As an outsider, just one comment: "Affordable Housing" listed as $400K to $500K, for 900 to 1200 sq. ft.: I knew home prices in CA were high, but that's ridiculous.
My little, but livable 1200 sq. ft. house on a 1/9 acre, zero lot line plot, cost me $61K in 1986 and was recently appraised for tax purposes at $199K. I think that's a little high, but I'm not challenging it, since with both homestead and over 65 exemptions my taxes aren't high at all, compared to what they were before I turned 65. Insurance is another story entirely.
As far as your election goes, I'd guess you'll have to decide how much you trust the developers and the city government.
I believe it. In 2011, I visited the house in Folsom my parents brought me to after I was born in Sacramento. At that time there was a similar house on the market for 350K. Those were 2 BR 1 BA homes on a decent lot. Since that was 15 years ago, I'd guess those houses have at least doubled to around 700K, and may be pushing a million.
No wonder when Californians move to Texas they think housing is so cheap. Of course that has driven up the price of housing especially in Austin so much that my younger daughter had to leave and move in with me for a while.
Not sure where or when it will all end, but I'll be listening for the sound of trumpets anytime now.
And one you could leave Christmas lights up all year long. My favorite Bob Dunning event was dinner at the dump, my neighbors from West Manor and my family arrived in a 1971 Volvo sedan. Westies, after all, drove Volvos.
Yes, John, we did leave those Christmas lights up all year long, much to PG&E's delight. With the help of my older brother, they changed to orange and black at Halloween, all red on St. Valentine's Day and all green on St. Patrick's Day.
I remember you Westies showing up at Dinner at the Dump in a Volvo. So much fun. So many great memories.
Stanley Davis built a 956s/f home (El Dorado) that was indeed an affordable option for first time home buyers (my wife and I did so in 1978). Stanley Davis was successful in developing East Davis and West Manor with affordable homes. They created neighborhoods and neighbors who knew each other.
I’m wondering if anybody has thought about the increase in the number of cars on Pole Line/102 heading towards . It’s already getting quite congested and as a two lane county road, people already pass in a dangerous manner quite often.
Let’s not forget that one of these authors will make a very large sum of money if they win their way, and the other won’t make a dime if their position wins.
Regarding the assertions that Sandy makes in her half of this twosome, I received the following comment from local economist Richard McCann that I believe is worth sharing.
“In Davis the standard house size on a 5,000 square foot lot is 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, not 1,000 square feet. This is part of the deception being fomented by the developer. There's little to no real "missing middle by design" housing in the official documents of the proposal. It's all about marketing and empty promises.”
Dear Matt, I'm sorry you feel we are deceptive. These lots are not in fact, 5,000 square feet, that is just the maximum size allowed. The average is much smaller and there will be hundreds of very small lots between 1,800-3000 square feet. It's very important to us that we provide a variety of options that are affordable for young families. Our own families have spent lifetimes creating their amazing reputations in town, being trustworthy and giving back to our community, and we are going to do our best to carry their legacies forward.
Sandy, I think you need to go back and read your own filings with the City. Those official City documents show that the 1,130 units of Residential Medium Density cover 135.9 acres. That works out to an average of over 5,238 square feet per lot. That is not medium density. It is low density. In most jurisdictions across the State, Medium Density is between 10 and 30 units per acre. 10 units per acre means a lot of 4,356 square feet.
Matt, I am sorry I must correct you. Your 5,238 square foot figure is gross, and includes roads, paths, greenbelts, and shared infrastructure — none of which are lots. Roads alone account for 20-30% of that acreage. In fact, for the over 800 smaller lot homes under Channel A, if you divide the actual "net buildable area" by unit count, you'll find the average lot size is under 3,000 square feet!
Sandy, in your article today on the Davis Vanguard you said, “ We have had Union Pacific’s stamped approval on the Nishi overcrossing engineering plans for over three years. That crossing is a significantly larger structure than the one planned at Village Farms. If anything, what Nishi demonstrates is that we know exactly how to work with this railroad.”
Thank you for posting that helpful and illuminating information.
When you say, ”We have had Union Pacific’s stamped approval on the Nishi overcrossing engineering plans for over three years” it begs the question, What is actually causing the three year delay since UP gave its stamp of approval?
Sandy, your interpretation is that, but take a look at the Cunningham Engineering table which disaggregates the 1,130 lots. You will be surprised. That table lists gross and net and units per acre.
Yes, Exhibit C. Please make sure you are looking at the "BRPA" vs the "Proposed Project" application. Believe me, we are not thrilled that the City continues to use the name "Proposed Project" for a project that we are not bringing forward. Very confusing! The densities in the BRPA are much higher because we removed the 50 acres for habitat but kept the same number of homes. I believe there are 870+ of the 1,130 that are below the channel that now average less than 3,000 square feet (to clarify, lot size, not home size.. for anyone else that happens to be reading this!)
