Judge Sam McAdam stuck with his original ruling despite a strong push by attorneys for the city and real party of interest, Trackside, to get him to reconsider at a hearing in mid-April.
Once again, Judge McAdam ruled (see link) that the Trackside development is not consistent with the City’s General Plan, and ruled in favor of The Old East Davis Neighborhood Association.
That means the city council will have to decide whether to appeal the decision at an upcoming council meeting, according to a release from the city late on Friday afternoon.
In a 22-page ruling by Judge McAdam, the Court stated, “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 and to the Old East Davis neighborhood.”
The ruling goes on to conclude that, while the City made “a compelling case” for a mixed-use, residential development, the Court believes that “the mass and scale of the project is not reasonable.”
As Judge McAdam put it, “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. Trackside would overwhelm the existing residential neighborhood. It would not 
respect the traditional scale and character of the neighborhood. The record lacks evidentiary support for the City’s decision.”
The judge also stated that “it follows that the SB 375 Sustainable Community Environmental Assessment conducted by the City was inadequate.” Judge McAdam writes, “The SCEA/IS did not properly assess the project inconsistency with the General Plan and related planning provisions.”
As a result, the city was directed to rescind all approvals associated with the project.
Once again Judge McAdam 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. Trackside is twice the size of the nearby Chen Building. It is significantly larger than the McCormick Building and the Roe Building. These smaller buildings are all in the Core Commercial Area, where densification shall occur first. Trackside is four times larger than the current on-site buildings. There are no buildings inside the Core on the Third Street Corridor remotely similar in size.”
During oral arguments in April, attorneys for the city as well as the developer argued that the FAR (floor area ratio) was in compliance with city codes and the size and mass of the building simply reflected the large size of the lot.
Mr. Walsh argued that this is a larger lot and the city is looking at this in terms of Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He said that “if you include the leased area, it is within what’s expected for mixed-use areas for the city.”
The FAR of the building is 1.59. The limits in the zoning are 1.5 – however, with density bonuses for having a plaza and underground parking, it could raise the limit up to as high as 2.0. Without the underground parking, it is at 1.7.
Mr. Walsh continued: “The size of the building, that’s really a zoning issue…. This is consistent with the zoning for that site.” He added, “What you use the design guidelines… to design the project in a way that minimizes the impacts… They gradually stepped it back.”
But, while Judge McAdam heard this argument, he ultimately rejected it.
In his ruling he stated that “the FAR like the designation of the site as an opportunity site does not change or satisfy the fundamental planning policy that the project must be a transition from the Core Commercial Area to the Old East Davis neighborhood.”
He adds, “All of the necessary zoning amendments for the project must be consistent with the fundamental policies set forth in the general plan and the CASP.”
The city and developer were unhappy with the outcome.
“The ruling in this case is perplexing and runs contrary to the standard of law that applies to decisions by local jurisdictions,” said Mike Webb, City Manager, City of Davis in a statement released by the city late on Friday.
Judge McAdam acknowledged that the proper standard of review here was “abuse of discretion.” He wrote, “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.”
The city clearly saw this ruling as contradicting its land use authority and the standard of review.
“The ruling is a disappointing setback that undermines the authority of city officials to make difficult and complicated, local, land-use decisions,” said Dan Carson, Davis City Councilmember.
He added, “It’s ironic that while state officials are threatening to take away transportation money from cities that don’t build enough housing, courts within the state are hindering our efforts to do so. Hopefully, if the City appeals, a higher court will restore local control, so we can build the community we want and address our housing needs.”
“Although I voted against the Trackside project, I believe the City Council does have discretion to decide as it did on this development issue,” said Davis Mayor Brett Lee. “I am surprised that the court felt otherwise.”
Kemble K. Pope, a managing member of Trackside, LLC, said, “We are disappointed in this result, but we remain committed to this project that provides much-needed, environmentally friendly, infill housing and modern commercial spaces for local businesses in the core of our community.”
Late on Saturday, the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association sent the Vanguard a comment.
They said, “The Old East Davis Neighborhood Association is grateful that the Court conducted a thorough review of the administrative record and made a well-considered decision. The Court was unusually diligent, in that the Parties were brought together for a second hearing to ensure that all relevant aspects of the case were presented.
The group added, “It was never the neighborhood’s intention to prevent redevelopment of this site. We support infill. In a Davis Enterprise Op Ed on Sept 24, 2017, we showed that the Trackside proposal could be downscaled to fit within neighborhood Design Guidelines and City zoning. The Court’s ruling is a good outcome that could lead to a well-designed, transitional building that is consistent with Davis’ land use policies.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Edit: Story updated to include a statement from the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association
Aye, there’s the ‘rub’… the guy with the black robe has determined that no person who voted for the project approvals (all of which are directed to be vacated) is reasonable.
