Officials in the city of Davis are not saying much until the tentative ruling goes before Judge McAdam on April 5 – but they did tell the Vanguard on Wednesday that they are stunned by his planned ruling which invalidates the Trackside development.
“The City disagrees with the tentative ruling,” City Manager Mike Webb stated on the record.
But he did say, “It is not a final decision and we look forward to the opportunity at the April 5th hearing to demonstrate to the Court why reconsideration of its position is warranted.”
Kemble Pope, representing Trackside, LLC, declined comment until after they get to argue before the judge. Meanwhile, Rhonda Reed from the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association said in an email late Wednesday that she had not yet read the tentative ruling.
Judge McAdam, relying heavily on city planning documents, concluded that this was a transition area, and based on the totality of the circumstances in reviewing the entire record, he concluded, “Trackside is not consistent with the City of Davis planning provisions governing the transition between the Core Area to the Old East Davis neighborhood.”
He writes: “Nothing in the Staff Report or record rationally explained how a 47,000 square foot building constituted a transition project.”
In December of 2017, the Davis City Council approved the four-story, 27-unit Trackside infill development. A few weeks later, the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association filed a CEQA suit challenging the city council’s “approval of the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment/Initial Study for the Trackside Center Project” and their “approval of Project on the grounds that such approvals violate the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act…”
“The dispute here really centers around whether the City has complied with the General Plan,” Judge McAdam writes in a 16-page tentative ruling. “The trial court must determine whether the City’s decision to approve the Project was arbitrary, capricious and lacking in evidentiary support, unlawful or procedurally unfair.”
He notes, “Under this standard, the Court must defer to the factual findings on consistency of the City unless no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion on the evidence before it.”
Judge McAdam focuses on the notion of “transition” as an overarching principle that the property here must serve as a “transition” from “the Core Commercial Area to the Old East Davis neighborhood.”
The Core Area Specific Plan (CASP), he says, is intended to promote “building up the downtown core (the area between First and Third streets and D Street and the railroad tracks east of G Street) before greatly increasing densities in the remainder of the core area, thereby protecting existing residential neighborhoods and their character.”
Meanwhile, “The General Plan goes on to state that the Core Area Specific Plan encourages ‘appropriate scale transition between buildings.’”
Judge McAdam also notes: “The Davis Municipal Code also touches on the principle of transition by incorporating restrictive standards set forth in the Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential Neighborhoods Design Guidelines (DTRN).”
Here the judge cites the language that when there are conflicts in the guidelines, “the more restrictive standard shall prevail.”
He writes that “it is (a) fair conclusion that the DTRN guidelines, to the extent they provide detailed direction and restrict the mass and scale of development projects in the transition area, are relevant here.”
As noted by the Petitioner, the guideline for Mixed-Use Design provides that a new building should “maintain the scale of a new structure within the context of existing buildings on the block.”
The key to the suit, however, is that the parties “dispute whether these guidelines are incorporated into the zoning law or not.”
Judge McAdam notes that “many of them are not unequivocal” and “leave some flexibility and even room for interpretation.” He adds, “The Court need not resolve the dispute.” However, he finds that “the guidelines remain highly relevant.”
He writes: “The City asserted that the Project was consistent with the guidelines and that it substantially complied with and relied on them. Under these circumstances, any meaningful evaluation of the Project must assess compliance, at least in broad terms, with the DTRN Guidelines.”
The city, Judge McAdam writes, “relies heavily on a Third Street Corridor Special Character Area Case Study image” to show that the “project is consistent with the guidelines,” arguing that “the image project is virtually interchangeable with Trackside.”
He notes that “it would appear that Trackside would be the largest mixed-use or commercial building in downtown Davis by a longshot,” noting that it is double the size of the Chen Building, 30 percent larger than McCormick, and thus: “There is nothing on the Third Street Corridor that is even remotely near the size of Trackside.”
However, he calls such a reliance on Third Street Corridor case study image “misplaced.”
He also notes along the “railroad corridor” where he situates Trackside that “Trackside would be over 4 times larger than the current commercial buildings.”
