By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The fall out from the HCD letter continues as the applicants for the Palomino Place will seek to use the Builder’s Remedy in Davis. The applicants have now modified their application to seek project approval from the City of Davis pursuant to the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act known as the Builder’s Remedy.
Last week, HCD on April 3 sent a letter to the city noting non-compliance and citing a number of factors including the loss of University Commons as mixed-use.
According to a release, “The Builder’s Remedy is a unique state law which has only recently become available for use in Davis due to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) having determined Davis’ Housing Element to be noncompliant with state requirements.”
However, the applicant notes, “the provisions of the Act are narrow and, in the context of Davis’s current housing proposals, only apply to Palomino Place as it is located within the City limits rather than Yolo County.”
The new proposal will include 170 residential units with 24 percent designated to be 
affordable to low-income families.
In the revised application, the applicant notes how it intends to fulfill the affordable housing requirements.
“The Applicant has committed to deed-restricting the 41 ADUs (or 24.1% of the total units), which would require that they be rented at rates affordable to low-income households,” the application explains. “By doing so, the Project provides nearly double the number of affordable units required by City Ordinance.”
The applicant adds, “This significant contribution is intentional, as the Applicant understands the need for affordable housing and is proud to exceed the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance by providing a significant number of low-income units to the City’s housing stock.”
Currently the city is required by RHNA to target 350 low-income units for this planning period, and this project would provide 12 percent of that total.
The applicant believes, “The project could meaningfully assist the City in providing its share of regional housing and would be a clear indication to HCD that Davis is serious about complying with state housing mandates and helping to address California’s housing crisis.
“We are in the midst of a housing crisis and the State has prescribed this process for exactly this type of situation. The law requires us to produce high-quality residential units with a substantial amount of affordable housing on-site.” said project applicant, Dave Taormino. “We are so proud to be able to deliver badly needed new housing in Davis and we look forward to working collaboratively with City staff to see these homes built soon.”
In a letter to the city on Friday (April 14), attorney Matt Keasling representing the applicants notes, “Although the Applicant already submitted a pre-application on October 4, 2021 and a complete Project application on July 12, 2022 which was subsequently deemed complete by the City on August 19, 2022, the Applicant has decided to convert the application to utilize State Law associated with SB 3330 and the HAA that will expedite the processing of the Project.”
This was done, he said, “in part as response to the Council’s recent discussions pertaining to the extreme need for more housing” as well as the recognition of the lack of adequate sites to fulfill the city’s share of RHNA housing requirements.
Keasling also noted “this application is not in response to the City having rejected the Project or over-burdening it with infeasible conditions of approval as has been the case in other HAA projects around the State.”
Rather, he continued, “this conversion to a Builder’s Remedy project is being sought so as to expedite and bring simplicity to the development of housing and affordable housing.”
What remains less clear is what this will actually mean.
Councilmember Gloria Partida was reached by the Vanguard on Friday afternoon but declined comment. As of publication City Manager Mike Webb only said, “It will be reviewed by the City Attorney.”
Last week the Sacramento Business Journal reported that Davis is under the Builder’s Remedy.
The Business Journal quoted Monica Hernandez, a spokesperson for the California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Because Davis has yet to adopt a housing element that has been found in substantial compliance, the city cannot be found in compliance with Housing Element Law until all necessary rezones are complete.”
HCD won’t comment on whether it can bypass Measure J—and the city is reportedly unclear as to the legal ramifications as well.
The Business Journal reported, “Davis also requires voter approval for new projects that would require annexing land currently used for agriculture to the city. Hernandez said she couldn’t comment on whether that would be affected by a builder’s remedy because it’s outside the department’s housing law accountability purview.”
One possibility is that this could bypass Measure J altogether. Another is that it would simply compel the city to process the application. At this point, no one is sure.
On Tuesday, the city council met in closed session to discuss potential litigation. City Manager Webb told the Vanguard that there was no reputable action.
Keasling sent a letter on April 10 to City Attorney Inder Khalsa.
He said to “view and refine Palomino Place, an infill residential development project located within the City limits. We have had a complete application with the City for 8 months and have been waiting to formally commence the CEQA review process so that we can rapidly build the type of housing that Davis so desperately needs.”
