HomeMy WebLinkAbout004-2023 with vote ADDENDUMSDocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
RESOLUTION 4-2023
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF DANVILLE
CERTIFYING A FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, REPEALING THE 2013-2022 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN, APPROVING THE TOWN'S 2023-2031 HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN GPA22-0001 AND APPROVING LAND
USE, TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS GPA22-0002
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has found that "California has a housing
supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to
effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians,
robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic
opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and
undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives" (Gov. Code Section
65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature has further found that "Among the consequences of those
actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of
housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced
mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration" (Gov.
Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330)
which states that "In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units
per capita... California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep
up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes
to be built over seven years;" and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.)
requires that the Town Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period
2023-2031 to accommodate the Town of Danville's regional housing need allocation
(RHNA) of 2,241 housing units, comprised of 652 very -low units, 376 low-income
units, 338 moderate -income units, and 875 above moderate -income units; and
WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, the Town of Danville has
prepared Housing Element 2023-2031 in compliance with State Housing Element Law
and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the Town's
RHNA; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., adoption of the
Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment (GPA22-0001); and
WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Housing Element update replaces in its entirety the Town's
2013-2022 Housing Element of the General Plan; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
WHEREAS, the proposed update to the Housing Element is not a General Plan update
that is comprehensive in nature in that it is not titled as such and does not, except where
specifically directed, substantially change or re -adopt the text and maps of the existing
elements of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65352 - 65352.5 the Town
mailed a public notice to all California Native American tribes provided by the Native
American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed; and
WHEREAS, the Town received a request for consultation from the Wilton Rancheria
and the Confederated Villages of Lisjan; and
WHEREAS, the Town met with representatives of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan
on September 7, 2022; and
WHEREAS, representatives from Wilton Rancheria did not respond to the Town's
attempts to coordinate a consultation meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Town conducted extensive community outreach over the last 20
months, including delivering 31 informational presentations and workshops, 51 social
media posts, issuing 15 press releases, contributing content to 9 news media articles,
9 website postings, as well as producing 5 print and 3 online Danville newsletter
articles; and
WHEREAS, in April 2022, the Town released a Housing Site Suggestion Map online
tool and community members dropped 281 'pins' (or suggestions) on 99 separate sites
to consider for housing development. Most of the recommended sites were located
along the I-680 corridor and major roadways such as San Ramon Valley Boulevard
and Camino Tassajara. The sites that met State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) criteria were featured on the next interactive tool;
and
WHEREAS, in July 2022, the Town released a Housing Plan Simulation online tool
and the community was invited back to create their version of a housing element that
achieves the minimum 2,241 -unit target mandated by the State of California. In this
exercise, members of the public were able to add as many housing units as they
deemed appropriate (density) to the sites identified by the previous exercise and by
prior housing elements; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on July 1, 2022
the Town posted the draft Housing Element and requested public comment for a 30 -
day review period; and
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022 the draft Housing Element was submitted to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development HCD for a 90 -day public
review period; and after responding to public comments, the Town submitted the
draft Housing Element to HCD for its review; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2022, the Town received a formal comment letter from
HCD regarding the adequacy of the draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Town revised the draft Housing Element to reflect and address
feedback received during the 30 -day local public review period and addressed each of
HCD's specific comments contained within the November 10, 2022, letter; and
WHEREAS, proposed General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002 amends the text and land use
maps contained within the Town's 2030 General Plan to add a new General Plan Land Use
Designation termed Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special (30-35 units per acre)
and a new General Plan Land Use Designation termed Downtown Business District 13;
Residential Multifamily - High - Density Special (30-35 units per acre) and includes
associated descriptive narrative, and amends Special Concern Area language contained
within the 2030 General Plan to align with the new land use designations where needed for
internal consistency; and
WHEREAS, proposed General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002 also amends the Danville
2030 General Plan Land Use Map to change Land Use Designations for specific properties
located outside of the Downtown Danville Land Use Districts from various current Land
Use Designations to the Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special Land Use
Designation requiring a residential land use density of 30-35 units per acre; and
WHEREAS, proposed General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002 also amends the Danville
2030 General Plan Land Use Map to change Land Use Designations for specific properties
located within the Town's Downtown Land Use Districts from various current Land Use
Designations to District 13, Residential - Multiple Family - High Density Special Land
Use Designation allowing a residential land use density of 30-35 units per acre; and
WHEREAS, a proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA22-0001) would amend the
Town's Municipal Code (Section 32-45), Downtown Business District, to add a new
Downtown Business District 13; Residential Multifamily High Density Special zoning
district (30-35 units per acre) and establish land use, development standards, and
submittal requirements to guide the future development of each site (Danville Ordinance
No. 2023-01); and
WHEREAS, proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA22-0001) would also amend the
Town's Municipal Code adding a new section 32-20.3 adding a new zoning district M-35;
Multifamily Residential Residencial District (30-35 units per acre) and establishing land
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
use, development standards, and submittal requirements to guide the future
development of each site (Danville Ordinance No. 2023-02); and
WHEREAS, a proposed Rezoning request (RZ22-001) would rezone specific properties
proposed for General Plan Land Use Amendments outside of the downtown Danville to M-
35; Multiple Family Residential District and would rezone specific properties within the
Town's Downtown Land Use Districts to DBD Area 13; Multifamily Residential High
Density Special District establishing land use, development standard, and submittal
requirements to guide the future development of each site (Danville Ordinance No. 2023-
03); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December
13, 2022, as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, notification regarding the Planning Commission public hearing was
published in a newspaper of general circulation. Property owners whose property is on
the Housing Opportunity Sites list received an owner -specific letter. A push notification
was sent to all subscribers of the Housing Element page on the Danville Town Talks online
platform. Lastly, 16,000 public hearing postcards were printed and mailed to all addresses
within the Town of Danville; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending the Planning Commission
recommend the Town Council approve the requests; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all information related to the project,
including public testimony received in writing and presented orally; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the Danville Planning Commission, in its
independent judgment and after fully considering all alternatives, recommended Town
Council approval of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element and related General Plan
Amendments, Rezoning, and Zoning Text Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Danville Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January
17, 2023, as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, notification regarding the Town Council public hearing was published in a
newspaper of general circulation. Owners of properties that are under consideration to
received General Plan Land Use Amendments received a notification of the public hearing.
A push notification was sent to all subscribers of the Housing Element page on the
Danville Town Talks online platform. Lastly, 16,000 public hearing postcards were printed
and mailed to all addresses within the Town of Danville; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending the Town Council approve the
requests; and
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
WHEREAS, the Town Council considered all information related to the project, including
public testimony received in writing and presented orally; and
WHEREAS, based on the totality of the record and evidence described and referenced in this
Resolution, the Danville Town Council finds that the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element
is consistent with the requirement of State Housing Element Law and the associated
General Plan Amendments, Rezonings, and Zoning Text Amendments are consistent with
the purposes of the General Plan and Municipal Code and will provide adequate sites with
corresponding density to meet the Town's RHNA allocation, adopting State mandated
and locally desired programs to implement the Housing Element effectively; and
WHEREAS, the Town is the lead agency for the project, and has prepared a Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) for the project pursuant to and in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq., "CEQA") and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Title 14, Cal.
Code of Regs., Section 15000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires that, in connection with the approval of a project for which
an EIR has been prepared which identifies one or more significant environmental effects,
the decision-making agency make certain findings regarding those effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Danville Town Council at the meeting
held on January 17, 2023, the following:
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR)
1. That the above recitals are true and correct; and
2. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("MMRP") has been prepared to
meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. (Attachment 6 of
this Resolution). This MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with project
mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the FPEIR for the project; and
3. The Town Council was presented with, and has independently reviewed and
analyzed, the FPEIR and other information in the record and has considered the
information contained therein prior to acting upon or approving the project, and
has found that the FPEIR represents the independent judgment of the Town of
Danville as lead agency under CEQA for the project; and
4. The Town Council finds and recognizes that the FPEIR contains additions,
clarifications, modifications, and other information in its responses to comments on
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
the DPEIR and also incorporates information obtained by the Town of Danville
since the DPEIR was issued and circulated for public review. The Town Council
does hereby find and determine that such changes and additional information are
not significant new information, as that term is defined under the provisions of
CEQA, from that information disclosed in the FPEIR because such changes and
additional information do not indicate that any new significant environmental
impacts not already evaluated would result from the project and they do not reflect
a substantial increase in severity of any environmental impact; no feasible
mitigation measures considerably different from those previously analyzed in the
DPEIR have been proposed that would lessen significant environmental impacts of
the project. Accordingly, the Town Council hereby finds and determines that
recirculation of the DPEIR for further public review and comment is not warranted;
and
5. The Town Council does hereby make the following findings with respect to the
significant effects on the environment of such project, identified in the hereinbefore
mentioned FPEIR, with the stipulations that all information in these findings is
intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the FPEIR,
which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details supporting
these findings and which consists of, but is not limited to, the DFEIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, all testimony, documentary evidence and all
correspondence submitted to the Town of Danville in connection with the project,
and other documents relied upon or prepared by Town Staff or consultants related
to the project and this Resolution.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following findings, including impact statements, mitigation measures, findings and
facts in support of findings, are based on the full administrative record, including, but not
limited to, the FPEIR, which contains a fuller discussion of each issue.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact: Impact GHG-1.1: The mitigated service population emissions would be 3.31
MT CO2e/year, which would still exceed the threshold of 2.7 metric tons per
service population.
Mitigation: Refer to MM TRN-2.1 below.
Finding: Future residential development in Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6 would be required
to implement mitigation measures MM TRN-2.1, which would require
project -scale and community -scale measures to reduce residential VMT.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
These measures are expected to reduce VMT in these Sub Areas by 4.7 to 5.2
percent, resulting in a residential VMT of 18.8 per resident in Sub Area 1,
which is below the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident.
Implementation of the VMT mitigation strategies described above would
reduce residential VMT to 20.7 for Sub Area 4, 21.2 for Sub Area 5, and 22.0
for Sub Area 6, which would still exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0
VMT per resident, this constitutes a significant and unavoidable VMT
impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Growth
Management Program Implementation Guide outlines various VMT
mitigation measures, as well as their potential effectiveness (refer to Tale
3.17-4 of the Draft EIR). The Project's VMT was evaluated using the CCTA
model. CCTA's VMT mitigation measures would reduce residential VMT to
20.7 for Sub Areas 4, 21.2 for Sub Area 5, and 22.0 for Sub Area 6, which
would still exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident, this
constitutes a significant and unavoidable VMT impact.
Impact: Impact GHG-2.1: The use of natural gas within new residential development
allowed under the Housing Element Update would conflict with the GHG
reduction requirements by 2030.
Mitigation: MM GHG-2.1: A mitigation measure prohibiting new residential buildings
from including infrastructure to provide natural gas was identified as shown
below.
Development Standard:
New residential development shall not include natural gas infrastructure for use in
appliances and building heating.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM GHG-2.1, future development under the
Housing Element Update would be consistent with GHG reduction efforts by 2030 and
BAAQMD's fair share design elements for achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.
Finding: Implementation of MM GHG-2.1 would ensure future development under
the Housing Element Update is consistent with State GHG reduction
requirements and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Facts in Support of Finding: BAAQMD has determined that projects that do not include
natural gas would not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
energy usage and would be doing their fair share of implementing the goals
of carbon neutrality by 2045.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Impact:
Mitigation:
However, because of specific economic, legal, social, and/ or technological
considerations, the Town has chosen not to implement this mitigation
measure:
1. For several years now, the Town has regularly experienced electric
power outages during the summer and fall due to Public Safety Public
Shutoffs (PSPS).
2. The Town also experiences electrical power outages during winter
storms due to the fact that the vast majority of electric lines are above
ground.
3. The loss of electrical power can be detrimental to the health and safety of
residents as the loss of power effects heating and cooling, lighting,
cooking, refrigeration, hot water and other basic needs.
4. Given these current conditions, requiring these new homes to have only
electric power would present a greater safety issue than allowing gas and
electric and outweighs the benefits of GHG reduction.
5. Town is aware of upcoming restrictions on natural gas appliances and
furnaces currently being considered by Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and/ or the State of California and that these will be
fully implemented by the Town and the Town will consider additional
local measures to reduce GHG emissions in building.
Impact GHG-2.2: The Housing Element Update would increase VMT and
result in additional GHG emissions from vehicular travel.
MM GHG-2.2: The Town proposes to adopt the following development
standard to require compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements
in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 requirements.
Development Standard:
New housing developments shall comply with off-street electric vehicle requirements in
the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 requirements.
Finding: With implementation of mitigation measure MM-GHG-2.2, future
development under the Housing Element Update would be consistent with
GHG reduction efforts by 2030 and BAAQMD's fair share design elements
for achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.
Facts in Support of Finding: BAAQMD has determined that projects that comply with the
most recently adopted version of CalGreen Tier 2 requirements would not
result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage and would
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 8 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Impact:
Mitigation:
Finding:
be doing their fair share of implementing the goals of carbon neutrality by
2045.
Impact GHG-C: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact.
Refer to MM GHG-2.1 and MM GHG-2.2 above.
Future residential development in Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6 would be required
to implement mitigation measures MM TRN-2.1, which would require
project -scale and community -scale measures to reduce residential VMT.
These measures are expected to reduce VMT in these Sub Areas by 4.7 to 5.2
percent, resulting in a residential VMT of 18.8 per resident in Sub Area 1,
which is below the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident.
Implementation of the VMT mitigation strategies described above would
reduce residential VMT to 20.7 for Sub Area 4, 21.2 for Sub Area 5, and 22.0
for Sub Area 6, which would still exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0
VMT per resident, this constitutes a significant and unavoidable VMT
impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Growth
Management Program Implementation Guide outlines various VMT
mitigation measures, as well as their potential effectiveness (refer to Tale
3.17-4 of the Draft EIR). The Project's VMT was evaluated using the CCTA
model. CCTA's VMT mitigation measures would reduce residential VMT to
20.7 for Sub Areas 4, 21.2 for Sub Area 5, and 22.0 for Sub Area 6, which
would still exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident, this
constitutes a significant and unavoidable VMT impact.
Noise
Impact: Impact NOI-1.1: Future housing development under the Housing Element
Update could result in temporary construction noise level increases above
ambient conditions.
Mitigation: Implementation of General Plan Policy 27.13, which requires that noise
reduction measures be implemented during all phases of construction,
would minimize the exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise
levels. The Town's following standard noise reduction measures would be
required for all future development under the Housing Element Update.
Prior to any grading or other construction activities, the applicant
shall develop a construction mitigation plan in close coordination
with the Town of Danville to minimize noise disturbance. The
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 9 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
following conditions shall be incorporated into the building
contractor specifications:
Muffle and maintain all equipment used on site. All internal
combustion engine driven equipment shall be fitted with mufflers,
which are in good condition. Good mufflers shall result in non -impact
tools generating a maximum noise level of 80 dB when measured at a
distance of 50 feet.
Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise
sources where technology exists.
Locate stationary noise -generating equipment as far as possible from
sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a
construction project area.
Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
Prohibit audible construction workers' radios on adjoining
properties.
Restrict noise -generating activities at the construction site or in areas
adjacent to the construction site to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Do not allow machinery to be cleaned or serviced past 6:00 p.m. or
prior to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday.
Limit the allowable hours for the delivery of materials or equipment
to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any
purpose to Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
The allowable hours for delivery of materials and equipment to the
site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose shall
be further limited to avoid the area's peak morning and afternoon
weekday school commute hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
to 4:00 p.m.
Do not allow any outdoor construction or construction -related
activities at the project site on weekends and holidays. Indoor
construction activities may be allowed based on review/ approval of
the Town.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 10 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Allowable construction hours shall be posted clearly on a sign at each
construction site.
Designate a Disturbance Coordinator for each of the clustered
development sites for the duration of the Phase 1 (site work) and for
each home site during the Phase 2 (home building) construction.
Because each home would be constructed individually and would
have its own building permit, a Disturbance Coordinator should be
designated during the construction of each home. The requirement
for a Disturbance Coordinator for each home site should be
incorporated in the CCRs of the development, such that responsibility
of the Property Owners' Association and/ or home builder to
designate this Disturbance Coordinator for each lot for the duration
of construction until full site buildout. The Disturbance Coordinator
shall conduct the following: receive and act on complaints about
construction disturbances during infrastructure installation,
landslide repair, road building, residential construction, and other
construction activities; determine the cause(s) and implement
remedial measures as necessary to alleviate significant problems;
clearly post his/her name and phone number(s) on a sign at each
clustered development and home building site; and, notify area
residents of construction activities, schedules, and impacts.
Finding: Implementation of Town's standard noise reduction measures would reduce
construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of Town's standard noise reduction
measures would ensure that future development under the Housing
Element Update develop a construction mitigation plan to reduce noise
during all phases of construction, consistent with General Plan Policy 27.13.
Transportation
Impact: Impact TRN-2.1: Residential development in Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6 would
exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident resulting in a
significant impact.
Mitigation: MM TRN-2.1: The Town proposes to adopt the following development
standard to require future development on Housing Element Update sites in
Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6 incorporate project -scale and community -scale
measures to reduce residential VMT to the maximum extent possible.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 11 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Development Standard:
Implement a comprehensive Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program
that includes the following elements:
• Ride -sharing program
• Subsidize or discount transit passes
• Price and manage parking
Applicants shall coordinate with the Town and Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) to implement the following community -scale strategies:
Improve the pedestrian network
Increase transit service frequent
Implement neighborhood or community -wide car -sharing programs
Finding: Implementation of MM TRN-2.1, would be able to reduce VMT by up to 5.2
percent, resulting in a residential VMT of 18.8 per resident in Sub Area 1,
which is below the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident.
Implementation of the VMT mitigation strategies described above would
reduce residential VMT to 20.7 for Sub Areas 4, 21.2 for Sub Area 5, and 22.0
for Sub Area 6, which would still exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0
VMT per resident, this constitutes a significant and unavoidable VMT
impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Growth
Management Program Implementation Guide outlines various VMT
mitigation measures, as well as their potential effectiveness (refer to Tale
3.17-4 of the Draft EIR). The Project's VMT was evaluated using the CCTA
model. CCTA's VMT mitigation measures would reduce residential VMT to
20.7 for Sub Areas 4, 21.2 for Sub Area 5, and 22.0 for Sub Area 6, which
would still exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident, this
constitutes a significant and unavoidable VMT impact.
Impact: Impact TRN-C: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively significant transportation impact.
The discussion of VMT impacts associated with the Project under Impact
TRN-2 is inherently a cumulative impact analysis as it compares the Project
to the Town -wide VMT threshold. As detailed under Impact TRN-2, the
addition of Project -generated VMT within the Town from Sub Areas 1, 4, 5,
and 6 would exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident
resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of MM TRN-2.1 would
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 12 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
reduce VMT generated in Sub Area 1 to below the Town -wide VMT
threshold of 19.0 per resident. Implementation of MM TRN-2.1 would
reduce VMT in Sub Areas 4, 5, and 6 by a maximum of 5.2 percent. In order
to reduce VMT below the Town -wide threshold, Sub Areas 4, 5, and 6 would
need 13, 15, and 18 percent VMT reductions, respectively. Therefore, even
with implementation of MM TRN-2.1, residential VMT per resident would
exceed the Town's significance threshold of 19.0. Therefore, the Project's
contribution to substantial effects related to VMT would be cumulatively
considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation: Refer to MM TRN-2.1.
Finding: Implementation of MM TRN-2.1, would be able to reduce VMT by up to 5.2
percent, resulting in a residential VMT of 18.8 per resident in Sub Area 1,
which is below the Town -wide threshold of 19.0 VMT per resident.
Implementation of the VMT mitigation strategies described above would
reduce residential VMT to 20.7 for Sub Areas 4, 21.2 for Sub Area 5, and 22.0
for Sub Area 6, which would still exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0
VMT per resident, this constitutes a significant and unavoidable VMT
impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: CCTA Growth Management Program Implementation
Guide outlines various VMT mitigation measures, as well as their potential
effectiveness (refer to Tale 3.17-4 of the Draft EIR). The Project's VMT was
evaluated using the CCTA model. CCTA's VMT mitigation measures would
reduce residential VMT to 20.7 for Sub Areas 4, 21.2 for Sub Area 5, and 22.0
for Sub Area 6, which would still exceed the Town -wide threshold of 19.0
VMT per resident, this constitutes a significant and unavoidable VMT
impact.
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact: Impact UTL-2.1: The Project water demand would exceed water projections
in East Bay Municipal Utility District's adopted 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan.
Mitigation: No feasible mitigation.
Finding: Future housing development under the Housing Element Update would be
subject to the same drought restrictions that apply to all District customers
during multi-year droughts. Furthermore, General Plan Policy 20.02 would
ensure that future development approvals are reviewed to ensure adequate
water supply is available to serve the proposed development. In addition,
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 13 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
there are several General Plan policies that promote efficient water use by
encouraging drought tolerant landscaping, use of water efficient plumbing
fixtures, use or reclaimed water (Policies 31.01 and 31.02). However, the
Project's water demand would still exceed the 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) projections, this constitutes a significant and
unavoidable impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: As documented in Table 3.19-1 of the Draft EIR, projected
population growth associated with the Housing Element Update would
exceed the Association of Bay Area Government's 2040 growth projections
by 2,389 households. Based on a multi -family water use demand of 120
gallons per day, the additional households would generate approximately
286,680 gallons per day beyond what was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
An EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of
the project, which would feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the
project. While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of
the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the basic objectives is considered
relevant to their consideration. The objectives for the Project are as follows:
• Goal 1: Develop infrastructure through funding mechanisms that support the
demands of current and future residents, housing, commercial, and retail
development.
• Goal 2: Promote a vibrant commercial and cultural downtown area that meets the
needs of residents and visitors and encourages a mix of retail, commercial, and
residential building through zoning.
• Goal 3: Promote environmental responsibility, long-term sustainability, and
adaptability in residential development and related infrastructure to minimize
impacts to global climate change.
• Goal 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, age,
gender, sexual orientation, marital status, ability, or national origin.
• Goal 5: Affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that
overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.
• Goal 6: Promote the expansion of housing throughout the Town to accommodate a
variety of housing types that are attractive and affordable to potential renters and
home buyers at a wide range of income levels.
• Goal 7: Promote access to affordable housing opportunities for persons with special
housing needs such as seniors, developmentally disabled, large households, and
very low to moderate income households.
• Goal 8: Facilitate a mix of housing types with density and height limitations
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 14 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
appropriate for the subject neighborhood.
• Goal 9: Promote a wide variety of housing types that balance valued aspects of the
existing community character, including quality design, scale, and preservation of
natural features.
• Goal 10: Adopt and implement a Housing Element that complies with State Law.
The Town Council of Danville may reject the alternative if it is determined that specific
considerations make the alternative infeasible. Pursuant to California Public Resources
Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 et seq., the Town Council of
Danville adopts and makes the following findings with respect to the alternatives
identified in the Final EIR, as described below.
No Project Alternative
Description: Under the No Project Alternative, the Town would continue to implement
the adopted 2014-2022 Housing Element as adopted in the 2030 General
Plan. The Housing Element goals, policies, and programs as well as the Land
Use Map and Zoning Code would not be updated to address the Town's
housing needs under this alternative. State Housing law requires that all
cities within the nine Bay Area counties (including each county) complete
the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update by January 2023. ABAG has
identified a RHNA allocation of 2,241 units for the Town.
Under this alternative, the Town would continue to develop under the
existing General Plan and Housing Element. The Town would be non-
compliant with State Housing law and could face penalties for non-
compliance. No new significant environmental impacts or an increased
severity of environmental impacts identified in the General Plan EIR would
occur under this alternative because it would retain the current General Plan
land use designations and policy provisions.
Comparison to the Project: Under this alternative, the Town would continue
to develop under the existing General Plan and Housing Element.
Residential development in the Town would continue to have significant
VMT impacts, if located in a high VMT area. GHG emissions would be
reduced overall given the amount of development allowed under the current
General Plan but may exceed 2030 emissions thresholds on a per capita basis
depending on the location of the development sites. Under this alternative,
the proposed 2,577 residential units would not be constructed, and projected
water demand would not exceed projections in the adopted 2020 UWMP.
Finding: The No Project Alternative would achieve some of the Project objectives.
Under this alternative, the Town would continue to develop under the
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 15 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
existing General Plan and Housing Element. The Town would not expand
housing opportunities (Goal 6) to the same extent as the Project. In addition,
this Alternative would only partially satisfy Goals 7 through 9. The Town
would be non-compliant with state housing law (Goal 10) and could face
penalties for non-compliance.
The No Project Alternative would create specific legal and economic
problems for the Town if adopted. Legally, state housing law allows the
State of California and/ or third parties to sue the Town to seek court-
ordered compliance with the housing element law. Such lawsuits can lead
to all loss of local discretion and control over review of proposed
developments. Even without litigation, provisions of the Housing
Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) allows certain
affordable housing projects to avoid local zoning when the housing element
does not substantially comply with state law (the so-called "builder's
remedy").
Adoption of the No Project Alternative would also lead to specific economic
problems for the Town. As mentioned above, failure to adopt a conforming
housing element can, and likely will, lead to litigation against the Town. In
addition to loss of local control, such a lawsuit can lead to significant
financial penalties imposed by the state, in addition to the expense of
defending any such lawsuits.
Reduced VMT Alternative
Description: Under The Reduced VMT Alternative, the Town would adopt a Housing
Element Update that only included sites in Sub Areas 2, 3, 7 and 8. All other
aspects of the Housing Element Update would remain the same.
Comparison to the Project: As discussed in Section 3.17 Transportation of
the Draft EIR, residential development in Sub Areas 2, 3, 7 and 8 would
generate VMT below the Town -wide residential VMT threshold and VMT
impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Reduced VMT
Alternative would avoid a significant and unavoidable VMT impact. Given
the reduction in VMT per capita under this alternative, GHG emissions per
capita would also be reduced. Under this alternative, the proposed 2,577
residential units would still be constructed in Sub Areas 2, 3, 7 and 8, and
projected water demand would exceed projections in the adopted 2020
UWMP. This alternative would result in the same significant and avoidable
water supply impact.
Finding: The Reduced VMT alternative would meet all the stated Project objectives.
Under this Alternative, the Town would accommodate 2,577 residential
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 16 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
units consistent with the RHNA target set by ABAG.
Adoption of the Reduced VMT alternative would require all the units to be
placed on fewer acres, requiring higher densities and, resulting in taller and
more massive buildings within the Downtown area. These developments
would not be consistent with existing development pattern and the character
of the Town.
As a result, development would not be consistent with the following General
Plan Policy:
Policy 1.02: Require that new development be generally consistent with the
scale, appearance, and small town character of Danville.
The Reduced VMY alterative would be inconsistent with State Housing Law,
including AFFH requirements, as it would concentrate all development in
and around the Downtown area, rather than integrate development into the
community.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093 et seq., the Town Council adopts and makes the following statement of
overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impact of the project and
the anticipated benefits of the project.
Significant Unavoidable Impact
With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are included
in the record, the Town Council has determined that the project would cause significant
and unavoidable greenhouse gas emission (Impact GHG-1.1, GHG2.1, and GHG-C), VMT
impacts (Impact TRN-2.1 and TRN-C) and water supply impacts (Impact UTL-2.1), as set
forth above.
Overriding Considerations
Despite the existence of significant adverse impacts that may not be mitigated to below
the level of significance, the Town Council has balanced the benefits of the project against
these significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
Pursuant to this balancing, the Town Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement
of Overriding Considerations that this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all
significant effects on the environment where feasible and finds that the remaining
significant and unavoidable impacts of the project are acceptable because the benefits of
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 17 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
the project outweigh the significant and adverse impacts of the project.
The Town Council hereby finds that each benefit listed below constitutes a separate and
independent basis of justification for the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
each is able to independently support the Statement of Overriding Considerations and
override the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the project. In addition,
each benefit is independently supported by substantial evidence contained in the
administrative record.
Benefits of the Proposed Project
The Town Council has considered the EIR, the public record proceedings on the proposed
project, and other written materials presented to the Town of Danville, as well as oral and
written testimony at all hearings related to the project, and does hereby determine that
implementation of the project as specifically provided in the project documents would
result in the following substantial public benefits: [Note to Town: please include reasoning
for adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations.]
• Approval of the project is necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law
• Approval of the project is necessary for the Town to provide suitable housing at
various affordability levels to provide adequate housing options for residents of the
Town and the region.
• Approval of the project is necessary to meet housing goals and programs described
in the plan, including fair housing needs.
• Approval of the project would allow the Town to retain the maximum level of local
review and discretion over proposed developments. Under state housing law,
failure to approve the project would lead to loss of direct local control over future
development proposals.
• Approval of the project is necessary to avoid costly fines and penalties as well as
the cost of litigation from the state and/ or third parties to ensure compliance with
state housing law.
• Approval of the project ensures that the use of the so-called "builder's remedy"
under the Housing Accountability Act is not used against the Town, potentially
leading to the mandatory approval of developments inconsistent with the Town's
zoning ordinance.
Conclusion
The Town Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed project against its
significant and unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and hereby
determines that each of these benefits outweighs the adverse environmental effects and,
therefore, further determines that the significant and unavoidable environmental effects
of the project is acceptable.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 18 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Danville Town Council
hereby finds as follows:
2023-2031 Housing Element (GPA22-0001)
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitations are true and correct and are incorporated
by reference into this action:
SECTION 2. The 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan substantially
complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq.
and is consistent with the Land Use and other elements of the Town's General Plan.
The proposed amendments are required to bring the Housing Element into consistency
with State law and are consistent with sound planning principles in that the proposed
policies and proposed implementing regulations are compatible and ensure that the goals
and policies of the General Plan can be adequately implemented to achieve the
community's vision. Findings documenting the Housing Elements consistency with all
State Housing Element Law requirements are included as Attachment 5 of this Resolution.
SECTION 3. As required by Government Code Section 65585(e), the Town Council
has considered the comments made by the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) included in the Department's letter to the Town dated November
10, 2022. Consistent with Government Code Section 65585(f), the Town has modified the
draft Housing Element in response to the comments of the Department to substantially
comply with the requirements of Article 10.6 of the Government Code as interpreted by
HCD.
SECTION 4. There is a real and substantial relationship of the Danville Housing
Element to the general welfare of the Town and the entire region. Danville has adequately
researched and considered the numerous competing interests in the region and, in view of
the demonstrated need for new housing, the approval constituted a reasonable
accommodation of those interests.
SECTION 5. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the existing uses on the
non -vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the RHNA are likely to be
discontinued during the planning period and therefore do not constitute an impediment to
planned residential development on the site during the planning period. Section
65583.2(g)(2) of the Government Code requires that any jurisdiction relying on non -vacant
sites to meet more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households must make
findings that the existing use on the non -vacant site is not an impediment to residential
development during the planning period. The findings must be made on substantial
evidence that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. In
Danville, more than 50 percent of the lower-income capacity is on non -vacant sites. The
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 19 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Town has provided such substantial evidence in Appendix C of the Housing Element that
the existing uses will be discontinued during the planning period. This is based on the
physical characteristics, existing uses, redevelopment potential (including improvement to
land value ratio, floor area ratio, and known developer interest), location and context, local
knowledge, and environmental and infrastructure constraints. All of the non -vacant sites
contain older buildings nearing the end of their useful life and/or property owners have
indicated a desire to redevelop with multifamily housing. Also, as extensively detailed in
Appendix C, the Town has a track record showing similar properties redeveloping with
multifamily or mixed use developments. In addition, the Town has demonstrated that none
of the proposed sites are currently under consideration or have expressed interest in
intensifying the existing non-residential use or redeveloping to a non-residential use. The
age of construction, vacancy rate, low improvement values, low FAR, and owner interest
indicate that reuse of these sites with housing development during the planning period is
likely.
SECTION 6. The 2014-2022 Housing Element of the General Plan is hereby repealed
in its entirety and the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Attachment 1) is approved.
SECTION 7: The Chief of Planning, after the Town Council's approval, is hereby
directed to file all necessary material with the Department of Housing and Community
Development for the Department to find that the 2023-2031 Housing Element is in
conformance with State law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Danville Town Council
hereby finds as follows:
General Plan Land Use Designation Amendments (GPA22-0002)
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitations are true and correct and are incorporated
by reference into this action:
SECTION 2. The General Plan Land Use Amendments will provide sufficient lands
at land use densities and related affordability levels necessary to meet the Town's RHNA,
implementing requirements of the Danville 2023-2031 Housing Element and in
compliance with State law.
SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002, for properties that are not
contained within the Downtown Danville Land Use Districts, amending the Town's Land
Use Map for the properties listed and shown on the Map in Attachment 2 of this Resolution
from various existing Land Use Designations to the Residential - Multifamily - High
Density Special (30-35 units gross per acre) Land Use Designation and, for properties
contained within the Downtown Danville Land Use Districts, amending the Town's Land
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 20 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Use Map for the properties also listed and shown in the Map in Attachment 2 of this
Resolution from various existing Land Use Designations to Downtown Business District
Area 13; Multifamily -Residential - High Density Special (30-35 units per gross acre) Land
Use Designation, is hereby approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Danville Town Council
hereby finds as follows:
General Plan Text Amendment (GPA22-0002)
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitations are true and correct and are incorporated
by reference into this action:
SECTION 2. The General Plan Text Amendment is necessary to add a new
Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special (30-35 units per gross acre) Land Use
Designation to the Town's 2030 General Plan to meet the Town's RHNA requirements and
to implement programs contained within the Danville 2023-2031 Housing Element and to
comply with State law.
SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002 amending the Danville 2030
General Plan, Chapter 3, Planning and Land Use, beginning on Page 3.39, after the
Residential - Multifamily - High Density (25-30 units per acre) to add the description and
compatible zoning districts for a new Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special
(30-35 units per gross acre) Land Use Designation and Page 3.32 related to net and gross
development density calculations. This new General Plan text language is included in
Attachment 3 of this Resolution and is hereby approved.
SECTION 4. General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002 amending the Danville 2030
General Plan, Chapter 3, Planning and Land Use, beginning on Page 3.55 within the
Special Concern Area language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for Fostoria East. This
new General Plan text language is included in Attachment 3 of this Resolution and is
hereby approved.
