.

Neighborhood Group Claims Town is Getting SummerHill Homes Project Wrong

Save Our Creek and the town of Danville are in disagreement over the SummerHill Homes project. Save Our Creek said the project is required to go to voters, the town says no.

The owners of Magee Ranch and the housing development company SummerHill Homes are asking Danville to make a zoning change that would allow a project to cluster 78 lots, including 19 "casitas" or in-law units, on 120 acres of this 410-acre swath of land.

The project would develop these homes near the valley floor and keep 290 acres of open space above, an idea the town says it encourages.

However, Save Our Creek, a neighborhood group consisting of Danville, Diablo, and Blackhawk residents, is opposed to the zoning change and, thus, the project.

Right now, the project proposal is in the environmental study phase, which the town says will be completed this summer. Town Manager Joe Calabrigo said that this is the process that the project needs to go through before any decision or approval is given to move forward.

He added that there would be ample notice of public hearings regarding the project if the planning commission and the Danville Town Council were to approve anything.

Yet, as the town of Danville asserts that it is following its process, Save Our Creek claims it's trying to circumvent it.

A-1, not the steak sauce

The dustup begins with a discussion on land use designation and zoning.

Here's a quick planning lesson that will hopefully shed some light on this issue. Land use is designated, for example, as industrial, agricultural, or commercial. So, in general, these designations keep factories around factories, farms around farms, businesses around other businesses. For example, this helps keep a paint factory from being built in a residential area. Or, it corrals businesses to cluster around other businesses.

Within these designations are zoning districts. This diversifies the land within these designations. So, if the land use is designated agricultural, there are various districts within that, including light (A-1) and general (A-2) agricultural districts, or agricultural preservation (A-4) districts. The distinctions with zoning districts vary greatly not only between the different designations but even within those designations. Here's an example within agricultural designated land: The A-2, or general agricultural district in Danville states that lots, with one unit, must sit on a minimum of 5-acres. For the A-4, or agricultural preservation districts, it has a requirement of 20-acre lots.

Still with me?

Triggering Measure S: The back and forth

OK, so with that said, Save Our Creek, and its attorney, Stuart Flashman, say that if the SummerHill Homes project is approved by the town council, it would have then go before voters. The reason is Measure S.

Danville voters passed Measure S, or the Danville Open Space Preservation Initiative, in 2000. It says that if land designated agricultural, general open space or parks and recreation is changed to any other use, the people get to vote on it. If the planning commission and the town council approve, for example, to take a chunk of agricultural land and make it industrial, you, as a voter in Danville, get a say.

Save Our Creek claims that the SummerHill Homes' current proposal, if approved, would change land designation from its current agricultural designation to a P-1, or planned unit development district, allowing the development of the 78 lots on 120 acres of the 410-acre property.

"It is unfathomable that Danville's government believes that it can ignore the legal right of Danville residents and decide for itself whether this project can move forward as proposed," Save Our Creek Spokesperson Maryann Cella stated in a press release.

The town disagrees with this claim.

Calabrigo says Measure S doesn't apply because the land use designation of the property wouldn't change if approved, just the zoning district.

"Measure S is triggered when changing land designation, it doesn't have to do with zoning … There is no plan to change the land designation," Calabrigo said.

"SummerHill filed an application for rezoning of property. They have asked to rezone to a P-1. It would allow a clustering of 78 homes. Just because property is planned for agricultural use, that doesn't preclude it from development," Calabrigo said.

It's the town's position that going from A-2 to P-1 is not a land use designation change and that a zone change of this nature is encouraged when developing on agricultural land, as the SummerHill Homes project would attempt to do.

"(SummerHill Homes) is applying for a rezoning from A-2 to P-1," Danville's Principal Planner David Crompton said. "If approved, this would allow the same number of lots, transferred to a more desirable location. The general plan encourages and allows for this approach."

Calabrigo said the property has the right to develop a unit for every five acres, without rezoning. But, by doing this, and not allowing the development to cluster, the town would have homes dotted up and down the hillsides.

"We don't want cookie cutter type developments up the hillside," he said. "(The general plan) discourages one unit per five acres, mini 'ranchettes,' that divide up the land."

This interpretation doesn't fly with Flashman and Save Our Creek.

"While the town of Danville has some discretion to interpret ambiguities in its general plan, the general plan is unambiguous in not allowing P-1 zoning in areas designated for agricultural use," Flashman stated in a release from Save Our Creek. "The Town can't move forward with SummerHill's proposed P-1 zoned project without first changing the area's land use designation and, under Measure S, that would require a vote of the people. If the Town continues on its current course, it will face a legal challenge from Save Our Creek."