One of the issues Village Farms brings to the forefront is the availability of water.
The water right of the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) is a “junior” permit not a “senior” permit. In “perfect” years it authorizes WDCWA to utilize UP TO 45,000 acre feet of water per year.
However, 45,000 almost never happens because very few years are absent any drought impacts. As a result, WDCWA’s surface water diversions are significantly limited during summer months and other dry periods.
During these times, to backfill what it isn’t allowed to divert, WDCWA utilizes up to 10,000 acre feet of water under a “senior” water right purchased from the Conaway Preservation Group.
However the 10,000 acre feet are significantly less than the number of acre feet that are not allowed to be diverted under the terms of WDCWA's "junior water right"
The City’s water production reports show the following percentages of surface water and well water:
January 98.4% surface 1.6% well
February 89.5% surface 10.5% well
March 97% surface 3% well
April 96.5% surface 3.5% well
May 93.1% surface 6.9% well
June 95.1% surface 4.9% well
July 91.1% surface 8.9% well
So far so good because of the availability of snow melt runoff. But …
August 67.6% surface 32.4% well
September 62.2% surface 37.8% well
October 62% surface 38% well
November 57.7% surface 42.3% well
December 62.6% surface 37.4% well
Bottom-line, our surface water rights are limited, and the added demand from Village Farms will increase the already problematic well percentages in August through December.
Current evidence of the degraded quality of the blended well and surface water appears in your daily teacup after you have drunk it down to empty. What is left behind is brown mineral scum deposited on the porcelain interior of your cup. Those are mineral contaminants from the well water. Surface water does not have those contaminants.
It is worth noting that for most of the City’s wells the mineral contaminants level is so high that the wastewater treatment plant would be in violation of state environmental standards if that well water were discharged directly into the Yolo Bypass.
In an everyone contributed equally world, new developments like Village Farms would bring “senior water rights” to WDCWA so that they are contributing surface water just like every other Davis residents are. They can get those senior water rights from Conaway Ranch just like WDCWA currently does.
The Yes article is more compelling. The author of the No article has opposed every proposed development in Davis and I suspect will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.
It is false that I have opposed every proposed development in Davis. For example, I did not oppose WDAAC/Bretton Woods. But I suppose it is easier to criticize me than it is to address the facts and arguments in my article.
That's a pretty bizarre reading, given that this is what I in fact said:
"In short, the weak/absent commitments to affordable housing, to connectivity, and to transit mean that Village Farms is not designed with our current climate crisis in mind. It could be, though. A number of citizens have called for a “no” vote with the recommendation that we urge the developers to come back to voters with a denser project — one with firm commitments to its environmental features — that is completely south of the channel (which, in addition to improving designing for climate change, would eliminate/dramatically reduce concerns about toxics and the floodplain). I endorse this line of thinking."
Sandy, in your article in the Vanguard you said, “ We have had Union Pacific’s stamped approval on the Nishi overcrossing engineering plans for over three years. That crossing is a significantly larger structure than the one planned at Village Farms. If anything, what Nishi demonstrates is that we know exactly how to work with this railroad.”
Thank you for posting that helpful and illuminating information.
When you say, ”We have had Union Pacific’s stamped approval on the Nishi overcrossing engineering plans for over three years” it begs the question, What is actually causing the three year delay since UP gave its stamp of approval?
Thank you Bob, for bringing these two well written and compelling articles to the community in time for a livley and factual debate. Well done!
Thank you, Kathy. That was the goal.
Thanks Bob Both sides had very convincing arguments.
Agreed.
Wonder if we can vote both "Yes" and "No".
As an outsider, just one comment: "Affordable Housing" listed as $400K to $500K, for 900 to 1200 sq. ft.: I knew home prices in CA were high, but that's ridiculous.
My little, but livable 1200 sq. ft. house on a 1/9 acre, zero lot line plot, cost me $61K in 1986 and was recently appraised for tax purposes at $199K. I think that's a little high, but I'm not challenging it, since with both homestead and over 65 exemptions my taxes aren't high at all, compared to what they were before I turned 65. Insurance is another story entirely.
As far as your election goes, I'd guess you'll have to decide how much you trust the developers and the city government.
Believe it or not, John, Bay Area home prices are at least three times what they are in Davis. Maybe more.
I believe it. In 2011, I visited the house in Folsom my parents brought me to after I was born in Sacramento. At that time there was a similar house on the market for 350K. Those were 2 BR 1 BA homes on a decent lot. Since that was 15 years ago, I'd guess those houses have at least doubled to around 700K, and may be pushing a million.
