What people are saying about "Paso Fino"

 

"If the applicant were to 'give back' to the city a little more city-owned land, enough to safeguard the Canary Island pines, we'd have a deal." - Neighborhood letter to City Council, April 7, 2015

 

"Big trees in the valley are disappearing fast. Without them, hawks and many other bird species have no place to eat, sleep and reproduce. Davis, of all places, should not be risking any of its large trees." - Sylvia Wright, Davis, comment posted on Change.org, Jan. 31, 2015

 

"The current layout has the homes too close to the trees and provides inadequate protection for their long-term health." - Don Shor, letter to Davis City Council, Jan. 23, 2015

 

"I want the trees to stay so the Swainson hawks have a good place to live." - Bella Johnson, Davis, comment posted on Change.org, Jan. 14, 2015

 

"With each proposal, the developers have 'allowed' the public to keep slightly more of what is already taxpayers’ public land. (But) giving up something that was never really yours in the first place doesn’t truly count as concession." - David Harrington, Davis Enterprise, Oct. 3, 2014

 

"The proposed Paso Fino infill project is so flawed it could serve as an illustration of poor planning in a textbook. I don’t live in the neighborhood, but I am deeply disturbed that the city is giving serious consideration to a project that would create so many problems." - Richard Evans, Davis Enterprise, Sept. 21, 2014

 

" ... even though there are clear provisions within the 2001 General Plan as to requirements for greenbelts and their percentage of land in a given project, we believe it would be wise for the (Davis City Council) to establish policies on greenbelts for future development and infill purposes. Given the small amount of infill space and the current lack of peripheral housing potential, there will be increased pressure for the city to densify even further and that puts greenbelts, parks, and other open space at potential risk for development. Council action will not prevent a future council from undoing those agreements, but at least they provide the community with a guideline." – David Greenwald, Davis Vanguard, July 12, 2014

 

"The only interested party that benefits from the proposed change to the 2009 development agreement is the land developer. This does not create a significant number of new housing units in the range that Davis needs. It destroys open space and mature trees. It obviously negates the interests of the neighbors. Staff, once again, appears willing to bend to the desires of the developer. It isn’t uncommon for staff to accede to these types of proposals. But what is unique here, as far as I know, is the sale of city-owned greenbelt property for the purpose of housing development." – Don Shor, Davis Vanguard, June 7, 2014

 

"At the very least, we need a policy - a voter approved policy - to regulate these kind of situations. If not, then any developer can lobby the City Council and the Planning Commission and take any open space they want, call it a 'buffer' and build on it." – Paul Boylan, Davis Enterprise, June 4, 2014