Another layer of disagreement

Another layer to Save Our Creeks opposition to the SummerHill Homes project is the preservation of the land itself and, essentially, keeping its current aesthetics intact.

The Magee Ranch, at one point, was under the Williamson Act, or the California Land Preservation Act of 1965. This was a contract between property owners and their cities and counties that restricted the development of agricultural land or open space for lower property tax payments. It was self-renewing, but owners could opt out of it through a 10-year long nonrenewal process. The Magee Ranch was, at one point, under this contract. But, according to Calabrigo, the owners of the Magee Ranch land filed for nonrenewal in the mid-1990s. They are no longer under this contract, he said.

In addition to the claim that the town of Danville is skirting around Measure S, Save Our Creek says that the zoning district for the Magee Ranch continues to be A-4, or agricultural preservation (only allowing 20-acre lots), even after the Williamson Act's expiration date.

Flashman, in a letter to Danville's Principal Planner David Crompton, points to a portion of the general plan that states:

Because properties with this designation are bound by the Williamson Act contract to remain in agricultural use, a density range is not applicable. In the event that Williamson Act contracts are not renewed, continued agricultural use is encouraged and the underlying zoning density (one unit per 20 acres or one unit per five acres) would apply upon contract expiration.

Again, the town disagrees.

"Since the contract expired, it is our position is that it doesn't apply anymore," Calabrigo said.

If the A-4 zoning district were to stand, it would greatly reduce the number of units allowed on the development to less than half of what it currently is requesting.

Save Our Creek has also questioned the , applying the same concerns. This particular project, approved in 2008, will bring 84 single-family homes and 12 apartment units to the rolling hills near the Danville-San Ramon border.

The property is 460 acres just north of a preschool, nursery and an old ranch home. The Elworthy family, a family that has lived in the San Ramon Valley for 150 years, owns it.

"I encourage everyone in Danville to join our cause —including residents that were opposed to the Elworthy Ranch development — so as to ensure that this blatant disregard for the General Plan and the Danville Open Space Preservation Initiative never happens again," Cella said.

What happens next?

Environmental impact, public vetting, and getting your say

Well, the next step is the environmental impact report (EIR).

It is expected to be completed this summer and will examine public safety and its response times to the targeted area, traffic, how the project might affect the land itself, as well as visual impacts, and many other things. Once completed, there will be a public review of this report.

Crompton said that during this review, all concerns would be recorded and specifically addressed. Additionally, when the report does come back, if there are negative impacts that can be mitigated, he said, the town will address them. If there were impacts that cannot be mitigated, the project would have to change.

"There will be a public vetting process (after the EIR is completed)," Calabrigo said. "And while we have an organization who is dead set against the project, they will have every opportunity to be heard through that process. But we're not at that point yet."

Read about other concerns Save Our Creek has with the SummerHill Homes project on their .

Sign up for the Danville Patch daily newsletter and get all your local Danville and Alamo news delivered to your inbox first thing in the morning.

"Like" us on Facebook here or follow us on Twitter @DanvillePatch to continue the conversation with Danville Patch and the community.

