HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Correspondence Received as of 11:00 a.m. on December 13, 2022Planning Commission
Correspondence received as of 11:00 a.m. on December 13, 2022
From: Bruce Fitch <brucef1940@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 1:18 PM
To: David Crompton <DCrompton@danville.ca.gov>
Subject: Danville Housing Element / Proposal
***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am Bruce Fitch, resident of Danville since 1981, and am invited to your Public Hearing
on Housing - which I will not be attending. But I do have a suggestion for your
consideration.
Since you have already identified potential sites, I assume you already have a plan in
mind.
I propose an alternative view of the housing challenges faced in Danville and California.
I (age 83) am an advocate for expanding Senior Housing in Danville (and other CC
locations). But with a twist. Ask this question. Why do people move to
Danville? Although there are several reasons, the number one reason is the quality of the
SRV School System.
Why do we old folks remain in SFD homes beyond the time of life when they are
needed? Desire to remain in the Danville area and not having alternative housing options
vs staying in our existing homes.
My proposal is that the Danville Housing Authority (name?) assume management of SFD
homes that seniors vacate (moving to senior housing) and rent these homes to school age
families. House remains owned by senior (or their family), rent (set my town of Danville -
eg subsidized) paid to senior which pays for his/her rent at senior residence. Appreciation
of house value is shared between owner (senior / or family of senior) and renter with Town
of Danville receiving fee for rental management and recover house maintaining costs from
the appreciation value or annually out of rent.
Details to be determined. If interested, I can be reached at 925.984.3983
Bruce Fitch 655 St George Rd, Danville.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michelle Barta <michellebarta@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 6:22 PM
To: Development Services <DevServ@danville.ca.gov>
Cc: Darja and Jiri Barta <bartam@aol.com>
Subject: Public Record comments to proposed housing development at 939 El Pintado Road
***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello
My family was wondering how to submit comments to "the Town" for this meeting in order to be
on public record.
https://danville-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&event_id=2173
Correspondence submitted to the Town for this meeting is a public record.
We'd like to make the deadline, so please forward if you can on our behalf or let us know where
to send! Much appreciated!
We strongly oppose demolishing the Montessori School at 939 El Pintado Road (site D) and
considering it as a possible site for a housing development. There is a shortage of
preschool/kindergarten schools in the Danville/ Alamo area. Kids have to be put on a waiting list
for enrollment. Parents are subjected to lotteries to be able to place their young children in
school.
This site is a bad choice for many other reasons: Loss of water pressure to surrounding houses,
soil erosion, increased traffic, noise from further housing units, loss of walking the El Pintado loop,
and wildlife with less area to live.
There is opposition to this huge change to our neighborhood. Please drop site D from your
proposal.
Thank you,
Barta Family
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Burke <kevin@burke.dev>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:44 AM
To: David Crompton <DCrompton@danville.ca.gov>; Diane Friedmann <DFriedmann@danville.ca.gov>;
John Minot <jminot@gmail.com>; ArmandDomalewski@gmail.com; info <info@eastbayforeveryone.org>;
Archie Bowles <abowles@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Combs <rcombs@danville.ca.gov>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@danville.ca.gov>; Mary Grace Houlihan <mhoulihan@danville.ca.gov>; Lou Palandrani
<lpalandrani@danville.ca.gov>; Paul Radich <pradich@danville.ca.gov>; Chris Trujillo
<ctrujillo@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov>
Subject: Comment from East Bay for Everyone on Planning Commission item 6.1
***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi all,
Please find attached a letter from East Bay for Everyone. We'd be happy to discuss anything in the letter or
any questions you have about the Housing Element process.
Based on what we've seen from other cities in Southern California, our guess would be that this draft will
also be rejected by HCD.
I am personally confident enough in that outcome that I would be willing to bet any interested parties
$100 to the charity of your choice, that it will be rejected by HCD. So you have the opportunity to win a lot
of money from me for the charity of your choice.
Thanks very much,
Kevin
Diane Friedmann - dfriedmann@danville.ca.gov
Town of Danville
500 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
December 12, 2022
Honorable Members of the Danville Planning Commission:
East Bay for Everyone is a network of people fighting for the future of housing, transit, tenant
rights, and long-term planning in the East Bay. We are glad the second Draft Housing Element
addresses some issues in our letter and HCD's determination letter. We are concerned that many
other points go unaddressed and that this draft will also be rejected by HCD.
We will likely have a longer letter in time for the Friday deadline but wanted to send what we have.
