City of Davis Responds to Yolo County General Plan’s Inclusion of City Edge

Share:
imageYolo County

The Vanguard is fully aware that most of the population is following the election today, and the bulk of our coverage today will be on the election. However, this is issue is too important to let slide. Tomorrow evening the Davis City Council will be taking up a response to Yolo County on the General Plan.

Here’s the key sections of the General Plan that impact Davis’ planning area:

Policy LU-6.2 reads: Coordinate with the University of California at Davis regarding the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), campus facilities, off-campus agricultural and open space property and joint venture development with the private sector to achieve the best possible outcomes consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-6.11 reads:

Coordinate with the City of Davis to explore mutual opportunities regarding the following projects:

a) Special needs housing, including housing for seniors in the area north of Covell Boulevard and west of State Route 113.
b) Land uses that complement UC Davis, the University Retirement Community, Sutter-Davis Hospital and other nearby social services in the area north of Covell Boulevard and west of State Route 113.
c) Alternatives for the Binning Estates project, including the clustering of residential units and increased densities.
d) Extension of water and sewer infrastructure to the Binning Farms community.
e) Life science, biotechnology and related research uses along the Interstate 80 corridor.
f) Commercial and mixed uses at Covell Boulevard/Pole Line Road and coordinated planning with the Hunt Wesson site.

The city of Davis’ staff report responds to these two items.

First they restate the mantra that the city has operated under for the last two years of discussion with the county and the prior to that, the spirit of the pass-through agreement.

“The City assumes that any development on the edge of Davis will occur through the City’s planning process”

Second and more pointedly in response to Policy LU-6.11:

“The City supports the Board’s desire to explore opportunities for mutual benefit. However, the City strongly opposes the inclusion of this policy that identifies specific uses and locations for urban development on the edge of Davis. So far, we have not had any discussions that would indicate that these are appropriate uses or locations. Including this policy in the General Plan is premature and implies that this is a “done deal” without any meaningful participation from Davis or its residents. In addition, listing the specific uses to be considered requires these uses to be analyzed in the “cumulative impacts” section of the EIR for the General Plan.”

Third, in response to residential development:

“The City supports the Board’s previous decision to not include housing units in the Northwest Quadrant on the base map for the General Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative. The City recognizes the desire to comprehensively review the area, rather than consider individual development proposals. Our General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee and Planning Commission have recommend this area be “tabled indefinitely,” as there is no need to consider residential development through 2013. Whether and where the community will grow after 2013 will be considered through the City’s General Plan Update anticipated to begin next year.”

Fourth, on Research park development:

“The City supports creating additional opportunities for life science and biotechnology research, but the identified location south of I-80 is not the appropriate location. The necessary housing development is counter to City and County planning principles, and these uses should be nearer the City of Davis and closer to improved roads and the Mace/I-80 interchange. Alternative sites should be jointly explored, including the North Central “Covell” site. This site has convenient access to I-5 and employee housing in Davis and in Woodland’s Spring Lake neighborhood.”

Yes, you read that right, the city of Davis now surreptitiously is inserting the Covell site as an alternative research park development site.

Fifth on commercial development along I-80:

“The City supports the County’s removal of 43 acres of commercial development at I-80 and Mace and I-80 and Chiles. Such development would violate the principles of the Pass-Through Agreement between the City, its Redevelopment Agency, and the County. Our existing agreement, and our two decades of practice in its implementation, show that the City and County can work cooperatively in evaluating specific development proposals.”

The staff report recommends future discussion through the City-County 2×2 process. They also suggest as an alternative to the letter, they could hold discussions at the 2×2 which is scheduled for November 14, 2008.

I have two thoughts. While this is not as alarming as the previous proposals by the county, clearly the city is taking this seriously. However, it is equally alarming to see city staff place Covell into discussion. That seems inappropriate given the public vote that took place now just three years ago.

—David M. Greenwald

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

44 thoughts on “City of Davis Responds to Yolo County General Plan’s Inclusion of City Edge”

  1. Anonymous

    The idea of the CV site as biotech research could be a real consensus position on the Council and reflect community consensus as well. The Hunt Wessen site could then be used for mixed residential/office with the CV site offering the desired commercial development space that Sue Greenwald correctly has been championing. The Measure X vote was about The CV property as 400+ acres of residential….let’s not go “crazy” about this idea before it is fleshed out. We need to be ever watchful,however, for Whitcomb’s residential-development camel quietly slipping its nose under the tent in any future proposal.