SECTION 5. General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002 amending the Danville 2030
General Plan, Chapter 3, Planning and Land Use, beginning on Page 3.49 within the
Special Concern Area language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for Diablo/Green
Valley/ Stone Valley Corridor. This new General Plan text language is included in
Attachment 3 of this resolution and is hereby approved.
SECTION 6. General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002 amending the Danville 2030
General Plan, Chapter 3, Planning and Land Use beginning on Page 3.56 within the Special
Concern Area language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for Downtown Danville and
North Hartz Avenue. This new General Plan text language is included in Attachment 3 of
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 21 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
this resolution and is hereby approved.
SECTION 7: General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002 amending the Danville 2030
General Plan, Chapter 3, Planning and Land Use, beginning on Page 3.50 within the
Special Concern Area language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for Historic Wood
Family Ranch Headquarters.
SECTION 8: This new General Plan map and text language is included in
Attachment 3 of this resolution and is hereby approved.
APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a special meeting on January 17, 2023 by
the following vote:
AYES: Arnerich, Fong, Morgan, Stepper, Storer
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: None *see attachment
ABSENT: None
(See attachments for votes involving conflicts of interest)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�DocuSigned by:
g �.
�895C6C40ADBF4BF...
DocuSigned by:
�2640D07461784DD...
MAYOR
ATTEST:
DocuSijned by:
"-71735A3F14rg42F
CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT 22 RESOLUTION NO 4-2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5D3855C1-A961-40E5-BB6C-A968037C7DCB
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Inclusion of Sites R1, R2 and S in the site inventory of the Housing Element, the changes
in General Plan land use designations for the three sites and inclusion in the amended
land use map in the Town's 2030 General Plan, was approved by the Danville Town
Council at a special meeting on January 17, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Fong, Morgan, Stepper,
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Arnerich
ABSENT: None
Storer
DocuSign Envelope ID: B245AEA0-96E8-464C-B2C6-18FE2E665EA1
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Inclusion of Site N in the site inventory of the Housing Element, the change in General
Plan land use designation for the site and inclusion in the amended land use map in the
Town's 2030 General Plan was approved by the Danville Town Council at a special
meeting on January 17, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:Arnerich, Fong, Morgan, Stepper
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Storer
ABSENT: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 1 OF RESOLUTION 4-2023
"Small Town Atmosphere
Outstanding Quality of Life"
January 31, 2023
State Department of Housing and Community Development
C/O Land Use and Planning Unit
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov
RE: Submission of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element for the Town of Danville
Danville is pleased to submit the Town's adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to the State
of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and looks
forward to receiving a report of findings pursuant to Government Code Sections
65585(b)(1) and 65585(b)(3).
The Danville Town Council adopted the Housing Element during the meeting of January
17, 2023. Significantly, concurrent with the adoption of the Housing Element, the Town
Council approved all General Plan Land Use Amendments and Rezonings necessary to
meet our RHNA.
The Town is committed to working with HCD to ensure that this Housing Element
complies with State Housing Element law. We thank you for the assistance of both
Connor Finney and Paul McDougall as we worked to develop a draft in compliance with
State law. In response to this support and the initial comment letter from your
Department dated November 10, 2022, significant additional analysis, information, and
program actions have been added to the Housing Element.
A matrix of HCD comments and the Town's responses/revisions to the Housing Element
to facilitate your review is attached. In addition, modifications made to the document
since the first submittal to HCD are shown in redline and strikeout format. In addition to
the revisions that respond to HCD comments, the Town made a few additional edits to
address typographical errors, changes in circumstances in the sites inventory, and to
respond to public comments.
Consistent with our e-mail communication to Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager,
and Connor Finney, Housing Representative I, the Town's public comment period for the
revised Housing Element was inadvertently shorter than the seven-day requirement. The
510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526
Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation
(925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3320 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3700 (925) 314-3400
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
January 31, 2023
Page 2
Town plans to re -adopt the Danville 2023-2031 Housing Element at the February 21, 2023,
Town Council meeting to ensure full compliance with public review process.
Please note that all of the Town's approved General Plan Land Use Amendments and
Rezoning actions taken to meet the Town RHNA are unaffected by this re -notification
and will remain in place.
If you have questions while you complete your review, please contact me at
dcrompton@danville.ca.gov or (925-314-3349).
Sincerely,
(Pla
David Crompton
Chief of Planning
Attachment: HCD Comments and Town's Responses
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
HCD Comments Matrix
Comment #
Section
Item #
Comment
Action Taken
Housing Element Page
Government Code Section
1
Review and Revise
A
A thorough program -by -program review is necessary to evaluate Town's performance in addressing housing goals. While the
element describes actual results of the prior element's programs, it must provide a description of how the objectives and programs
of the updated element incorporate changes resulting from the evaluation.
Additional information has been
provided regarding the Town's
efforts to upadate/modify efforts
based on lessons learned in the last
See H -G-6, Policy 7
2
Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints
B.1
Extremely Low -Income Households (ELI): The element includes some basic information regarding ELI households such as the number
Data and analysis regarding ELI
households has been revised and
highlighted in the needs data
appendix (A).
See H -A-17 et seq.
of households. However, given the unique and disproportionate needs of ELI households, the element must identify their projected
housing needs (e.g., 50 percent of the very low-income regional housing needs allocation (RHNA)) and include analysis to better
formulate policies and programs. For example, the element should analyze tenure, cost burden and other household characteristics,
compare those characteristics to other income and special needs groups then examine the availability of resources to determine
gaps in housing needs. Finally, the element should examine the success of past efforts and formulate an appropriate programmatic
response given the magnitude of the need. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/housing-needs/extremely-low-income-housing- needs.shtml.
3
Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter
Data and analysis regarding
overpayment by tenure has been
aririPrl
See H -A-43 et seq.
and owner).
4
Special Needs: While the element quantifies the Town's special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs.
Data and analysis regarding special
needs is already provided in
Appendix D and AFFH.
See H -A-50 et seq.; see also AFFH
Appendix D, in which concerns a
needs of special needs groups are
scattered throughout.
For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing
resources to meet those needs (availability senior housing units, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.,), an
assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps.
5
AFFH
B.2
Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity: The element should discuss how the Town complies with existing fair housing laws and
Narrative has been expanded to
include detail on Enforcement and
C'anarity
See H -D-19 et seq.
regulations, any past fair housing lawsuits, consent decrees or other related legal matters.
6
Local to Regional Patterns of Income and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA): While the element reports on County
Narrative has been expanded to
include information on RCAAs, as
data were not available at the time
of initial submission to HCD.
See H -D-47 et seq.
patterns of income and RCAA, it should also compare the Town as a whole to the County and broader region and evaluate
differences. This evaluation should also consider local data and knowledge and other relevant factors such as historical land use and
other practices. Based on a complete analysis, the element should formulate appropriate policies and programs (not limited to the
regional housing need allocation (RHNA)) to target significant and meaningful affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) outcomes.
This evaluation should utilize HCD's RCAA's data available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/affirmatively-furthering-fair- housing.
7
Disproportionate Housing Needs: The element includes some general information on persons experiencing homelessness and
Narrative has been expanded to
include detail on disproportionate
housing needs.
See Appendix D, Attachment 3,
Inventory of Sites Supplement
housing conditions but should also evaluate those needs, impacts and patterns within the Town, such as areas of higher need. For
homelessness, the element should examine disproportionate impacts on protected characteristics (e.g., race, disability) and patterns
of need, including access to transportation and services. For housing conditions, the element should discuss any areas of potentially
higher needs of rehabilitation and replacement. The element may utilize local data and knowledge such as service providers and
rode anfnrremant nffirialc to accict thic analvcic
8
AFFH and Sites Inventory: The element must analyze how the identified sites contribute to or mitigate fair housing issues. An
An updated analysis of the sites
inventory with the AFFH criteria is
included as an attachment to The
AFFH Appendix D.
See Appendix D, Attachment 3,
Inventory of Sites Supplement
analysis should address all of the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of units by all income
groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and
integration, access to opportunity). If sites exacerbate conditions or isolate the RHNA by income group, the element should identify
further program actions (not limited to the RHNA) that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community
(e.g., housing mobility and new opportunities in higher resource and income areas).
9
Local Data and Knowledge: The element must include local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to discuss and analyze any
Additional local information is
provided throughout the revised
document.
See especially H -D-9 et seq.
unique attributes about the Town related to fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data
with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local
and regional advocates and service providers, Town staff and related local and county planning documents and should include an
-...-.I..�:� ,.[+6.,. L.:.--...... ,.F ,.....I...-: .......... ....... �..... �.., +1... T,......
10
Other Relevant Factors: While the element mentions various other relevant factors, it generally does not provide enough data or
Additional local information is
provided throughout the revised
document.
See especially H -D-9 et seq.
analysis. For example, land use and local opposition does not discuss or examine past practice and experience. This is particularly
important given the tenure rates and housing types, trends and lack of housing choices and affordability.
11
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element must list and prioritize
Contributing factors have been
ranked according to the ability of
the Town to make improvements in
each area.
See H -D-7 et seq.
contributing factors to fair housing issues. Contributing factors should result in strategic approaches to inform and connect analysis,
goals and actions to address and mitigate fair housing issues. For more information, please see HCD's Guidance Memo at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning- and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing.
12
Inventory
B.3
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The Town's RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built, approved, or pending since
The Housing Element includes
information on pipeline projects,
their status in the pipeline, and the
expected completion date. Where
affordable units are indicated, the
Element documents how
affordability is achieved.
See Appendix C, pipeline projects
June 30, 2022; however, the element must demonstrate their affordability and availability in the planning period. Affordability
should be based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). Availability
should address the status, anticipated completion, any barriers to development and other relevant factors such as build out
horizons, phasing and dropout rates to demonstrate the availability or likelihood of development in the planning period.
13
Realistic Capacity: The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, generally based on the land use
The Housing Element has been
updated to include additional 2017 -
2021 residential development
history. Although the history shows
an overall average density of 95% of
the maximum density allowed, the
Town is only assuming the bottom
of the density range when
calculating the total unit yield for all
new housing sites.
See H-16 et seq and Appendix C
controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level.
The element lists a few recent projects (pp. H-17, H-18 and B-12); however, given the element is assuming 100 percent of maximum
allowable densities, it should list all recent projects. The listing should evaluate projects by zone, maximum allowable density, parcel
size, number of units, affordability and frequency of exceptions such as density bonuses. This analysis should particularly examine
trends based on zones and size of projects and demonstrate those circumstances are similar to circumstances of identified sites.
Alternatively, the element could rescale assumptions less than maximum allowable density (e.g., 80 to 90 percent and 50 percent).
Page 1 of 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
HCD Comments Matrix
14
In addition, where zoning allows 100 percent nonresidential uses, the calculation of residential capacity should account for the
likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential development. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in
nonresidential zones allowing 100 percent nonresidential uses, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential
capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly. This analysis may incorporate any proposed policies such as residential
performance standards, prohibition of commercial uses and should clarify that all zones allow residential uses, particularly 100
percent residential uses.
The Housing Element includes an
anlysis of the extent to which
commercial rather than residential
uses may be proposed. In addition,
almost all of the new housing sites
require a residential density of 30-
35 units per acre, allowing no
commercial development. Several
of the housing sites in the
downtown area which front major
commercial streets, requires some
pedestrian scale commercial
development at the street level.
However, commercial development
is limited to 8% of the develpment's
total floor area.
See Appendix F, Program 10.3.a.
15
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include a description of identified sites and their existing uses and include an
The Housing Element includes an
analysis of the suitability of non-
vacant sites for housing.
See Appendix G
analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites. The element should analyze the extent that
existing uses may impede additional residential development. It can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher
density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts
that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on
development trends and market conditions in the Town and relate those trends to the sites identified. The element could also
consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer or property owner interest, existing
versus allowable floor area, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors. The element should also address public
16
In addition, since nonvacant sites accommodate 50 percent or more of the lower- income need, the housing element must describe
"substantial evidence" that the existing use does not constitute an impediment for additional residential use on the site. Absent
findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional
residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
The Housing Element includes an
analysis of existing uses as potential
impediments to the development of
new housing, especially that which
is affordable.
See Appendix G
17
Finally, the element identifies sites with existing residential uses. Absent a replacement housing policy, these sites are not adequate
sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing policy has the same requirements as set forth in
Government Cnrlp cprtinn 65915 aihrlivicinn Irl (11
The revised Housing Element
contains a program to address
rpnlarpmpnt hniisina
See program 6.2.a
18
AB 725: To be in compliance, the element should demonstrate that at least 25 percent of moderate -income units will be in areas
This information is provided in the
base Housing Element document.
See H-24.
zones for at least four units, but not more than 100 units per acre. And that at least 25 percent of above moderate -income units will
he Incaterl in areas 7nnprl fnr at IPact fnur units of hnucina ner narcel
19
Infrastructure: The element should clarify that the Town has sufficient existing and planned total water capacity to accommodate
The constraints analysis contains
more information on infrastructure.
In summary, the EIR that was
prepared for the project found that
the Town water supplier EBMUD
does not show adequate water
supply in its WMP to accommodate
build out of the Town's RHNA. As a
result, the Town adopted a
Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Water supply
availabilty will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis when
development plan applications are
, .. k.., ;++.,.1
See H -B-8 et seq.
the RHNA.
20
Small Sites: Sites smaller than a half -acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless
The revised Housing Element
provides additional narrative on
small sites and their viability for
additional development. In
addition, the Town's inventory of
sites has been modified so that no
very low or low income units are
assumed for any lots that are less
See Appendix C, Table B.
it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or
unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing. (Gov.
Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).) The element lists small sites but must also evaluate whether those sites are suitable to
accommodate housing for lower income households and add or modify programs as appropriate. For example, the element could
list past consolidations by the number of parcels, number of owners, zone, number of units, affordability and circumstances leading
to consolidation and then relate those trends to the identified sites or could explain the potential for consolidation on a site -by -site
basis.
21
Environmental Constraints: While the element mentions various environmental conditions, it should also discuss whether those
The Resources Appendix contains
detailed information on individual
sites, including site conditions that
may pose constraints to
See H -C-26 et seq.
conditions impact or preclude development on identified sites. This discussion should address any other known conditions and
impacts on identified sites (shape, easements, conditions, compatibility) as well as public comments on identified sites (e.g., creeks).
22
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element notes 27 ADUs were permitted in 2020 and 46 in 2021. However, HCD records
Reduce the number of projected
ADUs to a number supported by
documentation. Review 2022 data
to determine if a number above 20
ADUs on average can be justified.
Provide research to demonstrate
affordability trends (Craigslist ads,
etc.). Add a program to monitor
ADU development every two years
to confirm trends, and adopt
rezoning or other measures if ADU
trends to not support conclusions.
See H-20 et seq.
(annual progress reports) indicate permitted ADUs of 12 in 2018, 20 in 2019, 9 in 2020 and 34 in 2021. The Town should reconcile
these figures and adjust assumptions as appropriate (e.g., 20 ADUs per year). In addition, the Town's ADU ordinance may require
amendment to comply with ADU law.
23
Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types
Emergency Shelters: The element should clarify by right is without discretionary action, discuss acreage, potential for a shelter
including reuse, proximity to transportation and services and areas/sites are not in areas unfit for human habitation (discuss other
allowed uses). Also, list and analyze development standards and analyze whether parking requirements comply with
AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement.
The Housing Element now contains
additional narrative regarding
emergency shelters, and includes a
program to ensure ongoing
compliance with all requirements,
including parking.
See H -B-25 et seq.; see also
program 7.1.g
Page 2 of 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
HCD Comments Matrix
24
Transitional and Supportive Housing: The element should clarify that transitional and supportive Housing is allowed in all zones
allowing residential, including mixed use, and clearly identify the capacity limit as a constraint and specifically commit to removing
this constraint in Program 7.1e.
The capacity limits are identified as
constraints in the narrative, and
programs have been added to
romnua thc, rnnctr,intc
See H -B-24, and programs 7.1.h and
7.1.i.
25
Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), upon adoption of the housing element,
The spreadhseet will be submit with
the revised Housing Element
the Town must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov.
Please note, the Town must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see
HCD's housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a
copy of the form and instructions. The Town can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance.
26
Constraints
4
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety
Provide a more detailed analysis of
all land use requirements to
determine if there are constraints
to the development of housing.
See the entirety of Appendix B.
of housing types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, transitional housing). In particular, the element should address
heights, setbacks and parking and add specific commitment to address constraints. 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 analysis should also describe past or current efforts to remove identified governmental constraints.
27
Fees and Exaction: While the element includes entitlement, building and impact fees, it must also include planning fees. The
The Housing Element constains a
discussion about fees and identifies
fees on a square -foot basis as a
constraint on multifamily housing.
See H -B-19 et seq.
element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including planning fees (e.g., general
plan amendment, rezone, conditional use permit, variance), and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and
affordability.
28
Building Codes and Code Enforcement: The element must clarify which building and zoning code is enforced, including any local
The narrative has been amended to
indicate that there are no local
amendments to the building code.
See H -B-22
amendments to the building code, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.
29
Processing and Permit Procedures: The element should describe and analyze the total permit and entitlement process for a typical
The narrative has been amended to
provide more information on
processing and permitting
nrnrcriiiroc
See H -B-22
single-family unit and multifamily development. The analysis should address typical processes for a development that complies with
zoning, time to complete entitlements, decision-making body, number of hearing and approval findings. The analysis should address
imn.rtc nn rnct timing fcacihilitu .nrl .nnrnu,al rnrt,intu
30
In addition, 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 any other relevant factors for impacts on housing cost, timing,
feasibility and approval certainty.
The revised draft includes more
information about the Planned
Development process. Consistent
with SB 330, the Town does not
require rezonings, including P1
Districts for residential projects that
are consitent with the underlying
general Plan Land Use Designation.
See H -B-10
31
SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: The element must identify and analyze written procedures for the SB 35
A program has been amended to
address this comment.
See program 2.1.a.
Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process and add a program if necessary.
32
Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element describes the Town currently has a procedure for requesting and granting a
The constraints appendix has
further analysis of potential
constraints on housing for persosn
with disabilities, and a program has
been modified to address group
homes of seven or more disabled
See H -B 26 and program 7.1.h
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities; however, the element should also describe and evaluate approval findings
and the process for providing reasonable accommodations. The element should also include an evaluate the definition of family
used in zoning and land use. In addition, the Town should clarify where and how group homes of 7 or more persons are permitted
and, based on this analysis, modify Program 7.1.h with specific commitment to revise zoning and procedures to permit with
objective standards to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses.
33
Inclusionary Requirements: The element mentions some research on inclusionary requirements and concludes the requirement is
The Housing Element has been
revised to indicate the inclusionary
program is not a constraint.
See H -B 14
not a constraint, but it must also describe and analyze the Town's inclusionary housing requirements, including its impacts as
potential constraints on the development of housing for all income levels. The analysis must evaluate the inclusionary policy's
implementation framework, including levels of mandated affordability and the types of options and incentives offered to encourage
and facilitate compliance with the inclusionary requirements. The Town could engage the development community to facilitate this
34
Zoning Fees and Transparency: The element must list all fees and clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for
A new program has been added to
address this comment.
See 6.1.f
The Town's zoning ordinance defines families is very broad,
consistent with the requrements of state and federal laws.
posting all zoning and development standards, and fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction's website pursuant to Government Code
'ertinn SSgan 11A1111
35
Nongovernmental
Constraints
5
Identified Densities and Approval Times: The element must address requests to develop housing at densities below those
More information has been
provided on these
nongovernmental constraints. The
Town's General Plan density ranges
include a maximum and minimum
density. Development below the
density rnage would require a
General Plan Land Use Amdment
which would violate General Plan
Policy 1.05 and would be highly
See H -B-8 et seq.
anticipated in the sites inventory and the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of
application for building permits. The analysis must address any hinderances on housing development and programs should be
added as appropriate.
36
Land Cost and Availability of Financing: The element must include an estimate of the average cost or the range of costs per acre for
Additional information has been
provided on both land cost and
a\iaiahility of finanrinp
See H -B-2 et seq.
single family and multifamily development and available housing financing, including private financing and government assistance
nrnaramc generally availahle in the rnmmiinity
37
Housing Programs
C.1 - 6
Programs must be revised to demonstrate that they will have a beneficial impact within the planning period. Beneficial impact
means specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines (month, year), dates, or
benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes.
Examples of programs that should be revised with discrete timing include Programs 6.1.d (Parking Standards for Different Housing
-r..... .-\ .. .J r 7 L. /A.........,...... r1.....11: .. 11...:. n..,...1....:.. .,\
All programs have been updated to
address this concern.
See the entirety of Appendix G,
Implementation Plan
38
In addition, examples of programs that should be revised with specific commitment include Programs 1.1.a (Capital Improvement
Program), 2.1.a (Downtown Specific Plan), 2.1.b (New Mixed -Use Developments), 6.1.b (Funding Sources to Support Affordable
Housing Development), 6.1.d (Parking Standards for Different Housing Types), 6.1.e (Waive Processing Fees for Multifamily Lot
Consolidations), 6.3.b (Retention of Affordable Rental Units), 6.3.c (ADU Fee Reductions), 7.1.b (Developmentally Disabled), 7.1.c
(Larger Units), 7.1.e (Transitional and Supportive Housing Regulations), 8.1.b (Lot Consolidation and Redevelopment of Nonvacant
All programs have been updated to
address this concern.
See the entirety of Appendix G,
Implementation Plan
39
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not
established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the Town may need to add or revise programs to
address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as
fnl Inu,c •
The inventory has been revised
according to the analysis.
See revised inventory in Appendix
C.
Page 3 of 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
HCD Comments Matrix
40
Program 10.3.a (Zoning to Accommodate RHNA): The program appears to commit to rezoning to accommodate a shortfall for the
This program has been updated to
address this concern.
See Appendix G, Program 10.3.a
6th cycle housing element. If so, this program must be revised to identify minimum acreage, commitment to appropriate
development standards to facilitate maximum densities and meet all by requirements pursuant to Government Code section
65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). For example, the program should commit to residential only performance standards and to permit
owner -occupied and rental multifamily residential use by -right (without discretionary action) for developments in which at least 20
percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households during the planning period.
41
Programs 6.1.e and 8.1.b (Lot Consolidation): The element is relying on the consolidation of several small lots. The element includes
This program has been updated to
address this concern.
See Policy 6.1.f The Town will
implement programs to encourage
lot consolidation, such as reduced
fees and a streamlined process. The
Town will also prepare an economic
study related to the possible
profitability of consolidation and
redevelopment, and meet with
property owners to discuss the
findings
these programs to encourage lot consolidation; however, the program must specifically commit to outcomes beyond reviewing,
considering and exploring. This is particularly important given the lack of implementation in the prior planning period. In addition,
Program 8.1.b should commit to a minimum menu that will be considered beyond fees to encourage lot consolidations such as
expedited review, financial assistance and modification of development standards and density beyond State Density Bonus Law.
42
Program 7.1.g (Homeless Shelter Regulations): The program currently commits to review and amend regulations where necessary.
The Housing Element now contains
additional narrative regarding
emergency shelters, and includes a
program to ensure ongoing
compliance with all requirements,
including parking.
See H -B-24 et seq.; see also
program 7.1.g
However, the element should review the regulations as part of this update and based on the outcomes of a complete analysis as
noted in Finding B3, the program should specifically identify and commit to revise regulations such as parking or other development
standards.
43
Program 8.1.c (By -right for Prior Housing Sites): The program should commit to permit residential uses by right pursuant to
This program has been updated to
address this concern.
See program 8.1.c.
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (i) at appropriate densities (e.g., at least up to 30 units per acre).
44
Assist in Development Programs: The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in the
Program language has been
updated, where appropriate, to
include verbiage on specific special
needs group and lower income
groups.
See the entirety of Appendix G,
Implementation Plan
development of housing for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households, including specific actions to assist
housing for persons with special needs (e.g., farmworkers, elderly, homeless and persons disabilities, including developmental). The
program should commit the Town to annual outreach with affordable developers to identify development opportunities and further
assist through actions such as adopting priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals, granting concessions and incentives for
housing developments (beyond density bonus law) that include units affordable to lower and moderate -income households;
assisting and supporting or pursuing funding applications.
45
As noted in Finding(s) B4 and B5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental
constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the Town may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or
mitigate env identified rnn'traintc
The analyses are complete and new
narrative has been provided on
rnn'trainta_
See the entirety of Appendix B,
Constraints.
46
As noted in Finding B2, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing. Based on the outcomes of that analysis,
the element must add or modify programs. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and
prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified
patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, milestones, and geographic targeting as appropriate and
must address housing mobility enhancement (more choices and affordability across geographies), new housing choices and
affordability in higher opportunity and income areas (e.g., missing middle housing types), place -based strategies for community
preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. Housing mobility and new opportunities in higher resource areas
should not be limited to the RHNA and, instead, target meaningful change in terms of fair housing issues.
The analyses are complete and new
narrative has been provided
regarding the AFFH.
See the entirety of Appendix D,
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing.
47
The element includes Program 6.3.c to promote the development of ADU's and reduce the cost; however the program should
commit rather than "consider" reducing development impact fees for all ADU's. In addition, the program should include additional
incentives and monitoring production and affordability every two years in the planning period with alternative actions.
Two programs have been revised to
respond to these comments.
See program 6.3.b and 6.3.c
48
In addition, based on a cursory review, the Town's ADU ordinance does not comply with ADU law. As a result, Program 6.3.b should
be revised with a discrete timeline for amending the ordinance (e.g., within six months upon HCD review). HCD will send a review
letter unrier 'enarate rover relaters to the Anil nrrlinanre
Once the Town receives the letter,
it will revise its ordinance to ensure
rmmnlianre
See revised program 6.3.b.
49
Quantified Objectives
D
While the element includes quantified objectives for new construction (p. H-33), it must also include rehabilitation and conservation
objectives by income group.
The Town should consider what
actions it is taking (or can take) to
support rehab and
conservation/preservation, and add
See program 6.2.
50
Public Participation
E
While the element includes a summary of the public participation process, the element should also demonstrate diligent efforts
were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element could
describe the efforts to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate -income households and organizations that
represent them and to involve such groups and persons in the element throughout the process. In addition, the element should also
summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. For example, the
element should address public comment received by HCD related to environmental and government constraints and site feasibility
and discuss how comments were incorporated into the element.
The narrative has been revised to
provide greater detail in response
to this comment.
See H-27 et seq.
51
General Plan
Consistency
F
The element should add a discussion of how consistency was achieved and will be maintained throughout the planning period.
The narrative has been revised to
respond to this comment.
See H-24
Page 4 of 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DANVILLE
0 0 3 1
HOUSING
ELEMENT
TOWN OF
ANVILLE
7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
. BLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 5
3. HOUSING NEEDS AND SITE SUMMARY 10
4. OTHER REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS 27
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 28
6. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) SUMMARY 31
7. HOUSING PLAN 35
8. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 37
9. PRIOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS SUMMARY 39
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - BACKGROUND DATA AND HOUSING NEEDS REPORT
APPENDIX B - CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C - DANVILLE RESOURCES
APPENDIX D - AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
APPENDIX E - REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX F - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
APPENDIX G - HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3— _0.31 H[ LoS=NG ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Danville's 2023-2031 Housing Element is a plan to help address the region's
housing crisis, a blueprint for supporting all forms of housing, and a demonstration of the Town's
commitment to achieving greater housing equity and access for all residents. The Housing
Element identifies existing housing conditions and community needs, describes where new
housing can be developed, establishes goals and creates a plan for supporting the production
of housing to meet the needs of the Town's current and future residents.
This Executive Summary provides a high-level summary of each section, and its findings and
conclusions. The Sites Inventory is in Section 3, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Assessment is in Section 6 and the Housing Plan, with a complete breakdown of the goals,
policies and programs, included in Section 6. Detailed technical information and documentation
to support the Housing Element's findings and conclusions are included in the appendices.
Introduction and Background
Danville began as a small rural village formed in the 1850s to serve commercial and cultural
needs of the surrounding agricultural areas. With the construction of the Bay Bridge in 1936 and
the Caldecott Tunnel in 1937, Central Contra Costa County became accessible to the large and
growing employment centers in San Francisco and other parts of the Bay Area. A significant
amount of residential development began to occur in the San Ramon Valley during the late
1940s. The first large residential subdivisions in Danville occurred during this period.
During the 1950s and 1960s, Danville evolved into a desirable residential community. The
completion of 1-680 in 1968 greatly improved access to the area and led to increased amounts
of residential development activity throughout the San Ramon Valley. During the 1970s, major
changes began to occur in the San Ramon Valley. Large new developments were proposed,
and construction began, including the residential community of Blackhawk to the northeast of
Danville and the Bishop Ranch Business Park in San Ramon.
Danville was one of three Tri -Valley Region communities (covering the communities of Danville,
San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore and occupying the valley areas identified as
San Ramon, Livermore and Amador Valleys) to incorporate in the early 1980s. During the 1980s
and 1990s, the San Ramon Valley, the northernmost of the three valley areas constituting the
Tri -Valley Region, became a focus of major development activity. Once a predominantly
residential and rural area, the San Ramon Valley has experienced major residential, commercial
and office growth, which has altered its historic rural character.
The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of
Danville, and is the only element that requires review and approval by the state. California has
also established a significant number of new housing related laws to address the state's housing
crisis and this section provides an overview of the applicable legislation that the Housing Element
is required to address and comply with. The State Department of Housing and Community
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Development (HCD) is tasked with reviewing housing elements for compliance and adequacy
and is responsible for certifying the Town's Housing Element.
All new housing units need to have access to adequate infrastructure and municipal services,
and in particular, sewage disposal and water capacity must be demonstrated.
Housing Needs and Sites Inventory
For this upcoming eight-year housing cycle, HCD has identified the nine -county Bay Area
region's housing need to be 441,176 units; with this number broken down into four income
categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from extremely low-income households
to market rate housing. This Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) is based on
population projections produced by the California Department of Finance (DOF) as well as
adjustments that incorporate the region's existing housing need. The Town of Danville's
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for this cycle is 2,241 new housing units, spread
across four income categories.
A summary of facts about Danville's demographic data is provided to establish a basis for the
Town's housing needs and issues. A full version of the Town's demographic report can be found
in Appendix A. A key fact identified in this data is that the number of homes in Danville increased
3.6% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Contra Costae County and below
the growth rate of the region's housing stock during this time period. And, during this time period,
home prices increased by 115.6% and rental prices increased by 74.2%. Overall, this
demographic data supports the finding that the Town does not have sufficient housing units to
meet the needs of its residents and that housing affordability is a significant barrier for many
middle- and lower-income residents.
An analysis of existing affordable housing units that are at risk of conversion/reversion to market
rate, rendering them no longer affordable to the people living in them, did not find developments
that would have expiring restrictions during the ten-year period. The potential loss of existing
affordable housing units is an important issue to the Town due to displacement of lower-income
tenants and the limited alternative housing for such persons. Preservation of these units can be
achieved in a variety of ways and policies and programs have been included in the Housing Plan
to explore options to retain the units as affordable, replace the units elsewhere, or relocate
tenants into alternative housing that is affordable to them.
To demonstrate how Danville can accommodate its RHNA of 2,241 new housing units, the
Housing Element must identify adequate sites for housing (Sites Inventory), including rental
housing, factory -built housing, and other housing types, and make adequate provision for the
existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The Sites Inventory
is required to include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant
sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and analyze the development capacity that
can realistically be achieved for each site.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.3-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
The purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate whether there are sufficient sites with
appropriate zoning capacity to meet the Town's RHNA goal. The Sites Inventory included an
analysis of the development feasibility of specific sites (Attachment A of Appendix C). However,
based on previous Housing Elements, it is anticipated that some of the sites on the list will be
developed with new housing, some will not, and some housing will be built on sites not listed in
the inventory.
The methodology used to estimate the development potential of each property included on the
Sites Inventory was developed based on the criteria established by state law,
development/redevelopment feasibility, site constraints, zoned capacity versus real capacity and
prior project history. To ensure a higher likelihood of new developments exceeding the estimates
in the Sites Inventory, conservative assumptions were employed. Overall, the Sites Inventory
identified sites spread around the Town with capacity to develop up to 3,7472,808 units, which
is 1-6-7125% of the Town's RHNA or 109% of the Town's RHNA plus a 15% buffer. The following
table provides a summary breakdown of the Sites Inventory by income category.
TABLE 1. DANVILLE SITES INVENTORY BREAKDOWN
Housing Opportunity
RHNA
652
376
338
875
2,241
Buffer (15%)
+98
+56
+51
+131
+336
RHNA with Buffer
750
432
389
1,006
2,577
Housing Sites Inventory
6856
37264
2593
499505
1,815A5
ADUs
72
72
72
24
240
Prior Inventory Availability
0
0
97
656
753
TOTAL
757638
444370
42869
1,179321
28087-98
Remaining
72
12
393
1731-79
231221
Other Required Housing Element Components
This section provides a summary and evaluation of housing production constraints, an overview
of the funding opportunities and housing resources provided by the Town, and the applicable
energy conservation and climate change policies and requirements for new housing
developments.
The constraints section analyzes potential and actual governmental and nongovernmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing that hinder a
jurisdiction from meeting its housing goals. Governmental constraints to housing include zoning
regulations, development standards, infrastructure requirements, development impact fees, and
the development review and permitting processes, Nongovernmental constraints include
availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, and the length of time to design
and construct new housing.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Nongovernmental constraints are largely determined by market conditions or other factors, over
which the Town has little control. However, there are still opportunities to influence market
conditions and their associated costs indirectly, which can help reduce these constraints.
The Housing Resources of the Town are grouped by the various funding sources that the Town
is able to leverage for affordable housing production, preservation, and protection. As well as
administrative support it and the County can provide for housing efforts. The third is the
inventory of sites that are adequate for development to meet projected housing needs.
Home energy efficiency has become an increasingly significant factor in housing construction,
particularly in the past few years with the increasing demand to build energy efficient and
sustainable buildings in California. The California Energy Code and the California Green Building
Code in State Title 24 establish uniform energy efficiency and green building standards that all
construction must adhere. The Town's 2012 Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) sets standards to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for housing and construction by exceeding minimum
state requirements, providing education and outreach on benefits and financial incentives
associated with energy upgrades, and continuing support for energy efficiency and electrification
retrofits.