Development Standards
The proposed development standards of 0.8 FAR, 35 DUA, three stories maximum, and 2 parking
spaces per 2 bedroom apartment are prohibitive, and will make it difficult to add multifamily
housing. This low density standard will lead to a less attractive town that is dominated by surface
parking lots.
Goal 7.1.c specifically says a goal is to provide larger units for families, and page 396 says Danville
has taken actions to support the development of larger units. However, 0.8 FAR (34k sq ft per acre)
and 35 DUA means the maximum size of each apartment is 995 square feet, and that assumes
underground parking and zero space for stairs, hallways, elevators etc (a more likely figure is 845
square feet each). It is very challenging to put three bedrooms in a space that small, which means
Danville's standards preclude the development of larger apartments.
Danville may believe that developers will choose to use the state density bonus to waive height,
parking or FAR rules. However, not all developers will choose to use state programs. Low-income
housing developers may depend on town or county funds, or have use-it-or-lose-it deadlines that
make it impossible for them to use state laws and risk the town's ire. These developers may end up
building more parking spaces (and less housing) than they preferred to do otherwise.
East Bay for Everyone - info@eastbayforeveryone.org
2
Lafayette's downtown is zoned for 35 DUA, has less restrictive FAR rules, and smaller parking
minimums. They are rezoning their downtown to 58 DUA partly at the request of HCD in
recognition that 35 DUA does not pencil right now.
60 DUA, six stories, and unlimited FAR on a smaller number of more feasible sites would be
preferable to 35 DUA on a wider range of less feasible sites.
Parking Minimums
Off-street parking minimums drive up the cost of new development, make it more difficult to
include ground floor retail, reduce the demand for pedestrian and bike improvements, and
increase the demand for parking at destinations elsewhere in the Town. Two spaces for each two
bedroom apartment will attract residents who prefer to have two cars (or induce those who have
one to buy a second) instead of residents who prefer to bike their kids to school or to get groceries.
Danville's development standards of 0.8 FAR and three stories maximum may require developers
to dig underground, which dramatically increases cost. Condo buyers must also purchase two
parking spaces which adds six figures to the purchase price.
The draft Housing Element claims parking minimums are not a constraint on development because
recent projects have chosen to build exactly the minimum required by the zoning code. At best this
is an extremely unlikely coincidence.
Lower parking minimums to 1 space per apartment with no guest parking; developers can always
choose to build it anyway if they think demand is there.
Constraints
We are concerned about the number of studies that are required for downtown multifamily
development, and that these present a constraint on development that has not been analyzed by
Danville. These include some that may already be standard - stormwater control plans - but also
novel-seeming ones like environmental noise studies, biological assessment studies, GHG and
pollutant studies, which may be redundant in infill areas and stack up costs gratuitously.
In particular, the study area of traffic/parking demand is influenced by policies that Danville has
control over, including mandatory parking minimums, the presence or absence of protected bike
lanes and pedestrian facilities, residential bike storage, and subsidies for e-bikes, which are
accelerating. Requiring a study projecting parking demand out to 2040, and building toward that
study, will act as a self-fulfilling prophecy of increasing car dependence and VMT. The suggested
mitigations are also extremely expensive: signalizing intersections is reported to cost up to
$350,000 in Bay Area cities.
East Bay for Everyone - info@eastbayforeveryone.org
3
HCD's letter says "The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the
cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities and cost and supply of
housing." The draft element does not analyze these added studies as constraints.
Sites Inventory
While some progress has been made on the Sites Inventory, a number of deficient sites are still
included.1 The evidence given that Fountainhead Montessori will be redeveloped into apartments
is "there is multifamily across the street" which does not meet HCD's threshold for demonstrating
the use will discontinue during the planning period. When we called Fountainhead Montessori
they said they are full for the fall semester and plan to continue operating a daycare on the site for
the foreseeable future.
When we reached out to SRVUSD they told us plainly they had no plans to build teacher housing
at Old Orchard Road. Danville cannot include this site without additional evidence (sources of
funding, timeline for an RFP, board meetings, land use master plan with timelines).
Similarly, the only evidence supporting the development of 315/319 Diablo Road is "similar
pattern of development" to nearby parcels, whereas we have a letter from the property owner
telling us they have no intention to redevelop this parcel. Danville cannot include this site in the
Sites Inventory.
The note in Table A justifying inclusion of 17 Hilfred Way says only, "REMOVE"; we're less
concerned that 1 home may not be developed here, as that the Sites Inventory table was not fully
vetted before the release of the draft.
