Coming out of closed session on Tuesday, Mayor Brett Lee announced the city had “filed a notice of appeal in the Trackside case.” He added that “the cost of the appeal will be borne by the Trackside applicants.” The appeal was filed on the morning of July 30 and challenges a recent ruling by Yolo County Judge Sam McAdam.
“The legal action, filed by Trackside Center, LLC, effectively asks the Court of Appeal to overturn the recent ruling by Judge Samuel McAdam which directed the City of Davis to rescind all approvals granted for the redevelopment of an infill site at 901-919 Third Street (aka Trackside Center) in the Core Area of Davis,” the Trackside Center group said Wednesday in a press release.
Trackside Center, LLC, is represented by Sacramento law firm Taylor & Wiley.
Kemble K. Pope, a managing member of Trackside Center, LLC, said in the press release, “We remain committed to this project which will create much-needed housing and retail space in Downtown Davis, just a block from our Amtrak Transit Station.”
He continued, “When construction is complete, we’ll be happy to welcome 27 new households to a beautifully designed building that will set a new standard for high-quality infill redevelopment in our community.”
Mr. Pope added, “We’re confident that the Court of Appeal will overturn the lower court, uphold the City’s approval of the project, and confirm that the City Council is the final expert on interpreting and applying their own planning documents.”
The release indicated that they believe “the Court of Appeal will rule in their favor and defer to the judgment of the City Council.”
They note that they are “encouraged” by a recent ruling from July 3 by the Third District Court of Appeal, in the case of Sacramentans for Fair Planning vs. City of Sacramento. This project 
involved a similar infill housing case.
In that case, the court ruled, “We give substantial deference to the City’s determination that the project is consistent with the general plan. Courts accord great deference to a local agency’s determination of consistency with its own general plan, recognizing that the body which adopted the general plan policies…has unique capacity to interpret those policies when applying them…”
In May, 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.
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.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It is the developers driving this train, not the city. The developers are indemnifying the city so the city isn’t risking any money in this case.
I think you correctly identify the legal question by comparing the two judgements. Does the city have complete discretion to decide if a project is in compliance with its own planning process or must the city be able to argue that a reasonable person would agree that the city is in compliance with its own planning documents?
Of course the decision might turn on the differences of the facts of the appellate decision versus the facts of the McAdam decision.
I do wonder though if McAdam’s decision is overturned why have any planning process at all? If the city can do whatever it wants while claiming it has broad discretion over how it interprets its own planning policies why bother with the expense of going through the process of developing planning documents at all?
“Does the city have complete discretion to decide if a project is in compliance with its own planning process or must the city be able to argue that a reasonable person would agree that the city is in compliance with its own planning documents?”
The abuse of a discretion standard is really difficult to breach – it basically says that no reasonable person could agree with the actions of the city in this case. My problem from the start is that even though I didn’t support this project, the standard is such that a subjective ruling by a judge seems really questionable.
Time will tell. Depends on the interpretation of “no reasonable person.”
Maybe some lawyers instead of lay people like us could weigh in on the standard you cite.
Is McAdam a reasonable person? I think the judge is saying, he himself, as an objective and reasonable third party, finds this is an abuse of the CC’s discretion after reviewing the relevant documents and therefore agrees with the plaintiffs. By claiming no reasonable person could find otherwise he is saying he believes no objective third party such as himself would find otherwise.
Aye, there’s the rub… overt, or inherent bias, or hubris…?
I consider myself as objective, knowledgeable, and a third party… and I definitely disagree with many points of his decision…
Every time I have read the discussion of the term “no reasonable person” in one of the many articles on this issue I have winced. The problem I have is with the word “no” and specifically the absolute nature of that word in the context it is being used. I feel the same way when the “words “all” and “every” are used in other Vanguard discussions. The chances of anything in life happening 100% of the time are somewhere between slim and none … and slim has left the building. In my opinion 100% is an unreasonable standard.
So, I took a moment to do a little checking on the internet (with all the appropriate caveats), and what I found is that the legal standard appears to be described as the “reasonable person” standard, rather than as the “no reasonable person standard.”
Rather than talking about issues, we’re trending (and have been for quite some time) blog, locally, State, Federal levels, into a them/us mindset… will admit a bit of mea culpa… but there are many more, local, State, Federal who thrive on that tendency, and exploit it, to their own ends… not really good… divisive and does not help resolving issues… and “compromise” is not necessarily helpful… informed “persuasion” is…
Look for inflammatory adjectives, particularly when characterizing “them”… works on either edge of the sword, any side, any issue… think…
An excellent observation, sir. WHY INDEED!!!
They can’t do whatever they want, but they do have broad discretion.
I’m sure a community fire-pit fueled by the flames of H*ll might be a stretch. But that’s not the point. The point is, why go through these long, drawn out processes to come to agreements about future planning, only to have them derailed by some future council in the name of being “out of date” now that the future is here? The whole point is to have the planning outcome in place to guide the growth pressure when it comes, not fornicate the process with a council majority vote. With the process evolving as it has, why not just stop the charade, tank current planning efforts which are clearly there as a feel-good, make-work process, save everyone their time, and emulate Houston, TX, land of no-zoning?
Same outcome . . . faster and more efficient path to internal and external growth, eh?
Call me jaded. I’ve been at this for 30+ years.