Housing Plan
The Town of Danville's primary objective is to maintain and provide a diversity of housing
opportunities for current and future residents. There should be a variety of housing types and
sizes, a mixture of rental and ownership housing, and housing that supports special needs
populations, including farmworkers, single female heads of household, people with disabilities,
and those who are unhoused. This variety of housing opportunities should accommodate a
diverse population, leading to a variety of household sizes and types at all income levels.
In addition, the Town needs to increase housing supply to meet the housing demand caused by
current and future job growth. The types of new housing created should accommodate all income
levels consistent with the Town's RHNA. The goals, polices, and actions contained in this
Housing Plan support these overarching objectives while also ensuring that the Town will meet
its statutory obligations to affirmatively further fair housing and facilitate housing production at
all income levels.
Quantified Objectives
In addition to the sites inventory and the Housing Plan, the Town needs to provide an estimate
of actual housing units that can be preserved and produced given available resources, permits
issued and projected pipeline developments expected to be completed within the next housing
cycle. State law recognizes that the Town's total housing needs exceed available resources and
the community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan. The total
development cost for the RHNA allocation would be nearly $1.6 billion dollars, of which about
$956 million would be required to develop the lower-income units. Thus, the quantified objectives
do not need to completely account for Danville's RHNA but should establish the maximum
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3- _0,31 H[ Lo tiG ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved in the Town over
an eight-year timeframe.
For the upcoming housing cycle, the Town's quantified objectives for construction are 1,408
units, with 724 being affordable units. For a full breakdown of units by affordability level and by
project or category, see Table 13 — Quantified Objectives for Cycle 6 (2023 — 2031).
Review of Prior Housing Element
The final section provides a summary of the key accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities
learned from the Town's previous Housing Element. The Town's RHNA for the fifth housing cycle
was 557 units. The Town was able to achieve many its goals through successful implementation
of most of its policies and programs but fell short of its affordable housing goals. Key
accomplishments include increased accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production, including the
Town's development of the "Garden Cottage" program, exploration of new funding sources,
protecting existing affordable housing units, and using new technology and processes to speed
up development. Significant progress was also made with the development of the Alexon
Riverwalk 144 unit apartment development. Overall, through the first seven years of this cycle,
the city has been able to achieve a total of 530 new housing units and exceed its market rate
housing target; however, the Town was unable to meet its goals related to very low, low, and
moderate income housing production. A variety of factors have contributed to this production
shortfall, including high land and construction costs, outdated policies, and community division
overgrowth and building heights. The lessons learned over this past cycle have been
used to help inform the Housing Plan in this Housing Element.
. INTRODUCTION AND
BACKGROUND
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing
of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and
abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past
30 years has steadily increased, housing production has not kept pace, contributing to the
housing shortage that communities around the Bay Area are experiencing today. In many cities,
this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer
commutes, and fewer people, particularly those in the middle- and lower-income tiers, being able
to purchase homes or meet surging rents.
The Housing Element is part of the Town's General Plan and sets forth the policies and programs
to address the housing needs for Danville. It is the Town's eight-year housing strategy from the
period of 2023-2031 for how it will meet the community's housing needs. State law (Government
Code Sections 65580-65589.8) requires that every city and county in California adopt a Housing
Element, subject to State approval, as part of its General Plan. Per SB 375 (Statutes of 2008),
the planning period for the Housing Element is eight years.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
vin
Since 1969, State law requires that jurisdictions throughout California complete a Housing
Element. The Town itself is not responsible for building or producing this housing, but it must
demonstrate that it has policies and programs in place to support housing construction for all
income levels, as well as available land appropriately zoned to accommodate new housing. The
Housing Element must include a variety of statistics on housing needs, constraints to
development, and policies and programs to implement a variety of housing -related land use
actions, and a detailed inventory of "opportunity sites" on which future housing may be built.
The Housing Element is the only element of a locality's General Plan that must be approved
("certified") by the State, through its Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
to ensure it meets all statutory requirements. Having a certified Housing Element is a prerequisite
for many State grants and funding programs. This is the sixth cycle of the Housing Element and
covers the eight-year period from 2023 to 2031.
Legislative Context
Since the Town's last Housing Element was adopted and certified on April 7 2015, many pieces
of housing legislation have been signed into law, resulting in substantive changes to State
housing law and Housing Element requirements.
Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process. Senate Bill 35 (2017), Assembly Bill 168
(2020) and Assembly Bill 831 (2020). SB 35 created a streamlined, ministerial review process
for qualifying multifamily, urban infill projects in jurisdictions that have failed to approve housing
projects sufficient to meet their State -mandated RHNA. Among other requirements, to qualify for
streamlining under SB 35, a project must incorporate one of two threshold levels of affordable
housing: (1) 10 percent of the project's units in jurisdictions that have not approved housing
projects sufficient to meet their RHNA for above moderate- income housing or have failed to
submit an annual progress report as required under state law; or (2) 50 percent of the project's
units in jurisdictions that have not approved housing projects sufficient to meet their RHNA for
below moderate -income housing. AB 168 added a requirement to provide a formal notice to
each California Native American tribe that is affiliated with the area of the proposed project. The
Housing Element must describe the Town's processing procedures related to SB 35. This is
discussed further in Appendix B.
Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements. Assembly Bill 879 (2017) and
Assembly Bill 1397 (2017). These bills require additional analysis and justification of the sites
included in the sites inventory of the Town's Housing Element. The Housing Element may only
count non -vacant sites included in one previous housing element inventory and vacant sites
included in two previous housing elements if the sites are subject to a program that allows
affordable housing by right. Additionally, the bills require additional analysis of non -vacant sites
and additional analysis of infrastructure capacity, and place size restrictions on all sites.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 HDU+ND ELEMENT
DANVILL47,
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Assembly Bill 686 (2017). AB 686 law ensures that public
entities, including local governments, administer their programs relating to housing and urban
development in a manner affirmatively to further the purposes of the federal Fair Housing Act
and do not take any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further
fair housing. It also requires that housing elements of each city and county promote and
affirmatively further fair housing opportunities throughout the community for all persons
regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or
disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act, Government Code Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning
law. AB 686 requires jurisdictions to conduct an assessment of fair housing in the housing
element, prepare the housing element site inventory through the lens of affirmatively furthering
fair housing, and include program(s) to affirmatively further fair housing.
No -Net -Loss Zoning. Senate Bill 166 (2017). SB 166 amended the No -Net -Loss rule to require
that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element include sufficient
sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. When a site identified in the Housing Element as
available to accommodate the lower-income portion of the RHNA is actually developed for a
higher income group, the Town must either (1) identify, and rezone, if necessary, an adequate
substitute site or (2) demonstrate that the land inventory already contains an adequate substitute
site.
Site Inventory Analysis. Assembly Bill 1397, Low (Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). The law made
several revisions to the site inventory analysis requirements of Housing Element Law. In
particular, it requires stronger justification when nonvacant sites are used to meet housing
needs, particularly for lower income housing, requires by right housing when sites are included
in more than one housing element, and adds conditions around size of sites, among others.
Safety Element to Address Adaptation and Resiliency. Senate Bill 1035 (2018). SB 1035
requires the General Plan Safety Element to be reviewed and revised to include any new
information on fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies with
each revision of the housing element.
By Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing. Assembly Bill 2162 (2018) and
Assembly Bill 101 (2019). AB 2162 requires the Town to change its zoning to provide a "by right"
process and expedited review for supportive housing. The bill prohibits the Town from applying
a conditional use permit or other discretionary review to the approval of 100 percent affordable
developments that include a percentage of supportive housing units, either 25 percent or 12
units, whichever is greater. The change in the law applies to sites in zones where multifamily
and mixed uses are permitted, including in nonresidential zones permitting multifamily use.
Additionally, AB 101 requires that a Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use by
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets
specified requirements.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Assembly Bill 2299 (2016), Senate Bill 1069 (2016),
Assembly Bill 494 (2017), Senate Bill 229 (2017), Assembly Bill 68 (2019), Assembly Bill 881
(2019), Assembly 587 (2019), Senate Bill 13 (2019), Assembly Bill 670 (2019), Assembly Bill
671 (2019), Assembly Bill 3182 (2020). In recent years, multiple bills have added requirements
for local governments related to ADU ordinances. The 2016 and 2017 updates to State law
included changes pertaining to the allowed size of ADUs, permitting ADUs by right in at least
some areas of a jurisdiction, and limits on parking requirements related to ADUs. More recent
bills reduce the time to review and approve ADU applications to 60 days, remove lot size
requirements and replacement parking space requirements and require local jurisdictions to
permit junior ADUs. AB 68 allows an ADU and a junior ADU to be built on a single-family lot, if
certain conditions are met. The State has also removed owner -occupancy requirements for
ADUs, created a tiered fee structure that charges ADUs based on their size and location,
prohibits fees on units of less than 750 square feet, and permits ADUs at existing multi -family
developments. AB 671 requires the Housing Element to include plans to incentivize and
encourage affordable ADU rentals. AB 3182 prohibits homeowner's associations from imposing
rental restrictions on ADUs.
Density Bonus and Development Incentives. Assembly Bill 1763 (2019) and Assembly Bill 2345
(2020).
AB 1763 amended California's density bonus law to authorize significant development
incentives to encourage 100 percent affordable housing projects, allowing developments with
100 percent affordable housing units to receive an 80 percent density bonus from the otherwise
maximum allowable density on the site. If the project is within half a mile of a major transit stop,
the Town may not apply any density limit to the project, and it can also receive a height increase
of up to three additional stories (or 33 feet). In addition to the density bonus, qualifying projects
will receive up to four regulatory concessions. Additionally, the Town may not impose minimum
parking requirements on projects with 100 percent affordable housing units that are dedicated
to special needs or supportive housing. AB 2345 created additional density bonus incentives
for affordable housing units provided in a housing development project. It also requires that the
annual report include information regarding density bonuses that were granted.
Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Senate Bill 330 (2019). SB 330 enacts changes to local
development policies, permitting, and processes that will be in effect through January 1, 2025.
SB 330 places new criteria on the application requirements and processing times for housing
developments; prevents localities from decreasing the housing capacity of any site, such as
through downzoning or increasing open space requirements, if such a decrease would preclude
the jurisdiction from meeting its RHNA housing targets; prohibits localities from imposing a
moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development; prevents localities from
establishing non-objective standards; and requires that any proposed demolition of housing
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3- _0,31 HCLoStiG ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
units be accompanied by a project that would replace or exceed the total number of units
demolished. Additionally, any demolished units that were occupied by lower-income
households must be replaced with new units affordable to households with those same income
levels. The Town's processing procedures related to SB 330 are described further in Appendix
B.
Surplus Land Act Amendments. Assembly Bill 1486 and AB 1255 (2019). AB 1486 refines the
Surplus Land Act to provide clarity and further enforcement to increase the supply of affordable
housing. The bill requires the Town to include specific information relating to surplus lands in the
Housing Element and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports, and to provide a list of sites
owned by the city or county that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of in the prior
year. AB 1255 requires the Town to create a central inventory of surplus and excess public land
each year. The Town is required to transmit the inventory to HCD and to provide it to the public
upon request. As of April 2022. The Town of Danville does not currently have any surplus sites.
However, the Town's municipal office is relocating to a new office building in 2022. As a result,
the Town' s existing office location at 510 La Gonda Way will become a surplus site.
AB 1486, (Chapter 644, Statutes of 2019). The law expanded the definition of surplus land
and added additional requirements on the disposal of surplus land. In addition, local agencies
must send notices of availability to interested entities on a list maintained by HCD. This list and
notices of availability are maintained on HCD's website. Local agencies must also send a
description of the notice and subsequent negotiations for the sale of the land, which HCD must
review, and within 30 days submit written finding of violations of law. Violations of the Surplus
Land Act can be referred to the Attorney General. Finally, it adds a requirement in Housing
Element Law for the jurisdiction to identify which of the sites included in the inventory are surplus
property.
Housing Impact Fee Data. Assembly Bill 1483 (2019). AB 1483 requires the Town to publicly
share information about zoning ordinances, development standards, fees, exactions, and
affordability requirements. The Town is also required to update such information within 30 days
of changes. This Housing Element describes governmental constraints on the production of
housing, including a look at zoning requirements, development standards, fees, exactions, and
affordability requirements. Changes in requirements made during the Housing Element planning
period will also be reported as part of the Town's annual Housing Element Progress Report.
SB 6_, Beall (Chapter 667, Statutes of 2019). Jurisdictions are required to prepare the housing
site inventory on forms developed by HCD and send an electronic version with their adopted
housing element to HCD. HCD will then send those inventories to the Department of General
Services by December 31 of each year.
Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act. Senate Bill 9 (2022). Effective January
1, 2022, SB 9 requires the Town to allow up to two residential dwelling units and residential lot
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
splits in single-family zones. SB 9 allows for reduced standards, such as setbacks, minimum
parcel dimensions, and parking. The Town must apply objective zoning standards that do not
preclude construction of up to two 800 square -feet units. To prevent displacement, the State
does not allow SB 9 projects to demolish any affordable or rent controlled housing, or housing
that has been occupied by a tenant within the last three years. Projects that meet the qualifying
criteria and requirements must be ministerially approved and are not subject to CEQA review.
The Town has completed code amendments in compliance with SB 9, as well as informational
handouts and details on the Town's website.
Senate Bill 10 (2022). SB 10 authorizes cities to adopt an ordinance to zone for up to ten units
of residential density on any parcel located within transit rich or urban infill areas. If adopted, the
ordinance allows ministerial approval of up to ten units (not counting ADUs or JADUs) at a height
specified by the Town. The intent of this bill is to streamline production of housing in urban infill
neighborhoods with access to transit. SB 10 includes a sunset date of January 1, 2029; the Town
has identified Policy H 1.13 to evaluate sites and "Missing Middle" housing policies consistent
with SB 10 by 2024.
Consistency with the General Plan
To ensure internal consistency among all General Plan elements, the Housing Element Update
must be coordinated with other Elements. Other elements of the General Plan that specifically
require updates statutorily triggered by the Housing Element include:
• Flood Hazard and Management (Gov. Code § 65302 subds. (d)(3) and (g)(2)(B))
• Fire Hazard (Gov. Code § 65302 and 65302.5) (Safety Element updates)
• Environmental Justice (Gov. Code § 65302 subd. (h))
• Climate Adaptation (sustainability throughout the General Plan Update)
• Land Use and Planning (related to the creation of higher density multiple family land use
designations)
4. HOUSING NEEDS AND SITE SUMMARY
The Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint4 forecasts that the nine -county Bay Area will add 1.4
million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year timeframe covered by this
Housing Element, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has
identified the region's housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units
assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all
income levels, from extremely low-income households to market rate housing.
Every year, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in conjunction with
the State of California, establish income categories based on the median income in each county.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3- _0.31 H[ Lo ,NG ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
Based on new requirements for the completion of the Housing Element, jurisdictions must now
report on the following categories of income:
• Extremely Low Income: 0-30% of Area Median Income, or AMI
• Very Low Income: 30-50% AMI
• Low Income: 50-80% AMI
• Moderate Income: 80-120% AMI
• Above Moderate Income: 120%+ AMI
The following table illustrates the income categories for Contra Costa County in 2021. The
median income for a family of four is $125,600.
TABLE 2: INCOME LIMITS FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 2021
Number of Persons in
Household:
1
5
6
7
8
Contra
Costa
County
Area
Median
Income:
$149,600
Extremely $28,800
Low
$32,900
$37,000
$41,100
$44,400 $47,700 $51,000 $54,300
Very Low
Income
$47,950 $54,800
Low
Income
$76,750
$61,650
$68,500
$74,000
$79,500
$87,700 $98,650 $109,600
$118,400
$84,950
$90,450
$127,150 $135,950 $144,700
Median $87,900 $100,500 $113,050 $125,600
Income
Moderate $105,500
Income
$120,550
$135,650
$150,700
$135,650
$145,700
$155,750
$165,800
$162,750
$174,800
$186,850
$198,900
Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 31,
2021. https://www.hcd. ca. qov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-
limits. shtml
The Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) is based on population projections
produced by the California Department of Finance (DOF) as well as adjustments that incorporate
the region's existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD
to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from the DOF, in order
for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the
region's vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households and
seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.5 These new laws governing the
methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of
housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.
All jurisdictions in the Bay Area received a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle,
primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to
previous cycles.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Demographics
The following are key facts regarding the Town's demographic data and housing needs and
issues from the demographic report, which can be found in Appendix A.
• Population — Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of
natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The
population of Danville increased by 5.2% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth
rate of the Bay Area.
• Age — In 2019, Danville's youth population under the age of 18 was 11,217 and senior
population 65 and older was 8,222. These age groups represent 25.1% and 18.4%,
respectively, of Danville's population.
• Race/Ethnicity — In 2020, 75.3% of Danville's population was White while 1.0% was
African American, 13.3% was Asian, and 6.5% was Latinx. People of color in Danville
comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.
• Employment — Danville residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional
Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in
Danville decreased by 4.0 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in
the jurisdiction increased by 370 (3.1%). Additionally, the jobs -household ratio in Danville
has decreased from 0.82 in 2002 to 0.81 jobs per household in 2018.
• Number of Homes — The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace
with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating
issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Danville increased,
2.0% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Contra Costa County and
below the growth rate of the region's housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices — A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all
Danville residents to live and thrive in the community.
• Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $1M -$1.5M in
2019. Home prices increased by 73.6% from 2010 to 2020.
• Rental Prices — The typical contract rent for an apartment in Danville was $2,320 in 2019.
Rental prices increased by 25.6% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without
cost burden, a household would need to make $92,880 per year.2
• Housing Type — It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a
community today and in the future. In 2020, 75.7% of homes in Danville were single family
detached, 18.0% were single family attached, 1.0% were small multifamily (2-4 units),
and 5.1% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the
number of single-family units increased more than multi -family units. Generally, in
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Danville, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above
that of other jurisdictions in the region.
• Cost Burden - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers
housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its
income on housing costs. A household is considered "cost -burdened" if it spends more
than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50%
of their income on housing costs are considered "severely cost -burdened." In Danville,
18.1% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 13.1% of
households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification - According to research from The University of California,
Berkeley, 0.0% of households in Danville live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or
experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification.
100.0% of households in Danville live in neighborhoods where low-income households
are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address
displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built.
• Neighborhood - 100.0% of residents in Danville live in neighborhoods identified as
"Highest Resource" or "High Resource" areas by State -commissioned research, while
0.0% of residents live in areas identified by this research as "Low Resource" or "High
Segregation and Poverty" areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range
of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic
opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.3
• Special Housing Needs - Some population groups may have special housing needs that
require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to
accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Danville, 7.9%
of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally,
9.2% of Danville households are larger households with five or more people, who likely
need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 8.9% of households are female -
headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.
Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate
State law requires that each jurisdiction provide analysis and programs for preserving existing
affordable multi -family rental housing units that were developed with public subsidies. Units at
risk of conversion are those units in which the restrictions, agreements or contracts to maintain
the affordability of the units expire or are otherwise terminated. At expiration, units may revert to
market rate, rendering them no longer affordable to the people living in them. Loss of affordability
can occur at the termination of bond funding, the expiration of density bonuses, and other similar
local programs.
The potential loss of existing affordable housing units is an important issue to the Town due to
displacement of lower-income tenants and the limited alternative housing for such persons. It is
typically less expensive to preserve the affordability of these units than to subsidize construction
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
of new affordable units due to the inflation of land and construction costs which has occurred
since the original development of the affordable housing projects.
Various funding sources, including HUD funding sources, such as Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds, Low -
Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and other funds are used to create and preserve
affordable housing in Danville. The information below presents the inventory of affordable
developments in Danville. Assistance to help low-income households afford housing is also
available through the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa's Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher program.
Preservation of at -risk projects can be achieved in a variety of ways, with adequate funding
availability. Alternatively, units that are converted to market rate may be replaced with new
assisted multi -family units with specified affordability timeframes.
Rental Assistance
State, local, or other funding sources can be used to provide rental subsidies to maintain the
affordability of at -risk projects. These subsidies can be structured to mirror the Housing Choice
Voucher/Section 8 program, whereby the subsidy covers the cost of the unit above what is
determined to be affordable for the tenant's household income (including a utility allowance) up
to the fair market value of the apartment. Unit sizes for the at -risk properties range from studios
to two-bedroom units and are generally reserved for very low-income households. The total
subsidy needed to maintain a unit is approximately $20,000 per year.
Transfer of Ownership
If the current organizations managing the units at risk are no longer able to maintain the project,
transferring ownership of the affordable units to a nonprofit housing organization is a viable way
to preserve affordable housing for the long term. The estimated market value for affordable units
that are potentially at high risk of converting to market rate is about $350,000 per unit.
Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low-income housing can be a means to replace at -risk units, though
extremely costly. The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors including
density, size of units, construction quality and type, location, land and development costs. Using
the Terner Center's research on the cost to develop affordable housing around the Bay Area,
the cost to replace the units could be as much as $700,000 per unit.
Qualified Entities
An owner of a multi -family rental housing development with rental restrictions (i.e., is under
agreement with federal, State, and local entities to receive subsidies for low-income tenants),
may plan to sell their "at risk" property. The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has listed qualified entities that may be interested in participating in
California's First Right of Refusal Program. If an owner decides to terminate a subsidy contract
or prepay the mortgage or sell or otherwise dispose of the assisted housing development, or if
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3— _0.31 H[ Lo =NG ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
the owner has an assisted housing development in which there will be the expiration of rental
restrictions, the owner must first give notice of the opportunity to offer to purchase to a list of
qualified entities provided to the owner.
HCD has identified a number of entities operating in Contra Costa County that may be interested
in participating in California's First Right of Refusal Program. They are listed in the attached
document. Of these entities, some have worked specifically in Danville, and others have
completed projects in surrounding areas. If a development becomes at risk of conversion to
market -rate housing, the Town will maintain contact with local organizations and housing
providers who may have an interest in acquiring at -risk units and will assist other organizations
in applying for funding to acquire at -risk units.
Funding Sources
A critical component to implement any of these preservation options is the availability of
adequate funding, which can be difficult to secure. In general, Low -Income Housing Tax Credit
funding is not readily available for rehabilitation and preservation, as the grant application
process is highly competitive and prioritizes new construction. The Town's previous ongoing
funding source, Low/Mod Housing Funds available through the Redevelopment Agency, no
longer exists due to the dissolution of Redevelopment more than a decade ago. Available
funding sources that can support affordable housing preservation include sources from the
federal and state governments, as well as local and regional funding.
Federal Funding
• HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program
• Project -Based Vouchers (Section 8)
• Section 811 Project Rental Assistance
• Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers
State Funding
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program
• Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF)
• Project Homekey
• Housing for a Healthy California (HHC)
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• National Housing Trust Fund
• Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP)
Preservation and Replacement Needs
Based on Town records and information from the California Housing Partnership Corporation,
there are no units with expiring affordability covenants in Danville during the next ten years
(2023-2033. Sycamore Place, a 74 -unit senior development (73 affordable units), was
developed by BRIDGE Housing and was primarily funded through the Low -Income Housing Tax
Credit program. Although the tax credit affordability restrictions end in 2057, the risk level is
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-15
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
considered low because the project is owned by a nonprofit developer whose mission it is to
create and conserve housing affordable to lower income households.
RHNA Allocation Summary and Methodology
Legislative Context for the Housing Element's Inventory of Sites
Per State law, the State of California, in conjunction with Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), has projected future population figures for the nine Bay Areas counties which translates
into the need for additional housing units. Each jurisdiction is then assigned a portion of the
regional need based on factors such as growth of population and adjusted by factors including
proximity to jobs, and high resource areas that have excellent access to amenities such as good
school and employment centers. This assignment is known as the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA). Each jurisdiction must ensure that there is enough land at appropriate zoning
densities to accommodate its RHNA in its Housing Element in four income categories (very low-
, low-, moderate- and above moderate -income). The RHNA for Town of Danville for the Housing
Element 2023-2031 is 2,241 units, which are broken down by income category in Table 3.
TABLE 34: DANVILLE RHNA TARGETS SUMMARY
Income Category
Very Low
50% AMI
Low
80% AMI
Moderate
120% AMI
Above
Market Rate
Total
2023-31
Allocation
652
376
338
875
2,241
Table Source: Housing Element Cycle 6 RHNA Allocation
A key component of the Housing Element is a projection of a jurisdiction's housing supply. State
law requires that the element identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing,
factory -built housing, and mobile homes, and make adequate provision for the existing and
projected needs of all economic segments of the community. This sites list is required to include
an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having
potential for redevelopment, including analysis of the development capacity that can realistically
be achieved for each site.
The purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate whether there are sufficient sites with
appropriate zoning to meet the RHNA goal. It is based on the Town's current land use
designations and zoning requirements. The analysis does not include the economic feasibility
of specific sites, nor does it take into consideration the owner's intended use of the land now or
in the future. It does not dictate where residential development will actually occur, and the
decision whether or not to develop any particular site always remains with the owner of the
property, not the Town. Based on previous Housing Elements, the Town anticipates that some
of the sites on the list will be developed with new housing, some will not, and some housing will
be built on sites not listed in the inventory.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 H 3+ND ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
Although the Sites Inventory was prepared after extensive analysis, it is still in draft form and may be revised throughout 2022
in response to public input or HCD reviews before including into the final 2023-2031 Housing Element. The Sites Inventory is
further outlined below, with a breakdown of the units in Table 7. The complete Sites Inventory is included as Appendix C.
Site Inventory Methodology
Town staff inventoried vacant and underutilized parcels in Danville to determine what land is
available for development at various levels of density. Types of sites included:
• Vacant sites zoned for residential use.
• Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development.
• Residentially zoned sites, including non -residentially zoned sites with a residential
overlay, that are capable of being developed at a higher density (non -vacant sites,
including underutilized sites).
• Non-residential sites that are currently vacant or occupied by older commercial building
that are near the end of their useful life or are an underutilization of the site.
• Sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.
The number of units that might be able to be developed at various affordability levels was then
estimated, e.g., available land zoned at higher densities can be counted toward the very low -
and low-income level needs, and land zoned at lower densities are counted toward the moderate
and above moderate -income housing need. The analysis was then completed using the actual
average residential densities for developments built on land with various zoning designations
over the past five years.
The Town of Danville's Sites Inventory for future housing includes property zoned for multi -family
use that is currently vacant as well as land that is severely underutilized. Sites that are zoned
commercial or office but allow residential uses were included. As seen in Table 7 below, the
adequate sites analysis demonstrates that there is enough land to meet the Town's RHNA with
programs, given the Town's pre-existing inventory and programs contained within this Housing
Element. The analysis for affordable housing units for extremely low, very low, and low-income
households is based on the assumption that land zoned at densities higher than 30 units to the
acre can facilitate affordable housing development.
More than 50% of the Town's below market rate housing would be developed on lands that are
underutilized. However, the Town has received a number of residential and mixed-use
development projects, and inquiries regarding possible future developments, looking to revitalize
these sites and seeking density bonus and other incentives to achieve higher density residential
development.
Site Inventory Approach. Staff conducted a site -by -site review of all potential development sites,
Town -wide. As will be demonstrated below, staff currently believes that the RHNA, plus a
reasonable buffer, can be accommodated with some General Plan land use designation and
zoning amendment in a number of areas of the community.
Zoned versus Realistic Capacity. When establishing realistic unit capacity calculations, the
jurisdiction must consider current development trends of existing or approved residential
developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, as well as the cumulative impact
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-17
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, and floor area ratios.
The capacity methodology must be adjusted to account for any limitation as a result of availability
and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. For non-residential zoned sites (i.e.,
mixed-use areas or commercial sites that allow residential development), the capacity
methodology must account for the likelihood of residential development on these sites. While a
site may be zoned to accommodate, say, 100 units, site constraints or other development
standards may preclude development to the full 100 units.
Residential Zones. Since the certification of the last Housing Element, a series of new laws have
been implemented that make it easier for developers to use the State density bonus provisions
by providing a certain percentage of units in proposed developments as affordable.OF1 As a
result, many developers are taking advantage of the additional density offered, which has
resulted in significant changes to the realistic capacity for development. The following table
illustrates that for last five years, from 2017-2021, residential development projects have been
proposed and/or approved at densities even above 100% of zoned density. Although the State
has specifically stated that cities cannot rely on density bonuses alone to calculate capacity
(primarily because use of the density bonus is optional), cities can use up to 100% of zoned
density as the realistic capacity as long as the Town can demonstrate that as -built densities are
consistently above zoned density.
TABLE 4-2: 2017 — 2021 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DENSITIES
Address Development Type
2550 Tassajara Lane
Edendale
Acre
- 5.0
5
No of Units
26
Percent of Base
Maximum
Density
142%
Resulting Units
Per Acre
3743 & 3755 Old Blackhawk
Road - Abigail Place
2.9
7
19
83%
6.4
373-383 Diablo Road — Alexon 3.7
Riverwalk
144
124%
40
Diablo Road (Magee Ranch)
Abigail Place
134 El Dorado
Magee Ranch
410
76
84%
.2
2.9
7
19
80%
.3
5
73%
410 69
2830 Camino Tassajara
3.0
4
1485 Lawrence Road
4.8
11
5
84%
6.4
14.5
.17
120%
3.6
100%
1 For more than forty years, California's Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.) has been a mechanism to encourage
developers to incorporate affordable units within a residential project in exchange for density bonuses and relief from other base
development standards through concessions and waivers. The amount of additional density allowed depends on the level of affordability
provided.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
023-2031 HousiNG ELEMENT
411
DANVILLE.
932 La Gonda Way
2.6
4
75%
1.5
1475 Lawrence Road
5
4
80%
.8
Average Units per Acre
437
38202
95%
1-77.2
23
While the development history above documents that recent developments have been built at 95%
of the maximum density allowed, for RHNA purposes, the Town is only assuming the bottom of the
density range. For example, all of the new housing sites will be designated to allow 30-35 units per
acre. For each, the Town is only assuming 30 units per acre when calculating the total number of
potential housing units (see Appendix C, Table B).
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-19
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 5: 2017 — 2021 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS/APPLICATIONS
Address
Development
Type
Description
No. of
Dwelling
Units
of
Project
Residential
a• •rox.)
Base
Zoning
Lot
Size/
Acres
Dwelling
Units
per Acre
3020 Fostoria
Way (Borel)
Development Plan
application to
subdivide a 6.6 -
acre (net) site to
construct 160
Townhomes
1670
100%
2 acres
20-25
5 acres
25-30
7
24
375& 359 West
El Pintado
Development Plan 57
application to
construct a 57 -unit
senior housing
development
100% 20-25 1.7 34
2570 Camino
Tassajara & 45
Sherburne Hills
Road (Mission)
Development Plan 28
request to
subdivide a 17 -
acre site (net) into
14 single family
units with 14 ADUs
100% 3 acres 17 1.6
1-3
3 acres 1
11 acres
.4
2830 Camino
Tassajara
Subdivision and 11
Development Plan
to subdivide a 2.24
acre (net) parcel to
create 11 dwelling
units
100% 2 units 2.24 4.9
per acre
2449 & 2451
Tassajara Lane
Subdivision and 7
Development Plan
to subdivide a 7.92
acre (net) parcel
into 7 single family
lots
100% 1 7.92 .88
unit/acre
600 Hartz
Avenue - FAZ
Mixed use 37 92%
commercial and
residential
condominiums
resulting in 37
units on a 1.19
acre site
30 1.19 31
units/acre
Total Projects
6
307 98%
37.05 16
Total with
Residential
(100%)
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-20
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3- _0.31 H[ Lo =NG ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
Average
Dwelling Unit
per acre for
projects with
Residential
8.3
Identification of Sites for Affordable Housing. Sites on the Inventory must also be classified as
suitable for various income levels including very low, low, moderate and above moderate.
Several housing laws impact how sites are selected for inclusion by income category. In general,
sites less than 0.5 acres cannot be considered as available for lower income development unless
the jurisdiction demonstrates that it has a track record of affordable developments at this size of
lot. For this inventory, no individual site less than 0.5 acres is allocated toward lower income
units; however, as per State guidance, such small sites can be considered either for moderate
income, above moderate income, or both.
Sites larger than 10 acres are generally considered unavailable for affordable housing, unless
the Housing Element can demonstrate a track record for developing such sites of this size, or
the Town can demonstrate it is otherwise feasible to develop affordable housing. The Town has
a demonstrated track record of large site development, typically completed in phases, which
includes affordable residential development.
The new requirements for Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH; AB 686) dictate that the
Town avoid, to the extent possible, the location of potential affordable housing in the inventory
in a manner that would exacerbate existing concentrations of poverty, as well as contribute to
increasing the number of lower-income households in lower-income neighborhoods. The Town
must also consider locating housing away from environmental constraints such as sea level rise,
and near areas of higher or highest opportunities, including quality schools, parks, and
educational opportunities. The State indicates that jurisdictions consider the following factors
when determining the best locations for affordable housing.
• Proximity to transit.
• Access to high performing schools and jobs.
• Access to amenities, such as parks and services.
• Access to health care facilities and grocery stores.
• Locational scoring criteria for Low-income Housing Tax Credit (TCAC) Program funding.
• Proximity to available infrastructure and utilities.
• Sites that do not require environmental mitigation.
• Presence of development streamlining processes, environmental exemptions, and other
development incentives.
One measurement tool to evaluate neighborhood amenities and resources is the Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Map. Each site in the inventory list is rated as
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-21
Very Low Income
Very Low Income
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
either Low, Moderate, High or Highest Resource area utilizing the mapping tool. All of Danville
is in the "Highest Resource" areas. The Sites Inventory, which includes properties Town -wide
appears to comply with these requirements as currently understood. Overall, the sites identified
as suitable for lower income housing in Danville are located in highest resource areas.
Distribution of Units by Affordability. Consistent with State guidance, individual sites less than
0.5 acres were assumed to be developed with moderate- and above -moderate income, split with
at least 50% into the above moderate category to each. For sites larger than 0.5 acres, the
distribution of units by income category fell into two types:
1. For sites in the pipeline, the actual proposed distribution of units by affordability was
included. For example, the Borel development includes a total of 1670 units, of which 254
will be moderate -income as a result of implementation of the Town's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. These are the figures used in the spreadsheet.