Keasling stated, “While we respect the decision of the City Council to focus solely on successfully passing a revenue measure in November 2024, we continue to believe that building housing should be an equal or greater priority and we know that the State of California shares our belief.”
Therefore, he said, “we are committed to exploring all legal avenues available to us in order to see Palomino Place expeditiously approved and we reserve the right to avail ourselves of any legal remedy which may be afforded to us.”
He added, “We hope to continue to partner with the City and look forward to working with you and City staff to deliver low-, middle-, and market-rate housing – not on a 2026 ballot, but as expeditiously as possible using the tools and remedies made available to us through state law.”
Cool – my initial reaction is that I view this as good news (overall). For more than one reason.
But perhaps this should also serve as a warning against annexing ANY additional land into the city, since the same thing can presumably happen (regardless of what voters “approve” via Measure J).
The only reason it’s occurring for this site is because it’s already in the city.
Perhaps they can also now do this at Nishi, thereby also solving any “problems” with HCD? (Hey – this sounds like a job for the YIMBYs.)
I’m thinking that it shouldn’t even be challenged.
And truth be told, this is the least-offensive, least-impactful site of any of the 4 proposals. I say go for it.
This part is interesting, however. How would they subsequently monitor or enforce what individual homeowners are charging for their ADUs – assuming that they rent them out in the first place?
I’ll refrain from commenting on whether or not the apparent typo is applicable.
The Builder’s Remedy is exactly what should be used in this case. Housing for all income levels can’t wait another day. ?
Walter we do not need housing for people with incomes over $100,000. What we need is housing for people with incomes of less than $100,000 and ideally less than $50,000.
Per Zillow’s housing calculator, income of $100,000 allows you to buy a home that costs $367,000.
Thanks for that Don. What income does Zillow show for a $500,000 home?
$136,855.00/year
So I take from this that none of the current Davis homeless population will qualify.
Thanks Don. The revised text of my comment to Walter now reads “Walter we do not need housing for people with incomes over $140,000. What we need is housing for people with incomes of less than $140,000 and ideally less than $50,000.”
Honestly I don’t think you can break it down that way. What we need is mixed-income housing. $140K sounds like a lot but that’s really two people making $70K each, which these days is not nearly as much as you think. We need housing that people working at UCD and DJUSD who have kids can afford. We also need the kind of housing that someone can build.
Why?
And what makes you think if such units will be large-enough to appeal to those with kids?
And by the way, “we” are not “they”. And “they” have already found housing a long time ago.
Solutions in search of problems, as usual.
This place is not really walking distance to anything… it’s a 5 to 7 min bike ride to Birch Lane ES, and bit further to Nugget, CVS etc. Harper Junior high not so far, okay. But most everything in a single direction. So it’s barely not peripheral. A much safer crossing is needed of E. Covell but – based on Bretton Woods – Taormino will not likely want to pay for it. They should also contribute to the compmlete reconstruction of Pole Line-Covell and more. Residents will have cars and use them for most destinations… it’s simply not a typical Davis biking distance to go from here to Downtown, even worse to campus. It’s a convenient drive to shopping in east Woodland on an unsafe road that should be closed for inter-city travel.
The definition of “low income” is over-simplistic, and anti-holistic. But there’s no requirement in this classification for replacements to car driving that saves families money. Analogies? Cities building housing without heat and encouraging people to buy warm clothing for being at home? With everything in one direction, there’s less choice, and again this should contradict low-income.
And always naming something after something lost, in this case horses (okay, I think most have been gone already for a couple of years…). Still…..
This is my thinking, as a resident of this proposed development. It’s not a useful location for a build-up, especially if we are wanting to put lower income families into the development.
Additionally, the proposed development now includes the demolition of two of the three houses on the property- meaning this project would evict 2 families from their homes for a boondoggle of a project. If we were truly interested in housing, the development across the Covell Nugget that was just proposed should be fast tracked as it has no housing units on it that are in use (as seen by Google Maps).
I personally think the impetus for getting this developed so quickly is due to the owners of the property wanting to wash their hands of this investment. Rather than sell the property to someone who will make use of it (very fertile ag land that’s already zoned for it), they’d rather turn it into a bunch of cookie cutter houses that WILL add to the traffic situation on Mace and displace people who have happily lived here for 5+years.
That didn’t take long.