Todd Gary April 06, 2012 at 04:36 PM
Save Our Creek is not an “organization,” but a group of more than 700 residents (and growing!) of many different neighborhoods that have banded together to protect Danville from an illegal development practice by the Town planners. And it’s not just our neighborhoods – it’s yours too! What’s come to light is the fact that Danville Town planners are using this illegal planning practice to circumvent Measure S and deny Town residents their right to vote on land use changes across town. Don’t believe the Town planners and managers when they imply that this is all uncertain right now. The Town has already used this illegal practice on the west side (in the Elworthy Ranch subdivision), and Town planners have already definitively stated in writing that they intend to do it here on the East side (in the SummerHill Homes subdivision). And if they do it to us, they will do it to you. If you care about the open space near you, you should care about this issue, and make your voice heard now. While the details of the thing sound complicated, it's actually pretty simple. There are two issues: density, and land use changes. The density issue is annoying and dishonest. The land use issue is illegal, violates state law, and denies Danville residents their right to vote. (see next comment...)
Todd Gary April 06, 2012 at 04:38 PM
On density, the land in question is zoned as an Agricultural Preserve (A-4) district, permitting only one home in 20 acres, and only if that residence is engaged in active agriculture. The Town claims that because a state agricultural preserve (Williamson Act) contract expired, the local zoning somehow magically transmogrifies to A-2, permitting one home in five acres. Presto! – the Town can cram 62% more homes in the subdivision. The trouble is, there is nothing in the Town’s General Plan or zoning regulations to support that. To the contrary, the General Plan expressly states that when a state agricultural preserve contract expires, the underlying zoning density (here, A-4) will apply: “In the event that Williamson Act contracts are not renewed, continued agricultural use is encouraged and the underlying zoning density (one unit per 20 acres or one unit per five acres) would apply upon contract expiration.” And you better believe the Town understands this. The Town has deleted the “one unit per 20 acres” language in their proposed future update to the General Plan! What is insulting is that the Town then claims they are going to save us from all these extra homes (that aren’t permitted) by “clustering” them in a P-1 zone. That is where things get downright illegal, and how the Town is denying you your right to vote to protect our community.
Todd Gary April 06, 2012 at 04:46 PM
On land use, the Town is required by state law to have a General Plan that provides land use designations for all of its land. The Town can “zone” within that, but the General Plan specifies restrictions that apply to each designation, and explicitly states which zones can be used for it. For example, land designated as “Single Family Residential-Low Density” can have P-1, R-40, R-20 and R-15 zones. Land designated as “Agricultural” is permitted to have only A-2 zoning; P-1 zones are not permitted. And state law REQUIRES zoning to be consistent with the General Plan. (Cal. Gov’t code § 65860). So, to “cluster” all those homes in a P-1 zone legally, the Town would have to change the land use designation for the property to Residential. That makes common sense. Agricultural land is for agriculture. The Town can’t legally cluster a major subdivision on Agricultural land using a P-1 zone, without changing the General Plan designation to Residential use. And in Danville, voters passed Measure S (by 74%!) to ensure that they would have the final say when the Town proposes to convert Agricultural land to Residential development. But the Town doesn’t want you to have your Measure S vote. They’re circumventing it by refusing to amend the General Plan to change the land use designation. That’s illegal. The General Plan does NOT permit a P-1 zone on Agricultural land. And state law REQUIRES that zoning be consistent with the General Plan.
Todd Gary April 06, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Folks, they already did this to Danville residents on the West side with the Elworthy Ranch project. The Town put a major new subdivision of homes in a P-1 zone on Agricultural land without amending the General Plan, and without giving you your vote and protect our Town. Now they’re planning to do it on the East side, and put a major subdivision on Agricultural land – without your vote. It’s worth noting what Town Council members said about Measure S when it was up for election: “Measure S will enhance safeguards for the protection of open space and agricultural lands within our Town. The Measure ensures that any change in these areas would have to be supported by the community. … Measure S offers Danville residents a deciding voice in any proposed change to areas not planned for development. Danville voters would have to approve any change in use on…Agricultural…land.” (Danville Town Council Members Mike Doyle & Newell Arnerich.) Don’t let the Town ignore our General Plan, our vision for our Town, and their promises to us. Don’t let them destroy the way of life we moved her for. Demand that they honor their promise on Measure S. Demand that they follow the law. Call and write your Council Members. You can find their numbers here: http://www.ci.danville.ca.us/Council_and_Government/About_the_Council/
Todd Gary April 06, 2012 at 04:51 PM
...And if they won’t listen, sign up and support Save Our Creek. We’re geared up, and we’ll fight for our right to determine the future of our Town! We can use your signature, and we can use your donation. Learn more or support our work here: http://www.save-our-creek.com/
Todd Gary April 06, 2012 at 05:26 PM