2. For all other sites, since they are all designated with a minimum density of 30 units per
acre (Danville's default density) the distribution of units by affordability was applied as
necessary to meet the Town's RHNA for each income category. is in the same proportion
The State recommends using the proportion of units in the RHNA allocation as a guide for
allocating units among sites. This mathematical process is intended to demonstrate that there
are enough sites zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate all the RHNA allocation, rather
than an assumption about where affordable units will actually be built. In part, this is because
the Town does not determine specific sites for affordable housing, but rather reviews and
evaluates projects as they are proposed by outside developers. Some sites identified in the
inventory will be developed with housing during the 6th cycle, some will not, and other sites not
identified in the inventory may be developed. The decision whether or not to develop any site
within the eight-year housing cycle is at the discretion of the owner.
TABLE 60: EXAMPLE RHNA INCOME DISTRIBUTION
RHNA Allocation Income Distribution
Low Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Income
Moderate
29%
17%
15%
39%
100%
Thus, for a 1 -acre site at 3040 du/ac, the distribution would be as follows:
RHNA Allocation Income Distribution
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Total
914
57
46
121-6
3040
In addition, because of new rules in the Housing Accountability Act's "No Net Loss" provisions
(SB 166 of 2017), the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-22
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
7:
20' _0.3.1 HCL,.'_; r h E_E =IEI,T
must always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA, in terms of the number
of housing units, as well as the level of affordability. When a site identified in the Element as
available for the development of housing to accommodate the lower-income portion of the RHNA
is developed at a higher income level, the locality must either (1) identify and rezone, if
necessary, an adequate substitute site, or (2) demonstrate that the land inventory already
contains an adequate substitute site. By distributing units to sites according to the distribution of
the RHNA allocation — including above moderate income — it will be easier to ensure ongoing
compliance with the No Net Loss provisions.
Pipeline Projects
In addition to the sites potentially available for development or redevelopment, projects that have
been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the
RHNA projected period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the
affordability and unit count of the development. For these projects, affordability is based on the
actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the
planning period of the units within the project. These sites are included in the Sites Inventory
(Appendix C), as each is presumed to receive its Certificate of Occupancy (C of 0) after June
30, 2022. If any of these sites receive their C of 0 before this date, or the project does not
continue, the spreadsheet will be modified accordingly.
Accessory Dwelling Units
The State now allows jurisdictions to count projected development of accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) based on prior years' production averages. Substantial changes in State law pertaining
to ADUs in the last several years have made it much easier for homeowners to create ADUs
throughout Danville. In addition, the Town created an ADU (Garden Cottages) program, which
offers free ADU building plans, with varying sizes and architectural styles, for free to the public.
According to Town records, 33 ADUs or JADUs were permitted in 2022 and 42/16 ADUs or
JADUs were permitted in 2021, demonstrating an increase in their development over the prior
years, 2020, where permits were issued in 2020, 11 issued in 2019, and 12 issued in
2018. This inventory includes a projection of `0 ADUs annually over the eight-year Housing
Element period, resulting in new ADUs.
A study conducted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) from September 2021
found that ADUs are rented at a variety of rates and often meet lower income affordability
requirements based on the incomes of the occupants and/or their rental rates. Based on these
findings, local jurisdictions are justified in using certain percentages to meet their affordable
housing allocations. Although the State has not yet officially approved the conclusions of the
study, it has agreed that jurisdictions can allocate ADUs towards a range of income levels.
The study's recommended affordability breakdown that a Bay Area jurisdiction can use for
ADUs, which is as noted as being conservative, is 30% very low, 30% low, 30% moderate and
10% above moderate.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-23
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Sites Inventory
Based on the methodology and approach outlined above, the Sites Inventory includes a range
of sites located Town -wide that could be developed with up to 2,7983,101 new housing units.
Table 7 provides a high-level summary of the sitcc listcd on the Sites Inventory broken down by
income. Figure 1 shows a map of where each site is located within the Town and the housing
opportunity areas.
TABLE 74: SITES INVENTORY AFFORDABILITY BREAKDOWN
• • • •••• • • •
Table Source: Housing Resources Sites Inventory
The Sites Inventory was developed to meet all applicable statutory requirements and provide a
realistic and achievable roadmap for the Town to meet and potentially exceed its RHNA. The
Sites Inventory is summarized as follows:
• The housing sites are spread throughout the Town, with all located in high resource areas,
to meet AFFH requirements.
• The housing projections utilize existing land use and zoning densities, and no rezoning is
necessary.
• It includes conservative production and density assumptions for the identified housing
sites.
• The Town has a number of pipeline projects that are anticipated to be completed by the
end of this housing cycle.
o 41+ housing units are currently under construction; and
o 140+ housing units are approved or entitled.
• The housing projections do not have any reliance on new units developed under SB9 and
reasonable reliance on new ADU production.
The analytical process that went into creating the Sites Inventory and the justification for
commercial site redevelopment are fully detailed in the Sites Inventory Approach and
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-24
Low
Moderate
RHNA
652
376
338
875
2,241
Buffer (15%)
+98
+56
+51
+131
+336
RHNA with Buffer
750
432
389
1,006
2,577
Housing Sites Inventory
6856
372361
259253
499505
1,81505
ADUs
72
72
72
24
240
Prior Inventory Availability
0
0
97
656
753
TOTAL
757638
444370
428469
1,1791,321
2,8082798
Remaining
78
124
3933
1739
23124
Table Source: Housing Resources Sites Inventory
The Sites Inventory was developed to meet all applicable statutory requirements and provide a
realistic and achievable roadmap for the Town to meet and potentially exceed its RHNA. The
Sites Inventory is summarized as follows:
• The housing sites are spread throughout the Town, with all located in high resource areas,
to meet AFFH requirements.
• The housing projections utilize existing land use and zoning densities, and no rezoning is
necessary.
• It includes conservative production and density assumptions for the identified housing
sites.
• The Town has a number of pipeline projects that are anticipated to be completed by the
end of this housing cycle.
o 41+ housing units are currently under construction; and
o 140+ housing units are approved or entitled.
• The housing projections do not have any reliance on new units developed under SB9 and
reasonable reliance on new ADU production.
The analytical process that went into creating the Sites Inventory and the justification for
commercial site redevelopment are fully detailed in the Sites Inventory Approach and
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-24
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3— _0.31 H[ Lo =NG ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
Methodology sections above. The full list of sites adequate for housing development identified
by the Town is included in Appendix C.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-25
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
FIGURE 1: SITES INVENTORY MAP
Site Inventory Map
Universe: Sites Inventory Notes: The individual sites identified as suitable for housing redevelopment are marked XXXs. Site affordability breakdown by grouping is seen in
Table 7.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-26
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 HDUS hC ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
5. OTHER REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS
Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan
The Housing Element is the only chapter in a general plan with statutorily -prescribed timelines
for completion, so to ensure internal consistency among all General Plan elements, work on
both any General Plan Update and the Housing Element Update will be coordinated. Other
elements of the General Plan that specifically require updates statutorily triggered by the
Housing Element include:
• Flood Hazard and Management (Gov. Code § 65302 subds. (d)(3) and (q)(2)(B))
• Fire Hazard (Gov. Code § 65302 and 65302.5) (Safety Element updates)
• Environmental Justice (Gov. Code § 65302 subd. (h))
• Climate Adaptation (sustainability throughout the General Plan Update)
To ensure ongoing consistency among all elements of the General Plan, the Town tracks all
General Plan amendments as they occur, and prepares revisions as needed. This will ensure
ongoing consistency throughout the planning period.
Compliance with AB 725: To be in compliance, the element should demonstrate that at least 25
percent of moderate -income units will be in areas zones for at least four units, but not more than
100 units per acre. And that at least 25 percent of above moderate -income units will be located
in areas zoned for at least four units of housing per parcel.
As shown in the inventory, all of the proposed new housing sites will be zoned to require a
density range of 30-35 units per acre. As a result, approximately 1,800 of the 2,577 required
RHNA units (including a 15% buffer), or 70% of the housing sites, would be within the required
density range. All of these would include at least 25% of the units available for both moderate
and above moderate income households.
Constraints Analysis Summary
The purpose of the constraints analysis section, per Government Code Section 65583(a)(5-6),
is to identify and analyze potential and actual nongovernmental and governmental constraints
to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing that hinder a jurisdiction from
meeting its share of the regional housing needs. A summary of governmental and non-
governmental constraints is provided below, and a more detailed analysis is contained in
Appendix B.
Governmental Constraints
State law (California Government Code, Section (a)[5]) requires Housing Elements to contain
an analysis of governmental policies and regulations that can result in both positive and negative
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-27
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
effects on the availability and affordability of housing. Potential constraints to housing include
zoning regulations, development standards, infrastructure requirements, development impact
fees, and the development approval processes.
While government policies and regulations are intended to serve public objectives and further
the public good, the Town of Danville recognizes that its actions can potentially constrain the
availability and affordability of housing to meet the community's future needs. The Town has
implemented several measures to reduce development costs and streamline the approval
process and has identified additional opportunities for streamlining the Town's review process.
The Town has identified outdated zoning code regulations in several areas that may pose as a
barrier to housing development and have included Housing Element implementation programs
to review zoning code requirements and amend as necessary to remove these barriers. Further
detail is provided in Appendix B.
Non -Governmental Constraints
State law (California Government Code, Section 65583[a)[6]) requires Housing Elements to
contain an analysis of nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of
land, the cost of construction, and the length of time between receiving entitlement approval for
a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that development.
Potential nongovernmental constraints are largely determined by market conditions or other
factors, over which local jurisdictions have little control. However, local governments can
influence market conditions and their associated costs indirectly. Governmental interventions
that affect nongovernmental constraints are explored in more detail in Appendix B.
Housing Resources Summary
The Housing Resources of the Town of Danville can be summarized into two parts. The first is
the various funding sources the Town can pool together for affordable housing production,
preservation, and protection, as well as outside funds from a variety of agencies, such as the
County and the federal government. The second is an inventory of sites that are adequate for
projected housing needs. A full description of each funding source and the opportunity sites
inventory are included in Appendix C - Housing Resources.
. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Overview
The Town of Danville recognizes an engaged community is essential to drafting and
implementing a strong Housing Element. A key strength of this draft Housing Element is the
incorporation of key findings collected at over 28 public and community meetings and workshops,
one pop-up event, and four surveys. A summary of public participation and community outreach
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-28
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
activities and key takeaways are included here. The collected public input received is included
as an appendix to this draft Element (Appendix F). To reach as many individuals as possible
who live in or are a part of the Danville community, the Town developed and implemented a
proactive outreach plan at the outset of the draft Housing Element development process. Its
goals were to:
• Raise awareness among Danville residents of the importance of the Housing Element
update on shaping the future of the community.
• Have robust and diverse community participation throughout the process that is
representative of the full range of demographics, perspectives, and experiences in the
Danville community, including those who are often underrepresented in community
engagement because of language or other barriers.
• Build a level of public trust in the update process and support for the Housing Element
that will lead to its successful implementation after adoption.
The Town proactively engaged community members including homeowners, renters, business
owners, local business employees, and seniors, and sought specifically to engage people from
all economic segments of the community. The conversation of housing can be a sensitive one.
The ultimate goal of community outreach was to provide a better understanding of the "why", the
"what", the "how" and the "who". Specific activities included: website, social media, printed
media, priorities surveys, virtual workshops, and interactive tools.
Website, Social Media, and Printed Media
The Town of Danville launched the Danville Town Talks website in March of 2021, which
functions as the hub of community engagement for the Housing Element and is the two-way
communication tool between community members and staff. Through the website, community
members can participate in polls, engage in discussions regarding the process, ask questions,
and review past virtual webinars.
An introductory article was included in the Summer 2021 edition of the Danville Quarterly
Newsletter, mailed Town -wide, and included an initial priorities survey for residents to complete.
Updates regarding the Housing Element Update and community engagement efforts were also
featured in the Fall 2021, Winter 2022, Spring 2022 and Summer 2022 Danville Quarterly
Newsletters. In addition to the newsletter, Danville has also taken advantage of marketing efforts
through all social media platforms, utilizing press releases, and using E -news to reach
community members.
Flyers detailing information and FAQs on the Housing Element Update were displayed in kiosks
located around the downtown area and available in Town facilities including the Town Offices,
Danville Community Center and Veterans Memorial Building/Senior Center.
Community Meetings
To increase awareness of and participation in the Housing Element Update process among all
stakeholders, Town staff participated in community meetings and workshops with Town officials
and community members. Town staff gave presentations at nine (9) public meetings including:
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-29
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Town Council/Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission/Arts Advisory Board Joint Study
Session (3/10/21)
• Town Council/Planning Commission/Design Review Board Joint Study Session (3/23/21)
• Town Council/Heritage Resource Commission Joint Study Session (4/12/21)
• Planning Commission Meeting (6/8/21)
• Town Council Study Session (9/15/21)
• Planning Commission Meeting (9/28/21)
• Planning Commission Meeting (10/26/21)
• Planning Commission Meeting (2/22/22)
• Town Council/Heritage Resource Commission Study Session (3/14/22)
• Town Council/Chamber of Commerce Liaison Meeting (10/7/21)
Town staff launched a 3 -part Housing Element Workshop series to provide information on the
Housing Element process and the interactive engagement tools acquired for public participation.
These workshops included:
• Housing Element 101 Workshop 6/12/21)
• Housing Element 101 Workshop (6/29/21)
• Housing Element 101 Workshop (7/8/21)
• Housing Element 101 Workshop (8/19/21)
• Housing Element 101 Workshop (8/31/21)
• Housing Element 101 Workshop with Chamber of Commerce (9/18/21)
• Housing Element 201 Workshop (3/9/22)
• Housing Element 201 Workshop (3/17/22)
• Housing Element 201 Workshop with Chamber of Commerce (3/28/22)
Town staff presented twice on Town Talks with the Mayor; a monthly streaming webinar hosted
by the Danville Mayor. These meetings includingincluded:
• Town Talks with the Mayor (5/25/21)
• Town Talks with the Mayor (4/1/22)
Lastly, Town staff participated in 7XX community group meetings group -meetings to provide
information and updates on the Housing Element process. These meetings included:
• Danville/Sycamore Valley Rotary Club (4/4/21)
• Realtors Marketing Association (4/6/21)
• Danville Kiwanis Club (8/12/21)
• San Ramon Valley Exchange Club (9/8/21)
• American Legion Mt Diablo Post (12/5/21)
• Realtors Marketing Association (3/17/22)
• Danville Senior Center Buzz Session (3/29/22)
Lastly, Town staff reached out to more than a dozen community based and special needs
organizations by e-mail, phone, mailers, survey requests and the Town's quarterly newsletter to
participate in the Housing Element process including:
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-30
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• San Ramon Valley Rotary
• Danville Sycamore Rotary
• Kiwanis Club of the San Ramon Valley
• Exchange Club of the San Ramon Valley
• Down Syndrome Connection
• Beth Chaim Congregation
• Discovery Counseling Center
• The Rock Church
• First Church of Christ, Scientist
• Messiah Lutheran Church
• Rolling Hills Community Church
• St. Isidore Catholic Church
• St. Timothy's Episcopal Church
Outreach Activities
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
Town staff and consultants conducted an online priorities survey, two simulation surveys, one
pop-up event and a statistically reliable community survey that included some Housing Element -
related questions.
These efforts included:
• Priorities Survey (7/8/21 -9/28/21)
• Housing Site Suggestion Map Tool (3/7/22-4/8/22
• Godbe Research Community Survey (3/9/22-3/16/22)
• Danville Farmers Market/Veterans Memorial Building Pop -Up Event (3/26/22)
• Housing Density Balancing Act Tool (7/01/22-08/01/22)
Key accomplishments of the community outreach efforts included:
Feedback and insights from tenants, non-English speakers, lower-income residents, property
owners and developers helped to highlight new policy opportunities and ways to strengthen and
improve existing policies, with the overarching challenge of housing affordability and availability
being a reoccurring topic. Themes that were incorporated into the Housing Plan included
production of additional senior housing. A complete documentation of efforts to reach the
community can be found in Appendix F.
7. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH)
SUMMARY
What is Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing?
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-31
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
California Assembly Bill 686, which was signed into law in 2018 requires that all public agencies
in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies
receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also
required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair
housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take
"meaningful actions" to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.
AB 686 requires that all Housing Elements prepared on or after January 1, 2021, assess fair
housing through the following components:
• An assessment of fair housing within the jurisdiction that includes the following
components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the Town's fair housing
enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities
in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and identification and
prioritization of fair housing goals and actions.
• A sites inventory that accommodates all income levels of the Town's share of the RHNA
that also serves the purpose of furthering more integrated and balanced living patterns.
• Responsive housing programs that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing
opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing
factors identified in the assessment of fair housing.
• The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns
over time. This analysis compares the locality at a county level for the purposes of
promoting more inclusive communities.
AB 686 requires all public agencies to "administer programs and activities relating to housing
and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing and take no
action inconsistent with this obligation." AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law
to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include
an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to
opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.
A Fair Housing Assessment for several Contra Cost County jurisdictions was conducted by the
Contra Costa County Collaborative, a joint venture of MIG Consultants and Veronica Tam and
Associates, funding by ABAG. Root Policy provided additional analysis on both the top issues
to be addressed and the relationship between the inventory and AFFH concerns. The
Assessment describes fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and
segregation, access to opportunity and disparate housing needs as contributing factors that
should be addressed in the Town's fair housing action plan. Some primary findings in the Fair
Housing Assessment included:
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-32
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
• Between 2016 and 2021 two discrimination complaints were made to ECHO by Danville
residents, one on the basis of national origin and one designated as "other."
• Households of color living in Danville are disproportionately impacted by low household
incomes, overcrowding, cost burden, home mortgage loan denials, homelessness, and
lack of affordable housing options compared to non -Hispanic White residents.
Specifically,
o Other Race/Multiple Race and American Indian/Alaska Native households have
the highest proportion of households making less than or equal to 50% AMI.
o Other Race/Multiple Race experience overcrowding at a significantly higher rate
than households in Danville overall.
o Other Race/Multiple Race (53%), Hispanic (41%), and Black (34%) households
have the highest rate of cost burden compared to non -Hispanic White (31 %) and
Asian (26%) households.
o Danville's residential permit and development patterns favor higher income
homeowners and limit opportunities for low and moderate income households—
who are most likely to be people of color.
o Mortgage denial rates are highest for American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and
Hispanic households.
o American Indian or Alaska Native and Black residents are overrepresented in the
homeless population compared to their share of the overall population.
• Danville has a similar distribution of household types as neighboring high income and
predominantly White communities - a high share of households that are married with
children - and a smaller proportion of households that are single parents.
• Danville's housing market caters to higher income households. The city has
approximately three times the number of homes valued over $1 million compared to the
county as a whole. Similarly, Danville has a concentration of high rent rentals with four
times as many units priced above $3,000 compared to the county overall.
• Lack of affordable and reasonably priced housing has contributed to Danville's relatively
low share of low income households, people of color, and single parent households
compared to the county overall.
• The areas west of 1-680 in Danville have a higher share of LMI households, persons
experiencing disabilities, cost burdened renters, and Housing Choice Voucher holders.
The concentration of renters and low income households in areas west of 1-680 is
reflective of the relative density and affordability of the area.
o While Danville has a smaller proportion of residents experiencing disabilities than
the county (8% and 11%, respectively), the disability rate is highest among
Black/African American (14.4%) and Other Race/Multiple Race (12.5%)
households.
o While Danville has the highest TCAC educational score (>0.75), indicating more
positive educational outcomes, the lowest performing school in the town is located
in this area.
o The areas west of 1-680 have relatively lower TCAC environmental scores
compared to the rest of the town.
Contributing factors to these Primary Findings include:
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-33
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• -Fair housing issue: Households of color (Hispanic, Other/Multiple Race, American Indian
or Alaskan Native, and Black/African American) have disproportionate housing needs.
These needs are evident in high levels of cost burden, mortgage denial rates, and
homelessness.
• Contributing factors:
• Households of color are primarily concentrated in areas west of Interstate 680. According
to HCD, these areas have the highest concentration of low to moderate income
populations, cost burdened renters, and households utilizing housing choice vouchers.
• Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the town's very high costs of housing and
the very limited development of multifamily housing, which is typically more affordable.
• Where affordable housing exists, it is concentrated in the areas west of 1-680, resulting in
segregation of lower income households in neighborhoods with lower opportunity scores.
• Danville has approximately three times the number of homes valued over $1 million
compared to the county as a whole. Similarly, Danville has a concentration of high rent
rentals with four times as many units priced above $3,000 compared to the county overall.
• While environmental opportunity scores for Danville are relatively high, the area with a
higher percentage of non-White households has the lowest TCAC environmental score
in the town.
• It is well documented that before civil rights laws were enacted, persons of color —
particularly African Americans — were denied loans to purchase homes, were not allowed
to buy in many neighborhoods because of restrictive covenants and were harassed if they
managed to purchase a home in a predominantly White neighborhood. These historical
actions have led to a significant homeownership gap among racial and ethnic minorities,
except for Asian households.
• Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities are concentrated in areas with higher cost
burden and lower environmental quality relative to the entire town.
• While the Town of Danville has a lower proportion of residents experiencing disabilities
than the county, residents with disabilities are concentrated in areas west of 1-680. This
area of the town has a concentration of low to moderate income households, high renter
cost burden, higher utilization of housing choice vouchers and scores relatively low on
TCAC's environmental opportunity areas compared to the entire town.
• Fair housing issue: Few residents file fair housing complaints, indicating a potential lack
of awareness about fair housing rights.
• Contributing factors:
• Lack of access to information about fair housing rights.
• Limited knowledge of fair housing by residents.
In response to this analysis, as well as community input, an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Action Plan, which details how the Town proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the
fair housing challenges identified in this analysis, was developed. The Action Plan is included in
Appendix D and the policies and programs to implement the Action Plan are included in the
Housing Plan under Goal 5.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-34
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
DANNI1Liz.
8. HOUSING PLAN
The Town of Danville is a desirable residential community to live in, work, and play in. The
Town's primary objective is to maintain a diversity of housing opportunities. There should be a
variety of housing types and sizes, a mixture of rental and ownership housing, and housing that
supports special needs populations, including farmworkers, single female heads of household,
people with disabilities, and those who are unhoused. This variety of housing opportunities will
accommodate a diverse population, leading to a variety of household sizes, all age groups and
a wide range of income levels.
In addition, Danville will need to increase its housing supply to meet the housing demand caused
by current and future job growth. The types of new housing created should accommodate all
income levels consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The goals, polices, and
actions contained in this Housing Plan support these overarching objectives while also ensuring
that the Town will meet its statutory obligations, affirmatively further fair housing and facilitate
housing production at all income levels. To implement each of these policies, the Town has
identified specific programs and actions, which are outlined in the Implementation Plan included
in Appendix C.
Goals, Policies, and Programs Summary
The Town has identified ten goals to guide the Housing Element's policies and programs to
address a range of community priorities identified through community engagement, housing
needs of special populations, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and the production,
preservation, and protection of a range of housing types.
Goal 1: Develop infrastructure through funding mechanisms that support the demands of current
and future residents, housing, commercial, and retail development.
• Policy H-1.1 Ensure capital improvements meet development needs.
• Policy H-1.2 Evaluate and establish funding for new infrastructure.
• Policy H-1.3 Regularly identify and address infrastructure needs
Goal 2: Promote a vibrant commercial and cultural downtown area that meets the needs of
residents and visitors and encourages a mix of retail, commercial, and residential building
through zoning.
• Policy H-2.1 Provide clear information on requirements for development in the downtown.
• Policy H-2.2 Support mixed-use development.
• Policy H-2.3 Encourage housing rehabilitation in commercial zoning districts
Goal 3: Promote environmental responsibility, long-term sustainability, and adaptability in
residential development and related infrastructure to minimize impacts to global climate change.
• Policy H-3.1 Promote existing and develop new energy conservation programs.
• Policy H-3.2 Provide information to the public on programs for energy conservation.
• Policy H-3.3 Sponsor an annual Earth Day event
Goal 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, age, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, ability, or national origin.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-35
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Policy H-4.1 Equal Housing Opportunity: Continue to facilitate non-discrimination in
housing in Danville.
• Policy H-4.2 Nondiscrimination Clauses: Provide nondiscrimination clauses in rental
agreements and deed restrictions for housing constructed with Town assistance.
Goal 5: Affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that overcome patterns of
segregation and foster inclusive communities.
• See Fair Housing Action Plan in Table 3
Goal 6: Promote the expansion of the housing throughout the Town to accommodate a variety
of housing types that are attractive and affordable to potential renters and home buyers at a wide
range of income levels.
• Policy H-6.1 Facilitate and support the production of new affordable housing units.
• Policy H-6.2 Seek to retain existing subsidized affordable housing units.
• Policy H-6.3 Promote and incentivize the construction of accessory dwelling units.
• Policy H-6.4 Utilize County, State, and federal programs that provide housing opportunities
for lower-income households.
• Policy H-6.5 Monitor affordable projects at risk of conversion to market rate.
• Policy H-6.6 Monitor Federal actions and appropriations regarding extension of Section 8
contracts.
• Policy H-6.7 Support efforts to retain existing FHA and HUD subsidized low-income units.
• Policy H-6.8 Support the County Housing Authority housing rental subsidies.
• Policy H-6.9 Support efforts to obtain available State and federal assistance to develop
affordable housing.
• Policy H-6.10 Support State and regional efforts to reinstate Redevelopment -like tools.
• Policy H-6.11 Promote development of a range of housing types.
Goal 7: Promote access to affordable housing opportunities for persons with special housing
needs such as seniors, developmentally disabled, large households, and very low to moderate
income households.
• Policy H-7.1 Collaborate with special population service providers to identify specific
housing needs and guide Town policies.
• Policy H-7.2 Provide information on housing options for special populations.
Goal 8: Facilitate a mix of housing types with density and height limitations appropriate for the
subject neighborhood.
• Policy H-8.1 Encourage infill housing development.
• Policy H-8.2 Establish building height requirements that are sensitive to neighborhood
context.
• Policy H-8.3 Provide a density bonus to projects with affordable units.
Goal 9: Promote a wide variety of housing types that balance valued aspects of the existing
community character, including quality design, scale, and preservation of natural features.
• Policy H-9.1 Encourage quality design.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-36
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
Goal 10: Adopt and implement a Housing Element that complies with State Law.
• Policy H-10.1 Pursue available funding for the preservation and rehabilitation of older
housing.
• Policy H-10.2 Encourage new multifamily housing.
• Policy H-10.3 Provide active leadership in implementing the Housing Element policies and
programs.
• Policy H-10.4 Review implementation progress annually.
• Policy H-10.5 Encourage public participation in creating the Town's housing and
development policies.
• Policy H-10.6 Collaborate with owners to reclaim residential units illegally converted to
commercial uses.
• Policy H-10.7 Support County housing rehabilitation programs for low- to moderate -income
households.
• Policy H-10.8 Allow employee housing in areas designated with a residential land use.
9. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
The quantified objectives section estimates the number of units likely to be constructed,
rehabilitated, or conserved/preserved by income level during the 2023-2031 planning period.
The quantified objectives do not represent a ceiling on development, but rather set a target goal
for the jurisdiction to achieve, based on needs, resources, and constraints.
According to HCD, the sum of the quantified objectives for the programs should ideally be equal
to or surpass the community's identified housing needs. However, State law recognizes that the
total housing needs identified may exceed available resources and the community's ability to
satisfy this need within the content of the general plan. Under these circumstances, the
quantified objectives need not match the identified existing housing needs but should establish
the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved
over an eight-year time frame. The quantified objectives do not necessarily meet the goals of
RHNA because they are not a full projection of anticipated housing development within the
Housing Element Cycle. It is an estimate of actual production, given available resources and
projected pipelines projects.
With respect to affordable units, the Town has estimated the potential subsidies available during
the planning period and has calculated the potential number of units that could be assisted with
these funds. In addition, the Town has compiled a list of known or expected development
projects anticipated to be completed within the next eight years.
Based on residential building permits issued in the last year and residential projects that have
been initially reviewed or approved by the Planning Division that have not been built, the
quantified objective for non -subsidized units developed in market projects is 684 units. The total
quantified objectives for housing production over the next eight years and how they align with
the Town's overall RHNA are outlined in the two tables below.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-37
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 8-5: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR CYCLE 6 (2023 — 2031
New Construction Affordable
Total
ELI
VLI
LI
MOD Market
3020 Fostoria Way (Bore!)
24
24
14336
57
275& 359 West El Pintado Senior
2570 Camino Tassajara & 45
Sherburne Hills Road
(Mission)
14
14
28
2830 Camino Tassajara
2
2
11
2449 & 2451 Tassajara Lane
7
Diablo Road (Magee Ranch)
7
7
69
600 Hartz Ave
5
5
32
510 & 520 La Gonda Way
80
40
40
40
107 Town & Country
75
35
40
75
200 Boone Ct.
32
16
16
32
480 & 486 San Ramon Valley
Blvd.
63
32
31
63
2900 Camino Tassajara
60
30
30
60
828 Diablo
54
27
27
54
155 Diablo
20
10
10
20
ADUs (30% VLI, 30% LI, 30%
MOD, 10% Above MOD)
216288
7296
7296
7296
2432
652
93023
Future Private Development
TBD
Sub Total
2784
Total Construction
Total (Preserved Units plus
New Construction)
684
i
724
0
136
309
279
Grand Total
1,408
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-38
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
DANVILLE.
TABLE 9-6: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ALIGNMENT WITH DANVILLE'S RHNA
Income Quantified Objective
Eight -Year RHNA Figure
% of RHNA to be Produced
ELI/VLI 136
652
21%
LI
309
376
82%
MOD
279
338
83%
Market
684
875
82%
TOTAL
1,492
2,241
67%
10. PRIOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS SUMMARY
The update of the Housing Element provides an opportunity to reflect on past achievements and
challenges. The following summary highlights key accomplishments and challenges from the
previous Housing Element's planning period (2015 to 2023), as well as identifies opportunities
for where the Town took lessons learned and applied them as future tasks for current Housing
Element. A detailed evaluation of the prior housing element can be found in Appendix E - Review
of Prior Housing Element.
The following achievements were made:
• Progress towards meeting affordable housing goals
• New policies to generate affordable housing funds
• Market rate housing goals were met
• The rate of ADU production have increased greatly
• Accessing new funding sources from non -local sources
• Increasing efficiency in the housing development process
• Interventions to preserve affordable housing
The following challenges were experienced:
• A divided and polarized vision for the future of the city
• High land and construction costs
• Outdated housing programs and policies
• Falling short of the quantified objectives
The following opportunities were identified:
• Rewrite the zoning code
• The General Plan update
• Creative solutions to site limitations
• More uses for technology to increase efficiency of housing programs
• New affordable housing opportunities identified
The 2015-2023 quantified objective's goal for total housing units, including market rate housing
and ADUs, was a range of 876-957 units. Through the seventh year of this housing cycle, a total
of 530 units have been completed. The following two tables summarize the quantified objectives
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-39
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
from the last Housing Element Update and detail the Town's progress in achieving those
objectives.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-40
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 107: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, 2014-2022
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
DANV1LLZ.
Conservation/Preservation Total
ELI
VLI
LI
MOD
0
Sub Total
New Construction
Total
ELI
VLI LI
MOD
Sub Total
Sub Total
530
132
10
51
55
AFFORDABLE TOTAL
116
Private Sector/Market Rate
Private Sector/Market Rate
414
GRAND TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
530
TABLE 118: ACCOMPLISHMENTS, 2014 - 2022
Conservation/Preservation
Total
0
New Construction
Total ELI VLI
LI
MOD
Sub Total
916
115
132
141
69
AFFORDABLE TOTAL
457
Private Sector/Market Rate
459
GRAND TOTAL
916
TOWN OF DANVILLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-41
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND DATA
AND HOUSING
NEEDS REPORT
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.3-2C'31
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A DAN' 1Q.L
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary of Key Facts 1
3. Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs 4
3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination 4
3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation 5
4. Population, Employment and Household Characteristics 6
4.1 Population 6
4.2 Age 7
4.3 Race and Ethnicity 9
4.4 Employment Trends 10
4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers 10
4.4.2 Sector Composition 14
4.4.3 Unemployment 16
4.5 2018-2028 Occupation Projections 17
4.5 Extremely Lo2w-Income Households 18
4.6 Tenure 22
4.7 Displacement 27
5. Housing Stock Characteristics 28
5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits 28
5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At -Risk of Conversion 32
5.3 Substandard Housing 36
5.4 Home and Rent Values 37
5.5 Housing Affordability 41
5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding 43
6. Special Housing Needs 52
6.1 Large Households 52
6.2 Female -Headed Households 54
6.3 Seniors 56
6.4 People with Disabilities 57
6.5 Homelessness 62
6.6 Farmworkers 68
6.7 Non-English Speakers 70
7. List of figures 72
8. List of tables 73
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
—"it—
—,--j—,,,,..-
2023-2031
Ht]LIv-.Ir1I3 ELEMENT
APPENDIX A ['Anita.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing
of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and
abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past
30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing
shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents
being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people
across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and
housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing
housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more
housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies
of Danville.
2. SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population - Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of
natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The
population of Danville increased by 5.2% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth
rate of the Bay Area.
• Age - In 2019, Danville's youth population under the age of 18 was 11,217 and senior
population 65 and older was 8,222. These age groups represent 25.1% and 18.4%,
respectively, of Danville's population.
• Race/Ethnicity - In 2020, 75.3% of Danville's population was White while 1.0% was
African American, 13.3% was Asian, and 6.5% was Latinx. People of color in Danville
comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.'
• Employment - Danville residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional
Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in
Danville decreased by 4.0 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in
1 The Census Bureau's American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported
here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx
population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American,
South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx,
but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non -Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
411111
D, ,NYILEr APPENDIX A
the jurisdiction increased by 370 (3.1%). Additionally, the jobs -household ratio in Danville
has decreased from 0.82 in 2002 to 0.81 jobs per household in 2018.
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
• Number of Homes — The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace
with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating
issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Danville increased,
2.0% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Contra Costa County and
below the growth rate of the region's housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices — A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all
Danville residents to live and thrive in the community.
— Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $1 M -$1.5M
in 2019. Home prices increased by 73.6% from 2010 to 2020.
- Rental Prices — The typical contract rent for an apartment in Danville was $2,320
in 2019. Rental prices increased by 25.6% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical
apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $92,880 per
year.