  2. Anonymous

    The idea of the CV site as biotech research could be a real consensus position on the Council and reflect community consensus as well. The Hunt Wessen site could then be used for mixed residential/office with the CV site offering the desired commercial development space that Sue Greenwald correctly has been championing. The Measure X vote was about The CV property as 400+ acres of residential….let’s not go “crazy” about this idea before it is fleshed out. We need to be ever watchful,however, for Whitcomb’s residential-development camel quietly slipping its nose under the tent in any future proposal.

  3. Anonymous

    The idea of the CV site as biotech research could be a real consensus position on the Council and reflect community consensus as well. The Hunt Wessen site could then be used for mixed residential/office with the CV site offering the desired commercial development space that Sue Greenwald correctly has been championing. The Measure X vote was about The CV property as 400+ acres of residential….let’s not go “crazy” about this idea before it is fleshed out. We need to be ever watchful,however, for Whitcomb’s residential-development camel quietly slipping its nose under the tent in any future proposal.

  4. Anonymous

    The idea of the CV site as biotech research could be a real consensus position on the Council and reflect community consensus as well. The Hunt Wessen site could then be used for mixed residential/office with the CV site offering the desired commercial development space that Sue Greenwald correctly has been championing. The Measure X vote was about The CV property as 400+ acres of residential….let’s not go “crazy” about this idea before it is fleshed out. We need to be ever watchful,however, for Whitcomb’s residential-development camel quietly slipping its nose under the tent in any future proposal.

  5. davisite

    Before Davis considers changing the Hunt-Wessen site zoning, biotech research development on the CV site has to be more than just a concept that can easily scraped in the future. First, biotech research commerical development on the CV site in-progress, THEN a potential change to the Hunt-Wessen site zoning.

  6. davisite

    Before Davis considers changing the Hunt-Wessen site zoning, biotech research development on the CV site has to be more than just a concept that can easily scraped in the future. First, biotech research commerical development on the CV site in-progress, THEN a potential change to the Hunt-Wessen site zoning.

  7. davisite

    Before Davis considers changing the Hunt-Wessen site zoning, biotech research development on the CV site has to be more than just a concept that can easily scraped in the future. First, biotech research commerical development on the CV site in-progress, THEN a potential change to the Hunt-Wessen site zoning.

  8. davisite

    Before Davis considers changing the Hunt-Wessen site zoning, biotech research development on the CV site has to be more than just a concept that can easily scraped in the future. First, biotech research commerical development on the CV site in-progress, THEN a potential change to the Hunt-Wessen site zoning.

  9. Rich Rifkin

    The Covell Village property is zoned "light industrial" by the county. Though it is obviously farmed, it is not zoned for agriculture and, if its owners put forward a proposal to develop it as say a large regional warehouse facility, the Board of Supervisors would not have any kind of vote on that. The plan would simply go through the county bureaucracy and get approved. The city of Davis would have no say in it at all.

    It gets more complicated if the theoretical "light industrial" development requires more services, such as sewer, potable water and so on — say an R&-) campus for a high tech company. That would necessitate some kind of deal with the city of Davis and the county. However, it remains the case that it could be completed without any kind of Measure J vote and the project would (unless the supervisors agreed to an annexation) not be in the city of Davis.

  10. Rich Rifkin

    The Covell Village property is zoned "light industrial" by the county. Though it is obviously farmed, it is not zoned for agriculture and, if its owners put forward a proposal to develop it as say a large regional warehouse facility, the Board of Supervisors would not have any kind of vote on that. The plan would simply go through the county bureaucracy and get approved. The city of Davis would have no say in it at all.

    It gets more complicated if the theoretical "light industrial" development requires more services, such as sewer, potable water and so on — say an R&-) campus for a high tech company. That would necessitate some kind of deal with the city of Davis and the county. However, it remains the case that it could be completed without any kind of Measure J vote and the project would (unless the supervisors agreed to an annexation) not be in the city of Davis.

  11. Rich Rifkin

    The Covell Village property is zoned "light industrial" by the county. Though it is obviously farmed, it is not zoned for agriculture and, if its owners put forward a proposal to develop it as say a large regional warehouse facility, the Board of Supervisors would not have any kind of vote on that. The plan would simply go through the county bureaucracy and get approved. The city of Davis would have no say in it at all.

    It gets more complicated if the theoretical "light industrial" development requires more services, such as sewer, potable water and so on — say an R&-) campus for a high tech company. That would necessitate some kind of deal with the city of Davis and the county. However, it remains the case that it could be completed without any kind of Measure J vote and the project would (unless the supervisors agreed to an annexation) not be in the city of Davis.

