Letter to the Editor – Commons: Do better, not less
To: Town of Yountville Mayor and Town Council members
Re: Yountville Commons
I, and the residents in attendance at the Feb. 17 presentation meeting, finally learned what debt the town can afford on the housing element. It is considerably less than the “full build” estimate (90-120 units) would require. The difference is approximately $90,000,000 versus $25,000,000.
Accordingly, the designers and town staff, drastically reduced the number of units to 30-40, to be built in what is now called Phase 1. That leaves future phases unbuilt, un-funded and unknown. More on that later.
The financial analyst, BAE, reported that the costs to build are “relatively high, due to the high quality of design, the high level of public spaces and amenities.” The presented design is very upscale: metal roofing, paver-surfaced walkways instead of concrete surfaced, recirculating water features with runnels throughout the property, an area called “The Oval” with trellised walkways and embellished features, high-end mechanical bed and closet installations that alone will add $35,000 to each unit’s cost, hundreds of fairly mature trees, etc. The presented build estimate is $800 per square foot, considerably more than the reasonable average range in the county. Further, the design is not consistent with the general character of homes and condos in town.
To quote Mayor Mohler, “We designed a Cadillac here” (Jan. 28, 2026 / CBS San Francisco). The concern of many residents is that we don’t have Cadillac resources. Another concern is that the 30-40 proposed units built at a cost of $24,000,000 will not generate positive cash flow; that includes using nearly all the annual Measure S income.
I am not alone in asking for more deliberation on the project before committing to the proposed 30-40 unit design. I request that the Town Council and town staff require the design firm to pare back the design with the aim of creating a revised full build of 50-60 units at the available debt load.
With that revision, we will get a more helpful number of units and an increase of 25-50% in revenue at the same estimated rent rates. That revenue and future possible increases in yearly Measure S funds creates three significant advantages: stronger financial footing, an opportunity to add upgrades to the site without more long term debt and some margin to lower those rates to preference local employees.
At 50-60 units total versus 30-40 in a Phase 1 approach, the project meets the widely supported goal of creating opportunities for a measurable number of local workers sooner. That number of units (50-60) aligns closer to the potential number of parking spaces. To build only a portion of the desired units and leave more to be built in the future, we create significant dilemmas, such as:
- The town takes on even more debt with funds yet unsourced. I have not met a single resident that would support a parcel tax to fund it, without which the Measure S funds are far short.
- We sell some portions of the site to a developer. The town loses control over how the sold and developed property would look, the number, density and size of units.
- We partner with an affordable housing entity. Affordable housing units are governed by rules that impact the consensus of the town residents, which is to prioritize units for local workers. The town loses control and oversight.
- Parking, parking, parking. The presented ‘full build’ design never had the necessary parking for much more than 50 units. There is significant pushback from residents over parking overflow with 90-120 units, and the proposed removal or reduction in the parking area that serves The Fit and Schmitt Hall. At 50-60 units the site could better accommodate the rental tenants and the community use spaces, leaving the Yount Street parking area as is.
In closing, I ask that the town staff and hired consultants, revisit the design so as to “Do Better” and not “Do Less.”
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Cook
Yountville
Sponsored
Author