2
• Housing Type — It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a
community today and in the future. In 2020, 75.7% of homes in Danville were single family
detached, 18.0% were single family attached, 1.0% were small multifamily (2-4 units),
and 5.1% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the
number of single-family units increased more than multi -family units. Generally, in
Danville, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above
that of other jurisdictions in the region.
• Cost Burden — The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers
housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its
income on housing costs. A household is considered "cost -burdened" if it spends more
than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50%
of their income on housing costs are considered "severely cost -burdened." In Danville,
18.1% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 13.1% of
households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification — According to research from The University of California,
Berkeley, 0.0% of households in Danville live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or
experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification.
100.0% of households in Danville live in neighborhoods where low-income households
2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MPPr
_
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UPN`..
are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address
displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built.
• Neighborhood -100% of residents in Danville live in neighborhoods identified as "Highest
Resource" or "High Resource" areas by State -commissioned research, while 0.0% of
residents live in areas identified by this research as "Low Resource" or "High Segregation
and Poverty" areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators
covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities,
low pollution levels, and other factors.3
• Special Housing Needs - Some population groups may have special housing needs that
require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to
accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Danville, 7.9%
of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally,
9.2% of Danville households are larger households with five or more people, who likely
need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 8.9% of households are female -
headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.
Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau's American
Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and
as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that
other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. We use
the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this `margin of error" but particularly
for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should
be interpreted accordingly.
Additionally, there may be instances where there is no data available for a jurisdiction for
particular data point, or where a value is 0 and the automatically generated text cannot
perform a calculation. In these cases, the automatically generated text is "NODATA. " Staff
should reword these sentences before using them in the context of the Housing Element or
other documents.
Note on Figures
Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for Danville.
3 For more information on the "opportunity area" categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee,
see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have
access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair
housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional
guidance from HCD.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
I APPENDIX A
3. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
Regional Housing Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 20504 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine -county Bay Area will add 1.4
million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this
Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has
identified the region's housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units
assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all
income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing.
Every year, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, in conjunction with the
State of California, establish income categories based on the median income in each county.
Based on new requirements for the completion of the Housing Element, jurisdictions must now
report on the following categories of income:
Extremely Low Income: 0-30% of Area Median Income, or AMI
Very Low Income: 30-50% AMI
Low Income: 50-80% AMI
Moderate Income: 80-120% AMI
Above Moderate Income: 120%+ AMI
The following table illustrates the income categories for Contra Costa County in 2021. The
median income for a family of four is $125,600.
TABLE 1: STATE INCOME LIMITS FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 2021
Number of Persons in
Household:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Contra
Extremely Low
$28,800
$32,900
$37,000
$41,100
$44,400
$47,700
$51,000
$54,300
Costa
Very Low
$47,950
$54,800
$61,650
$68,500
$74,000
$79,500
$84,950
$90,450
County
Income
Area
Low Income
$76,750
$87,700
$98,650
$109,600
$118,40
$127,15
$135,95
$144,70
Median
0
0
0
0
Income:
Median
$87,900
$100,50
$113,05
$125,600
$135,65
$145,70
$155,75
$165,80
$125,60
Income
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate
$105,50
$120,55
$135,65
$150,700
$162,75
$174,80
$186,85
$198,90
Income
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.pov/grants-
funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits. shtml
The Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) is based on population projections
produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the
region's existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to
4 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four
key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
IMPF
APPENDIX A bI.N'01.1 I.
apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department
of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end,
adjustments focus on the region's vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost
burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.5 These
new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a
significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to
previous RHNA cycles.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA — the share of the RHND assigned to each
jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law
requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned
to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction's housing unit allocation among four
affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to
441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG's website:
https://abaq.ca.gov/our-work/housinq/rhna-reqional-housing-needs-allocation
Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area received a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last
cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared
to previous cycles. For Danville, the final RHNA allocation is 2,241 units, broken down by income
category as follows:
Table 2: Final Regional Housing Needs
Allocation Income Group
Very Low Income (<50% of AMI)
Danville
Units
Contra Bay Danville
Costa Area Percent
County Units
Units
652 13,346 114,442 29.1%
Contra Bay Area
Costa Percent
County
Percent
27.2% 25.9%
Low Income (50%-80% of AMI)
376
7,685
65,892
16.8%
15.7%
14.9%
Moderate Income (80%-120% of AMI) 338
7,807
72,712 15.1%
15.9%
16.5%
Above Moderate Income (>120% of AMI)
875
20,205
188,130
39.0%
41.2%
42.6%
Total
2,241
49,043 441,176 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Methodology and tentative numbers were approved by ABAG's Executive board
on January 21, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021). The numbers were submitted for review to California Housing and Community
Development in February 2021, after which an appeals process will take place during the Summer and Fall of 2021.
THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER HCD REVIEW
s For more information on HCD's RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-fina1060920(r).pdf
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
I APPENDIX A
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD
CHARACTERISTICS
Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase
in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region
have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a
corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of
housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Danville's
population has increased by 5.2%; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In
Danville, roughly 10.3% of its population moved during the past year, a number 3.1 percentage
points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%.
TABLE 3: POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS
Geography
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Danville
31,306 35,728 41,715 42,975 42,039 43,682 43,876
Contra Costa 803,732
County
863,335
948,816
1,016,372 1,049,025 1,113,341 1,153,561
Bay Area
6,020,147
6,381,961
6,784,348
7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537
Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.
In 2020, the population of Danville was estimated to be 43,876 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the
population increased by 33.2%, while it increased by 0.8% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the
most recent decade, the population increased by 4.4%. The population of Danville makes up 3.8% of
Contra Costa County.6
6 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region
indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e., percent change) in
each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
1111T‘'' IMPPr
I aU
-'
r
2023-2031
HOUvING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UAB
1992 19% 2IX1D 2W-1 200 . 2012 2016 2020
NW Bay ,Area
Contra Cot County
ianuILIe
FIGURE 1: POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents
population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The
data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their
populations in that year.
For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are
compared to census counts. DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population
estimates.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.
Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need
in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for
more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to
the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by
many to age -in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more
multifamily and accessible units are also needed.
In Danville, the median age in 2000 was 39.2; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at
around 46 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010,
while the 65 -and -over population has increased (see Figure 2).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOU: NO ELEMENT
DANvillA APPENDIX A
6,OCO
4.00
2,C{I0
it
ih
Id.
un imi
11
al
FIGURE 2: POPULATION BY AGE, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.
Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding,
as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable
housing. People of color' make up 12.8% of seniors and 22.7% of youth under 18 (see Figure
3).
'Here, we count all non-white racial groups
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-8
1
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii__-d---
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A OI NW.r2:
i nrlr:
c
fl
901'
75:
D.
A D 0'.17
Arc 18-64
Age 65.
1
White {Itlspanlc
and Non -
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hivonic 414
Hon- Illspareic I
BI$ck or
African American
(Hispa nic and
Non • FRispanicI
Asian . !P1
(Hispanic and
NC111. I4ispaprlicI
American Indian
c J li1ska Native
flil nie Bind
Ncrl-Hispanics
FIGURE 3: SENIOR AND YOUTH POPULATION BY RACE
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an
overlapping category of Hispanic / non -Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table 801001(A -G)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN -02.
Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and
implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both
market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending
practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of
color today8. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Danville identifying as White has
decreased - and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities
has increased - by 9.4 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 33,595 (see
Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Asian /API, Non -Hispanic population increased the most while
the White, Non -Hispanic population decreased the most.
8 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law : a Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New
York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A
1 C1
f75% 1.4
5
rri 251
40,84
4_
9.2.%
42,4~19
6,13A
103%
44,605
13.3%
2X0
2010
RaciaL I Ethnic Group
2019
Itrncrican Indian
ce ALajka
Native. Non -
Hispanic
I. Marti 1 ,PI,
Nan -Hispanic
BLaGk or African
Aryiperican, Non -
Hispanic
White, lion,
Hispanic
Other Race or
outipte 3GeS,
Flan-HlspanIc
(Hispanic T
Latlrx
1
•
FIGURE 4: POPULATION BY RACE, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate
from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the "Hispanic or Latinx" racial/ethnic group represents those who identify
as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph
represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-
2019), Table B03002
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02.
Employment Trends
Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work
elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the
same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically
will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend
to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system
is set up for this flow of workers to the region's core job centers. At the same time, as the housing
affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker
populations are out of sync at a sub -regional scale.
One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of
workers "exports" workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must
conversely "import" them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Danville increased by
1.5% (see Figure 5).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
202:3-2031
31
HOUSING ELEMENT
dik
APPENDIX A OA1:
�.i yl ll�l
II.DIlI
a
11 1-11-111
10 (10f7
2005
2010
Year
2015
Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance -covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States
Office of Personnel Management -sourced Federal employment
Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census
block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-
2018
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.
The largest -growing sectors during this period included Transportation and Utilities (96%), Arts,
Recreation and Other Services (25%) and Government (21 %). In contrast, Information (-66%),
Agriculture and Natural Resources (-33%), and Financial and Leasing (-19%) all saw substantial
losses in the same time period.
There are 20,792 employed residents, and 14,809 jobs9 in Danville - the ratio of jobs to resident
workers is 0.71; Danville is a net exporter of workers.
Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage
groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for
relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or
conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment
opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for
housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given
9 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are
counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series
is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
APPENDIX A
wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of
workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other
jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub -regional imbalances may
appear. Danville has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to
jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high -
wage residents than high -wage jobs (where high -wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000)
(see Figure 6).10
ii,nnn
4,nfl;!
D
owlets!'
Less than $9,999 $10,000 to
S24,519
$.25,'_al to
549,9' a'
Wage Group
S50.IY to $r5,000ormore
574.994
Gectgraphyl
■ Plate Of R. side?rce
■ Place of Murk
FIGURE 6: WORKERS BY EARNINGS, BY JURISDICTION AS PLACE OF WORK AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.
Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction's resident workers to the jobs located there for
different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number
of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1
indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional
scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside
the region (see Figure 7).
o The source table is top -coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
0.50
202:3-2031
°-IGUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A DANDLE.
2005
2010
year
2015
Wage Group
mtil Wages Less Than S115010,10
N Wages 51,294-$c3,3331Mo
WIN Wages Move than S3,133 11106
FIGURE 7: JOBS -WORKER RATIOS, BY WAGE GROUP
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance -covered employment (private, state and local government) plus
United States Office of Personnel Management -sourced Federal employment
Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to
counts by place of residence. See text for details.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs);
Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.
Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a
community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing
relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly
where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many
workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate,
it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.
If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs -rich, typically
also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus, bringing housing into the measure, the jobs -
household ratio in Danville has decreased from 0.82 in 2002, to 0.81 jobs per household in 2018
(see Figure 8).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
EArivirat APPENDIX A
X023-2031
NOUS ND ELEMENT
i .4ti
a, 1,20
2
aso
Geography
▪ Danville
▪ Contra Costa County
2005
2010
year
2015
FIGURE 8: JOBS -HOUSEHOLD RATIO
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance -covered employment (private, state and local government) plus
United States Office of Personnel Management -sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction
Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census
block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs
with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs -household
ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The
difference between a jurisdiction's jobs -housing ratio and jobs -household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high
vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs),
2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.
Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Danville residents work is Financial
& Professional Services, and the largest sector in which Contra Costa residents work is Health
& Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational
Services industry employs the most workers.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2
3
1 CI
75'ik
0k
21,209
31.4,
4.3%
214.7'
7.2:
2023-2031
HO'USINI3 ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UIsr .L:
4,024,097
8.2".
9.3%
16.75
75.86
@anwiklc
Contr, Cosh, Count
Geography
.air' Area
• other
• Retail
WIiiletaie a
Transpertatl i
III Information
Hcat h Ec
Ed1430.90thall
Services
Firsa i l 8C
[rrof esiinal
Services
IConstruction
Agriculture
a F14skur01.
Resources
FIGURE 9: RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over
Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those
residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:
Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030 003E, C24030 030E; Construction: C24030 006E, C24030 033E; Manufacturing,
Wholesale & Transportation: C24030 007E, C24030 034E, C24030 008E, C24030 035E, C24030_010E, C24030 037E;
Retail: C24030 009E, C24030 036E; Information: C24030 013E, C24030 040E_Financial & Professional Services:
C24030 014E, C24030 041E, C24030 017E, C24030 044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021 E, C24030_024E,
C24030_048E, C24030 051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.
Looked at a different way, Management, Business, Science and Arts occupations comprise
about 60% of all residents' employment, which is substantially greater than Contra Costa County
and the Bay Area as a whole.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-15
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
II. APPENDIX A
Share of Employed Residents
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
10%
60%
Danville
• Service Occupations
Sales And Office Occupations
• Production, Transportation, And Material Moving Occupations
L Natural Resources, Construction, And Maintenance Occupations
• Management, Business, Science, And Arts Occupations
18%
9%
8%
44%
Contra Costa County
16%
9%
7%
50%
Bay Area
FIGURE 10: RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over
Notes: The data displayed shows the occupations of jurisdiction residents, regardless of the location where those residents are
employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not).
-Categories are derived from the following source tables: management, business, science, and arts occupations: C24010 003E,
C24010 039E; service occupations: C24010 019E, C24010 055E; sales and office occupations: C24010 027E,
C24010 063E; natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: C24010 030E, C24010 066E; production,
transportation, and material moving occupations: C24010 034E, C24010 070E
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24010
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-07.
Unemployment
In Danville, there was a 4.0 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between
January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in
unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general
improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. As of May, 2021, the State Employment
Development Department estimates the Town's unemployment rate at 4.1%. In contrast, the
rate for Contra Costa County as a whole is estimated at 6.3%.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEp'ENT
APPENDIX A OAr
7.5%
5.0%
2-5%
2411
2013
2015
Date
2017
2019
2021
Geography
- Bay Area
Contra Caste County
-04- Danville
Figure 11: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older
Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger -geography estimates. This method assumes that the
rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub -county area as at the county level. If this
assumption is not true for a specific sub -county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current
economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not
seasonally -adjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.
Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub -county areas
monthly updates, 2010-2021.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15.
2018-2028 Occupation Projections
The State Employment Development Department has published job projections for the period
between 2018 and 2028. Although the data include both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
some assumptions can be made about the impact of the number of jobs and the corresponding
wages in the region. All of the occupations with the most job openings will earn the employee
less than $45,000 annually. Based on 2021 State income limits, such individuals are considered
very low-income.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-17
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DickMika.
APPENDIX A
TABLE 4: OCCUPATIONS WITH THE MOST JOB OPENINGS, 2018-2028
Occupational Title
Total Job
Openings
52,180
Median
Hourly
Wage
$14.90
Median
Annual
Wage
$31,000
Cashiers
Retail Salespersons
40,180
$15.28
$31,781
Laborers and Freight, Stock and Material Movers (by hand)
38,020
$18.43
$38,324
Wait Staff
37,950
$14.52
$30,213
Office Clerks, General
28,700
$20.93
$43,533
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping
Cleaners
20,490
$19.29
$40,137
Cooks, Restaurant
20,320
$16.02
$33,319
Cashiers
52,180
$14.90
$31,000
Retail Salespersons
40,180
$15.28
$31,781
Laborers and Freight, Stock and Material Movers (by hand)
38,020
$18.43
$38,324
Notes: Total job openings are the sum of numeric change, exits, and transfers projected between 2018 and 2028. Wages are
from the 2020 first quarter and do not include self-employed or unpaid family workers. If an estimate could not be provided for
wages, they are excluded from this table. Excludes 'All Other" categories. These are residual codes that do not represent a
detailed occupation. Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Employment Statistics (CES) March 2019 benchmark
and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) industry employment.
https://www.labormarketinfo. edd. ca. gov/data/employment-projections. html
Extremely Low -Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income
qap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the
nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income
households in the state'
In Danville, 77.6% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)12,
compared to 5.6% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income
(see Figure 11).
Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less
than 30% AMI. In Contra Costa County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of
$34,850 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners — including food
service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals — can
fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.
11 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
12 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan
areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland -Fremont Metro
Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose -Sunnyvale -
Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).
The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120
percent of the AMI are moderate -income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-
income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
„Fr_
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A DANVILLE
State law requires jurisdictions to estimate the number if extremely low-income households —
those earning less than 30% of median income. According to the data shown below (Figure 11),
1,585 of Danville's households are 0-50% AMI while 890 are extremely low-income. Therefore,
extremely low-income households represent 56.2% of households who are 0-50% AMI, as 890
divided by 1,585 is 56.2%. This option aligns with HCD's guidance to use U.S. Census data to
calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income
households, as the information in Figure 11 represents a tabulation of Census Bureau Data.
Share of Floaseh iLds
100
5t
25'
Contra Costa County
illy Area
■ Greater than 10a of Oil
B1%-11:1094 of AMI
■ 51%-80%. of AMI
■ 3.1%-50%. AMI
▪ CFA- 306 of X41
FIGURE 1012: HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different
metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County),
Oakland -Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and
San Mateo Counties), San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma
County), and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where
this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the
regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local
jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their
Housing Elements. HCD's official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income
households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions
have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely
low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff
can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA
numbers.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI -01.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-19
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'31023-2031
Housel 6 ELEMENT
r APPENDIX A
Usk
Understanding households by income and race/ethnicity can shed light on the challenges faced
by people of color in terms of access to housing that is affordable. The following table illustrates
that households in Danville generally skew towards above moderate income.
TABLE 5: HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND INCOME
0%- 31%- 51%- 81%- Greater
30% 50% of 80% of 100% of than 100%
Racial / Ethnic Group of AMI AMI AMI AMI of AMI
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non -
Hispanic 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Asian / API, Non -Hispanic 5% 3% 8% 6% 78%
Black or African American, Non -Hispanic 0% 0% 0% 21 % 79%
White, Non -Hispanic 6% 5% 6% 6% 78%
Other Race or Multiple Races, Non -Hispanic 10% 13% 10% 0% 67%
Hispanic or Latinx 4% 0% 7% 12% 77%
Totals 6% 4% 6% 6% 78%
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different
metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County),
Oakland -Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and
San Mateo Counties), San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma
County), and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where
this jurisdiction is located.
-For the purposes of this graph, the "Hispanic or Latinx" racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having
Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those
who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI -
02.
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.
Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available
that is affordable for these households.
In Danville, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI income group,
while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group
(see Figure 12).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-20
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
--d-i—,,,,..-
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
•
APPENDIX A ['Anita.
3 ij1I
n
Ua •• 30% of ASI 31 %-5U; • of AMI 5156,-M. of APAI 819‘.-10096 of AMI greater than
1 of AMA
Income Category
■ Renter Occupied
■ Owner e r Occupied
FIGURE 13: HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL BY TENURE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different
metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County),
Oakland -Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and
San Mateo Counties), San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma
County), and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where
this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table
POPEMP-21.
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a
result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same
opportunities extended to white residents.13 These economic disparities also leave communities
of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In Danville, Other
Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of
poverty, followed by Asian / API (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic) residents (see Figure 13).
13 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay
Area. Hass Institute.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-21
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOU: NO ELEMENT
DANvillA4 APPENDIX A
Hiuse1'6'Ids
2. Di
0.44
Other Race Asian 1 API White, Hon-
or ikiltipm end Hispanic
Rpte& Nen-Hisanie]
!Hispanic and
Hon -Hispanic!
White Hispanic or
rHisprinic and littim
1104•111spanic-i
Facial f Ethnic Group
Black ar
Ai' on
American
(Hispanic and
Non -Hispania
American
Indian t
La ka Native
!Hispanic and
i xi•Hispanici
FIGURE 14: POVERTY STATUS BY RACE
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does
not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by
Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not
Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the
housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub -groups
are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not
be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups
labelled "Hispanic and Non -Hispanic" are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the
population for whom poverty status is determined.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI -03.
Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can
help identify the level of housing insecurity - ability for individuals to stay in their homes - in a
city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Danville
there are a total of 16,053 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 16.2%
versus 83.8% (see Figure 14). By comparison, 34.1 % of households in Contra Costa County are
renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-22
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
202:3-2031
31
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A ['Anita.
Shale or Households
751
5
25
16,053
16.2%
83.8:x,
394,769
2.731,131
419
56_11
Danville
Contra Costa County
Bay Arca
▪ Renter C1Pied
▪ °wrr Occupied
FIGURE 15: HOUSING TENURE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and
throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but
also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for
communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these
policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race -based policy are
still evident across Bay Area communities.14 In Danville, 100.0% of Black households owned
their homes, while homeownership rates were 86.6% for Asian households, 79.3% for Latinx
households, and 83.3% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local
jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their
Housing Elements.
14 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: a Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New
York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-23
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX A
:we of Howeilulds
17 187
910 r 324 13 755 13 246
20.7°
79.1'
E14.6%
83.316
American Asian f Black or Hispanic Other White White,
inditxn API African {Sr Race it ;Fil a NQn-
$r 1liispanic American Latina Multiple and Non- Hispanic
Alaska and Non- iliispanic Races Hispanic!.
Hi5ponic) ar4 Non„ 11=Ii$pitnir
1111$p is Hksrbanieli and Newl-
and Nan- Hispanic)
Hispania
Race a Ethnic Grow
• Renter Occupied
▪ Owner Occupied
FIGURE 16: HOUSING TENURE BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for
the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white
and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify
as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub -groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this
table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied
housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled "Hispanic and Non -Hispanic" are mutually exclusive, and the sum
of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a
community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first
home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking
to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.
In Danville, 26.6% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 16.0% of
householders over 65 are (see Figure 16).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-24
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
1i10:t.
o.
10.3'11
74_Cf C.O.
4„140 2,064
1,614 2,623 1,444
135.e:
9.Pt
.
3%
56.6%
APPENDIX A DANVILLE.
930
37-8%
62.2%
Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Ase H5..
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 68-64 65-74 75-84
Age Group
■ Renter Occupied
■ Owner Occupied
FIGURE 17: HOUSING TENURE BY AGE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.
Tenure information based on the year in which a household moved to further illustrates the
differences between long-term residents, who tend to trend older, with newer residents. The
following chart shows that 99% of households that moved in in 1989 or earlier are owner
occupied, whereas only 48% of households that moved in 2017 or later are owner occupied.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-25
48%
99%
98%
8%
92%
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
H2OUSINla
APPENDIX A
Percent of Households
100%
90%
80% —
70% —
60% --
50% --
40%
30%
20% —
10%
0%
28%
72%
32%
68%
52%
Moved In Moved In Moved In Moved In Moved In Moved In
1989 Or 1990 To 2000 To 2010 To 2015 To 2017 Or
Earlier 1999 2009 2014 2016 Later
■ Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
FIGURE 18: HOUSING TENURE BY YEAR MOVED TO CURRENT RESIDENCE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25038
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-19.
In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially
higher than the rates for households in multi -family housing. In Danville, 93.0% of households in
detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 28.8% of households in multi -family
housing are homeowners (see Figure 17).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-26
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
—1"it---
--i-i—,,,,..-
202:3-2031
10LIL.-.ING ELEVENT
APPENDIX A DANVILa.
Share a Households in unit Type.
50
11,6
93.0%
2,07
21.5`x'
78.5%
28,m.
Cletaithed Agatha -CI MuLti-Fon ilLy Pi+cbile Hames Wit, RV,
SingLe- Single- Housing Van, or
Family 1 -lames Family Homes Other
Type
■ Rcntcr O'cupi d
11 Owner Occupied
FIGURE 19: HOUSING TENURE BY HOUSING TYPE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table 825032
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22.
Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area.
Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate -income residents. When
individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their
support network.
The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying
their risk for gentrification. They find that in Danville, 0.0% of households live in neighborhoods
that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of
or undergoing gentrification.
Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a
broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 100.0% of households in Danville
live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive
housing costs.15
15 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project's webpage:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown
in Figure 18 at this link: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology sheet 2018 0.png. Additionally, one can view
maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-
bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-27
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOU: NO ELEMENT
DANvillA APPENDIX A
Households
10.000
,000
0
AIL 111.1‹ Of Or Susi Lible ii k r°Isk oior Stable- icik'xlcrAtt.to ()the'
E'xperiencir g or Experiencing Experiencing Mixed Income
Gentrification Displacement Exclusion
Category
■ Renter Occupied
▪ ?wrier Occupied
FIGURE 20: HOUSEHOLDS BY DISPLACEMENT RISK AND TENURE
Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010
population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may
differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for
simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive
At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable
Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: Low-
Income/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data
Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003
for tenure. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25.
5. HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-
family homes and larger multi -unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly
interested in "missing middle housing" — including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage
clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options
across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors
looking to downsize and age -in-place.
The housing stock of Danville in 2020 was made up of 75.7% single family detached homes,
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-28
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Mr -
20.3=2031.
HGUSINo ELEMENT
APPENDIX A OIs:
18.0% single family attached homes, 1.0% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 5.1% multifamily
homes with 5 or more units, and 0.2% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In Danville, the housing
type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single -Family Home:
Detached.
10„000
7.500
010
2500
L
1
Single: •rdrnllyr SiJr�le Feiioil P �I11Lai 1L Multifamily Pr!rtpiLe Fl rne$
Ha•me: Detached Home: Attached iicusiri : Two to using: Five
-
Four Units plus Units
Building Type
■ 2020
■ 2010
FIGURE 21: HOUSING TYPE TRENDS
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG -01.
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the
total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and
job growth experienced throughout the region. In Danville, the largest proportion of the housing
stock was built 1960 to 1979, with 7,201 units constructed during this period (see Figure 20).
Since 2010, 1.2% of the current housing stock was built, which is 198 units.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-29
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
X023-2031
NOUS N6 ELEMENT
CP +, APPENDIX A
6:coo
2,o')u
ft.riLL 1919 Lir
Earlier
Buil( 1941j To
1959
ly'uiI' 19I0 To Built 1980 To
x74 1
Period Bulit
NALL 2 Ta apiuiliL. 2010 Or
2009 Later
FIGURE 22: HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG -04.
Vacant units make up 3.0% of the overall housing stock in Danville. The rental vacancy stands
at 2.7%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 1.7%. Of the vacant units, the most common type
of vacancy is For Sale (see Figure 21).16
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed
for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other
vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if
no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community
Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as "for recreational or occasional use" are
those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation
rentals and short-term rentals like Airbnb are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau
classifies units as "other vacant" if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons,
legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or
vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or
incarceration.17 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units
1e The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full
stock (3.0%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied
and vacant) - but exclude a are significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.
17 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-30
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202 3F-2031
HDLlv-.INO ELEMENT
dik
APPENDIX A DANVILLE
being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion
of the "other vacant" category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock
could also influence the proportion of "other vacant" units in some jurisdictions.18 In Danville, the
State Department of Finance currently estimates the vacancy rate is approximately 4.5%.
Countywide, it is estimated at 5.3%.
Share cr1 Univ
11111:'.
25'
Danville
Contra Costa County
&air Area.
■ Other Vacant
IFur Seasonal,
Recreational, Or
Occasional Use
S:01c1, Not
Occupied
LI
nk1,11°1.Occupied
Fer Salve
■ Far Relit
FIGURE 23: VACANT UNITS BY TYPE
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG -03.
Between 2015 and 2019, 458 housing units were issued permits in Danville. 83.6% of permits
issued in Danville were for above moderate -income housing, 9.2% were for moderate -income
housing, and 7.2% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 3).
18 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco's Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning
Department. University of California, Berkeley.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-31
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'31023-2031
biOUIS N6 ELEMENT
DANvillAA APPENDIX A
TABLE 6: HOUSING PERMITTING
Income Group
Number
Above Moderate Income Permits
383
Moderate Income Permits
42
Low Income Permits
23
Very Low Income Permits 10
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households
making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable
to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.
Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in
which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median
Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit
Summary (2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG -11.
Assisted Housing Developments At -Risk of Conversion
While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the
existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is
typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of
converting to market -rate than it is to build new affordable housing.
The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership's Preservation
Database, the state's most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable
housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market -rate housing. However,
this database does not include all deed -restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be
at -risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 73
assisted units in Danville in the Preservation Database. Of these units, none are at High Risk or
Very High Risk of conversion.19 Sycamore Place, a 74 -unit senior development (73 affordable
i9 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:
Very -High Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known
overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission -driven developer.
High Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping
subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission -driven developer.
Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known
overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission -driven developer.
Low Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit,
mission -driven developer.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-32
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A DANVIL,UU.
units), was developed by BRIDGE Housing and was primarily funded through the Low -Income
Housing Tax Credit program. Although the tax credit affordability restrictions end in 2057, the
risk level is considered low because the project is owned by a nonprofit developer whose mission
it is to create and conserve housing affordable to lower income households.
TABLE 7: ASSISTED UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION
Risk Level
Danville Contra Bay
Costa Area
County
Low
73
13403 110,177
Moderate
0 211 3,375
High
0
270 1,854
Very High
0 0 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 73
13,884 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and Ca1HFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments
that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.
Notes: While California Housing Partnership's Preservation Database is the state's most comprehensive source of information
on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market -rate housing, this database does
not include all deed -restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at -risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that
are not captured in this data table. Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing
developments at -risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at -risk units for each
jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at
dmazzella@chpc.net to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. California Housing Partnership uses
the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very -High Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of
converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and
are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission -driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting
to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not
owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission -driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to
market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not
owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission -driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market
rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission -driven developer.
Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK -01.
State law requires that each jurisdiction provide analysis and programs for preserving existing
affordable multi -family rental housing units that were developed with public subsidies. Units at
risk of conversion are those units in which the restrictions, agreements or contracts to maintain
the affordability of the units expire or are otherwise terminated. At expiration, units may revert to
market rate, rendering them no longer affordable to the people living in them. Loss of affordability
can occur at the termination of bond funding, the expiration of density bonuses, and other similar
local programs.
The potential loss of existing affordable housing units is an important issue to the Town due to
displacement of lower-income tenants and the limited alternative housing for such persons. It is
typically less expensive to preserve the affordability of these units than to subsidize construction
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-33
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
4111
rivELE APPENDIX A
of new affordable units due to the inflation of land and construction costs which has occurred
since the original development of the affordable housing projects.
2023-2031
HOUSING Et_EMEN1
Various funding sources, including HUD funding sources, such as Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds, Low -
Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and other funds are used to create and preserve
affordable housing in Contra Costa County. Preservation of at -risk projects can be achieved in
a variety of ways, with adequate funding availability. Alternatively, units that are converted to
market rate may be replaced with new assisted multi -family units with specified affordability
timeframes.
Rental Assistance
State, local, or other funding sources can be used to provide rental subsidies to maintain the
affordability of at -risk projects. These subsidies can be structured to mirror the Housing Choice
Voucher/Section 8 program, whereby the subsidy covers the cost of the unit above what is
determined to be affordable for the tenant's household income (including a utility allowance) up
to the fair market value of the apartment. Unit sizes for the at -risk properties range from studios
to two-bedroom units and are generally reserved for very low-income households. The total
subsidy needed to maintain a unit is approximately $20,000 per year.
Transfer of Ownership
If the current organizations managing the units at risk are no longer able to maintain the project,
transferring ownership of the affordable units to a nonprofit housing organization is a viable way
to preserve affordable housing for the long term. The estimated market value for affordable units
that are potentially at high risk of converting to market rate is about $350,000 per unit.
Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low-income housing can be a means to replace at -risk units, though
extremely costly. The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors including
density, size of units, construction quality and type, location, land and development costs. Using
the Terner Center's research on the cost to develop affordable housing around the Bay Area,
the cost to replace the units could be as much as $700,000 per unit.
Qualified Entities
An owner of a multi -family rental housing development with rental restrictions (i.e., is under
agreement with federal, State, and local entities to receive subsidies for low-income tenants),
may plan to sell their "at risk" property. The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has listed qualified entities that may be interested in participating in
California's First Right of Refusal Program. If an owner decides to terminate a subsidy contract,
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-34
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A D ,NV1LLZ.
or prepay the mortgage or sell or otherwise dispose of the assisted housing development, or if
the owner has an assisted housing development in which there will be the expiration of rental
restrictions, the owner must first give notice of the opportunity to offer to purchase to a list of
qualified entities provided to the owner.
HCD has identified a number of entities operating in Contra Costa County that may be interested
in participating in California's First Right of Refusal Program. They are listed in the attached
document. Of these entities, some have worked specifically in Danville, and others have
completed projects in surrounding areas. If a development becomes at risk of conversion to
market -rate housing, the Town will maintain contact with local organizations and housing
providers who may have an interest in acquiring at -risk units and will assist other organizations
in applying for funding to acquire at -risk units.
Funding Sources
A critical component to implement any of these preservation options is the availability of
adequate funding, which can be difficult to secure. In general, Low -Income Housing Tax Credit
funding is not readily available for rehabilitation and preservation, as the grant application
process is highly competitive and prioritizes new construction. The Town's previous ongoing
funding source, Low/Mod Housing Funds available through the Redevelopment Agency, no
longer exists due to the dissolution of Redevelopment more than a decade ago. Available
funding sources that can support affordable housing preservation include sources from the
federal and state governments, as well as local and regional funding
Federal Funding
• HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program
• Project -Based Vouchers (Section 8)
• Section 811 Project Rental Assistance
• Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers
State Funding
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program
• Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF)
• Project Homekey
• Housing for a Healthy California (HHC)
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• National Housing Trust Fund
• Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP)
Preservation and Replacement Needs
Based on Town records and information from the California Housing Partnership Corporation,
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-35
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A
there are no units with expiring affordability covenants in Danville during the next ten years
(2023-2033).
Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in
households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford
housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a
community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of
some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Danville. For example, 18.2% of
renters in Danville reported lacking a kitchen and 1.2% of renters lack plumbing, compared to
0.3% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.1% of owners who lack plumbing.
1511%
i
O. 0',
0.115:,
Kitchen
menstyr
Numbing
R.etlte!
Owner
FIGURE 24: SUBSTANDARD HOUSING ISSUES
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced
based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or
nonprofit housing developers or organizations. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-
2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet
Workbook, Table HSG -06.
One measure of housing condition is the age of housing. In general, the older the unit, the greater
it can be assumed to be in need of some level of rehabilitation. A general rule in the housing
industry is that structures older than 20 years begin to show signs of deterioration and require
renovation to maintain their quality. Unless properly maintained, homes older than 50 years can
pose health, safety and welfare problems for occupants. Property maintenance is often deferred,
especially for lower-income residents who may be unable to afford the rising costs to maintain
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-36
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
their homes.
