Davis Project Highlights Problems With Subjective Standards
- William Fulton
- Jan 18, 2022
- 4 min read
California planners know that these days they live in a world of “objective standards”. The old world of vague and hard-to-define standards – often defined as “guidelines” – is melting away quickly – partly because of new state laws, but also because vague standards often mean judges believe they have to use their own judgment to interpret the standards.
The case of “Trackside,” a proposed 27-unit mixed-use project near the Amtrak station in Davis, is an excellent example. (All of Davis’s documents about the Trackside project can be found here.) Trackside is located on the eastern edge of downtown Davis, adjacent to a single-family neighborhood known as Old East Davis. The project has gotten tangled up in a fight over what an appropriate “transition” project for this area should look like. Using one interpretation, the city approved the project. Using another, the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association sued – and got a Yolo County judge to agree with them, largely interpreting the vague standards himself.
“The features relied upon by the City to justify the Project, like the step-backed design, do not really address the larger issue of the mass and scale of the project,” Superior Court Judge Samuel McAdam wrote in his ruling in the case.
But now McAdam has gotten slapped down by the Third District Court of Appeal, which concluded that the judge had no business substituting his judgment for the city’s.
“[I[t is not the court’s role to reweigh the factors unless no reasonable person could reach the same conclusion based on the evidence,” wrote Presiding Justice Harry Hull for a unanimous three-judge panel. “And we see nothing in the planning documents that compels the conclusion that the City’s reliance on the cited factors was inherently unreasonable.”
Hull added: “Indeed, if the planning documents were intended to prevent the construction of a mixed use building outside the downtown core that is taller than mixed-use buildings inside the core, the documents could have said so. And where the planning documents do provide quantitative standards (e.g. “Accommodate new buildings with floor area up to three times site area”), there is no indication Trackside runs afoul of them.”
The neighborhood activists who opposed the project appear to have gotten the message. In a statement after the ruling, they said: “Neighborhoods must understand, based on the appeals court ruling, that they need to look closely at the specific language in land use plans as they are modified in the coming years. Neighborhoods should require very precise, quantifiable and mandatory provisions in the upcoming plans and implementing codes.”
The Trackside litigation got caught up in a debate over which planning documents governed the site and how to interpret the imprecise design guidelines contained in those documents. The project includes a 48,000-square-foot four-story building with about 10,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and 27 housing units above. It is identified as an “opportunity site” by the City of Davis, where density as high as 40 units per acre is encouraged. The project is four stories high on the west side, adjacent to the railroad tracks and nearer to downtown, and two to three stories on the east side, adjacent to the Old East David single-family neighborhood. A 30-foot alley – twice the normal width –separates Trackside from Old East Davis.