Verrrry interesting… but questionable…
Well, not exactly. “Abuse of discretion” is a highly deferential standard. But the judge apparently determined that, as applied to the facts here, the City’s application of its own guidelines was clearly in error and unreasonable and was, therefore, not entitled to deference.
That is my impression of the judge’s decision as well. Given the internally inconsistent, even directly contradictory, provisions of the City’s various planning documents (General Plan, Designe Guidelines and Zoning Code) a decision by a “reasonable person” can’t help but be highly subjective, an quite possibly arbitrary … no matter what that decision is.
Matt: have you read the decision? It is very explicit that the inconsistency of the project with the General Plan is the foundation for the decision. And that’s how it is set up under State law: the GP is the local “constitution” for local land use decisions; everything else is secondary to that. The proposed zoning amendments failed judicial scrutiny because they aren’t consistent with the GP.
Rik, the City’s Design Guidelines are not consistent with the General Plan, nor are provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines internally consistent.
Understanding that reality does not require one to read the judge’s decision The second half of my comment, which you took exception to, does not rely on the specifics of the judge’s decision.
With that said, if it was the first half of my comment that you took exception to, I point you to Eric Gelber’s statement, with which I was agreeing. What specifically is it that Eric said that you disagree with.
Moderator: edited
Matt: I asked if you read the ruling. And I talked about how the ruling addresses the hierarchy of how possible conflicts between provisions are sorted out under State law. And contrary to your statement, the judge’s decision does not seem “arbitrary” at all.
Moderator: edited
Rik, reading through the words of Eric’s comment and my reply to his comment, the word “arbitrary” is neither used directly, nor implied indirectly. What makes you think that either Eric or I feel the judge’s decision is “arbitrary”? What specifically is it that either Eric or I said that you disagree with?
Matt: you literally said the decision is “quite possibly arbitrary”.
And you are making this statement without even having read the judgement.
Matt: if a “reasonable person’s” decision would be arbitrary in your view, and the judge is a reasonable person… QED
Well, that’s great news! Who would have expected it, when the lawsuit was initiated? (Almost certainly not the Vanguard.)
Coupled with the withdrawal of SB-50, it seems like the much-promoted “densification” effort is showing some cracks! (No one should be surprised about that.)
Regarding whether or not the council decides to subject the neighborhood to more turmoil – is that dependent upon what the developer is willing to fund regarding the cost of an appeal?
Here’s an alternative idea – submit plans that actually fit neighborhood guidelines!
Ron, I would argue that any guidelines that the City has (through the combination of its General Plan, Design Guidelines, and Zoning Code) are internally inconsistent and in important places directly contradictory. That means the City has been flying without a parachute with a gas gauge pinned on Empty for close to 10 years. Pogo’s tried and true saying, “We have met the enemy, and they are us!” applies here in spades.
Thanks, Matt – I’m generally aware of the inconsistencies.
I would argue that (to some degree), the “enemy” is elected officials attempting to force development (especially non-Affordable development) where it’s not wanted (not just in Davis, but statewide).
How these folks get into office in the first place is a mystery to me. Perhaps it is (partly) a case of supporting the concept (e.g., of dense infill), but not the reality.
And, perhaps it’s partly because few will acknowledge this.
“the “enemy” is elected officials attempting to force development (especially non-Affordable development) where it’s not wanted”
The problem with this characterization is that applies to just about every development in Davis. Over the last three years, just about every proposal has faced some form of opposition. So does that mean no housing or does it mean that the communities has to weigh in on each project – either through the council or in some cases through the voters – and do their best to figure out the balance?
David: I’d say that the (apparent) infill goals of elected officials are too aggressive. Again, not just in Davis.
At some point, perhaps an acknowledgement is needed that Davis (or any other town in California) is not going to continue to respond to all potential market demand – via infill or sprawl.
And, that means some folks will choose to live elsewhere. (Fortunately, both birth rates and immigration are declining anyway.)
That’s your preference for sure. But ultimately from Davis’ perspective, that’s an issue to be decided either directly (through Measure R) or indirectly (through council elections) by the voters.
David: You left out “lawsuits”, it seems. (Again, not just limited to Davis.)
Note that “elsewhere” includes towns within the region and throughout California, which are still quite welcoming of development at this point. (Probably most of California, actually.)
Also “left out” of this conversation is the fact that the neighborhood surrounding Trackside is apparently quite welcoming of redevelopment at that location – if it adheres to guidelines.
I wouldn’t mind seeing that, as well. That property is ripe for redevelopment.
Seems to me that there’s still a potential way forward, without resorting to legal appeals. Perhaps something that should have been explored more fully, in the first place. (And perhaps would have been, if the council wasn’t hell-bent on approving what they did.)
Maybe “the enemy” are people (some of them elected officials) who were pushing a project that violates the City’s own policies.
As the judge stated in the ruling: “For this project as proposed to be approved, the City would necessarily have to amend the general plan and CASP to scrap or modify the policy of transition.” (p. 21. #1-3)
How about a link to that release?