In all fairness, it occurs to me to make a critical distinction between Town Council Members, on the one hand, and Town planners and staff, on the other. Town Council Members have not voted on this project, as it has not officially come before them for a vote. (They did vote to approve the Elworthy Ranch project.) Town planners and staff, on the other hand, have expressly stated in writing that they will use A-2 to calculate density, and that they can cluster this subdivision in a P-1 zone without amending the General Plan land use designation for the Agricultural property, thereby avoiding a Measure S vote. It's time for our Council Members to reign in staff, and get them back on the straight and narrow. We don't want a rogue Town. Again, you can contact your Council Members here: http://www.ci.danville.ca.us/Council_and_Government/About_the_Council/ Tell them to stop this train wreck.
Dave April 06, 2012 at 05:30 PM
I found the analysis in the article well researched and the description of the issue clear and I want to acknowledge the unbiased reporting in this article. Hopefully we can get to the point where all parties can read and acknowledge a single set of legal/regulatory rules and move to closure after the EIR is released this Summer.
Dave April 06, 2012 at 05:32 PM
That said, I oppose the development of Summerhill for three simple reasons: 1. Increased traffic in the Diablo Rd corridor that will cause safety issues along this curvy two-lane stretch of road AND will cause even more traffic delays than we currently experience (which are excessive already). 2. Water runoff and erosion control. Paving over this agricultural land will increase runoff downstream (along the creek that runs through Diablo and the other neighborhoods). There are already drainage and erosion issues documented by the Army Corps of Engineers and others that this development will exacerbate. 3. Aesthetics. When we moved into this area, we were drawn by the beauty of the surrounding hills and the ambiance of the neighborhoods. We acquired our property knowing that Mt Diablo on one side and agricultural designated use on the other, the area we chose to live in would retain this character we sought. If I wanted density, I would have moved somplace else. Money is at the heart of why the city is clearly siding with the developer and not addressing their obligations to its citizens. If you care...act. Otherwise, silence is acceptance and you lose the right to complain later.
Geoff Gillette April 06, 2012 at 08:16 PM
Good afternoon, Thank you for the article. I know there has been a lot of discussion in the public on this issue and there are some misapprehensions, so if I could I’d like to touch briefly on those. 1. The development application is Town-driven: The owner of the parcel and the developer SummerHill Homes are the applicants in the case. A property owner has the right to request development, rezoning or other changes affecting their land. By law, the Town has to review the application, giving it all due consideration. This means gathering information, conducting studies and holding public hearings. 2. The Town is trying to develop land for the generated revenue: While it is true that the Town derives revenue from homes built in a development, the overall amount of revenue is only a small percentage of the Town’s annual revenues and is balanced by the increased cost to the Town for maintenance, police and other Town services. (cont.)
Geoff Gillette April 06, 2012 at 08:17 PM
3. The development application has already been approved or is ready to be approved: Nothing could be further from the truth. This is still very early in this process, with a draft environmental impact report (EIR) still to be completed. That means there is still the majority of the process to go through, which would include a public hearing on the EIR over the summer, and public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Town Council in the first quarter of 2013. All of those meetings are publicly noticed, and the agendas for all of those meetings are available by subscribing to the Town’s e-News subscription service. We encourage residents to read the documents and attend the public hearings as citizen engagement is a valuable part of the process. The Town of Danville is working to make this process factual, transparent and inclusive. Interested residents have many avenues of communication available to them, including the Town website, e-News, Facebook, Twitter, e-mail and telephone. We are always open to suggestions for other methods of communication. We encourage and welcome citizen engagement as this application goes through the approval process. (cont.)
Geoff Gillette April 06, 2012 at 08:18 PM
In regards to comments that have been made regarding the legal interpretations of the development application. The Town has carefully reviewed Save Our Creek’s legal opinion regarding the applicability of Measure S and disagrees with that opinion. And while the merits of clustering development on one portion of the property will undoubtedly be discussed in the review of the project, the General Plan does encourage clustering to preserve more open space. I hope this has helped clarify the situation. Questions on the process can be answered by Principal Planner David Crompton at (925) 314-3349 or at dcrompton@danville.ca.gov. Thanks and have a good day! Geoff Geoff Gillette Public Information Coordinator Town of Danville (925) 314-3336 e-mail: ggillette@danville.ca.gov
Maryann Cella April 07, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Thank you, Danville Patch , for your thorough article. Unfortunately, however, Danville is once again ignoring the governing language of the Danville 2010 General Plan in its misguided and misleading efforts to avoid a Measure S public vote on SummerHill's proposal. Under state law, zoning must be consistent with a city's General Plan (Government Code section 65860(a). Page 52 of the Danville 2010 General Plan states what zonings are permissable on the land carrying the Agricultural land use designation where SummerHill wants to put 64 homes plus a minimum of 15 second residential units. Here is an exact quote from page 52: "Zoning: The A-2 zoning district is consistent with the Agricultural designation." Because P-1 was omitted from that list, P-1 IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED ON LAND DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL. (continued below)