  12. Rich Rifkin

    The Covell Village property is zoned "light industrial" by the county. Though it is obviously farmed, it is not zoned for agriculture and, if its owners put forward a proposal to develop it as say a large regional warehouse facility, the Board of Supervisors would not have any kind of vote on that. The plan would simply go through the county bureaucracy and get approved. The city of Davis would have no say in it at all.

    It gets more complicated if the theoretical "light industrial" development requires more services, such as sewer, potable water and so on — say an R&-) campus for a high tech company. That would necessitate some kind of deal with the city of Davis and the county. However, it remains the case that it could be completed without any kind of Measure J vote and the project would (unless the supervisors agreed to an annexation) not be in the city of Davis.

  13. David M. Greenwald

    “The city of Davis would have no say in it at all.”

    Rich: The pass-through agreement gives the city “say” in the matter, in fact land-use authority in the matter.

  14. David M. Greenwald

    “The city of Davis would have no say in it at all.”

    Rich: The pass-through agreement gives the city “say” in the matter, in fact land-use authority in the matter.

  15. David M. Greenwald

    “The city of Davis would have no say in it at all.”

    Rich: The pass-through agreement gives the city “say” in the matter, in fact land-use authority in the matter.

  16. David M. Greenwald

    “The city of Davis would have no say in it at all.”

    Rich: The pass-through agreement gives the city “say” in the matter, in fact land-use authority in the matter.

  17. davisite

    “…and the project would (unless the supervisors agreed to an annexation) not be in the city of Davis.”

    Davis should only consider annexation of that part of Whitcomb’s property unalterably committed to commercial development…leave the rest in the County and subject to a future Measure J vote. What we don’t want is Whitcomb’s property being annexed without this unalterable commitment and then having its zoning changed to residential by a future Council majority, all without a Measure J referendum. If Davis agrees to supply sewer,utilities, etc. to this potential County site ,then the site serviced needs to be annexed. All Davis sewer, water, utility, infrastructure lines must remain under the control of Davis. This is an important firewall to keeping the County from encroaching on Davis’ control of its peripheral development.

  18. davisite

    “…and the project would (unless the supervisors agreed to an annexation) not be in the city of Davis.”

    Davis should only consider annexation of that part of Whitcomb’s property unalterably committed to commercial development…leave the rest in the County and subject to a future Measure J vote. What we don’t want is Whitcomb’s property being annexed without this unalterable commitment and then having its zoning changed to residential by a future Council majority, all without a Measure J referendum. If Davis agrees to supply sewer,utilities, etc. to this potential County site ,then the site serviced needs to be annexed. All Davis sewer, water, utility, infrastructure lines must remain under the control of Davis. This is an important firewall to keeping the County from encroaching on Davis’ control of its peripheral development.

  19. davisite

    “…and the project would (unless the supervisors agreed to an annexation) not be in the city of Davis.”

    Davis should only consider annexation of that part of Whitcomb’s property unalterably committed to commercial development…leave the rest in the County and subject to a future Measure J vote. What we don’t want is Whitcomb’s property being annexed without this unalterable commitment and then having its zoning changed to residential by a future Council majority, all without a Measure J referendum. If Davis agrees to supply sewer,utilities, etc. to this potential County site ,then the site serviced needs to be annexed. All Davis sewer, water, utility, infrastructure lines must remain under the control of Davis. This is an important firewall to keeping the County from encroaching on Davis’ control of its peripheral development.

  20. davisite

    “…and the project would (unless the supervisors agreed to an annexation) not be in the city of Davis.”

    Davis should only consider annexation of that part of Whitcomb’s property unalterably committed to commercial development…leave the rest in the County and subject to a future Measure J vote. What we don’t want is Whitcomb’s property being annexed without this unalterable commitment and then having its zoning changed to residential by a future Council majority, all without a Measure J referendum. If Davis agrees to supply sewer,utilities, etc. to this potential County site ,then the site serviced needs to be annexed. All Davis sewer, water, utility, infrastructure lines must remain under the control of Davis. This is an important firewall to keeping the County from encroaching on Davis’ control of its peripheral development.

  21. Rich Rifkin

    “Rich: The pass-through agreement gives the city “say” in the matter, in fact land-use authority in the matter.”

    I may well be wrong. What I stated above was based information provided to me by Helen Thomson during the CV campaign.

    Having read the Pass Through Agreement, I am not sure what say the city would have or what that “say” would mean.