APPENDIX A DEAN` I LE.
Consistent with State guidance, the table below estimates the number of units in need of
rehabilitation and the number of units needing replacement. Although the exact number of
Danville units in need of rehab is not currently known, the State accepts estimates based on a
formula that assumes the older the unit, the more likely the rehab need. By applying an
increasing percentage to the housing stock in each age category, it is estimated that there are
approximately 990 units in need of some level of rehabilitation in Danville, representing 6% of
the housing stock. The range of rehabilitation needs can include anything from minor repairs to
major structural replacements. It is estimated that nearly all of the units in need of rehabilitation
can be repaired without replacement.
TABLE 8: AGE OF HOUSING STOCK AND ESTIMATED REHABILITATION NEEDS
Source: American Community Survey, 5 -year estimates (2019) Town of Danville 2021
Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area's
demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and
construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in
the nation. The typical home value in Danville was estimated at $1,943,170 by December of
2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $1M -$1.5M
(see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $772,410 in Contra Costa County and
$1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $250k -$500k (county) and
$500k -$750k (region).
The region's home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-37
Net
Number
of Units
Percent
of Total
Units
Needing
Rehab,
Percent
Units
Needing
Rehab,
Total
Built 2014 or later
153
0%
Built 2010 to 2013
45
0%
Built 2000 to 2009
731
2%
0.50%
4
Built 1990 to 1999
4,060
10%
1%
41
Built 1980 to 1989
2,564
6%
3%
77
Built 1970 to 1979
5,295
13%
5%
265
Built 1960 to 1969
1,906
5%
10%
191
Built 1950 to 1959
1,255
3%
20%
251
Built 1940 to 1949
362
1%
30%
109
Built 1939 or earlier
180
0%
30%
54
16,551
39%
990
Total Units Needing Rehab
6%
Percentage of Total Units
99.50%
985
Units that Can Be Repaired
0.50%
5
Units that Must Be Replaced
Source: American Community Survey, 5 -year estimates (2019) Town of Danville 2021
Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area's
demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and
construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in
the nation. The typical home value in Danville was estimated at $1,943,170 by December of
2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $1M -$1.5M
(see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $772,410 in Contra Costa County and
$1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $250k -$500k (county) and
$500k -$750k (region).
The region's home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-37
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'31023-2031
Housel 6 ELEMENT
Mak
CP + ) APPENDIX A
Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median
home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value
has increased 128.2% in Danville from $851,560 to $1,943,170. This change is below the
change in Contra Costa County, and below the change for the region (see Figure 24).
NiriviLle C:nntra Ci;i ' C,.c unty
OarWilk
Contra Costa County Lia) Arra
Geography
▪ Units 'Valued $2M14h+
▪ Units Valued $1 M -S
▪ 41nit$ valued $1M -$1-,M
Units Valued $75Ok-5'Mh'I.
■ Units Valued 5.5013k -$7513k
Units Valued $250k -$5.i
▪ Units Valued Less than 5251 k..
FIGURE 25: HOME VALUES OF OWNER -OCCUPIED UNITS
Universe: Owner -occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG -07.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-38
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A DANDLE.
}
52,000.000
$500,000
2003 2005 2007 2 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
Geography
- Danville
w iilm Contra Costa County
W M Bay Area
FIGURE 26: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner -occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes
across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The
ZHVI includes all owner -occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on
the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household -weighted average of county -level ZHVI files, where
household counts are yearly estimates from DOF's E-5 series. For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted
average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census -designated population counts. Source: Zillow, Zillow
Home Value Index (ZHVI)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG -08.
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent
years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of
color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between
commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes,
out of the state.
In Danville, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $2000-$2500 category,
totaling 36.0%, followed by 24.6% of units renting in the Rent $3000 or more category (see
Figure 25). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the rent for $1500-$2000
category.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-39
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOU:S NO ELEMENT
C +, APPENDIX A
.317
a
g 20
a in
ni
D nwiII
ti
Clan" ills
Centra. Costa County
Bay Argil
Contra Costa County Bay Arca
I. Rent '53E00 or more
■ Rent $2503-5.1000
na
■ RentS2C v•S3500
Rent 51500.52000
1111 Rent $1IF-$1 i50
IIIRent $5130-$1000
▪ Rent less than 55013
FIGURE 27: CONTRACT RENTS FOR RENTER -OCCUPIED UNITS
Universe: Renter -occupied housing units paying cash rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG -09.
Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 25.6% in Danville, from $2,000 to $2,320 per month (see
Figure 26). In Contra Costa County, the median rent has increased 28.8%, from $1,300 to $1,680. The
median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54%
increase.20F20
20 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most
Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from
the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to
supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-40
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
2023=2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A DAN LE.
S7, .710
$1,500
51,200
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20
Geography
EEO Dana-ille
.N.. Contra Costa County
-I-r Bay Area.
FIGURE 28: MEDIAN CONTRACT RENT
Universe: Renter -occupied housing units paying cash rent
Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019,
B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using
B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG -10.
Housing Affordability
The National Association of Homebuilders reports that California cities have some of the lowest
homeowner affordability rates in the country, defined as the percentage of homes affordable to
the median income family. Despite the high median incomes, especially in the Bay Area, many
cannot afford the cost to purchase a home. The Oakland Metropolitan Division, of which Danville
is a part, ranked 219th out of 233 metropolitan areas studied in the first quarter of 2021.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-41
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'31023-2031
HOUIS N6 E° E;1ENT
DAN APPENDIX A
TABLE 9: HOUSING OPPORTUNITY INDEX, FIRST QUARTER 2021
Notes: AAA Indicate Metropolitan Divisions. All others are Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
Source: National Association of Homebuilders, 2021, https://www.nahb.org/news-and-economics/housing-
e conomics/indices/housing-opportunity-index
Trulia -- an online residential real estate site for homebuyers, sellers, renters and real estate
professionals -- provides statistics based on actual sales of housing by location. According to a
study conducted by zip code in 2019, only a small percentage of homes of homes in Danville
were affordable to the metropolitan median income of $101,000. The following table contains
data for the two primary zip codes.
TABLE 10: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY BY ZIP CODE
Zip Code
% of Homes
Affordable to
Metro Median Income
Median
Home Value
94526
1.7%
$1,165,984
94506
0.0%
$1,295,626
Source: https://www.trulia.com/research/affordable-neighborhoods/ for more information.
The high cost of housing means that people wanting to own a home in Danville must have
significant incomes, even for the relatively less expensive condos.
The decreasing supply of affordable rental units is a countywide phenomenon; it can include
Ellis Act evictions (where an owner of a rental property decides to leave the rental business) to
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-42
Homes
Affordable to
Median
Income
Households
Median
Family
Income
(1,000s)
Median
Sales
Price
(1,000s)
National
Affordability
Rank
Los An • eles-Lon • Beach -Glendale, CA ^^^
11.6%
78.7
729
233
Salinas, CA
15.1%
80.9
725
232
San Francisco -Redwood City -South San
Francisco, CA ^^^
17.4%
143.4
1,305
230
Anaheim -Santa Ana -Irvine, CA AAA
18.2%
104.8
825
229
Na • a, CA
22.1%
101.5
691
228
San Die•o-Carlsbad, CA
22.4%
95.1
665
227
San Luis Obispo -Paso Robles -Arroyo
Grande, CA
26.0%
97.8
675
226
Oxnard -Thousand Oaks -Ventura, CA
27.4%
98.8
650
225
Santa Cruz -Watsonville, CA
28.5%
111.9
850
224
Santa Maria -Santa Barbara, CA
28.8%
90.1
678
223
Stockton -Lodi, CA
29.6%
74.0
462
222
San Jose-Sunn vale -Santa Clara, CA
29.9%
151.3
1,120
220
Oakland -Ha ward-Berkele , CA ^^^
31.2%
121.3
795
219
Notes: AAA Indicate Metropolitan Divisions. All others are Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
Source: National Association of Homebuilders, 2021, https://www.nahb.org/news-and-economics/housing-
e conomics/indices/housing-opportunity-index
Trulia -- an online residential real estate site for homebuyers, sellers, renters and real estate
professionals -- provides statistics based on actual sales of housing by location. According to a
study conducted by zip code in 2019, only a small percentage of homes of homes in Danville
were affordable to the metropolitan median income of $101,000. The following table contains
data for the two primary zip codes.
TABLE 10: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY BY ZIP CODE
Zip Code
% of Homes
Affordable to
Metro Median Income
Median
Home Value
94526
1.7%
$1,165,984
94506
0.0%
$1,295,626
Source: https://www.trulia.com/research/affordable-neighborhoods/ for more information.
The high cost of housing means that people wanting to own a home in Danville must have
significant incomes, even for the relatively less expensive condos.
The decreasing supply of affordable rental units is a countywide phenomenon; it can include
Ellis Act evictions (where an owner of a rental property decides to leave the rental business) to
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-42
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A DEAN ILLS.
owner move -in evictions. Until additional construction of rental units occurs, the combination of
strong demand and low vacancies will contribute to an increasingly severe shortage of rental
units and a decrease in their affordability.
The following table illustrates the affordable rents associated with each income category. In the
case of an extremely low-income household of two people (for example, a single parent with a
child), the annual income of $32,900 translates to a full-time job paying $15.82 per hour. In this
scenario, the maximum rent they could afford would be about $925 per month - far below
average rents in the area, even for studios. According to statistics on RentCafe.com, an online
data aggregator, the average rent for an apartment is $2,462 as of June, 2021, an increase of
5% from the previous year. A household has to earn at least $98,480 in order to afford the
average rent.
TABLE 11: AFFORDABLE RENTS FOR Two- AND THREE-PERSON HOUSEHOLDS
Income Category
Percent
of
Median
Income
Limit (Two-
Person
Household)
Two-
Person
Affordable
Rent
Income Limit
(Three--
Person
Household)
Three --
Person
Affordable
Rent
Extremely Low-
Income
30%
$32,900
$823
$37,000
$925
Very Low -Income
50%
$54,800
$1,370
$61,650
$1,541
Low -Income
80%
$87,700
$2,193
$98,650
$2,466
Median -Income
100%
$100,500
$2,513
$113,050
$2,826
Moderate -Income
120%
$120,550
$3,014
$135,650
$3,391
Notes: Affordable rents are calculated based on 30% of annual income divided by 12 months.
Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development and Town of Danville, 2021
Extremely low-income households need significant subsidies in order to afford housing in the
community. Through its Section 8 and other housing programs, HUD provides rental housing
assistance to lower-income households. According to the Department of Housing and
Community Development's data from the AFFH viewer eleven (11) households in Danville
currently receive Section 8 rental assistance, in the form of Housing Choice Vouchers. However,
given that there are approximately 890 extremely low-income households in Danville, a small
fraction of the ELI households are receiving federal support, and the need for additional
subsidies is substantial.
Overpayment and Overcrowding
A household is considered "cost -burdened" if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on
housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are
considered "severely cost -burdened." Low-income residents are the most impacted by high
housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such Targe portions of
their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or
homelessness.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-43
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX A
1 CION
75%
13,453
122,6'
17.6%
2.600
24_
15_'I
57.3%
Owner Occupied
Tenure
Renter Occupied
Not Computed
50%4 of Income
USedfir HOu,ir1g
31176.- 513`2 of
income Used for
Hamlns
O%•30% of Income
MI Used for Housing
FIGURE 29: COST BURDEN BY TENURE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus
utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees,
insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30%
of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly
income.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table 825070, B25091
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER -06.
Renters are often more cost -burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in
home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates,
whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost
burden across tenure in Danville, 15.9% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing
compared to 17.6% of those that own (see Figure 27). Additionally, 24.0% of renters spend 50%
or more of their income on housing, while 12.6% of owners are severely cost -burdened.
In Danville, 13.1% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 18.1%
spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure
28). For example, 83.8% of Danville households earning extremely low incomes spend the
majority of their income on housing. For Danville residents making more than 100% of AMI, just
2.9% are severely cost -burdened, and 80.9% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend
less than 30% of their income on housing.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-44
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A OAKVIL
Percent of Households
50:k
25
Od;
305
58.9%
26.2%
14.'?
440
1,009
32.7%
32.2
12,275
16.2%
BI}.9%
0%-3Lit of MI 3I't-50: of NMI 511-80 of MU 61%-10N of AMI greater than
Gi,of.ij
Income
Used for Housing
I31:1V50%
LncD♦ne used for
Housing
-3 of Inrrrie
Used for Housing
FIGURE 30: COST BURDEN BY INCOME LEVEL
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus
utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees,
insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30%
of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly
income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different
metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County),
Oakland -Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and
San Mateo Counties), San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma
County), and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where
this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table
OVER -05.
Cost burden by tenure and income category reveals the extent to which lower income groups,
especially renters, pay too much for housing costs. The table below provides data on extremely
low-, very -low, and low-income households compared with higher income groups. Both
extremely low --income renters and owners have high rates of cost burden, as do other lower
income groups. However, over all, owners are much less impacted by cost burdens than renters:
in total, 30% of owners have a cost burden of more than 30%, and only 12% have burdens over
50%. In contrast, 37% of all renters have a cost burden of more than 30%, and 21% have a
severe cost burden of over 50%. In numerical terms, although renters account for about 16% of
all households, they represent more than 20% of cost -burdened households.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-45
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
41
EPANvILLE:APPENDIX A
2023-2031
HOU. ND
Table 11A: Cost Burden by Tenure and Income
Income by Cost Burden (Renters only)
Cost
Cost
Total
burden >
burden >
30%
50%
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI
430
415
460
Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI
120
105
160
Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI
95
10
95
Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI
110
20
245
Household Income >100% HAMFI
205
0
1,635
Total
960
550
2,600
Income b Cost Burden Owners onl
Cost
Cost
Total
burden >
burden >
30%
50%
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI
685
600
815
Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI
510
290
730
Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI
490
360
760
Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI
525
180
1,020
Household Income >100% HAMFI
1,790
230
10,125
Total
4,000
1,660
13,455
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a
result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same
opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of
their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.
Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost burdened with 29.9% spending 30% to 50% of
their income on housing, and Other Race or Multiple Races, Non -Hispanic residents are the
most severely cost burdened with 36.8% spending more than 50% of their income on housing
(see Figure 29).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-46
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
—14--
APPENDIX A DANS:
Peaterst of Households.
i Otr3r
-, r
'merica.rG aian r''0A. Black or Hiipan¢c or Other Race White, Non -
Ind ion Pori liispinic African Li1inx r - itipLt.
ui American, Riacet, Nuu-
Nati.e. Nor- Imo -Hispanic Hispanic
Hispanic
Cost Burden Not
computed
MI 50%4 of Income
Used for Housing
3 5 of
I°ncarne Used for
HousIr
0%-3cft of Income
MI Used for Housing
FIGURE 31: COST BURDEN BY RACE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus
utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees,
insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30%
of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly
income. For the purposes of this graph, the "Hispanic or Latinx" racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having
Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those
who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table
OVER -08.
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized
affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can
result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the
population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.
In Danville, 12.1 % of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 7.6%
of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 18.7% of all other
households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 13.6% of households spending more than
50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-47
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
X023-2031
HOUE N6 ELEMENT
r APPENDIX A
1
Percent o?F Households
75A
251
AU other hcosehold types Lark Family 51 persons
HousehaLd Type
5n4 of Income
▪ Used for Housing
3- 5 of
income U .ed for
Housing
O%-3 of Income
▪ Used for Housing
FIGURE 32: COST BURDEN BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus
utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees,
insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30%
of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly
income.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table
OVER -09.
When cost -burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents,
displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or
forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost -
burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-
income seniors. 77.2% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of
their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 81.2% are not cost -
burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 31).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-48
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A ['Anita.
Percent of Household
57D
77.2
11
r4%
3E0
21.1%
11.9
39D
54.5%
3,17{
14_B%
01.2%
_,-31-1 ofAr'J 35Lu': of, ',I 51%.-110% of.+IIJ131%-1LFDA of AMI (neater than
1130% of 4.11
HDuselhotd Incrme
51715.-.4% Ir 'fl
Used for HDusing
income
income Used for
Hosing
-3 of Income
Used for Housing
FIGURE 33: COST -BURDENED SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is
the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners,
housing cost is "select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real
estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income,
while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income
groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas,
and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland -Fremont
Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties),
San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo -
Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is
located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN -
03.
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home
was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this
report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not
including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more
than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.
Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or
region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with
multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Danville,
2.3% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room),
compared to 0.1% of households that own (see Figure 32). In Danville, 0.5% of renters
experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.5% for those
own.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-49
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
u
DArLJ APPENDIX A
X023-2031
NOUS N6 ELEMENT
0 .J°.4
sit
Owner Occupied RcTitcr Occupied
Tenure
IMore Chest 1.5
Occupants per
Roam
11.0 to 1.5
Occupants per
FIGURE 34: OVERCROWDING BY TENURE AND SEVERITY
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding
bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table
OVER -01.
Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 0.0% of very low-
income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.6% of
households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 33).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-50
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A ['Anita.
2.
J
-30X, of NAI 11%-5ON of AMI 51•& of AMI 8M -1W% of AMI 'Greater than
1001 of MI
!Mum
IMire Mori 1.5
Occupants, per
Itcarn
1_0 to 1.5
Occupants per
Roam
FIGURE 35: OVERCROWDING BY INCOME LEVEL AND SEVERITY
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding
bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups
are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the
nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland -Fremont Metro Area
(Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose -
Sunnyvale -Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro
Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table
OVER -04.
Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more
likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to
experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Danville, the racial group with
the largest overcrowding rate is Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic) (see
Figure 34)
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-51
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
•
r APPENDIX A
x023-2031
I-1OLIE N 6 ELEMENT
0,0)
.American Asian /' API Black, c• Hispanic c Other Race V+4rite White, NDn-
Inii nrr it'Ii&pZiTbir,nnd Mric n Latins yr Multiple pliSpaniC . nd His+p nii
Alaska Natiuo Flrin-HisiRI) American Races Non -Hispanic)
(Hispanic and ilii5paflic and (Hispanic and
Nn. HispanicI Non -Hispania Non- FlispanicI
Racial 1 Ethnic Group
FIGURE 36: OVERCROWDING BY RACE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding
bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table,
the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is
also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx
may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-
Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub -groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all
mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units
for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled "Hispanic and Non -Hispanic" are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data
for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER -03.
6. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city's rental
housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living
in overcrowded conditions. In Danville, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units
(89.9%) are owner occupied (see Figure 35). In 2017, 4.2% of large households were very low-
income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-52
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
"'—.�
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UIsr .L:
,CM
1 ,C,Ilfl
n
LLQ
1 Person 7 Person 3 PerWn 4 Fe's 5 Or tw:) e
diolsehoL,d Household Household Household Person
Househdd
Size
Rcntc r Occupied
11 Owner Occupied
FIGURE 37: HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table 825009
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.
The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that
community. Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of
which there are 13,635 units in Danville. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms,
9.5% are owner -occupied and 90.5% are renter occupied (see Figure 36). However, the vast
majority of larger units are owner -occupied and are likely not affordable to lower-income
households. There are only 81 renter units in Danville that have five or more bedrooms. Further,
Figure 2: Cost Burden by Household Size indicates that about 20% of large households are cost
burdened, demonstrating a need for more affordable housing for this special needs group.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-53
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'31023-2031
I-1OUIS N 6 ELEMENT
DANvillA4 APPENDIX A
9 COO
6.030
3,O'JO
B
riMml
0 Eledlracrns 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3.1 Bei l'cons 5 Or frrore
€drrorns
Bedrooms
• Renter Occupied
INOwner Occupied
FIGURE 38: HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG -05.
Female -Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly
female -headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income.
In Danville, the largest proportion of households is Married -couple Family Households at 65.9%
of total, while Female -Headed Households make up 8.9% of all households.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-54
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii —
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UIsr .L:
Share r_ri Units
inrl°
F5'
913
25
0:4
Danviltc
C•itra C•Dstu C•D'-J 1 k,f
Bay hrca
QIh r NOm-Fofflil
HDuselnolds
Le-headed
Family
HDusehcds
IFermate -
Headed 'Family
Houschol,da
IMarried -
coup(e Family
Nousehds
Single -person
HDuselholds
FIGURE 39: HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a "family household" is a household where two or more people are related by birth,
marriage, or adoption. "Non -family households" are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none
of the people are related to each other.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.
Female -headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive
gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare
can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.
In Danville, 3.9% of female -headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line,
while 5.6% of female -headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 38).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-55
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
411111
D, ,NYILLEr APPENDIX A
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
EIP
with Children •'4th No Children
Presence of Children
FIGURE 40: FEMALE -HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY POVERTY STATUS
■ 150ciw Ptiv.erty level
® Above Poverty Level
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does
not correspond to Area Median Income.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.
Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or
keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to
have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.
Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due
to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who
rent make Greater than 100% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are
homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 39).
In addition, as noted previously, there is only one affordable senior development in Danville:
Sycamore Place, a 74 -unit senior development (73 affordable units), was developed by BRIDGE
Housing and was primarily funded through the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Although the tax credit affordability restrictions end in 2057, the risk level is considered low
because the project is owned by a nonprofit developer whose mission it is to create and conserve
housing affordable to lower income households.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-56
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
v
fl
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A DANVI LE.
dm mi. M. EL
Og.30f.i. of X511 313;-5D1#. of AMI 5 156-84A of MMI Ri%-1 16 of AMI Greater E
1 ON of Ak4
Income Group
FIGURE 41: SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME AND TENURE
▪ Renter Occupied
• Owner Occupied
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups
are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the
nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland -Fremont Metro Area
(Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose -
Sunnyvale -Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro
Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN -01.
People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of
individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with
disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family
members for assistance due to the high cost of care.
When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but
accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.
Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market
with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity,
homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 40
shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Danville. Overall,
7.9% of people in Danville disability
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-57
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DAN
APPENDIX A
of any kind.21
With an With an With a cognitive With, a artarinf, Wills A 5e If rare With . wises
anilmJlaroiy indrLoeride-rit diffbCuLkv difficulty dil1v:ult•y di1ik:Ldt
dlfficutty tivrre.
ddifficuLryu
Disability
FIGURE 42: DISABILITY BY TYPE
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over
Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one
disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:
Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious
difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty
doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table
B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.
State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with
developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and
attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old.
This can include Down's Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental
retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on
Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing
needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member
is no longer able to care for them.
In Danville, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make
up 49.2%, while adults account for 50.8%.
21 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability.
These counts should not be summed.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-58
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
'—
APPENDIX A UIr lz:
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-59
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
DANVILLE APPENDIX A
NEL
TABLE 12: POPULATION WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BY AGE
Age Group Number
Age 18+
100
Age Under
18
97
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of
services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down
syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code
level counts. To get jurisdiction -level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population
counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional
housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment
where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an
institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because
developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the
developmentally disabled is the transition from the person's living situation as a child to an
appropriate level of independence as an adult.
The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based
services to approximately 329,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families
through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two
community-based facilities. The Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) provides point of entry
to services for people with developmental disabilities. The center is a private, non-profit
community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to
individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. According to the RCEB website, as
of December 2020 19,947 consumers were served, of which 67% are male and 33% are female.
The average per capita expenditures for all ages is $19,439. See
https://www.dds.ca.gov/rc/dashboard/overview/.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-60
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UANNWU2
The following chart shows the percentage of consumers at RCEB by disability:
Percent of Consumers al Regional Cerner aline East Bay
la&rititral Palsy
EPIIL4PsY
Filth CIAORINY
91eIIec11aI la saki it
L'r°o 54!'2 1lrSc• 154'2 2Ct 25% 36° 35% 110%
I- rrarnt 01 tcilal i,:,zin5urr ars
FIGURE 43: EAST BAY REGIONAL CENTER CONSUMERS BY DISABILITY TYPE
Notes: 1) Data includes Early Start consumers.
2) Consumers with multiple diagnoses are included in each applicable diagnosis category.
3) "Fifth Category" is defined as consumers who have disabling conditions closely related to Intellectual Disability or requiring
treatment similar to that required by a person with Intellectual Disability.
Source: Regional Center of the East Bay, https.//www.dds.ca.gov/rc/dashboard/purchase-of-service-report/diagnosis/, 2021
The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Danville is the home of
parent/family /guardian.
TABLE 13: POPULATION WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BY RESIDENCE
Residence Type
Number
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 178
Foster /Family Home
5
Community Care Facility 5
Independent /Supported Living
Other
Intermediate Care Facility
5
0
0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of
services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down
syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code
level counts. To get jurisdiction -level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population
counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020).
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-61
i
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'31023-2031
I-1OUIS N 6 ELEMENT
EArivILIA APPENDIX A
Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a
range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased
risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have
found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either
temporarily or longer term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population
remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately
experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those
dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In Contra Costa County, the most common type of
household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among
households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.9% are unsheltered. Of
homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 41).
Sheltered Sheltered •
- Finergency Trawtional
Shelter Housing
Shelter Status
Unsheltered
r .: le In
Households
without Children
Under 1
People in
Households
with Adults and
Children
People In
Households
Composed Solely
f Children
filer 18
FIGURE 44: HOMELESSNESS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND SHELTER STATUS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point -in -Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless
Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during
the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county -level.
Per HCD's requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county -level data with local estimates of people experiencing
homelessness.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and
Subpopulations Reports (2019).
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.
Every January, Contra Costa's Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC), along with hundreds of
communities across the nation, conducts a comprehensive Point in Time (PIT) count of families
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-62
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
Aqi
APPENDIX A DANVI LE.
and individuals experiencing homelessness across the County. With the help of partnering
agencies and over one -hundred community volunteers, information is collected on families and
individuals residing in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and places not meant for
habitation, including but not limited to people sleeping in their vehicles, on the streets, tents and
make -shift shelters, and abandoned buildings. The PIT count is intended to measure the
prevalence of homelessness on any given night across the community and collect important
information describing the history, challenges, and needs of this population. The data is then
used for local, regional, and federal strategic planning, decision making, allocation of resources,
and advocacy to prevent and end homelessness in Contra Costa County.
While the federal agency Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires a biennial PIT count
for all communities receiving federal funding for housing, crisis, and homeless services, Contra
Costa County has been conducting annual PIT counts since 2013 to improve our understanding
of homelessness at the local level and support prioritization of vulnerable populations' needs.
According to the PIT count for 2020, canvassers found seven unsheltered homeless people
living on the streets of Danville. Although demographics are not available for the individuals, the
following are some key statistics from the countywide data. See
https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/reports.php#PIT for more information.
Households -- The 2,277 people identified on the night of the PIT count made up 1,972
households; 92 households (5%) were families with children and 1,880 households (95%) were
adult• only. Adult -only households consisted of one or more adults in the household with no
minors or dependent children (Figure Seven). There were 261 people in the 92 families
(averaging 2.8 persons per family) and 2,016 people in adult -only families (average 1.1 persons
per household).
Gender -- Men represented the majority of those identified in the PIT count (65%, n=1,483),
followed by women (35%, n=788), and transgender/gender non -conforming (n=6, less than 1 %).
Men were more likely to be unsheltered than women; 72% of men (n=1,072) were unsheltered
and 27% (n=494) of women were unsheltered.
Age -- The majority of individuals (55%) identified in the PIT count were adults ages 25 to 54,
followed by older adults ages 55 to 61 (17%) and seniors 62+ (16%). Transition Age Youth (TAY)
ages 18 to 24 made up 5% and minors under age 18 made up 7%. No unaccompanied minors
were identified during the 2020 PIT.
Race/Ethnicity - More than half the people identified in the count reported White/Caucasian race
(54%, n=1,227), followed by 29% (n=674) who reported Black/African American race, and
American Indian (8%, n=179).
Sheltered/Unsheltered -- Far more White people were unsheltered (88%) relative to all other
races (45% Asian and 41 % Black/African American were unsheltered). Pacific Islanders and
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-63
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
D, ,NYILL APPENDIX A
people with multiple races had higher rates of being sheltered the night of the count (77% and
75%, respectively).
Veterans --There were 115 veterans identified in the 2020 PIT count (making up 6% of the
adult population). Although there was an overall 6% decrease since 2015, shifts since 2017
are indicating an upward trend (16%) in the number of veterans identified.
Other indicators include:
• Sexual identity: 94% of those surveyed reported being straight/heterosexual and 6%
reported being gay/bisexual/queer
• Educational attainment: 20% had less than a high school degree; 48% had a high
school degree or GED; 23% had some college experience; 9% had a college degree
• Employment: 91 % were unemployed; 4% reported working full-time; 5% reported
working part-time or seasonally
People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal
and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities
extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted
by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In Contra Costa County, White
(Hispanic and Non -Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing
homelessness and account for 45.0% of the homeless population, while making up 55.8% of the
overall population (see Figure 42).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-64
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
-IOLI ING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A O L[L
1
2016
1`J
icu.nlind410
indi
or Native
i Hispanr+c acrid
ron•Hispanic1
Asian f API Irk or Other Race or
[IHI Ink African American FiniltIgoie Rages
14o4ri-Hispanicl (Hispanic and Ihispanic and
Non.tIisparisI NQn-Hi anicj
Racial 1' Ethnic GirDup
White iiiisp is
aril F 1-
Hfispanici
IM Share of Ogall
Pscx,tation
IShared
Flo neI.. s
PPpuIat1cn
FIGURE 45: RACIAL GROUP SHARE OF GENERAL AND HOMELESS POPULATIONS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point -in -Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless
Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during
the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county -level.
Per HCD's requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county -level data with local estimates of people experiencing
homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing
homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate
table. Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and
Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-
1)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.
In Contra Costa, Latinx residents represent 16.6% of the population experiencing homelessness,
while Latinx residents comprise 25.4% of the general population (see Figure 43).
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-65
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'31023-2031
FiOUIS N6 ELEMENT
DiuivillAA APPENDIX A
S
I Iispan ici Lat.inx
Latinx Status
Non-HispanicILatinx
■Shea or ovetau
Papulation
IShare or
IiomeLes
Papulation
FIGURE 46: LATINX SHARE OF GENERAL AND HOMELESS POPULATIONS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point -in -Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless
Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during
the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county -level.
Per HCD's requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county -level data with local estimates of people experiencing
homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify
racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx)
could be of any racial background.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and
Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-
I).
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-03.
Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues — including mental
illness, substance abuse and domestic violence — that are potentially life threatening and require
additional assistance. In Contra Costa County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged
by severe mental illness, with 519 reporting this condition (see Figure 12). Of those, some 70.1%
are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-66
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii _
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UIsr.L:
Ls
Sheltered
• Emergency
Shelter
SheLtered -
Transitional
Ikusing;
Shelter
Urithellered
IVictims of
t3omestic
+io4snm
Vet ns
■Severely
Mentally Ill
■ IH !WADS
Chronic
ub t taxere
FIGURE 47: CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE POPULATION EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point -in -Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless
Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during
the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county -level.
Per HCD's requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county -level data with local estimates of people experiencing
homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may
report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and
Subpopulations Reports (2019).
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-04.
In Danville, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year.
By comparison, Contra Costa County has seen a 4.4% increase in the population of students
experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of
students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year,
there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding
undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-67
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A
TABLE 14: STUDENTS IN LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Academic Danville Contra Bay
Year Costa Area
County
2016-17 0
2,116 14,990
2017-18 0
2,081 15,142
2018-19 0 2,574 15,427
2019-20 0 2,209 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public
schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary
shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of
other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site
level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative
Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020).
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.
Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through
seasonal or permanent agricultural work. Farmworkers have special housing needs because
they earn lower incomes than many other workers. Finding decent and affordable housing can
be challenging, particularly in the current housing market. In many parts of Northern California,
agriculture production is an important contribution to local economies, especially in Napa and
Sonoma Counties. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the
number of hired farmworkers in Contra Costa County has decreased since 2002, totaling 1,310
in 2017, representing a decrease of nearly half since 2002. The number of permanent farm
workers decreased to 450 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased,
totaling 860 in 2017 (see Figure 45).
In Danville, there are no known farmworkers. Further, no land within the Town is designated for
agricultural use. According to ACS 2019 five-year data, there could be an estimated 129 people
employed in agricultural, fishing, forestry, hunting, and mining industries combined in Danville;
however, the margin of error for this figure is +/- 102, meaning that this information is unreliable.
Maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program show no farmland in Danville. Due to the low number of agricultural workers
in the Town, the housing needs of migrant and/or farmworker housing need can be met through
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-68
j
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
general affordable housing programs.
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UIr.:
In Danville, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year. The
trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant
worker students since the 2016-17 school year.
TABLE 15: MIGRANT WORKER STUDENT POPULATION
Academic Danville Contra
Year Costa
County
2016-17
0
Bay Area
4,630
2017-18
0
0
4,607
2018-19 0
4,075
2019-20
0
0
3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public
schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded
and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative
Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020).
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM -01.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of
permanent farm workers in Contra Costa County has decreased since 2002, totaling 450 in
2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has also decreased, totaling 860 in 2017 (see
Figure)
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-69
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
.x323-2031
I-1OUE N 6 ELEMENT
DANvillA APPENDIX A
1.110U
2 1,coII:I
!OO
0
Pcrrrkanent Seasonal
Time Frame of Hire
■ 2002
■2 7
El 2012
2017
FIGURE 48: FARM OPERATIONS AND FARM LABOR BY COUNTY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor
contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work
on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM -02.
Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many
languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally
challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have
limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in
housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might
be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Danville, 1.1% of residents 5 years
and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for
Contra Costa County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with
limited English proficiency is 8%.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-70
1
1
93.6%
1,476,$02
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii —
-- —.-- e --
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A UIsr .L:
75`
8
ti ▪ 501:
a
ea
2
9:k
42; I24
9L 9%.