No wonder when Californians move to Texas they think housing is so cheap. Of course that has driven up the price of housing especially in Austin so much that my younger daughter had to leave and move in with me for a while.
Not sure where or when it will all end, but I'll be listening for the sound of trumpets anytime now.
Different city. I can show you towns in California with similar prices. College towns like Davis are where the prices are higher
And one you could leave Christmas lights up all year long. My favorite Bob Dunning event was dinner at the dump, my neighbors from West Manor and my family arrived in a 1971 Volvo sedan. Westies, after all, drove Volvos.
Yes, John, we did leave those Christmas lights up all year long, much to PG&E's delight. With the help of my older brother, they changed to orange and black at Halloween, all red on St. Valentine's Day and all green on St. Patrick's Day.
I remember you Westies showing up at Dinner at the Dump in a Volvo. So much fun. So many great memories.
Stanley Davis built a 956s/f home (El Dorado) that was indeed an affordable option for first time home buyers (my wife and I did so in 1978). Stanley Davis was successful in developing East Davis and West Manor with affordable homes. They created neighborhoods and neighbors who knew each other.
I lived as a renter in an El Dorado on Whittier Drive for years. It was a great place to call home
Thank you for these two articles, Bob.
Thanks for reading them, Jan.
I feel both presented their cases well.
I’m wondering if anybody has thought about the increase in the number of cars on Pole Line/102 heading towards . It’s already getting quite congested and as a two lane county road, people already pass in a dangerous manner quite often.
Yes. Many of us have thought about that.
There's no way this doesn't increase traffic. Any time you increase a town's population, traffic increases.
The benefits outweigh the negatives?
Let’s not forget that one of these authors will make a very large sum of money if they win their way, and the other won’t make a dime if their position wins.
Regarding the assertions that Sandy makes in her half of this twosome, I received the following comment from local economist Richard McCann that I believe is worth sharing.
“In Davis the standard house size on a 5,000 square foot lot is 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, not 1,000 square feet. This is part of the deception being fomented by the developer. There's little to no real "missing middle by design" housing in the official documents of the proposal. It's all about marketing and empty promises.”
Dear Matt, I'm sorry you feel we are deceptive. These lots are not in fact, 5,000 square feet, that is just the maximum size allowed. The average is much smaller and there will be hundreds of very small lots between 1,800-3000 square feet. It's very important to us that we provide a variety of options that are affordable for young families. Our own families have spent lifetimes creating their amazing reputations in town, being trustworthy and giving back to our community, and we are going to do our best to carry their legacies forward.
Sandy, I think you need to go back and read your own filings with the City. Those official City documents show that the 1,130 units of Residential Medium Density cover 135.9 acres. That works out to an average of over 5,238 square feet per lot. That is not medium density. It is low density. In most jurisdictions across the State, Medium Density is between 10 and 30 units per acre. 10 units per acre means a lot of 4,356 square feet.
Matt, I am sorry I must correct you. Your 5,238 square foot figure is gross, and includes roads, paths, greenbelts, and shared infrastructure — none of which are lots. Roads alone account for 20-30% of that acreage. In fact, for the over 800 smaller lot homes under Channel A, if you divide the actual "net buildable area" by unit count, you'll find the average lot size is under 3,000 square feet!
Sandy, in your article today on the Davis Vanguard you said, “ We have had Union Pacific’s stamped approval on the Nishi overcrossing engineering plans for over three years. That crossing is a significantly larger structure than the one planned at Village Farms. If anything, what Nishi demonstrates is that we know exactly how to work with this railroad.”
Thank you for posting that helpful and illuminating information.
When you say, ”We have had Union Pacific’s stamped approval on the Nishi overcrossing engineering plans for over three years” it begs the question, What is actually causing the three year delay since UP gave its stamp of approval?
Sandy, your interpretation is that, but take a look at the Cunningham Engineering table which disaggregates the 1,130 lots. You will be surprised. That table lists gross and net and units per acre.
Yes, Exhibit C. Please make sure you are looking at the "BRPA" vs the "Proposed Project" application. Believe me, we are not thrilled that the City continues to use the name "Proposed Project" for a project that we are not bringing forward. Very confusing! The densities in the BRPA are much higher because we removed the 50 acres for habitat but kept the same number of homes. I believe there are 870+ of the 1,130 that are below the channel that now average less than 3,000 square feet (to clarify, lot size, not home size.. for anyone else that happens to be reading this!)
Sandy, here are the values. As you can see roads, paths, greenbelts, and shared infrastructure are all accounted for in the Non-residential 288 acres.