    The PTA does say this (I.J): “Pursuant to this Agreement the County will continue to exercise planning and regulatory powers in the City Planning Area.” As per Attachment 01, the CV property is within the City Planning Area.

    Perhaps you can point me to the language in the PTA which lays out just what power the city would have if the county approved a development that did not require any city services or require a change in zoning.

    —-

    One interesting tid-bit I just noticed in the PTA, Section V (page 13): “In implementation of its General Plan, the City shall approve sufficient new development which, when calculated for the preceding five (5) year period commencing with 1993-94 fiscal year and continuing each fiscal year until the 2010-11 fiscal year, results in an average annual rate of population growth within the City of at least one and seventy-eight one hundredths (1.78%) percent.”

    Based on the fast growth in the 1990s and the low growth of Davis over the last 5 years, I think we have likely grown right about the required amount per the PTA. It’s worth pointing out, too, that later the PTA notes that if there is a national economic downturn which depresses housing growth — I think our present economy would meet this — then Davis does not have to grow at an average rate of 1.78% per year.

  22. Rich Rifkin

    “Rich: The pass-through agreement gives the city “say” in the matter, in fact land-use authority in the matter.”

    I may well be wrong. What I stated above was based information provided to me by Helen Thomson during the CV campaign.

    Having read the Pass Through Agreement, I am not sure what say the city would have or what that “say” would mean.

    The PTA does say this (I.J): “Pursuant to this Agreement the County will continue to exercise planning and regulatory powers in the City Planning Area.” As per Attachment 01, the CV property is within the City Planning Area.

    Perhaps you can point me to the language in the PTA which lays out just what power the city would have if the county approved a development that did not require any city services or require a change in zoning.

    —-

    One interesting tid-bit I just noticed in the PTA, Section V (page 13): “In implementation of its General Plan, the City shall approve sufficient new development which, when calculated for the preceding five (5) year period commencing with 1993-94 fiscal year and continuing each fiscal year until the 2010-11 fiscal year, results in an average annual rate of population growth within the City of at least one and seventy-eight one hundredths (1.78%) percent.”

    Based on the fast growth in the 1990s and the low growth of Davis over the last 5 years, I think we have likely grown right about the required amount per the PTA. It’s worth pointing out, too, that later the PTA notes that if there is a national economic downturn which depresses housing growth — I think our present economy would meet this — then Davis does not have to grow at an average rate of 1.78% per year.

  23. Rich Rifkin

    “Rich: The pass-through agreement gives the city “say” in the matter, in fact land-use authority in the matter.”

    I may well be wrong. What I stated above was based information provided to me by Helen Thomson during the CV campaign.

    Having read the Pass Through Agreement, I am not sure what say the city would have or what that “say” would mean.

    The PTA does say this (I.J): “Pursuant to this Agreement the County will continue to exercise planning and regulatory powers in the City Planning Area.” As per Attachment 01, the CV property is within the City Planning Area.

    Perhaps you can point me to the language in the PTA which lays out just what power the city would have if the county approved a development that did not require any city services or require a change in zoning.

    —-

    One interesting tid-bit I just noticed in the PTA, Section V (page 13): “In implementation of its General Plan, the City shall approve sufficient new development which, when calculated for the preceding five (5) year period commencing with 1993-94 fiscal year and continuing each fiscal year until the 2010-11 fiscal year, results in an average annual rate of population growth within the City of at least one and seventy-eight one hundredths (1.78%) percent.”

    Based on the fast growth in the 1990s and the low growth of Davis over the last 5 years, I think we have likely grown right about the required amount per the PTA. It’s worth pointing out, too, that later the PTA notes that if there is a national economic downturn which depresses housing growth — I think our present economy would meet this — then Davis does not have to grow at an average rate of 1.78% per year.

  24. Rich Rifkin

    “Rich: The pass-through agreement gives the city “say” in the matter, in fact land-use authority in the matter.”

    I may well be wrong. What I stated above was based information provided to me by Helen Thomson during the CV campaign.

    Having read the Pass Through Agreement, I am not sure what say the city would have or what that “say” would mean.

    The PTA does say this (I.J): “Pursuant to this Agreement the County will continue to exercise planning and regulatory powers in the City Planning Area.” As per Attachment 01, the CV property is within the City Planning Area.

    Perhaps you can point me to the language in the PTA which lays out just what power the city would have if the county approved a development that did not require any city services or require a change in zoning.