They don’t appear to have posted the release. Pretty much what was said is printed here however.
Sorry – I just enjoy seeing this in print. I might have preferred the term “ordered”.
It is notable that when a judge overturns a City decision to what seems like a massive rebuke to the notion that they followed the City’s own policies. {Edited}
So, when your team wins a game, it is of no consequence that the referee erred in their review of play… made bad/inconsistent calls… got it.
I truly care not about Trackside… if it disappears/fails to materialize, no tear shed here…
But there is a certain irony of a judge citing lack of following ‘rules’ by the City, and then does so (rules he cites applies to judicial judgement) in justifying his decision… if anyone thinks that the process/logic sucked with the approval, please note that from the published record, the guy in the black robe did same-same. In his own words… [at least as reported in the article]
Again, I care not about the project… but anyone who is upset about the approval process, should be equally so as to the ‘judicial’ one. Anyone who is only interested in ‘winning/losing’ from their viewpoint, need not be upset. But, it is two edged sword… if one wants another to ‘play by the rules’, they should feel bound by the ‘rules’ in like manner…
I had concerns re: the project approval… I have serious concerns about McAdam’s logic and conclusion to direct the overturning [a serious matter, legally] the City approvals. Sam McAdam, or Sam Adams? Which ‘judged’?
If he needs a confirmation vote in the future, I’ll judge whether to vote Aye or Nay. Based on reason and this addition to his “record”… which is funny, because if he is up for affirmation anytime soon, a reasonable person just might think he was ‘posturing’ for purposes other than strict judicial judgement…
The Vanguard was wrong in its prediction about the outcome of the lawsuit:
https://davisvanguard.org/tag/lawsuit/page/2/
And, your “point” as it relates to your response to my post? Where I never referred to the VG or its predictions…?
Or are you just “trolling”, hoping to get a ‘fish on line’?
You are transparent (good)… if folk could only see you for where you “come from” (not so sure on that, but hope folk are intelligent and discerning)…
Guess you’ll report this as a ‘personal attack’… if so, look in mirror as how you ‘responded’ to my post of 10:36 A…
Whatever… you post what you post (logical variation of “it is what it is”)
And, don’t think David has postured as the “Great Carnac”… perhaps you’d like to predict the outcome of the complaint on the Yes on L, the lawsuits on other development proposals? Then, we could see a direct comparison… who is more accurate, pre-cognitive… an experiment, in the name of science, if you will…
BM: it’s funny that you got so wound up and ramped up your usual insults. I was merely responding to my own post to add additional info about the Vanguard prediction. I hadn’t even read your response.
“We are disappointed in this result, but we remain committed to this project that provides much-needed, environmentally friendly, infill housing and modern commercial spaces for local businesses in the core of our community.”
Environmentally friendly? I guess it depends on how you define friendly. Even if it is friendly it is certainly not neighborly to max out your property over the objections of your neighbors.
Core area? To the developers its core area but to the neighbors its transition zone. There in lies the rub.
Judge McAdam got it exactly right by ruling in concurrence with what I said at the public comment on the project “It is too big.” As my mama used to say “Great minds think alike.”
“Judge McAdam got it exactly right by ruling in concurrence with what I said at the public comment on the project “It is too big.””
Maybe it is too big. But is that a question for a judge rather than an elected city city council?
You’re on the right track, Craig… goes to separation of powers…
The ‘man in black’ appears to feel he is the only “reasonable one” in the room… and that a Yolo Co official is the arbiter/decider (maybe he should run for God?)…
Perhaps it would be best, to avoid lawsuits and costs, that we eliminate the Planning Commission, and remove all land-use decisions from the CC and just have them made by the Yolo County Courts… would same time and money… see Nishi, Lincoln40, Embassy Suites, Trackside, etc., etc.
Just saying…
Is it a question for a judge? Apparently it is, otherwise he wouldn’t have gone there. Perhaps you don’t believe in judicial review but what check would you place on local government if you can’t use the courts?
For the record Craig, I’m not anti-growth, although I’m an outlier in that I would prefer peripheral development to infill. It was clear throughout the process that the city was ignoring its own transition zone guidelines by allowing an oversized building to be built at 3rd and I Street. The judge saw that and ruled accordingly.
The bolded text is where I respectfully disagree, with support from his own words… see elsewhere…
I question his ‘judgement’ based on the facts in evidence, and his own words as to logic in arriving at his decision (as reported in article, have not drilled down into the full decision, so may be incorrect)…
I agree with checks and balances… but the quoted (McAdam) reasons for crossing the lines as to separation of powers, “have odor”… something ‘smells’…
Again I say I care not about the project… I care about the process…
BM: the “process” is that the City ignored its own General Plan to such an extent that a judge took the unusual step in these kinds of matters of smacking them down.