73 Cal.App.5th 895
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Trackside: proposed four-story, ~47,983 sq ft mixed-use building in Davis with ~27 apartments and ground-floor retail, located in a designated "transition area" between the Downtown Core and the Old East Davis neighborhood.
- Applicable plans/guidelines: Davis General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan (CASP), and Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential Neighborhoods Design Guidelines (DTRN); project identified as an "opportunity site" and treated as a transit-priority project subject to a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA).
- City staff recommended approval, citing consistency with General Plan/CASP/DTRN based on step‑backs, mass shifting toward the railroad, a 30‑foot alley buffer, an illustrative DTRN case study, and SCEA findings. City Council approved the project and adopted the SCEA.
- Old East Davis Neighborhood Association petitioned for writ of mandate; trial court concluded the record lacked substantial evidence that Trackside functioned as a required "transition" (mass/scale incompatibility) and held the SCEA inadequate; court vacated the City approval.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed: it held substantial evidence supported the City’s consistency determination and found the Association’s CEQA and guideline claims forfeited or without merit; directed entry of judgment denying the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City reasonably found Trackside consistent with General Plan/CASP/DTRN transition requirements | Trackside is too large in mass/scale to be a transition; step‑backs and setbacks are insufficient | City relied on step‑backs, mass shifting, alley separation, DTRN case study, and discretion to balance policies; substantial evidence supports consistency | Reversed trial court: substantial evidence supports City's consistency finding; court will not reweigh conflicting planning judgments |
| Whether the SCEA/CEQA review was adequate as to historic resources, railroad lease effects, and hazardous materials | SCEA failed to analyze impacts to Old East Davis conservation district, loss of railroad lease consequences, and potential contaminated soils | Issues were forfeited at trial; moreover, SCEA and responses addressed these topics and imposed conditions/mitigation | Forfeited on appeal; even if preserved, the court found the SCEA responses and conditions adequate or the disputes were expert disagreements |
| Whether DTRN guideline language ("shall appear to be in scale") is mandatory under the Municipal Code and was violated | The word "shall" makes the DTRN provision mandatory and Trackside violates it | DTRN provisions are guidelines (descriptive), not quantifiable standards; the City reasonably construed and applied them | Court agreed guidelines are not mandatory standards here; City’s discretionary consistency determination was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Trackside satisfied statutory requirements for SCEA use (PRC §21155.1/.2) | Trackside failed to meet section 21155.1 (no significant historical impacts) and thus cannot use SCEA | Section 21155.1 pertains to exemption from review, not to using SCEA; appellant’s §21155.2 argument was raised late and not developed | Court: §21155.1 issue irrelevant to SCEA use; appellant’s §21155.2 challenge not adequately presented/waived and not addressed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council, 200 Cal.App.4th 1552 (2011) (party challenging general plan consistency bears burden to show the determination was unreasonable)
- Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal.App.4th 704 (1994) (city general‑plan consistency finding has strong presumption of regularity and is overturned only for abuse of discretion)
- Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Bd. of Sup’rs, 62 Cal.App.4th 1332 (1998) (distinguishes amorphous policy conflicts from clear, mandatory plan provisions)
- San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco, 102 Cal.App.4th 656 (2002) (legislative body that adopted general plan has primary competence to interpret and balance plan policies)
- West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 198 Cal.App.4th 1506 (2011) (appellate court applies independent judgment but reviews consistency under substantial‑evidence/abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento, 37 Cal.App.5th 698 (2019) (discusses use of SCEA as a streamlined CEQA review for qualifying transit‑priority projects)
- In re Marriage of Arceneaux, 51 Cal.3d 1130 (1990) (parties must request rulings/corrections to tentative decisions to preserve issues for appeal)
- Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville, 157 Cal.App.4th 885 (2007) (failure to raise defects in a tentative decision forfeits appellate review)
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99 (2001) (courts give deference to local agency determinations applying land‑use policies)