We are confused to see the development at Ilo Lane and Charles Lane has been struck from the
Sites Inventory in Table B, but is still presented as a Housing Opportunity Site. We also note this
parcel has "many owners," not just the church, which will make it more difficult for the church to
achieve the presumed densities.
We are still evaluating the updated Sites Inventory and will send additional thoughts by Friday.
Fair Housing
We are glad to see some single-family-mandated zones rezoned for multifamily housing, but
concerned that the only parcels chosen for this rezoning are directly next to the 680 freeway.
Freeway pollution is strongly associated with chronic diseases such as asthma, and loud traffic
noise with reduced sleep quality and even dementia. Herding multifamily areas closest to
freeways is an act of environmental injustice, and does not further fair housing.
Consider permitting fourplexes within the same building envelope that Danville currently permits
single family homes; i.e., if current standards allow a 5,000 square-foot mansion, four 1250 square
1Further, St. Isidore's School is spelled incorrectly throughout the draft document. East Bay for Everyone - info@eastbayforeveryone.org
foot homes should also be legal. We would welcome this zoning within one mile of each of
Danville's commercial centers. Danville can achieve this without an EIR thanks to Senate Bill 10.
Zoning/Land Use Subjectivity
The draft rezone opportunity sites, outside the DBD, continue to be to assigned P-1 (PUD)
zoning alongside a new multifamily land use designation in the general plan (MF-HD). While the
latest draft does add some density and envelope standards to MF-HD, the city code on P-1
continues to suggest the Town can impose virtually any objective standards it deems
appropriate. The element itself emphasizes this power: "P-1 zoning districts are unique as they
allow for
customized development standards."
HCD's letter stated that "the Planned Development process should be evaluated as a potential
constraint, including whether the process is required, presence or lack of fixed development standards"
and we do not find evidence this evaluation occurred in the second draft.2
It is possible developers will be able to use the Housing Accountability Act to limit the Town's
authority to reject or shrink proposals compliant with MF-HD and not P-1, but the hazy
language of P-1 - not to mention the housing-averseness it advertises - would still deter many
developers.
The proposed new DBD-13 zoning designation for opportunity sites within downtown also
introduce a range of new requirements, some not analyzed for possible constraint (minimum
amounts of ground floor commercial space that could be as much as 20% of floor area; complex
height variations), some fully subjective ("compatibility," "harmony," ""integrate with
surrounding development", etc.)
The 2,500 members of East Bay for Everyone
2 We read the entire Constraints section, scanned the rest of the document, and searched for both
"planned development" and "planned unit development" in the draft. East Bay for Everyone - info@eastbayforeveryone.org
From: Vince Maestri Jr. <vmj@frank-lin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 10:34 AM
To: Development Services <DevServ@danville.ca.gov>
Subject: Concerns regarding Housing Opportunity Site D for todays Danville planning Commission
***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Administrator,
Both my family and our neighborhood have concerns regarding the rezoning possibility brought to our
attention recently, in particular: housing opportunity Site D: 939 El Pintado Rd. Assessor Parcel # 200-
020-010
We disagree this site can be changed to an opportunity site for the 2031 Housing Element, High Density
Multi-Family Use for multiple reasons:
1. As written in the Draft Danville 2023-2031 Housing Element: It is further noted that the
cited acreage in and earlier draft of the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element and
in the webpage-hosted Housing Site Suggestion Site were incorrect. The cited acreage of 1.7 acres did not account for 40%+/- of the site that appears to be too steep to be readily redeveloped with a high density
multiple family project.
2. The street is already narrow and there is inadequate space to build even a sidewalk to connect the neighborhood to downtown; Congestion concerns, this is a major walking, running, biking path for the local high school track teams and neighborhood community, therefore, additional cars will make this intersection (lowest point connecting two
hillsides - 680-fwy entrance, El Pintado Rd, El Rio Rd) a major hazard and extremely
dangerous!! 3. There are 9 houses that have direct line of sight and view this parcel as a Scenic Hillside. 4. There are multiple heritage Oak Trees and large Redwood trees within that parcel that drown out some of the freeway noise and should be protected.
Thank you,
Vince Maestri
Vincent R. Maestri Jr.
Executive Vice President Sales & Marketing
Frank-Lin Distillers Products, Ltd.
Office: 800.922.9363 ext. 5524 | Direct: 408.457.5524 | Fax: 408.649.5031
Email: vmj@frank-lin.com | Website: www.frank-lin.com