The notoriously slow-growth City of Davis has reached a legal settlement over the controversial Palomino Place project, agreeing to process the project as a builder’s remedy project instead of taking it to a vote, which would be required under the city’s Measure J voter requirement.
The Palomino Place proposal originally consisted of 165 housing units, including 33 affordable units, on property currently designated by the general plan for agricultural use.
The settlement agreement would not quite treat the project as a purely builder’s remedy application, which would require City Council approval without discretionary consideration. Rather, according to the settlement agreement, the developer will increase its commitment for affordable housing to 25% of the project (45 units), while the city promises to process the project quickly, produce an environmental impact report, and act on the project by the end of 2024. The developer agreed to consider mitigations under the California Environmental Quality Act. The project would not go to a vote as would ordinarily be required under Davis’s Measure J.
In the lawsuit filed last, the Palomino Place developer, J. David Taormino, argued that the city’s delays amounted to a denial of the project, blowing processes and deadlines required under the Housing Accountability Act, the Permit Streamlining Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act. According to the lawsuit, the city’s community development director deemed the application complete in August 2022 and began the process of securing a CEQA consultant but that process has not moved forward. “Despite Petitioners' numerous requests and repeated false starts, the City has taken no formal steps to advance the residential development project since August 19, 2022,” the lawsuit said. (For previous CP&DR coverage of the lawsuit, look here.)
The legal settlement claims that the city now has an environmental consultant under contract to conduct the EIR.
“After carefully reviewing state law and conferring with the city attorney, it became clear that this project qualified as a Builder’s Remedy project,” Davis Mayor Josh Chapman told the Davis Enterprise. “This settlement will save on litigation costs for the city, provide more affordable housing units for the community and resume the long awaited process for the Palomino Place project.”
In the underlying lawsuit, Taormino detailed the back-and-forth between Davis and HCD over housing element compliance, providing a timeline showing that between 2021 and 2023, HCD rejected the city’s housing element three times.
It originally appeared as though Davis would argue that the city, not HCD, is the ultimate arbiter of housing element compliance. This is the argument being made by La Cañada Flintridge in a similar pending case in which the city argued its own approval of the housing element resulted in compliance and HCD does not have the legal power to determine compliance. (For the rundown on the La Cañada Flintridge case, check out the string of links contained in CP&DR’s coverage of the city’s recent reply to the developer’s builder’s remedy lawsuit here.)