    —-

    One interesting tid-bit I just noticed in the PTA, Section V (page 13): “In implementation of its General Plan, the City shall approve sufficient new development which, when calculated for the preceding five (5) year period commencing with 1993-94 fiscal year and continuing each fiscal year until the 2010-11 fiscal year, results in an average annual rate of population growth within the City of at least one and seventy-eight one hundredths (1.78%) percent.”

    Based on the fast growth in the 1990s and the low growth of Davis over the last 5 years, I think we have likely grown right about the required amount per the PTA. It’s worth pointing out, too, that later the PTA notes that if there is a national economic downturn which depresses housing growth — I think our present economy would meet this — then Davis does not have to grow at an average rate of 1.78% per year.

  25. Anonymous

    Whitcombe and the county have used the threat of developing the CV property as industrial before. That type of development would bring minimal financial benefit, relative to residential development, to the developer. Whitcombe is unlikely to consider developing his land as industrial, but he could use this ploy to get it annexed and then have the zoning changed. This is the danger, and we need to watch this closely.

  26. Anonymous

    Whitcombe and the county have used the threat of developing the CV property as industrial before. That type of development would bring minimal financial benefit, relative to residential development, to the developer. Whitcombe is unlikely to consider developing his land as industrial, but he could use this ploy to get it annexed and then have the zoning changed. This is the danger, and we need to watch this closely.

  27. Anonymous

    Whitcombe and the county have used the threat of developing the CV property as industrial before. That type of development would bring minimal financial benefit, relative to residential development, to the developer. Whitcombe is unlikely to consider developing his land as industrial, but he could use this ploy to get it annexed and then have the zoning changed. This is the danger, and we need to watch this closely.

  28. Anonymous

    Whitcombe and the county have used the threat of developing the CV property as industrial before. That type of development would bring minimal financial benefit, relative to residential development, to the developer. Whitcombe is unlikely to consider developing his land as industrial, but he could use this ploy to get it annexed and then have the zoning changed. This is the danger, and we need to watch this closely.

  29. Anonymous

    The neighbors of the CV property will have fits if a proposal for a high tech park for the CV site comes forward. No one wants to be a close neighbor to bio tech or other industry. It would be wrong for the city to consider putting such a development amid already existing residential development.

    Whitcombe needs to heed the voice of the people who so soundly voted down the CV project. Develop the bottom third or even half with predominantly higher density work force housing and some mixed use commercial/office/retail. The remaining land would go toward satisfying the 2:1 ag mitigation ordinance. This is the proposal that met with the general approval at the blue print process meetings held here several years ago, but which Whitcombe and associates ignored when they moved forward with their massive residential development and McMansions.

  30. Anonymous

    The neighbors of the CV property will have fits if a proposal for a high tech park for the CV site comes forward. No one wants to be a close neighbor to bio tech or other industry. It would be wrong for the city to consider putting such a development amid already existing residential development.

    Whitcombe needs to heed the voice of the people who so soundly voted down the CV project. Develop the bottom third or even half with predominantly higher density work force housing and some mixed use commercial/office/retail. The remaining land would go toward satisfying the 2:1 ag mitigation ordinance. This is the proposal that met with the general approval at the blue print process meetings held here several years ago, but which Whitcombe and associates ignored when they moved forward with their massive residential development and McMansions.

  31. Anonymous

    The neighbors of the CV property will have fits if a proposal for a high tech park for the CV site comes forward. No one wants to be a close neighbor to bio tech or other industry. It would be wrong for the city to consider putting such a development amid already existing residential development.

    Whitcombe needs to heed the voice of the people who so soundly voted down the CV project. Develop the bottom third or even half with predominantly higher density work force housing and some mixed use commercial/office/retail. The remaining land would go toward satisfying the 2:1 ag mitigation ordinance. This is the proposal that met with the general approval at the blue print process meetings held here several years ago, but which Whitcombe and associates ignored when they moved forward with their massive residential development and McMansions.

  32. Anonymous

    The neighbors of the CV property will have fits if a proposal for a high tech park for the CV site comes forward. No one wants to be a close neighbor to bio tech or other industry. It would be wrong for the city to consider putting such a development amid already existing residential development.

    Whitcombe needs to heed the voice of the people who so soundly voted down the CV project. Develop the bottom third or even half with predominantly higher density work force housing and some mixed use commercial/office/retail. The remaining land would go toward satisfying the 2:1 ag mitigation ordinance. This is the proposal that met with the general approval at the blue print process meetings held here several years ago, but which Whitcombe and associates ignored when they moved forward with their massive residential development and McMansions.