1,27 ,592
912.2%
7,h-kd
Danville
Contra Cosa County
r ty
Bail I4'Ca
Population
5Years arid
Over Who Sps&k,
English „Fell"
o r 'Wry well'
P opulation
S Years and
Over Who Speak
English Not
well` or -Not at
aLI`
FIGURE 49: POPULATION WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-71
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
411
DINMLLE_
APPENDIX A
7. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends 7
Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 8
Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race 9
Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 10
Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction 11
Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
12
Figure 7: Jobs -Worker Ratios, By Wage Group 13
Figure 8: Jobs -Household Ratio 14
Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry 15
Figure 10: Unemployment Rate 17
Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level 19
Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure 21
Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race 22
Figure 14: Housing Tenure 23
Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder 24
Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age 25
Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type 27
Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure 28
Figure 19: Housing Type Trends 29
Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built 30
Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type 31
Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues 36
Figure 23: Home Values of Owner -Occupied Units 38
Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) 39
Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter -Occupied Units 40
Figure 26: Median Contract Rent 41
Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure 44
Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level 45
Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race 47
Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size 48
Figure 31: Cost -Burdened Senior Households by Income Level 49
Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity 47
Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity 48
Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race 52
Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure 53
Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms 54
Figure 37: Household Type 55
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-72
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
w
APPENDIX A
DANVILLE.
Figure 38: Female -Headed Households by Poverty Status 56
Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure 57
Figure 40: Disability by Type 58
Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County62
Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations,
Contra Costa County 65
Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations,
Contra Costa County 66
Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness,
Contra Costa County 67
Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Contra Costa County 70
Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency 71
. LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology 5
Table 2: Population Growth Trends 6
Table 3: Housing Permitting 32
Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion 33
Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age 60
Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence 61
Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness 68
Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population 69
APPENDIX A 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-A-73
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
iii —
—14--—..-j,,,,,,.._,..-.
2023-2031
HOL SIP41G ELEMENT
APPENDIX B DANVILLE.
DANVILLE
APPENDIX B
CONSTRAINTS
ANALYSIS
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2623=2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX B DEAN ILLS.
1. INTRODUCTION
Potential constraints to the provision of adequate and affordable housing can be created by
government policies and regulations as well as non-governmental factors, such as costs
associated with land and construction. These constraints may increase the cost of housing or
may render residential construction economically and/or politically infeasible for developers.
Housing production constraints can also significantly impact households with low and moderate
incomes and special needs. Land use controls as summarized in below may constrain the
maintenance, development, and improvement of housing.
The purpose of this section, per Government Code Section 65583(a)(5-6), is to identify non-
governmental and governmental factors (constraints) that inhibit the development, maintenance,
or improvement of housing. Examples of such constraints are land and construction costs,
access to credit, permit fees, development standards, and compliance with Federal and State
laws intended to facilitate housing for lower-income and special needs households.
Clearly, the potential list of all constraints on the development could be quite long and might
include information on national economic conditions and regional geology. A thorough
understanding of the constraints to development can help to create appropriate policy responses
to mitigate constraints and make it easier and more affordable to develop housing. The Town
has analyzed both its own regulations as well as those of nearby jurisdictions and regional
market trends to assess what constraints exist in Danville and identify potential modifications to
Town policies to remove these barriers to development to the maximum extent feasible.
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market forces over which local
governments have little or no control. Nonetheless, State law requires that the Housing
Element contain a general assessment of these constraints, which can serve as the basis for
actions to offset their effects on the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for
all income levels. Potential nongovernmental constraints are largely determined by market
conditions over which local jurisdictions have little control and may include the availability of
financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction. However, local governments can
influence market conditions and their associated costs, even if only indirectly.
This section provides an analysis of various potential and actual constraints to housing
development in the Town. The primary non-governmental constraints to the development of
new housing in the County can be broken into the following categories: availability of financing,
development and construction costs, environmental constraints, school capacity, and requests
of housing development at reduced densities.
Availability Of Financing
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -B-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
•
Dw1 APPENDIX B
•
by homeowners and investors. Interest rates substantially impact home construction,
variability due to the COVID 19 pandcmic has made Icndcrs more cautious, which has the
result, the cost to develop housing continues to increase.
Availability of Financing
The availability of financing is a critical factor that can influence the cost and supply of housing.
There are generally two types of financing used in the housing market: (1) capital used for initial
site preparation and construction; and (2) capital used to finance the purchase of units by
homeowners and investors. Interest rates substantially impact home construction, purchase,
and improvement costs. A small fluctuation in rates can make a dramatic difference in the annual
income needed to qualify for a loan. However, interest rates are determined by national policies
and economic conditions, and there is little that local governments can do to affect interest rates.
In general, financing for new residential development for both construction and long-term
mortgages is available in Contra Costa County, subject to normal underwriting standards.
However, economic fluctuations in recent years due to the pandemic have caused caution
among lenders and may have lasting effects on the availability of financing through this Housing
Element planning period. While interest rates began low in 2022, they have been rising
significantly as the Federal Reserve has raised its key lending rates to help control inflation. The
availability of financing for developers under these economic conditions may pose a constraint
on development outside the Town's control.
Cost of Land
The cost of land has also increased substantially over the past decade, and many
jurisdictions are now essentially built out, with no available vacant land for
development. With this limited land availability, most locations in the Bay Area are
experiencing substantially higher land values than in other areas of the State
because of the attractiveness of living along the coast, with its mild climate, access
to high-tech jobs, and plentiful amenities.
There are multiple factors that may affect the cost of land, such as lot size, topography, site
conditions, shape of the parcel, location and amenities, neighboring uses, access, proximity to
public services, noise and the financing arrangement between buyer and seller. Available
information is not comprehensive and any summaries or averages at the Town level may not be
valuable for reaching conclusions. That said, a cursory review of sold prices on Zillow.com for
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX B DANVILLE
building lots in Danville during the fourth quarter of 2021 indicated that the average price per
acre for land was approximately $1,350,000.
Development And Construction Costs
According to a report released in March 2020 on multifamily construction costs in California from
the Terner Center, many different factors layer together to affect the bottom-line costs of building
new housing and whether or not a project will ultimately "pencil": the costs of acquisition (e.g.,
land and closing costs), hard construction costs (e.g., materials and labor), soft costs (e.g., legal
and professional fees, insurance, and development fees), and the costs of conversion once a
project is completed (e.g., title fees and the operating deficit reserve).' According to its research,
the largest share of a project's total cost comes from materials and labor, or hard costs.
In addition, hard construction costs make up more than 60 percent of total development costs.
The Terner Center study found that on average, construction costs were about $222 per
square foot in 2018 compared to $177 in 2008-2009, representing a 25 percent increase. While
these increases have been felt across the state, costs are highest in the Bay Area, which saw
costs rising by 119% during the same time period to over $380 per square foot. The reasons
for this increase in construction costs are complex, but the Terner Center suggests this is in
part because of higher labor costs to attract workers to the Bay Area where the cost of living
is very high; local regulations that require certain materials or building components to be used;
lengthy review processes; and other local constraints.2
Statewide, labor costs have also increased in recent years, as the labor pool has not kept pace
with the increase in demand, likely due to costs of housing in the state. Since the recession in
the mid -2000's, California has seen a severe tightening in the construction labor market,
especially for workers trained in specific construction trades. The lack of an available labor
force drives up the cost of labor and leads to project delays as workers are either unavailable
or lost to more profitable projects.
Adding to the overall development costs are the high land costs in Danville as well as the
limited availability of vacant or underutilized land. Not only is acquiring the property a large
expense when compared to many other Contra Costa County jurisdictions, but also "buying
out" businesses for relocation or demolition of existing structures further contribute to the
necessary expenses to redevelop property in Danville and add to the overall development
costs.
Several additional factors have caused the increased cost of materials, including global trade
patterns and federal policy decisions, such as tariffs, as well as state and local regulations,
such as building codes. The COVID-19 pandemic has also influenced the cost and availability
of construction materials. Supply chain disruptions have resulted in project delays and
increased costs due to a shortage of construction materials and equipment.
The cost of land has also increased substantially over the past decade. Many jurisdictions are
1 See the Terner Center's series on housing costs at https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/the-cost-of-
building-housing-series/.
2 Terner Center, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment
Buildings in California", March 2020, p. 15.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'023-2031
HOUI:SIND ELEMENT
APPENDIX B
ink
now essentially built out, with no available vacant land for development. Many locations in the
Bay Area experience substantially higher land values than in other areas of the State because
of the attractiveness of living along the coast, with its mild climate, access to high-tech jobs, and
plentiful amenities. A desk review of vacant land sales in 2021 and shows that the average sales
price for one acre was $1.4 million, with one -acre listings asking an average of $1.8 million.
All of these factors work together to make it so developers must charge substantial rents and
sales prices to cover the development costs for financing and construction. For example, the
Terner report notes that a multifamily unit that costs $800,000 to build will need to charge
approximately $4,000 in monthly rent—a price well over the typical monthly earnings in the State
—to cover those costs and meet return on investment requirements for investors.
The impact of high construction costs on affordable housing cannot be underestimated.
According a study by the Bay Area Council, in 2019 there were 23 new construction projects of
below market -rate housing financed through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, with
a total of 1,912 units, across six counties of the nine -county Bay Area. Each project in California
requested federal and/or state tax credits to finance the new construction of housing units with
rents affordable to households earning 30-60% of area median income (AMI), which are very
low-income households. The project costs consist of land and acquisition, construction costs,
construction contingency, architectural/engineering, construction interest, permanent financing,
legal fees, reserves, other costs, developer fees, and commercial costs. Project costs were
analyzed to determine the reasonableness of all fees within TCAC's underwriting guidelines and
TCAC limitations.
The report found that the average construction cost of new below market rate housing in the Bay
Area was $664,455 per unit, far more than lower income households can afford without
subsidies. In comparison, other projects across California (excluding the Bay Area), on average
cost $385,185 per unit of below market rate housing.3
3 http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-produce-one-unit-of-below-market-housing-in-the-bay-area/
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
111
, 3q'
-''--'---60k..,=-..- -`--
VW
202:3-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX B DEAN ILLS.
5800.000
5700.000
5600.000
5500.000
5400.000
5300,000
5200.000
5100.000
50
Average Pet Un*t Cost Construction of Now Below Markt Rats Housing
'Cly Oetn t./ Cu..`ty
5737,417 5724.469
5701.395
5477,348 5664ASS
5621,517
5497,360
SiaIreeereoe A aer.da San tie se Nine Bey n►.* fai s airs iumme
8rgp.t. 7 r,*.t. 1EkMai tMelo 22At..e ,c b 2Rryr.M
J<teu.. 464 Um. I2SWes St Unto ers6JUwe 11T UPON 10 Ones
Sam CJk... t. G.d. ••- . - - - Comment
4m** M A... Cordbapwrm a.s.Ar
MAN ion dwr ~Ws fr Ceram Gala. Y..% adUM* a...••
EC70itCSNC
Community Opposition
Another constraint to housing production in many communities is public opposition to higher -
density or affordable housing. Such objections may be based on concerns about traffic, parking,
school overcrowding, police and fire response times, fiscal impacts, and other issues. However,
they may also be based on misinformation and misconceptions about affordable housing, or
concerns that can be directly mitigated, such as the appearance and quality of such housing.
The potential for community opposition means that good design and planning are essential in
high-density projects. Such design efforts require early consultation with the public, close
collaboration with neighbors and homeowners' associations, genuine respect for public
concerns, and public education as to the need for and benefits of affordable and higher density
housing. Design guidelines and standards will become increasingly important, as will community
benefits, such as public open space and childcare facilities. High-quality architecture, "green"
construction, good tenant screening processes, and commitments to maintenance and upkeep
will all be important. Continued attention to public input will be critical.
Environmental Constraints
The San Ramon Valley has a variety of natural conditions that impact the design, construction
and final cost of new residential development. If not properly recognized and accommodated,
these environmental constraints have the potential to endanger lives and property. Information
regarding the presence of environmental constraints on individual opportunity sites is included
in the inventory.
Wildfire
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
'31023-2031
HOUl:SIND ELEMENT
APPENDIX B
The entirety of the Town is designated as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). The same is true for the surrounding
incorporated communities of Lafayette, Walnut Creek, and San Ramon. The unincorporated
area to the north of the Town is a State Responsibility Area (SRA), with CalFire or its designee
providing fire protection services.
As part of its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP), CalFire has mapped areas of
significant fire hazards throughout the state. The maps classify lands into fire hazard severity
zones, based on a hazards scoring system that takes into account localized factors such as fuel
loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant considerations, including areas where winds
have been identified as a major cause of wildfire spread. Edges of the Town are either
undeveloped or managed as some form of open space, including areas of open grassland and
oak woodland and have been designated by the FRAP as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone (VHFHSZ).
Fire hazards are addressed through the environmental and development review and permitting
process, through observance of Danville's Hillside Development Guidelines, through imposition
of the regulations contained in the California Building Code and through observance of
performance standards contained within the Growth Management Element (which precludes
major development from occurring if firefighting services are not available or are determined to
be inadequate).
Seismic/Geologic Hazards
A number of active faults paralleling and associated with the San Andreas Fault are found in
and near the San Ramon Valley, including the Calaveras Fault, the Pleasanton Fault, the
Bollinger Fault, and the Mt. Diablo Fault. These four fault structures constitute some of the major
faults in California at the latitude of San Francisco. The 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan for Contra
Costa County indicates there is a 75 percent probability of a magnitude 7.0 or greater
earthquake in the Bay Area during the next 30 years. In 2002, the United States Geologic
Survey (USGS) estimated an 11 percent probability for one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater
earthquakes by 2032 on the Calaveras Fault alone. The Calaveras Fault Zone has been
designated as a Special Study Zone pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones Act.
Geologic hazards in Danville are associated with the complex topographic and geologic features
of the Valley. Geologic hazards include two types of hazards: seismically induced hazards, those
hazards related to earthquakes, including ground shaking, surface rupture, ground failure and
seismically induced landslides; and hazards associated with certain soils, bed rock, steep slopes
and land subdivision occurs naturally or is induced, including slope instability, and landslides
caused by construction activity, land subsidence and shrink -swell characteristics of soils.
Seismic and geologic hazards are addressed through the environmental and development
review and permitting process, through use of structure setbacks (to avoid impacts from
potentially active fault traces and known geologic hazards) and through imposition of the
regulations contained in the Town's grading ordinance and the California Building Code
(collectively resulting in requirement of use of construction design improvements, such as
seismic strengthening and detailing, to make projects meet the latest adopted seismic design
criteria).
Topography
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Wir
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
491fr
APPENDIX B Disivaa.
Steep topography, fractured and unconsolidated bedrock conditions, expansive soils, and high
erosion potential combine to make some of the hillside areas in the San Ramon Valley highly
unstable. Landslides resulting from natural conditions or caused by construction activity are
common occurrences in the hillsides. Nearly 50 percent of Danville is located on hillsides,
including the Las Trampas Ridge area and the hills paralleling the Sycamore Valley. There are
numerous traces of landslide activity in these areas and the potential for future landslides is
considered to be high. While landslides may occur on slopes of 15 percent or less in unstable
areas, the risks are usually proportional with steepness of slopes. Areas where old slide
deposits are evident are the most subject to failure.
Hillside areas in Danville are also subject to soil erosion, which can contribute to instability of
slopes, loss of vegetation, downstream flooding, sedimentation and stream bank failure. Soil
erosion potential is generally proportional to slope and occurs mainly during peak rainfall, when
runoff volumes are high.
Hazards associated with landslides and soil erosion are addressed through the environmental
and development review and permitting process and through imposition of the regulations
contained in the Town's Grading Ordinance, the Scenic Hillside and Major Ridgeline
Development Ordinance and through observance of Danville's Hillside Development
Guidelines.
Creeks and Flood Zones
Flooding in Danville does not pose a significant hazard to life and property, but some areas
along major creeks and near the confluence of creeks are subject to periodic inundation by
floods. Flooding that does occur is typically caused by winter rains. Portions of San Ramon
Creek and one of its major tributary streams, Green Valley Creek, are subject to flooding. Flood
hazard maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the State
Department of Water Resources (DWR) indicate several areas in developed portions of Danville
that may be subject to flooding.
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, with assistance from
the Soil Conservation Service, has reshaped and widened segments of San Ramon, Sycamore,
and Green Valley Creeks and constructed various flood protection structures. These efforts,
along with Danville's drainage maintenance efforts, have reduced the potential for serious
floods. Flood hazards are addressed through the setbacks, through imposition of requirements
on new projects to make appropriate flood control improvements and through observance to
the standards of the Flood Disaster Preservation Act of 1973.
Infrastructure, Urban Services, and Facilities Constraints
A lack of adequate infrastructure or urban services and facilities can be a substantial constraint
to residential development if it is to avoid impacting existing residences. On a regular basis
(typically on a yearly basis), the Town reviews it's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The
CIP is a compilation of the capital improvements planned for construction over the next five-
year period in Danville. It includes cost estimates, the phasing of specific improvements and
associated costs, and methods with which specific improvements will be financed. Benefit
assessment district financing has been successfully used to finance a vast amount of
infrastructure improvements in the Town and can be used, as may be needed, in the future.
In 1984, the Town adopted the Commercial Transportation Improvement Program (CTIP)
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
APPENDIX B
requiring new commercial and office development to pay a fee to offset impacts upon local
transportation improvements. The fee helps finance needed improvements to Downtown
Danville's road network. In 1986, the Town adopted the Residential Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) requiring the payment of a fee for each new residential unit for
the financing of Town -wide transportation improvements.
In addition, several other impact fees have been put into place to facilitate the construction and
improvement of the basic infrastructure improvements needed by residential development. The
impact fees include, among others, the two-tier fees for transportation improvements created
through the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, various sub -regional traffic impact fees;
park land in -lieu fees and child care fees.
As mentioned in a previous section, the Growth Management Element of the General Plan
serves to ensure that the infrastructure and urban services and facilities are in place to serve
new development.
Many of Danville's affordable housing opportunities (i.e., sites currently carrying multifamily
residential land use and zoning designations) are infill development locations in areas already
served by existing infrastructure. The vast majority of the incorporated limits of the Town lie
within the service boundaries for water and sewer service, virtually assuring that the vacant and
underutilized parcels identified in this document could develop by the end of the 2014-2022
Housing Element planning period.
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is the water purveyor for the Danville area.
EBMUD's current Water Supply and Management Program (WSMP 2040), adopted October
2009, serves as the basis for water conservation and recycling programs and for development
of supplemental supply initiatives. WSMP 2040 seeks to provide a diverse and robust water
supply portfolio that ensures water reliability in an uncertain future while also protecting the
environment.
Through the implementation of the WSMP 2040, EBMUD is meeting future growth with
aggressive conservation and recycling, while supplemental supply components allow a lower
rationing level and thereby decrease direct impacts on EBMUD customers during dry years.
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) wastewater treatment plant and its
associated wastewater collection system provides secondary treatment of domestic,
commercial, and industrial wastewater for Danville, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Orinda,
Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, and adjacent unincorporated
areas, including Alamo, Blackhawk, Clyde, and Pacheco.
The population of the service area is approximately 471,000. In 2013, the wastewater treatment
plant's average flow dry weather rate was 35.8 million gallons per day (MGD). This rate is well
within the permitted 53.8 MGD average dry weather flow limit allowed for by Order No. R2-
2012-0016 issued by the SF Bay Region of the California Regional Quality Control Board and
by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0037648. CCCSD
has indicated it will be able to serve the planned growth provided through the Danville 2030
General Plan and the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
While many of the Town's vacant and underutilized parcels can develop without extension of
urban services, they may face other challenges to development. Infill sites may require
upgrading of existing infrastructure systems to support more intense development, such as
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX B DANVI LE.
roadway improvements and the replacement of undersized sewer and water lines. Other
constraints to development of infill sites include site assembly and preparation, relocation of
existing uses, compatibility with surrounding land uses and/or potential neighborhood
opposition.
EBMUD, the water purveyor for the area, and CCCSD, the wastewater treatment agency for
the area, will be provided copies of this Housing Element after the Plan is adopted.
service providers
As part of the Housing Element, jurisdictions must provide information regarding water and
sewer capacity to accommodate future development. In addition, jurisdictions must include
narratives about how they will comply with two specific pieces of legislation, SB 1087 and SB
244.
• SB 1087 — Housing Elements — Requires a city to immediately forward its adopted
Housing Element to its water providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to
proposed housing developments that include units affordable to lower-income
households.
SB 244 — Land Use and General Plans — Requires cities and counties, prior to adoption
of a housing element, to address the infrastructure needs of disadvantaged
unincorporated communities outside the city's limits but within the city's planning area.
Because the city's
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report determined that water demand would exceed
water projections in EBMUD's adopted 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 et
seq., the Council will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the unavoidable
impacts and the anticipated benefits of the project.
Despite the existence of significant adverse impacts that may not be mitigated to below the level of
significance, the Council has balanced the benefits of the project against these significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts and adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The Council
determined the benefits of the project to outweigh the significant and adverse impacts of the project.
The projected impacts of individual projects will be reviewed at the time of application review.
Requests For Housing Development At Reduced Densities
California Government Code, Section 65583(a)(6), requires an analysis of requests to develop
housing at densities below those anticipated in the Sites Inventory and the length of time
between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an application for building
permit. The analysis must also look at local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that
create a gap in the jurisdiction's ability to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) by income category.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
APPENDIX B
This analysis is required to examine local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that
create a gap in the jurisdiction's ability to meet the RHNA by income category. The primary
nongovernmental constraint is the overall cost of affordable housing development (high land and
development costs) and the lack of public funding sources to subsidize the development of these
units. Data on construction costs indicates that, even with by -right density bonuses pursuant to
California's Density Bonus Law, constructing affordable housing (particularly for households with
low and very low incomes) is not profitable for developers and results in a loss without public
funding sources. Developers requiring funding from investors and lending institutions are
required to submit a pro forma analysis (i.e., an analysis showing the costs to develop and the
revenues available to fund the development) demonstrating financial feasibility or costs that are
less than or equal to revenues.
Therefore, public subsidies are required to develop affordable housing. The subsidy typically
comes in the form of LIHTC, State grants, HOME funds, dedication of land for projects, and/or
other public sources. The lack of funding options can result in affordable projects that are more
concentrated in areas with lower development and land costs. It is important to note that the
Town can offer concessions, such as expedited permit processing; development impact fee
deferrals.
The length of time between receiving approval for housing development and approval of an
application for building permit is typically four to six months under normal circumstances with a
reasonably good design team, but can vary depending on project complexity and the time the
developer takes to complete construction documents. Items like changes to construction costs
or other development costs that affect the feasibility, financing, or negotiations with design
professionals are outside the Town's control, but may delay projects.
Local Efforts To Remove Non -Governmental Constraints
Government Code 65583(a)(6) also requires a review of local efforts to remove
nongovernmental constraints that create a gap in the jurisdiction's ability to meet RHNA by
income category. The primary non-governmental constraint is the overall cost of affordable
housing development (high land and development costs) in most parts of the State. In general,
constructing affordable housing, especially for low- and very low-income households is not
profitable to housing developers. Therefore, deed -restricted affordable units require subsidy
beyond available density or financial incentives.
This places the construction burden on affordable housing developments and may result in
affordable projects that are not always dispersed throughout the region but are concentrated in
limited areas with lower development costs. While the Town can offer developer incentives such
as expedited permit processing or fee deferrals, it cannot afford to fully mitigate the high cost of
development for affordable housing developments. County Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funding helps support gap financing
for affordable housing projects; however, the Town's ability to support projects is limited by
available funds.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3-2031
H0LIv-Ir1I3 ELENT
APPENDIX B OAN
3. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Governmental policies and regulations can result in both positive and negative effects on the
availability and affordability of housing. This section, as required by Government Code Section
(a)(5), describes Town policies and regulations that may constrain the Town's ability to achieve
its housing goals. Potential constraints to housing include land use controls (through General
Plan policies and zoning regulations), development standards, infrastructure requirements,
development impact fees, and development approval processes. While government policies and
regulations are intended to serve public objectives and further the public good, the Town
recognizes that its actions can potentially constrain the availability and affordability of housing
to meet the community's future needs.
Land Use Controls
The Danville Zoning Ordinance contained within the Town's Municipal Code sets forth zoning
designations and development requirements for construction activity within the Town. California
law requires that the Zoning Ordinance be consistent with the General Plan. The Danville Zoning
Ordinance and the Land Use Element of the General Plan will be amended to be consistent with
the Housing Element concurrently with and following its completion.
Development Standards
The Zoning Ordinance establishes two primary types of residential zoning: Single -Family
Residential (D-1, R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100) and Multifamily
Residential (M-8, M-13, M-20, M-30, DBD (Downtown Business District) -9, and DBD -12).
Residential use is also allowed by right above the ground floor in downtown zoning districts DBD -
5. Tables included in Attachment A illustrate the Town's development standards for each of
these zoning districts.
The Town's P-1; Planned Unit Development District may bei afso used for both single family
and multifamily residential development. Tables included in Attachment A illustrate the Town's
development standards for each of these zoning districts. In compliance with SB 330, the Town
does not require any type of legislative approvals, including rezoninqs, if a proposed residential
development is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use Designation. All new
housing sites will be zoned to a new M-35; Residential — Multifamily — High Density Special
zoning district. Specific standards for the M-35 district have been added to the Town's Municipal
Code providing transparency to potential applicants.
A total of 203 multifamily housing units have been entitled and 163 multifamily units have been
built in the Town's downtown area over the fifth cycle. The Town anticipates that most of the
higher density, affordable units to be provided for under the housing element will be built in the
area covered by the Town's Downtown Business District Ordinance throughout the 6th cycle. It
is in this area that services such as grocery and drug stores, civic uses such as the library,
community center, senior center, and post office are located. The downtown area also has bus
transit lines and is adjacent to and provides quick access to 1-680. A density of 30 du/acre, the
maximum currently permitted in Danville, and a 35 -foot height limit are currently allowed in this
area. There is no floor area ratio ("FAR") requirement in the Downtown Business District
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
u
DArTauxj APPENDIX B
`3'023-2031
HOUSiN6 ELEMENT
multifamily areas.
Analysis Of Land Use Controls: Impacts On Recent Developments
Regulations for residential development (e.g. required setbacks, maximum lot coverage, height
limits, minimum lot sizes) are no more restrictive than those of surrounding jurisdictions. The
Zoning Ordinance and related land use regulations serve to promote, rather than constrain,
housing development. In addition to these zoning districts, the Zoning Ordinance incorporates
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept. Danville's PUD process permits housing
developments to be built with flexible setbacks, lot coverage and other regulations and permits
the construction of mixed-use developments. The majority of residential development in Danville
over the last 30 years has been processed through the PUD process and have benefited from
flexible zoning standards.
The concessions and waivers sought by developers for projects utilizing the State Density Bonus
Law have provided insights into elements of existing zoning standards that may act as
constraints to development. Of the four recently proposed projects using the State Density
Bonus Law, there has been some level of consistency across the concessions and waivers to
development standards, which have been outlined in the table below. While each site and project
have unique site considerations, the development standards that serve as the biggest
constraints to multifamily development are setback and height requirements based on these
projects.
TABLE 1: CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS FOR RECENT DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS
Project
Setback
Height
Parking Building Fee
Design Deferral
Inclusionary
Housing
Other
Abagail x
Cl.
Edendale x
375 W. EI x x x
Pintado
Alexon x x
Riverwalk
Source: Town of Danville, 2022
x
x
x
x
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-12
Comments
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
IIMPr
Om -
APPENDIX B OM +ILLS
The following Tables analyze the impacts of the Town's development standards on two recent
development proposals:
TABLE 2: ANALYSIS OF ALEXON RIVERWALK
Alexon Riverwalk — 373
Diablo Road
Total Lot Area: 3.68
Zone: DBD Area 12
Regulation
Town Requirement
Proposed Project
Comments
Regulation is not a constraint as
housing is allowed by right.
Allowed Uses
Multifamily Residential
Three Story 144 -unit
apartment development
Minimum Lot Area
No Minimum
3.68 acres
Regulation is not a constraint.
Maximum Density
30 units/acre
40 units/acre
The maximum density may be a
constraint as the developer
added density under State
Density Bonus Law.
Maximum Height
35'
37'
The 35 -foot height limit may be
a constraint as the developer
sought a waiver to the building
height under State Density
Bonus Law.
Front Setback
Site-specific, no
standard
28'
Regulation is not a constraint
Side yard setback
Site-specific, no
standard
63'
Regulation is not a constraint
Rear yard setback
Site-specific, no
standard'
44' to creek
Regulation is not a constraint
Parking
265
265
Regulation is not a constraint
Other Re• ulations
Building Design
Town Re• uirement
The development
incudes three stories,
and maximum building
height of 37 feet while
the maximum allowed
height is 35 feet. The
project also exceeds the
maximum 80 percent
FAR with an FAR of 90
percent.
Pro.osed Pro'ect
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• ?023-2031
HOUSING L _EM ENT
APPENDIX B
TABLE 3: ANALYSIS OF ABAGAIL CIRCLE
Aba • ail CI. Old Blackhawk
Total Lot Area: 2.57
Zone: P-1
Regulation
Town Requirement
1 Proposed Project Comments
Allowed Uses
Single/Multifamily
Residential (4-8 units
per acre)
19 lot residential Regulation is not a constraint as
development including housing is allowed by right.
two BMR units'
Minimum Lot Area
Maximum Density
Maximum Height
No Minimum
2.57
Regulation is not a constraint.
Re • ulation is not a constraint.
8 units per acre
7.4 units per acre
28'
27.9 Regulation is not a constraint.
Front Setback
Site-specific,
standard
no 20' minimum
Regulation is not a constraint.
Side yard setback
Site-specific,
standard
no
5' minimum
Regulation is not a constraint.
Rear yard setback
Site-specific,
standard
no 20' minimum
Regulation is not a constraint.
Parking 2 per unit
_Other Regulations
Building Design
2 per unit
Regulation is not a constraint.
The development was
given specific reduced
setbacks in several
locations
accommodate
to
the
proposed dwelling units
TABLE 4: ANALYSIS OF EDENDALE
Edendale
WWI L
1 v. O t
Area: 5.05
Zoning: P-1
Regulation
Allowed Uses
I Town Requirement
Proposed Project
Comments
Regulation is not a constraint as
housing is allowed by right.
The 10,000 s.f. lot minimum
may be a constraint as the
applicant asked for smaller lots
as an incentive.
Single Family Residential
18 lot single family
development
incorporating 8 ADUs
Minimum Lot
Area
10,000 s.f.
6,745 — 10,054
Maximum
Density
3 units per acre
3.56 units per acre
Regulation may be a constraint
as the applicant requested a 20
percent density bonus.
Maximum
Height
35'
35'
Regulation is not a constraint.
Front Setback
Side yard
setback
20'
15"
Regulation may be a constrain
as the applicant requested 15'
front yard setbacks.
10' minimum
10'minimum
Regulation is not a constraint.
Rear yard
setback
20' minimum
20' minimum
Regulation is not a constraint.
Parking
2 per unit
3 per unit
Regulation is not a constraint.
Other
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -B-14
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
w
2023-2031
HO'USI Nt ELEMENT
APPENDIX B DINIALA,
Regulations
Building
Design
Inclusionary
Housing
Density
The development was allowed to
implement 15' front yard setbacks
in combination with side -loaded
garages.
The applicant chose two
incorporate 8 BMR ADUs into the
project.
The maximum density allowed in Danville has beenis 30 units per acre. As part of this plan, the
Town is adding a new General Plan Land Use Range allowing up to 35 units per acre. Though
this figure is the maximum permitted density, the Town has established a track record of
approving higher density residential and mixed-use projects. The Town received five
applications to build new, high density multifamily housing projects in the last five years and four
have been approved and one is pending. The average yield of those projects is 5%1-0-74: of
the naximurr units permitted by zoning, in part because all but onetwo has used State Density
Bonus Law. Table 5 provides more detailed information on these projects. As previously
discussed, most proposals for new residential development in Danville use the State Density
Bonus Law not only to seek concessions and waivers to existing development standards, but
also to increase the overall unit count of a given project. Further, the Town was unable to
accommodate its RHNA on the land area identified in the Sites Inventory at the maximum
permitted density of 30 du/acre. While other factors like Town subsidies or developer interest in
developing lower-income units can affect below -market -rate production, both the development
track record in the Town indicates that the permitted density is a potential constraint to new
housing development.
Danville's General Plan Land Use Designation establish a maximum as well as a minimum
allowed density. Any housing proposal below the minimum density would require approval of a
Geneal Plan Amendment. A General Plan change to allow a lower residential density would not
generally be allowed as that would violate General Plan Policy 1.05 which requires the Town to
discourage General Plan Amendments and retain existing multifamily residential sites.
As part of the Housing Plan (Policy 8.1.d), for all new RHNA housing sites, the Town base
residential development density on the gross area of the lot, rather than on net area. This will
remove a governmental constraint as potential housing units within unbuildable portions of a
site, such as creeks and steep slopes can be transferred to the buildable area of a site. This will
result in additional units and additional unit density for the buildable portion of a development
site.
TABLE 5: DENSITIES OF MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS (2017-2022)
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-15
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DirNhALLE.
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX B
Project VLI LI Mod AM Base
Name units units units units Units
Density Total %
Bonus Units BMR
Units (of
Base
Units)
Density
Bonus
(%)
Project
Density
(units/
acre)
Math-
ematical
Capacity
(units)
Yield
Units/
capacity
X373-383
Diablo
Road —
Alexon
Riverwalk
10
0
0
1
0
0
6
134
113
43
144
9%
27
40
113
127%
600 Hartz
Avenue
(FAZ)
31
37
0
37
15%
0
30
30
100%
3020
Fostoria
Way
(Borel)
0
0
24
139
163
0
160
0%
0
22.5
160
100%
375& 359
West El
Pintado
0
0
0
57
33
20
53
0%
0
30
45
118%
Inclusionary Housing
Inclusionary zoning programs, of which the Town's local Below Market Rate or BMR program is
one variation, are sometimes perceived as adding to the cost of housing by requiring the market -
rate units to subsidize the affordable units. This is an area of much dispute, both in the Bay Area
and nationally. There are as many positive aspects of inclusionary programs than there are
negative aspects. For example, a study conducted by the National Housing Conference's (NHC)
Center for Housing Policy (2000) highlighted several important contributions to inclusionary
zoning to communities, not the least of which is the creation of income -integrated communities
without sprawl.
Many studies have been published that specifically address the issue of who pays for
inclusionary zoning. Some of these studies assert that the costs associated with inclusionary
programs are passed on to the market priced homes, while other studies assert that in fact the
cost is not borne by the end users at all. In an article published in the Hastings School of Law
Review in 2002 which provided one of the first comprehensive reviews of inclusionary zoning
and its cost implications for jurisdictions in California, Barbara Kautz, former Director of
Community Development for the City of Dan Mateo and now a lawyer with Goldfarb and Lipman,
noted that:
Most cities that have conducted economic analyses have concluded that, in the long run,
most of the costs are borne by landowners [rather than market rate renters or buyers.]