Maryann Cella April 07, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Danville appears to be relying on developer SummerHill Homes to tell it what procedural steps are needed for its plan to go forward: "There is no plan to change the land designation," Calabrigo said. "SummerHill filed an application for rezoning of property." Mr. Calabrigo and Mr. Crompton: It is your responsibility to ensure that the law, not the developers' request, determines what procedural steps are necessary for the developers' proposed to be approved. Here is the law: before SummerHill's proposed rezoning to P-1 can legally occur, there must be a change in land use designation to one that allows P-1 zoning. As you well know, all the residential land use designations in the general plan allow P-1 zoning. Take, for example, the "Single Family-Rural Residential " land use designation. Please go to page 45 of the General Plan. Here are the consistent zonings listed for Rural Residential: "Zoning: Zoning designations of P-1 and A-2 are consistent with the Single Family-Rural Residential designation." (continued below)
Maryann Cella April 07, 2012 at 12:29 AM
The needed change in land use designation to Rural Residential, or to another residential land use designation, to enable SummerHill's proposed development to go forward will trigger Measure S and require a vote of the public. Danville and SummerHill Homes obviously don't want that vote. That is why they are saying that only a zoning change is needed. If only a zoning change were legally needed for SummerHill's proposal, Measure S would not be triggered. Danville is also ignoring the General Plan and Danville's own prior statments when it says that the land with the Agricultural designation is currently zoned A-2, allowing one home per five acres to be built. Here is what Danville says on page 3 of the document Danville distributed at the Danville Planning Commission's public scoping meeting initiating the preparation of the Draft SummerHill EIR: "In order to accommodate the proposed project, the site would need to be rezoned to allow the proposed clustered development. The proposed project would rezone portions of the project that are currently zoned A-4 (Agricultural Preserve District)... to P-1." Now Danville is contradicting itself and saying the Agricultural land is ALREADY zoned A-2.
Todd Gary April 07, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Geoff, Isn't this a bit disingenuous? Doesn't the Town have big bucks at stake in meeting ABAG's affordable housing allocation - hence the Town's clear record of approving development applications at the highest possible density, and with all those "second dwelling units" (which qualify as "affordable")? I'm not saying we shouldn't meet our allocation of housing form ABAG, but let's be honest about the Town's interests in approving as many development applications as it can, and at the highest density it can justify (and some it can't).
Maryann Cella April 07, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Danville admits that when the land designated Agricultural was under the Williamson Act it had an A-4 zoning, but is ignoring the plain language of the General Plan in claiming that the Agricultural land converts to A-2 upon contract expiration. Here is what the General Plan says on page 52: "In the event that Williamson Act contracts are not renewed, continued agricultural use is encouraged and the underlying zoning density (one unit per 20 acres or one unit per five acres) would apply upon contract expiration." Why is Danville denying the plain language of the General Plan? Apparently so that SummerHill can automatically and without the need for a rezoning subject to Town Council approval and greater public outcry build far more homes than it would be allowed under the current A-4 zoning.
Maryann Cella April 07, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Danville, please follow the law, follow the 2010 Danville General Plan, and obey Measure S, passed by an overwhelming majority of Danville's voters in 2000. Give Danville residents the opportunity to vote on SummerHill's proposal. Don't force those residents to sue you in a court of law to enforce their voting rights!
Todd Gary April 07, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Geoff, The development application has not been heard by the Council yet, true. But it is also true that the Town planners have unequivocally stated in writing that they will calculate the density for this development at the A-2 level (despite its current A-4 zoning), and that they believe the project can move forward as proposed, with 64 homes plus a minimum of 16 second dwelling units clustered in a P-1 zone on land designated for Agricultural use, without changing the land use designation through a General Plan amendment. At least you're encouraging residents to become involved, and wake up and smell the coffee (or something less pleasant).
