will again remind readers:The developers could have chosen to make those promises guaranteed by putting them in the Baseline Features, but they chose not to.

Vote as you like. But don’t vote for Village Farms because you want affordable housing.

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

, , , , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

3 responses to “An exchange over misleading Village Farms promises about affordable housing”

  1. George Galamba

    I agree that an argument can be made that a development with minimal or even no affordable housing is better than no development at all. But whatever promises are made must be binding. If that is not the case, then the project should not be approved.

    Reply
  2. Susan Rainier, AIA, LFA, LEED AP

    In addition to being unaffordable, there are significant potential costs for the liabilities the City is turning a blind eye to:

    The Village Farms proposal also raises serious legal and standard-of-care concerns for both the City and future homebuyers. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, cities must conduct a complete and good-faith analysis of environmental risks before approving a project. When significant issues—such as flooding potential, contaminated groundwater, habitat destruction, or inadequate alternatives analysis—are left unresolved, the City risks approving a project based on incomplete information.
    Approving housing in areas known to be near contamination sites, flood hazards, or sensitive ecological systems may also expose the City and future property owners to long-term liability. Buyers rely on local governments to ensure that development decisions meet reasonable professional planning standards and that environmental hazards are fully disclosed and mitigated. If foreseeable risks later cause property damage, health concerns, or environmental harm, the failure to fully analyze and address those risks during the planning process could create legal and financial consequences.
    Responsible planning requires the City to meet its duty of care to residents, taxpayers, and future homeowners by ensuring a complete environmental review and a legally defensible decision.
    When foreseeable risks are ignored or inadequately studied, the costs are often borne later by taxpayers, homeowners, and the environment.

    Legal Duty of Care and Litigation Risk
    The Village Farms proposal raises significant legal and professional standard-of-care concerns for both the City and future homebuyers. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, cities have a legal obligation to conduct a complete and good-faith analysis of environmental risks before approving major development projects. When known issues—such as flooding hazards, contaminated groundwater, destruction of sensitive habitat, or incomplete alternatives analysis—are left unresolved, the City risks approving a project based on incomplete information.
    Planning decisions must also account for foreseeable risks. When hazards are known or reasonably predictable, public agencies have a duty to evaluate them and ensure that appropriate protections are in place. Approving housing near floodplains, contamination sites, or fragile ecological systems without fully resolving these issues may expose both the City and future property owners to long-term financial and legal consequences.
    There is also substantial litigation risk. Courts have repeatedly overturned Environmental Impact Reports when agencies fail to analyze reasonable alternatives or defer key mitigation measures until later stages. If the Environmental Impact Report for Village Farms is found to be legally inadequate, the result could be costly litigation, project delays, and additional taxpayer expense.
    Responsible planning requires the City to meet its duty of care by ensuring that environmental risks are fully analyzed and that the review process meets the legal standards required under CEQA before voters are asked to approve the project.
    When foreseeable environmental risks are not fully analyzed, the consequences are often borne later by taxpayers, homeowners, and the environment—through flooding damage, contamination cleanup, and costly litigation.

    Legal Credibility
    Projects approved without a legally adequate Environmental Impact Report are frequently challenged in court under the California Environmental Quality Act. Courts have repeatedly ruled that cities must fully analyze environmental impacts, evaluate reasonable alternatives, and avoid deferring key mitigation measures. When those standards are not met, approvals can be overturned—resulting in costly litigation, delays, and uncertainty for taxpayers, residents, and future homeowners in Davis, California.
    Projects approved with inadequate environmental review are often overturned under CEQA, leading to costly lawsuits, delays, and uncertainty for taxpayers and future homeowners in Davis.

    Expert Concerns
    Concerns about flooding risk, groundwater contamination, and environmental impacts have also been raised by independent experts. Nicholas Pinter, a flood expert at University of California, Davis, has warned that the proposed flood-control approach may be inadequate for the scale of flooding risks in the area. Hydrologist Steve Deverel, who has overseen groundwater contamination cleanup at the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Site for decades, has also raised concerns about potential pathways for contaminated groundwater to reach Channel A and downstream waterways. When experienced scientists highlight unresolved risks, those concerns deserve careful analysis before voters are asked to approve the project.

    First Do No Harm

    Reply
  3. Marjorie Longo

    Thank you Roberta! In addition I think it is important to remember that Nishi never got built and this is the same developer. I believe Nishi would have counted as affordable housing but it never got built. Wasn’t it supposed to be 700 apartment units? Someone who should know (can’t say who) told me Nishi will never get built because the project is too expensive to build. This person said it will likely go back to another measure J vote to reverse the earlier vote and likely will end up an office/tech park. The VF developer seems to be “allergic” to building affordable housing because it doesn’t make them money or enough money. The history of Nishi squares with their avoiding (in the DA and BPF) the responsibility to build the affordable housing in Village Farms.

    Reply

Leave a comment