Re "Supervisors OK 2,700-acre plan at Cordova Hills" (Page A1, Jan. 30): I was hugely disappointed in the majority of our Board of Supervisors as they took turns in evaluating the Cordova Hills project. They would raise very valid reasons for turning down the project -- more air pollution and traffic problems with leapfrog development; loss of federal transportation funds by not limiting greenhouse gases; no present operator for a university that is a major attraction for the project; loss of open space, ranch land and some wonderful vernal pools.
Supervisor Phil Serna pointed out that it made sense to put the project "on hold" until the developer could line up an operator for the university. Sadly, he was alone in his thinking. Doesn't the board of supervisors recognize this tactic of a developer coming in with an unpopular project, but promising a university? -- Carolyn Sandie, North Highlands