Todd Gary April 07, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Geoff & Town Council Members: The Town disagrees with the opinion? Fact: "The land use designations are a set of official definitions for the land use types and intensities found in Danville. Each land use designation addresses the specific uses permitted….” (Danville 2010 General Plan, p.4). “Descriptions of the specific designations in each of these land use types…indicate …the consistent zoning districts….” (Danville 2010 General Plan, p.43). "Agricultural: Zoning: The A-2 zoning district is consistent with the Agricultural Designation.” (Danville 2010 General Plan, p.52). Zoning districts must be consistent with the General Plan under state law. (Cal. Gov’t code § 65860.) The Town must deny approval of a subdivision tentative map if it is inconsistent with the General Plan. (Cal. Gov’t code § 66474.) There's no "opinion" about it! And please don't insult Danville voters by playing sleights of hand. This is NOT a debate about clustering. The Town can cluster to its heart's content on land designated for Residential use in the General Plan, or if it changes the land use designation of this parcel from Agricultural to Residential. Since the General Plan and state law are SO CLEAR that you can't put a P-1 zone on this land, why wouldn't the Town simply change the land use designation to make it consistent? Because then Danville residents would get to vote on it under Measure S. Town planners should be ashamed of themselves!
debbie galletly April 07, 2012 at 05:41 PM
We passed Measure J which is 1/2 cent sales tax to help traffic congestion. The area of the SummerHill's project was one of the areas that were shown to be one of the most congested. Traffix was developed which is a school busing system that is partly funded by the 1/2 cent tax and the riders. It has helped the area but it still is very congested at times and now we are adding more homes (traffic) to the area. When we try to fix a problem with measures how is it possible for the Town/Developers to come in and undermine what we are trying to fix?
Arlene Reed April 07, 2012 at 06:00 PM
In order to ensure the quality of life offered in the Danville area, it is essential that we continue to oppose the SummerHill rezoning - an illegal maneuver. We have owned our property for 38 years and are not opposed to legal development. We definitely do oppose the SummerHill development for the reasons expressed above. If the City plans to rezone, it must abide by a proper process to allow the citizens a vote. If SummerHill is illegally approved by avoiding a vote, not only will the rights of citizens be deprived, but we will face horrendous traffic, school overcrowding, creek erosion, and loss of the beauty that brought us to this area.
Kristen Trisko April 09, 2012 at 02:58 AM
Danville has a history of forcing it's citizens to sue in a court of law. Just look at the Weber property. Danville had approved this project with a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact because the Town was getting access into the back side of Oak Hill park in the deal. Citizens for Civic Accountability asked that and EIR be done but the town refused. Citizens was forced to sue and won on appeal because there were environmental issues that had been overlooked by the Town! All I can say is do not trust the Town of Danville to do the right thing unless FORCED to do so!
Tally Delmore April 10, 2012 at 02:20 AM
Well, I've lived in Danville since 1979 and I bet most of your homes weren't here. This sure looks like a case of NIMBY or more specifically, "I have mine and you can't have one." Half of the original Magee Ranch has been developed and this half will eventually be, too, so perhaps the effort should be geared toward the best type of development to fit the area rather than just trying to stop it.
Danville Mom April 10, 2012 at 04:05 AM
Well my home and the majority of neighborhoods in this area have been around long before 1979, as well as the elementary school and our church, which were both established in 1952. This is not a case of NIMBY; this is about the Town following the specific legal requirements of allowing our citizens a vote. So perhaps rather than telling us to turn a blind eye and allow the Town to do as they please for the sake of a dollar, you should be encouraging your town government to follow the rules as passed in Measure S and put this land rezoning to a vote.
Terry Parris Jr. April 10, 2012 at 04:41 AM
Danville Mom: It doesn't read as if Tally Delmore is telling anyone to "turn a blind eye and allow the Town to do as they please for the sake of a dollar." Delmore seems to have a different take from several of the comments here, but that doesn't mean one should distort Delmore's original comment.
Danville Mom April 10, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Mr Parris, thank you for your comment; however Tally Delmore states that "this sure looks like a case of NIMBY or more specifically, 'I have mine and you can't have one' '" - I truly don't believe I distorted the intent of Delmore's statement, but understand your interpretation.
Terry Parris Jr. April 10, 2012 at 04:04 PM
Delmore does say that for sure, but that's different than "turn a blind eye and allow the Town to do as they please for the sake of a dollar." So, I guess we'll agree to disagree on the interpretation, unless Delmore wants to shed light on it.
Diane Johnsone November 07, 2012 at 02:58 PM
Has there been any studies on the impact to our schools and parks which are already overcrowded? If developers are going to increase demands and expenses on the town's infrastructure the town should at least demand they pay for it. Also, the proposal of developing the hillside above the Greenbrook area has been approached in previous years and the geological surveys have always shown the area too unstable to allow development so why are they allowed to keep considering it?
Diane Johnsone November 07, 2012 at 03:01 PM
It would have been nice if this were more widely publicized before the election. I know a lot of my neighbors would have voted quite differently in the Danville Town Council election if this had been brought to the forefront sooner.
Diane Johnsone November 07, 2012 at 03:19 PM
In reply to Delmore & Parris, I realize that most of our homes probably were not here when you first moved to Danville but the reason a lot of us live here is because of the restraint in not overdeveloping Danville and maintaining open hillsides and vistas. I am not against development but lets do it selectively without destroying the character of our town otherwise I might as well be living in San Ramon.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something