  33. Anonymous

    “The neighbors of the CV property will have fits if a proposal for a high tech park for the CV site comes forward. No one wants to be a close neighbor to bio tech or other industry.”

    Speak for yourself. I would welcome a place that can itself welcome the talent and opportunity to create, innovate, and capitalize on the great wealth of talent here in Davis rather than export it to other communities.

    “It would be wrong for the city to consider putting such a development amid already existing residential development.”

    Flawed logic. The site is separated by two major arterials, a railroad, and farmland. This is an accepted standard by which to separate land uses. By this logic there is no place in Davis for this kind of use. By this logic, Davis can only be a residential bedroom community. UC Davis doesn’t even comply with your logic.

  34. Anonymous

    “The neighbors of the CV property will have fits if a proposal for a high tech park for the CV site comes forward. No one wants to be a close neighbor to bio tech or other industry.”

    Speak for yourself. I would welcome a place that can itself welcome the talent and opportunity to create, innovate, and capitalize on the great wealth of talent here in Davis rather than export it to other communities.

    “It would be wrong for the city to consider putting such a development amid already existing residential development.”

    Flawed logic. The site is separated by two major arterials, a railroad, and farmland. This is an accepted standard by which to separate land uses. By this logic there is no place in Davis for this kind of use. By this logic, Davis can only be a residential bedroom community. UC Davis doesn’t even comply with your logic.

  35. Anonymous

    “The neighbors of the CV property will have fits if a proposal for a high tech park for the CV site comes forward. No one wants to be a close neighbor to bio tech or other industry.”

    Speak for yourself. I would welcome a place that can itself welcome the talent and opportunity to create, innovate, and capitalize on the great wealth of talent here in Davis rather than export it to other communities.

    “It would be wrong for the city to consider putting such a development amid already existing residential development.”

    Flawed logic. The site is separated by two major arterials, a railroad, and farmland. This is an accepted standard by which to separate land uses. By this logic there is no place in Davis for this kind of use. By this logic, Davis can only be a residential bedroom community. UC Davis doesn’t even comply with your logic.

  36. Anonymous

    “The neighbors of the CV property will have fits if a proposal for a high tech park for the CV site comes forward. No one wants to be a close neighbor to bio tech or other industry.”

    Speak for yourself. I would welcome a place that can itself welcome the talent and opportunity to create, innovate, and capitalize on the great wealth of talent here in Davis rather than export it to other communities.

    “It would be wrong for the city to consider putting such a development amid already existing residential development.”

    Flawed logic. The site is separated by two major arterials, a railroad, and farmland. This is an accepted standard by which to separate land uses. By this logic there is no place in Davis for this kind of use. By this logic, Davis can only be a residential bedroom community. UC Davis doesn’t even comply with your logic.

  37. Anonymous

    The mistake CV opponents make is that they think City residents oppose *all* development on the site, when in reality, most probably agree it’s a logical site for development but that particular proposal did not appeal to them. Remember, only 1 out of 6 dissenting voters needed to change their mind on it. That is not an impossible hurdle to jump with the right project.

  38. Anonymous

    The mistake CV opponents make is that they think City residents oppose *all* development on the site, when in reality, most probably agree it’s a logical site for development but that particular proposal did not appeal to them. Remember, only 1 out of 6 dissenting voters needed to change their mind on it. That is not an impossible hurdle to jump with the right project.

  39. Anonymous

    The mistake CV opponents make is that they think City residents oppose *all* development on the site, when in reality, most probably agree it’s a logical site for development but that particular proposal did not appeal to them. Remember, only 1 out of 6 dissenting voters needed to change their mind on it. That is not an impossible hurdle to jump with the right project.

  40. Anonymous

    The mistake CV opponents make is that they think City residents oppose *all* development on the site, when in reality, most probably agree it’s a logical site for development but that particular proposal did not appeal to them. Remember, only 1 out of 6 dissenting voters needed to change their mind on it. That is not an impossible hurdle to jump with the right project.

  41. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t think anyone assumes that, I would have expected however that after an overwhelming defeat, there would be other development priorities. And I see a lot of better places to develop.

  42. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t think anyone assumes that, I would have expected however that after an overwhelming defeat, there would be other development priorities. And I see a lot of better places to develop.

  43. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t think anyone assumes that, I would have expected however that after an overwhelming defeat, there would be other development priorities. And I see a lot of better places to develop.

  44. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t think anyone assumes that, I would have expected however that after an overwhelming defeat, there would be other development priorities. And I see a lot of better places to develop.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for