Residential Low Density Market-Rate Single-Family Units & Duplexes 310 units 61.4 acres
Residential Med Density Market-Rate Single-Family Units & Duplexes 1,130 units 135.9 acres
Residential High Density Market Rate & Affordable Multi-Family Units 360 units 12.2 acres
<b>Residential Total Units/Acres 1,800 total units 209.5 acres</b>
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Services -- 2.9 acres
Public/Semi Public Fire Station -- 2.5 acres
City Stormwater Conveyance -- 21.4 acres
Pre-K Early Learning Center -- 2.4 acres
Educational Farm -- 2.8 acres
Park Heritage Oak Park (community park) -- 20.3 acres
Village Trails Park (neighborhood park) -- 6.8 acres
Natural Habitat Area Natural Habitat Area -- 47.1 acres
Urban Agricultural
Transition Area (UATA)
UATA (including soil borrow site) -- 118.4 acres
Neighborhood Greenbelt Greenbelts -- 40.8 acres
N/A Roads -- 22.7 acres
<b>Non-Residential Total Acres -- 288.1 acres</b>
Proposed Project Total Acres 497.5
One of the issues Village Farms brings to the forefront is the availability of water.
The water right of the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) is a “junior” permit not a “senior” permit. In “perfect” years it authorizes WDCWA to utilize UP TO 45,000 acre feet of water per year.
However, 45,000 almost never happens because very few years are absent any drought impacts. As a result, WDCWA’s surface water diversions are significantly limited during summer months and other dry periods.
During these times, to backfill what it isn’t allowed to divert, WDCWA utilizes up to 10,000 acre feet of water under a “senior” water right purchased from the Conaway Preservation Group.
However the 10,000 acre feet are significantly less than the number of acre feet that are not allowed to be diverted under the terms of WDCWA's "junior water right"
The City’s water production reports show the following percentages of surface water and well water:
January 98.4% surface 1.6% well
February 89.5% surface 10.5% well
March 97% surface 3% well
April 96.5% surface 3.5% well
May 93.1% surface 6.9% well
June 95.1% surface 4.9% well
July 91.1% surface 8.9% well
So far so good because of the availability of snow melt runoff. But …
August 67.6% surface 32.4% well
September 62.2% surface 37.8% well
October 62% surface 38% well
November 57.7% surface 42.3% well
December 62.6% surface 37.4% well
Bottom-line, our surface water rights are limited, and the added demand from Village Farms will increase the already problematic well percentages in August through December.
Current evidence of the degraded quality of the blended well and surface water appears in your daily teacup after you have drunk it down to empty. What is left behind is brown mineral scum deposited on the porcelain interior of your cup. Those are mineral contaminants from the well water. Surface water does not have those contaminants.
It is worth noting that for most of the City’s wells the mineral contaminants level is so high that the wastewater treatment plant would be in violation of state environmental standards if that well water were discharged directly into the Yolo Bypass.
In an everyone contributed equally world, new developments like Village Farms would bring “senior water rights” to WDCWA so that they are contributing surface water just like every other Davis residents are. They can get those senior water rights from Conaway Ranch just like WDCWA currently does.
The Yes article is more compelling. The author of the No article has opposed every proposed development in Davis and I suspect will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.
It is false that I have opposed every proposed development in Davis. For example, I did not oppose WDAAC/Bretton Woods. But I suppose it is easier to criticize me than it is to address the facts and arguments in my article.
Your argument is that you don’t trust the developers to build a livable
neighborhood, so you’d rather they build nothing.
There’s no need to put words in Robert’s Millstein’s mouth because she wrote them down for us.
That's a pretty bizarre reading, given that this is what I in fact said:
"In short, the weak/absent commitments to affordable housing, to connectivity, and to transit mean that Village Farms is not designed with our current climate crisis in mind. It could be, though. A number of citizens have called for a “no” vote with the recommendation that we urge the developers to come back to voters with a denser project — one with firm commitments to its environmental features — that is completely south of the channel (which, in addition to improving designing for climate change, would eliminate/dramatically reduce concerns about toxics and the floodplain). I endorse this line of thinking."
100% Sierra Club policy, in what other Communities has that Club taken over residential planning?
Thank you so much again, Bob, for the opportunity to share our essay. I've written this Op-ed to address questions regarding the bike overcrossing: https://davisvanguard.org/2026/05/bicycle-overcrossing-financing-feasibility/
Sandy, in your article in the Vanguard you said, “ We have had Union Pacific’s stamped approval on the Nishi overcrossing engineering plans for over three years. That crossing is a significantly larger structure than the one planned at Village Farms. If anything, what Nishi demonstrates is that we know exactly how to work with this railroad.”
Thank you for posting that helpful and illuminating information.
When you say, ”We have had Union Pacific’s stamped approval on the Nishi overcrossing engineering plans for over three years” it begs the question, What is actually causing the three year delay since UP gave its stamp of approval?