The judge concludes: “Based on the totality of circumstances and a review of the entire record, it is the conclusion of this Court that Trackside is not consistent with the City of Davis planning provisions governing the transition between the Core Area to the Old East Davis neighborhood.”
He adds, “Nothing in the Staff Report or record rationally explained how a 47,000 square foot building constituted a transition project.”
Judge McAdam concludes, “There is a compelling case, as the City has made, for a mixed-use, high density residential development at this location near the train station.” However, he believes, “the failure here is that the mass and scale of the proposed project is not reasonable under the current law and factual circumstances. There simply is not a logical and reasoned case to be made that Trackside is a ‘transition’ from the Core Area to the Old East Davis neighborhood. The record lacks evidentiary support for the City’s decision.”
Judge McAdam grants the petition on the Fourth Cause and the city is “to set aside approval of the Final Planned Development (#5-15), Design Review (#5-15) and Demolition (#5-15) and withdraw the Notice of Determination of the Project.”
The court has set aside April 5 at 9 am for the parties to appear and make further argument.
It is believed that such a decision would have far-reaching implications, not only in Davis but across the state, and if this decision holds on April 5, the expectation is that there would be an appeal, probably joined by the state and other planning entities.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Interesting ruling, especially in these times of increased urban infill density goals. It is especially interesting for the twenty (20) members of the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee, in which I am one of the twenty.
This is a ridiculous ruling on the surface of it – I can’t seem to find the ruling itself on the court site. On the one hand, the city has all the discretion and on the other, the judge is saying they abused that discretion by building a building that was larger than all other buildings – THAT’S NOT ABUSE OF DISCRETION. This judge doesn’t not WTF he’s talking about. Did he cite any legal cases?
The people of Davis value greatly words such as this, and the other fine legal tidbits of wisdom from Judge Ross, found daily in the Vanguard comments section.
Yet, who is to say that McAdam is not being “arbitrary, capricious and lacking in evidentiary support, unlawful or procedurally unfair.”
Oh, himself, and those who like the outcome of the decision. As Flip Wilson might say, “here come’ the judge…”
He is using ‘reasonable discretion’, based on the evidence? And 5 CC folk did not?
I truly don’t care about the outcome, but McAdam did not spring from the mind of Zeus… far from… neither did the CC members… all are human…
I’m looking forward to ‘better judicial rulings via robot judges’.
You’re definitely being flip here and in so doing downplaying just how bad this ruling was.
Flip Wilson?
Now that was flip!
Since the Tentative Ruling is not available on the court site – here it is
Thanks for the background information.
Ditto
One word response: “Yup”
I am not currently on the Board at Old East Davis, though I was during the time OEDNA first considered a lawsuit. Many predicted this would go down as have the anti-development lawsuits in Davis. This was never a no-growth lawsuit, it was about city planning and the transition zone at this particular site. The Old East Davis neighborhood supports a mixed-use, high density residential development at this location. Despite the opposition line that the Design Guidelines are “just that, guidelines”, this ruling confirms that the Design Guidelines have legal meaning — they can be stretched, but not broken.
Something about whose ox is being gored? A tentative ruling doesn’t confirm or affirm anything… why it is called tentative?
I’m content to wait to see how this plays out, one way or the other.
Would you believe “confirms-ish” ?
“Many predicted this would go down as have the anti-development lawsuits in Davis.”
I admit I expected this would go down. I also expected the judge to make a halfway competent ruling. This is basically a judge’s opinion, he completely violated the standard of review, and it likely won’t stand once it gets appealed.
To quote WM, above:
Today my Ox is tentatively not being gored. I’m good with today.
Does this mean I cannot buy that 6th floor condo I have been dreaming of?
The problem with this logic that we heard all too many times over the past few years, is a judge isn’t going to rule using ‘possible-future law’ that YIMBYs wish existed.
Given the recent trend in legislation at the State level, this decision may be made moot, with the neighbors wishing the final development was only six stories tall.
Sounds positively Trumpian in respect for the judge.
“This is basically a judge’s opinion, he completely violated the standard of review, and it likely won’t stand once it gets appealed.”
Correction: This is a judge’s legal opinion…
Maybe it gets overturned on appeal, maybe it won’t. We will see, or perhaps the developers will tire of waiting and paying lawyers and try to settle with the neighbors.
Or, equally likely, lick their wounds, and walk away. The tone of the TD is requiring a “do-over” (start from scratch). Expensive.
“Negotiating” or “settling”, smells of caving in to ‘extortion’… am 98% sure that the atty(s) will want a “payday”… probably did it on a “contingency”… McAdam alludes to a ‘payday’ for petitioners atty'(s)… not in those words, but…
Like WDAAD, would be interesting to know who fronted the money (if any) for the plaintiffs’ atty(s)… nah, never gonna happen… transparency does not apply to private folk…
Wow WM (tempted to use your ‘other’ initials for this one). That’s really offensive, your implication. OEDNA raised the money from us, the neighbors. If any? Yeah, any. So take your implications . . . . .
You missed my real point… OED is transparent enough… it’s the “others”… re-reading my post, I see where one (OED) could easily take offense… clumsy writing on my part… my bad… I apologize…
WM, still not following. Others? The plantiff is OEDNA.
“Given the recent trend in legislation at the State level, this decision may be made moot, with the neighbors wishing the final development was only six stories tall.”
Once again, maybe. Time will tell, meanwhile nothing is getting done there. Anyway you slice it though this is clearly a rebuke of the city for not following its own General Plan.
David… you ought to rent ‘Highbeam’ out to the Yolo Court, specifically to whoever wrote the tentative decision… “track” instead of “tract” in one instance, “passed” instead of “past” in another…
That aside, the style and ‘logic’ of the TC appears weak… inviting either/both parties to challenge… not sure if that was the intent.
April 5 should be interesting…
You would think that a Judge of all people would notice the plight of local renters and the omnipresent housing crisis and instead see this as an opportunity to offer them reprieve and justice. Unfortunately, McAdam used his authority and this decision to reinforce the conservative elitism of Old East Davis and give the thumbs up to the continued housing crisis in Davis. By choosing to reference arcane and outdated code, McAdam shows his hand.
Makes you wonder if the Judge lives nearby the proposed site.
So instead of the City deciding how to update its general plan, you are advocating activism from the judicial bench.
If I’m reading it correctly, it seems his point is the opposite. I think he sees this as activism from the judicial bench. You raise an interesting point about updating the general plan, the next General Plan could actually allow building heights there to be quite a bit higher than the current General Plan – then what?
Judge is not ruling on the future; the next general plan is a different issue.
I think his point is that the council can cure this by changing the zoning.
Craig, the zoning has never been a problem … if zoning were the only criteria. The project has always (in my opinion) complied with the current zoning in place. The problem is that the zoning and the Design Guidelines and the General Plan are not consistent with one another … and even are not consistent from different internal provisions contained in the Guidelines.
The Judge was very clear in illuminating the problems he saw/sees in that inconsistency. Until the General Plan and the Design Guidelines are updated (and made consistent with one another) and then the zoning code updated to be consistent with the updated General Plan, the problem that the Judge has discussed will continue to exist.
The problem with this logic that we heard all too many times over the past few years, is a judge isn’t going to rule using ‘possible-future law’ that YIMBYs wish existed.
It’s been a few years since Sam’s son and mine played on the same baseball team, but at the time he didn’t live near downtown. (The home addresses of judges are closely guarded for security reasons, so I won’t be more specific than that.)
“You would think that a Judge of all people would notice the plight of local renters and the omnipresent housing crisis and instead see this as an opportunity to offer them reprieve and justice.”
A drop in the ocean.
I offer a new term… differs from NIMBY and YIMBY… YIYBY… yes, in YOUR back yard… am guessing about 45% of folk in town would back that… may be an underestimation…
Could “inform” future Measure J/R votes…