Initially, before land prices have had time to adjust, either the market -rate buyers or the
developer pays, depending on whether the market allows the developer to increase his
prices. If the developer cannot raise the market price for the non -inclusionary units or
lower his total costs, or some combination, his profits will decline.... To put this another
way, builders will pay less for land because inclusionary zoning lowers their profits.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202:3-2031
H0LI INO ELEMENT
APPENDIX B DANVI LE.
Based on the research and many years of implementation, the Town's inclusionary program is
not a constraint to development. Developers have a variety of options for complying with the
provisions, and may use the density bonus, which requires a certain level of affordability anyway,
to obtain additional concessions and waivers.
The Town last updated its inclusionary housing Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 32-73) in
3014. The Ordinance applies to any residential project with eight of more units. For develop that
are less 20 units per acre, 10% of the units are required to be provided as moderate income
units. For development that are that have a density of 20 units per acre or greater, 15% of the
units are required to be provided as moderate income units. All below market rate units (BMRs)
are subject to an affordable housing agreement approve by the Danville Town Council and are
deed -restricted to be rented or sold to a qualifying moderate income household at moderate
income rate. The deed restrictions are typically in effect for a period of 20 years.
In addition, under the Ordinance, a developer may opt to incorporate Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) into a minimum of 25% of the units. These units are typically less than 500 square feet
in size and are considered to affordable by design. Most single family development have chosen
this option over the last 30 years. Often, the builder ultimately includes ADUs in more than 25%
of the units, as they are a poplar option for buyers and the builder can recover construction costs
as part of the sales price for the unit. This open results in no financial burden for the builder and
is not a development constraint.
The cost of the burden for provision of the deed -restricted moderate income units is mostly born
by the builder. However, the Town's Density Bonus Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 32-74)
allows for density bonuses and other development concessions in exchange for additional
affordability. In addition, the Town Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provides for the waiver of
Town fees relate to construction of the affordable units, as well as a streamlined review process.
Given these provision, the Town's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has not resulted in a
constraint on development.
The Town housing plan includes a program to review the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to
require the provision of low income units rather than moderate income units, and to identify
additional fee waivers and incentives to help offset costs to the builder.
In the last five years, all developers seeking a density bonus have chosen to involve the State
Density Bonus Law. This law provides for incentives, including additional project density in
exchange for additional affordability, and provides for additional protections relate to the Town's
review and approval.
On- And Off -Site Improvements
The standards for on- and off-site improvements contained in the Subdivision Ordinance do not
constitute a constraint to housing development. They are no more restrictive than those typically
found in other Contra Costa County cities. Sewer and water connection fees are established by
the Contra Costa Central Sanitary District and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District and are
therefore similar to fees in other jurisdictions served by these districts in the County.
Lot Area And Coverage
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-17
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
`3'023-2031
HOUISiN6 ELEMENT
r APPENDIX B
Ink
Usk
Existing parcels in the multifamily zoning districts are typically modest in area and cannot
accommodate a high number of residential units. The minimum lot area requirement for new lots
(10,000 SF) was put in place to ensure that newly zoned multifamily parcels would be large
enough to accommodate projects of considerable size and density. However, this requirement
does not apply to the development of multifamily projects on existing lots less than 10,000 SF in
area and is therefore not a constraint.
Additionally, the Town routinely uses the P 1; Planned Unit Development District to provide
-- - -- - - - - -- - - - e..• --- ' - -- •-- . The Town's
Downtown area is largely built out and few new lots are being created in this area as there is a
lack of vacant land available to do so. Given that the Town uses flexible standards for
development of existing parcels that do not meet the minimum lot area requirements, lot area
and coverage requirements are not a constraint to development.
Housing Types
The kinds of housing allowed by -right or with a permit in zoning districts as well as the overall
land area covered by those zoning districts can affect the ability to provide a range of housing
types that meet the needs of the current and future population. The Town has analyzed the types
of housing allowed in its zoning districts and a summary of those findings are provided in Table
6. Two kinds of housing that are not currently permitted by right in the Town include farmworker
housing and low barrier navigation centers.
While these housing types are not currently allowed, this Housing Element includes a program
to remove this constraint. Beyond these two cases, the Town has limited restrictions on the
housing types permitted in its zoning districts.
TABLE 5: ZONING FOR DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES
Housing Types
Zoning Districts Where Permitted
Multifamily Rental Housing
D-1, M-30, M-25, M-20, M-13, M-8, P-1 (where multifamily
housing is permitted)
Housing for Agricultural Employees
This type of residential land use is not currently permitted in
the Town. It is however allowed as a conditional use in the
Town's A-2; General Agricultural district. The Town has
included in this Element a program to incorporate this use
into the Zoning Code to allow farmworker housing in
appropriate zoning districts.
Emergency Shelters
DBD 3; however, this Housing Element includes a program
to bring the Town's zoning standards into compliance with
State law, including compliance with parking standards, by -
right permissions, etc.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-18
Accessory Dwelling Units
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX B bA.Nyll r.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Transitional Housing
Supportive Housing
This type of residential land use is not currently permitted in
the Town, but included in this Element is a program to
incorporate this use into the Zoning Code to allow low
barrier navigation centers in the appropriate zoning districts.
All residential zoning districts
All residential zoning districts
Single -Room Occupancy Units All residential zoning districts
Manufactured Homes
Mobile Home Parks
Accessory Dwelling Units
All residential zoning districts
There are not currently any mobile home parks in the Town
and future development of this housing type is unlikely given
the amount of land needed for this residential use and the
cost of land in Danville.
All residential zoning districts
Section 32-76 of the Town's Municipal Code sets forth regulations for accessory dwelling (ADU)
units in all single-family and multifamily zoning districts. The ADU ordinance was updated in
2018 and 2021 to conform to several changes to California legislation, including: S.B. 1069
(Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016) amending Government Code § 65582.1, 65583.1, 65589.4,
65852.150, 65852.2, and 66412.2, AB 2299 (Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016) amending
Government Code §65852.2, and AB 2406 (Chapter 755, Statutes of 2016) adding Government
Code §65852.22.
Pursuant to State law, the Town's development standards allow one accessory dwelling unit and
one junior per parcel on by right within al single-family residential districts provided that certain
objective development standards are met. These include that the accessory dwelling unit:
• has a maximum size of 2,000 square feet
• complies with all applicable building codes
• has side and rear setbacks of 4 feet
• Does not exceed 16 feet in height if detached and not meeting the setback requirements
for the primary residence. If meeting the setbacks of the primary residence an ADU may
be 24-35 feet in height.
• conforms to existing fire and other health and safety codes
The Town's ADU ordinance allowed units up to 1,200 square feet for lots that are less than one -
acre in size, and a up to 2,000 square feet in size for lots greater than one acre. Junior ADUs up
to 500 square feet are allowed in all residential districts. The Town's review is limited to review
for compliance with the objective development standards through the building permit review,
thus reducing the time and expense previously required when similar projects would go through
discretionary review. The Town's ADU standards are designed to promote the development of
new ADUs and do not create a constraint on development.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-19
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
APPENDIX B
In addition, the Town created a "Garden Cottage" program to further encourage the development
of ADUs. The program includes free fully -designed and ready to build ADUs, with sizes of 600,
800, and 1000 square feet. Each plan includes three available architecture styles. The "Garden
Cottage Program" reduces building structural plan review fees by 75%.
Design Review
Danville requires design view for new multifamily development, residential development that is
part of a new subdivision, and for any new development within a Town -identified Major Ridgeline
or Scenic Hillside area. New single family re -development in the majority of Danville does not
require a design review process and are subject to a streamlined review through the Town's
Building Division.
For new multifamily residential projects in the downtown area, the Town adopted Architectural
Development Standards in 2008. The design standards insure the compatibility of new
development with the existing character of Danville.
For residential development within a Town -identified Major Ridgeline or Scenic Hillside,
development and design standards are included within the Town's Major Ridgeline and Scenic
Hillside Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 32-69). The design review process is intended to 1)
minimize the visibility of structures and other improvements and to protect views to the hills, 2)
retain natural features of the land, and 3) protect vulnerable habitat and native vegetation. The
guidelines set forth criteria for site and building design and landscaping, with emphasis on
hillside and ridgeline areas and are made available online for review prior to proposal submittal.
For new residential subdivision, design review is intended to assure new residences are
compatible with surrounding existing neighborhoods and of high quality. The Town does not
have specific design standards for residential development outside the downtown or hillside
areas. A work program to develop design standards has been included as a work program as
part of this Housing Element.
The Town has also developed a Design Review Board Submittal Checklist to facilitate complete
applications to streamline the review proves (see Attachment B).
The Town's residential design review process provides specific guidance for development
applications and does not result in a significant constraint to housing production in Danville.
Recent changes to State law have limited the scope of Design Review for local jurisdictions.
SB330 took effect January 1, 2020, and was aimed at increasing residential unit development,
protecting existing housing inventory and expediting permit processing. This law modified
existing legislation, such as the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act and
instituted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Under this legislation, municipal and county agencies
are restricted in the local ordinances and policies that can be applied to review of housing
development proposals. One such restriction is review of housing developments against
objective design standards that are uniform in their application. In 2020, the Town adopted
objective design standards for residential developments and plans to continue development of
objective standards as part of this Housing Element. The objective criteria laid out in these
standards remove constraints on development and aid in streamlining housing production and
reducing overall development costs. The Town regularly conducts reviews for ongoing
compliance with State Density Bonus law and the Housing Accountability Act.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-20
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
kill
w
Annexation Standards
APPENDIX B DANVI LE.
Although the Town of Danville does not expect to annex land within the planning period, an
important land use regulation affecting development in Danville, as well as other cities in Contra
Costa County, is the policy adopted by the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) regarding annexation proposals. The standards and procedures set forth
in the LAFCO policy affect its review of requests for Town annexation of lands proposed for
development. The application of these standards will affect development of land outside existing
Town limits.
Currently, the Town's Sphere of Influence does not extend substantially beyond the Town limits
in most areas. The Town's sphere of influence extends beyond the Town limits in the eastern
Tassajara Valley area. However, most of these areas are already developed or beyond the
Urban Service Boundary.
It is not expected that the existing Sphere of Influence area will be altered to include vacant lands
that would yield many more developable lots; therefore, annexation standards are not a
constraint to development for Danville.
Wildfire Safety Requirements
Recent State laws have imposed more intensive local planning efforts to mitigate wildfire
hazards in communities identified as being at an elevated risk for wildfires. Only a small area of
Danville is designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. A large area of Town is within
a High Fire Hazard Zone. Developments within these areas necessitate additional planning and
building requirements for housing development in these areas. Such requirements might include
retrofits to existing structures, the use of fire -resistive materials in new construction. While State
law requires jurisdictions to adopt local ordinances for wildfire planning, many of these
requirements have been implemented through the California building and residential codes,
which are the standards used for development in Danville.
Given that wildfire mitigation requirements are imposed throughout the State, these safety
measures are not a constraint to development.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
In January 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined "affirmatively further fair housing" to
mean "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, which overcome patterns
of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity" for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.
AB 686 requires that all Housing Elements prepared on or after January 1, 2021, assess fair
housing through the following components:
• An assessment of fair housing within the jurisdiction that includes the following
components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the Town's fair housing
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-21
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
NVILL
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
APPENDIX B
enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities
in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and identification and
prioritization of fair housing goals and actions.
• A sites inventory that accommodates all income levels of the Town's share of the RHNA
that also
serves the purpose of furthering more integrated and balanced living patterns.
• Responsive housing programs that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing
opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing
factors
identified in the assessment of fair housing.
• The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns
over time.
This analysis compares the locality at a county level for the purposes of promoting more
inclusive communities.
The analysis completed for this work includes a series of actions to address fair housing
concerns in the community. The complete analysis is found in Appendix D.
Condominium Conversions
The conversion of apartment units to condominium units was a major regional concern identified
by the Association of Bay Area Governments in the late 1970's.
In 2014, the Town adopted a Residential Condominium Ordinance (Municipal Code Section
31/.1) which is consistent with State law requirements. This Ordinance establishes an
application process, noticing requirements to existing residents, and established inclusionary
housing requirements and the availability of density bonus options.
To date, the Town has not received any application for a residential condominium conversion.
Development Fees
The Town requires payment of fees as a condition of development approval. Fees are tied to the
Town's actual costs of providing necessary services such as project review and plan checking
fees or are set to recover the cost of needed infrastructure. The current fee schedule is made
available online for review.
These fees are reviewed and adjusted and adjusted annually. Planning fees are a small
percentage of the total fees charged so even if the fees are increased, they would not constitute
a deterrent to development.
Danville's permit, development, and impact fees and provides a comparison of fees for other
cities in Contra Costa County are included as Attachment C. Based on this survey, Danville's
fee levels for developers are comparable, but above the average fees charged by other cities in
Contra Costa County. Total estimated fees for construction of a 3,100 square foot single-family
home are $62,489. It should be noted that 72% of this total is from development fees imposed
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-22
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
4ipt
APPENDIX B OhfLl:.
by agencies outside the Town's control, such as the Contra Costa County Central Sanitary
District and the School District.
Since fees, particularly development impact fees, are set to recover the cost of needed
infrastructure so that new development can proceed while maintaining desired public service
levels, it can be concluded that the Town's existing fee levels are appropriate and do not
generally constitute an undue governmental constraint on housing production. However, there
is an imbalance in the proportion of Town fees paid across different housing types. Though the
cost per unit was lowest for large multifamily projects, the proportion of impact fees to other fees
is significantly higher for these projects. Similarly, the cost per square foot for small multifamily
projects is more than twice that of a single-family home. This disparity across types of
developments is a constraint to development and the Town has incorporated a program to
amend its fee structure to reduce the cost burden of fees for multifamily development.
TABLE 7: DEVELOPMENT FEE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Single Family
Multifamily — Large
Multifamily - Small
Units S.F.
3100
Unit S.F.
800
Unit S.F.
800
# Units
1
# Units
100
# Units
10
Cost Per Unit
$62,489
Cost Per Unit
$33,369
Cost Per Unit $34,708
Planning and Permit % 28%
3.67%
8.62%
Impact Fee %
72%
96.33%
91.38%
Fees
Development Plan
$3,120
Preliminary Residential
Development Application
Administrative -
to include
minor Scenic
Hillside
$600-$1,200
Administrative
- Single Family
$2,400
Development Plan — Public Hearing
Residential — Minor
Projects
$5,100
Residential — Larger or More
Complex Projects
$7,650
Scenic Hillside or Major $5,100
Ridgeline — Minor
Projects
Land Use Permit
Scenic Hillside or Major $7,650
Ridgeline — Larger and/or More
Complex Projects
Temporary Mobile
Home
$1,200
Minor Project $260-$900
without Public
Hearing
Minor Item $2,250
with Public
Hearing
Congregate Care Facility $5,100
Subdivision
Major Subdivision — Five
lots or more
$7,650
Major Item with Public Hearing $9,900
Minor Subdivision — Four lots or
less
$5,100
Rezoning
PUD — Rezoning — for
Smaller and/or Less $6,600
Complex Projects
Variance
PUD — Rezoning — for Larger
and/or More Complex Projects
Single Family Residence Processed as Administrative
$1,500 - $1,150-$800
$9,900
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-23
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Permit — Complex — Moderate - Simple
Building And Municipal Codes
Building codes and enforcement do not constrain housing development in Danville. New
construction is required to meet the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC), which
is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission. There are no
local amendments to the code,
The Town's Building Division plan checks building permit applications and inspects the
construction as it is built to ensure compliance with the approved plans. The Building Division
and Code Enforcement Division also perform inspections when a specific complaint relating to
the health and safety of the building occupants is received. In conformance with the CBC, the
Town requires new construction to meet all building codes currently in effect.
The Town's Code Enforcement Officer meets regularly with the Building, Planning, and
Engineering Divisions to coordinate tasks. The Town strives to strike a balance between
preventing blighted conditions and not setting the standard unnecessarily high. The Code
Enforcement Officer also serves as an information officer, providing the homeowners with copies
of the Town's regulations and advising them of ways to bring their properties into compliance.
Processing Time
In an effort to meet the affordable housing goals, SB 35 requires cities and counties that have
not made sufficient progress towards their state -mandated affordable housing goals to
streamline the review and approval of certain qualifying affordable housing projects through a
ministerial process. SB 35 requires cities and counties to streamline review and approval of
eligible affordable housing projects through a ministerial approval process, exempting such
projects from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). If
it is determined that the project is eligible, SB 35 specifies the timeframes within which the
jurisdiction must make a final decision on the application (between 90-180 days). To further
streamline project review, this ministerial process also restricts design review of the project to
objective design standards.
For projects that do not qualify for permit streamlining under SB 35, Danville's zoning code
stipulates that residential land uses are permitted by right in each of its residential zoning
districts.
There are ten single-family zoning districts in which single family residences are allowed by right
(D1, R6, R10, R12, R15, R20, R40, R65, and R100). Discretionary review by the Town is not
required unless the residences are part of a new subdivision or located within a Town -identified
Major Ridgeline or Scenic Hillside area.
Multifamily structures are permitted by right in all multiple family zoning districts (M8, M13, M29,
M30 lnd M35). All new multifamily housing applications require both Design Review Board
and Planning Commission approval. The time taken to process development applications affects
housing costs, since interest on development loans must continue to be paid. The longer it takes
for the development to be approved, the higher the overall project costs will be. The following
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-24
t1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
w
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
4ipt
APPENDIX B DANOL E.
are estimated processing times for residential development. The time to process residential
developments does not constitute a constraint in Danville.
TABLE 8: ESTIMATED PROCESSING TIMES
Type of Approval or Permit
Processing Time
Approval Body
Building Permit
Planning Division - .5-1 hour
Building Division — 2 hours — 10 days
Town staff
Variance
2-4 weeks
Town Staff
Land Use Permit
1-3 weeks
Town Staff
Development Plan (Design Review)
2-6 months
DRB, PC
Minor Subdivision
2-4 months
PC
Major Subdivision
3-6 months
PC
Rezoning
General Plan Amendment
4-12 months
TC
Mitigated Negative Declaration
2-4 months
PC
Environmental Impact Report
6-12 months
PC
SB 9 Urban Lot Split
1-3 Months
Town Staff
Note: DRB: Design Review Board, PC: Planning Commission, TC: Town Council
These processing times are comparable, and in some cases faster, than the time taken for processing
similar projects in surrounding cities. The following table shows the length of time taken to approve recent
housing and commercial development applications in the Danville. This table illustrates that the
cumulative impact of various Town -imposed reviews generally does not negatively impact the time it
takes to move projects through the approval process.
Standard single family residential developments only require Building Permits and no additional planning
entitlements. The Building Permit process is streamlined with a 10 day review period and no additional
hearings.
Multi -family residential developments require Building Permits which have a 10 day review period as well
as Development Plans which have a 30 day review period. Development Plans require Planning
Commission approval and have 1-2 Design Review Board hearings and 1-2 Planning Commission
hearings while complying with SB 330.
TABLE 9: PROCESSING TIMES FOR SELECTED PROJECTS
Name of Project
Entitlement Sought
4-12 months
TC
Deemed
Com • lete
Approved Time Taken
194 Diablo
Development Plan for major remodel of a
commercial building
3/27/20
6/11/20
2.5 months
134 El Dorado
Minor Subdivision and Development Plan to
subdivide the property to allow three
attached units and two detached units
7/6/20
12/9/20
5 months
600 Hartz Avenue
37 unit mixed use condo development with 1/13/22
4,000 s.f. of commercial and basement
parking
5/10/22 4 months
Magee Ranch
Architecture
Development Plan for units to be
constructed on a previously approved 76
unit subdivision
11/3/21
1/25/22 2.75 months
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-25
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMEN1
n APPENDIX B
MIL
2460 Tassajara Ln. Development Plan to allow a 4,618 square 3/8/21 4/9/21 1 month
foot residence
To further reduce the time taken to process and review discretionary applications, the Town has
implemented the following measures:
• Objective design standards for new multifamily housing to establish clear criteria for
project review.
• Providing all application forms, design guidelines, and relevant planning documents
online.
• Conduct pre -application meetings between Town Staff and the property owner/developer
at no cost to the applicant to discuss and resolve any problems associated with a
proposed development.
• Schedule informal study sessions with the Design Review Board and/or Planning
Commission at no cost to the applicant.
• Scheduling pre -application joint meetings of the Town Council, Planning Commission and
Design
Review Board for major projects at no cost to the applicant
Infrastructure Constraints
A lack of adequate infrastructure or urban services and facilities can be a substantial constraint
to residential development if it is to avoid impacting existing residences. On a yearly basis, the
Town reviews it's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP is a compilation of the capital
improvements planned for construction over the next five-year period in Danville. It includes
cost estimates, the phasing of specific improvements and associated costs, and methods with
which specific improvements will be financed. Benefit assessment district financing has been
successfully used to finance a vast amount of infrastructure improvements in the Town and can
be used, as may be needed, in the future.
In 1984, the Town adopted the Commercial Transportation Improvement Program (CTIP)
requiring new commercial and office development to pay a fee to offset impacts upon local
transportation improvements. The fee helps finance needed improvements to downtown
Danville's road network. In 1986, the Town adopted the Residential Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP) requiring the payment of a fee for each new residential unit for the financing of
Town -wide transportation improvements.
In addition, several other impact fees have been put into place to facilitate the construction and
improvement of the basic infrastructure improvements needed by residential development. The
impact fees include, among others, the two-tier fees for transportation improvements created
through the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, various sub -regional traffic impact fees;
park land in -lieu fees and childcare fees.
The Growth Management Element of the General Plan serves to ensure that the infrastructure
and urban services and facilities are in place to serve new development.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-26
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX B DANVI LE.
Many of Danville's affordable housing opportunities are infill development locations in areas
already served by existing infrastructure. The vast majority of the incorporated limits of the Town
lie within the service boundaries for water and sewer service, virtually assuring that the vacant
and underutilized parcels identified in this document could develop by the end of the 2023-2031
Housing Element planning period.
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is the water purveyor for the Danville area.
EBMUD's current (2020) Water Supply and Management Program (WSMP) (WSMP 2040),
adopted October 2009, serves as the basis for water conservation and recycling programs and
for development of supplemental supply initiatives. The WSMP 2040 seeks to provide a diverse
and robust water supply portfolio that ensures water reliability in an uncertain future while also
protecting the environment.
Through the implementation of the WSMP 2010, EBMUD is meeting future growth with
aggressive conservation and recycling, while supplemental supply components allow a lower
rationing level and thereby decrease direct impacts on EBMUD customers during dry years.
However, the water supply needs to accommodate build -out of the Town's RHNA exceeds
EBMUD's project water supply for the area. As a result, the Town adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the Housing Element implementation project, and water supply
will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) wastewater treatment plant and its
associated wastewater collection system provides secondary treatment of domestic,
commercial, and industrial wastewater for Danville, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Orinda,
Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, and adjacent unincorporated areas,
including Alamo, Blackhawk, Clyde, and Pacheco.
The population of the service area is approximately 471,000 residences and thousands of
businesses within a 144 square mile area. In 2022, the wastewater treatment plant's average
flow dry weather rate was 45 million gallons per day (MGD). This rate is well within the permitted
53.8 MGD average dry weather flow limit allowed for by Order No. R2-2012-0016 issued by the
SF Bay Region of the California Regional Quality Control Board and by National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0037648. CCCSD has indicated it will
be able to serve the planned growth provided through the Danville 2030 General Plan and the
2023-2031 Housing Element.
While many of the Town's vacant and underutilized parcels can develop without extension of
urban services, they may face other challenges to development. Infill sites may require
upgrading of existing infrastructure systems to support more intense development, such as
roadway improvements and the replacement of undersized sewer and water lines. Other
constraints to development of infill sites include site assembly and preparation, relocation of
existing uses, compatibility with surrounding land uses and/or potential neighborhood opposition.
In the context of the intent and requirements of Senate Bill 244 (Wolk, Statutes of 2011), the
Land Use Element of the Danville 2030 General Plan was reviewed and a determination was
made that there were no disadvantaged sub -areas in Danville that had infrastructure conditions
(i.e., infrastructure for water, wastewater, storm drainage, and/or structural fire protection) with
deficiencies and or significant need that would forestall or make infeasible development of
residential property that might develop absent such deficiencies of infrastructure needs.
EBMUD, the water purveyor for the area, and CCCSD, the wastewater treatment agency for the
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-27
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
•
EArivirat APPENDIX B
2023-2031
HOUSIND ELEMENT
MEL
area, will be provided copies of this Housing Element after the Plan is adopted.
The forecasts and projections being used by EBMUD and CCCSD are consistent with the RHNA
and the estimates of development capacity used in this Housing Element. In other words, the
Town is not designating land for development beyond what has been assumed by these service
providers.
Transitional, Supportive, And Farmworker Housing
The Town's Municipal Code lists transitional and supportive housing with six or fewer residents
as uses allowed by right in all residential zoning districts. Transitional and supportive housing
with more than six residents are subject to approval of a Land Use Permit. As such, transitional
and supportive housing with six or fewer residents are treated the same as any residential
household in all residential districts -and will receive the same consideration as other residential
uses when included in mixed use projects. The Town wishes to remove the constraint of capacity
and streamline the process for allowing transitional and supportive housing with greater than six
residents. Therefore, the Town has added a program to research and evaluate the current code
requirements for Land Use Permits and make amendment as appropriate to allow them as a
permitted use.
The Town does not currently define farmworker housing as a specific allowed by right use in its
municipal code, but has provided a program as part of its housing strategy to permit this use as
required under the California Employee Housing Act to remove any constraints to production of
this housing type.
Emergency Shelters
The Town's Municipal Code lists emergency shelters with six or fewer residents as uses allowed
in Downtown Business District 3. Emergency shelters with more than six residents are subject
to approval of a Land Use Permit. As such, emergency shelters with six or fewer residents are
treated the same as any other use allowed in Downtown Business District 3.
District 3 is suitable for human habitation as other residential uses on the second story are
conditional uses and may be allowed with the approval of a Land Use Permit. Other allowed
uses include, but are not limited to, hotels, retail, restaurant, emergency medical care facilities,
government facilities, and offices.
District 3 does not contain a significant inventory of vacant land. Properties may be redeveloped,
remodeled, or reused in their existing form as an emergency shelter.
The Town's Municipal Code requires transit accessibility where ongoing alternate means of
transportation shall be provided by the facility operators, such as provision of a shuttle bus
service to and from the bus route station, unless the emergency shelter is located within one-
half mile of an existing bus route station. All properties located within Downtown Business District
3 are within one-half mile of a bus route station.
The parking demand for Downtown Business District 3 are specific to individual uses. The
parking requirements for emergency shelters are sufficient to accommodate all working staff and
are less than the required number of stalls for other allowed uses in District 3. On-site parking
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-28
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
w
2023-2031
HO USI ELEMENT
Aqi
APPENDIX B DANVILLE
requirements for emergency shelters include 0.35 parking spaces per individual bed and one
additional space per employee. Parking requirements for hotels include one space per sleeping
unit. Parking requirements for retail and restaurant use are determined by square footage of the
tenant space with full service restaurants requiring one parking space per 200 square feet and
retail requiring one parking space per 250 square feet.
Constraints On Housing For People With Disabilities
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA) impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations
(i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations and
practices when such accommodations "may be necessary to afford" disabled persons "an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." This directive was further enhanced by adoption of
Senate Bill 520 in 2002, which amended Housing Element law to require local governments to
analyze constraints upon the development and maintenance of housing for persons with
disabilities and to remove those constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing
designed for persons with disabilities.
"Reasonable accommodation" is defined as the act of making existing facilities used by residents
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, through the removal of
constraints within the zoning, permit, and processing procedures. Reasonable accommodation
was originally meant to provide accommodation for housing for people who needed
accommodation on a personal basis.
However, the State has taken an expanded view and now considers reasonable accommodation
to include land use, development improvements, and accessibility, as well as processing and
administration. An accommodation is deemed "reasonable" if it does not impose "undue financial
and administrative burdens" on the jurisdiction or require a "fundamental alteration in the nature"
of its zoning scheme. In other words, the Town must create a process to allow disabled persons
or developers and operators of housing for people with disabilities to make a claim for relief from
whatever constraints they assert exist.
In response to Senate Bill 520 and amended Housing Element law, a program was added to the
2014-2022 Housing Element to analyze and determine whether there are constraints on the
development, maintenance and improvement of housing intended for persons with disabilities,
consistent with Senate Bill 520 enacted on January 1, 2002. The analysis included an evaluation
of existing land use controls, permit and processing procedures and building codes.
In 2014, the Town adopted a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance (Section 32-71 of the
Municipal Code). The stated purpose of the ordinance is to provide individuals with disabilities
reasonable accommodation in regulations and procedures to ensure equal access to housing,
and to facilitate the development of housing.
The Town's reasonable Accommodation Ordinance provides an application submittal process,
objective findings for approval, and an administrative process for review and approval of
requests. Findings for approval include: The housing will be used by a disabled person; The
requested accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a disabled person;
The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden
on the Town, and; The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-29
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
46 2O23�2031
[ MAO ; APPENDIX B
nature of a Town program or law, including land use and zoning. Requests for reasonable
accommodation may include yard encroachments for ramps and other accessibility
improvements, hardscape additions that result in noncompliance with required landscaping or
open space provisions, and reduced parking where the disability clearly limits the number of
persons operating vehicles. All applications must be acted upon within 30 days.
• e as - • . • • • - • •
• •• . . e e e . e •
e e
districts. However, Town currently requires a conditional use permit for the following uses,
among other uses:
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-30
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
w
Conclusions
APPENDIX B FPNiL
The biggest constraint concerning the development of housing, especially that which is
affordable, is the very high cost of development, which includes high land costs, and the lack of
funding to support that development or underwrite the cost of land.
The dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies in California has left Danville with few tools to
support the development of affordable housing. With the lack of State or local funding sources,
even high density multifamily housing typically does not rent or sell at an affordable rate.
Construction and labor costs account for the largest proportion of development costs and, while
the Town will make concerted efforts to remove constraints, these factors are out of the Town's
control and will remain a challenge to housing development without State or Federal intervention.
With the proposed density increases in various parts of the Town to meet the RNHA requirement,
analysis of past projects and the Town's zoning standards have identified, height, setback, and
other standards may become potential governmental constraints to the development of housing.
The Implementation Plan includes a variety of actions to address these potential constraints,
including but not limited to working with real estate professionals, economists, developers, and
others to analyze the specific impacts of various building standards on the cost to develop
housing. From this work, the Town will be able to make informed and appropriate modifications
to zoning requirements to eliminate these constraints.
In addition, while the per-unit development and impact fees assessed on single-family
developments are almost twice the amount of the costs per unit for multifamily housing, the fees
disproportionately impact multifamily development on a square foot basis. This disparity across
types of developments is a constraint to development and the Town has incorporated a program
to amend its fee structure to reduce the cost burden of fees for multifamily development.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-31
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSI NIG ELEMENT
APPENDIX B DAN IL.L E.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -B-1
Chapter
Number
Zoning
Symbol
Zoning
District
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Maximum Standards
Lots
Yards
Building
Height
Floor
Area
Ratio
Area
Width
Depth
Front
Side
Rear
32-22
R-6
Single Family
Residential
6,000 sq.
ft.
60'
100'
20'
5'
15' total
20'
35'
2.5 stories
-
32-22
R-7
Single Family
Residential
7,000 sq.
ft.
70'
100'
20'
5'
15' total
20
35'
2.5 stories
32-22
R-10
Single Family
Residential
10,000
sq. ft.
80'
100'
20'
10'35'
20' total
25'2.5
stories
-
32-22
R-12
Single Family
Residential
12,000
sq. ft.
100'
100'
20'
10'35'
25' total
25'2.5
stories
-
32-22
R-15
Single Family
Residential
15,000
sq. ft.
100'
100'
20'
10'35'
25' total
25'2.5
stories
32-22
R-20
Single Family
Residential
20,000
sq. ft.
120'
120'
25'
15'35'
35' total
30'2.5
stories
-
32-22
R-40
Single Family
Residential
40,000
sq. ft.
140'
140'
25'
20'35'
40' total
30'2.5
stories
-
32-22
R-65
Single Family
Residential
65,000
sq. ft.
140'
140'
25'
20'35'
40' total
30'2.5
stories
-
32-22
R-100
Single Family
Residential
100,000
sq. ft.
200'
200'
30'
30'35'
60' total
30'2.5
stories
-
32 28
M 8
Multi Family
Residential
6,000 sq.
ft.
-
25'
20'
20'
35'50%
2.5 stories
32 27
M 13
Multi Family
Residential
8,000 sq.
ft.
-
25'
20'
20'
35'65%
2.5 stories
32 26
M 20
Multi Family
Residential
10,000
sq. ft.
-
-
25'
20'
20'
35'80%
2.5 stories
32 24
M 30
Multi Family
Residential
10,000
sq. ft.
-
-
25'
20'
20'
37'
80%
32-45
DBD -5
Downtown
Business
District
-
-
-
20'
Avg. 10' for
corner lots
15' total
20'
2.5 stories
65%
32-45
DBD -9
Downtown
Business
District
25'
20'
40' total
20,
35'
2.5 stories
32-45
DBD -12
Downtown
Business
District
-
-
-
-
-
-
35'
80%
32-63
P-1
Planned Unit
District
Flexible
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -B-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
`3'023-2031
HOUSiND ELEMENT
APPENDIX B
* Residences located within a Town -identified Scenic Hillside/Major Ridgeline Aea may be subject to a 28' average
height limit.
APPENDIX B 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-B-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAR APPLICANT:
PLANNING --/Cit j>
In order for Staff and the Design Review Board to be able to properly evaluate your project, the
following information relevant to the project needs to be included on the Project Plans
submitted for review. Please indicate which items have not been included in the packet and
provide a statement as to why they cannot be supplied.
GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Prepare a Cover Sheet with the following information:
n Sheet index
n Project data (lot size, zoning, parking etc)
n Vicinity map showing sufficient detail to locate site
2. Prepare a Site Plan, clearly and legibly drawn to scale with the following information:
n Property lines
n Existing and proposed improvements with dimensions to all property lines
❑ Buildings on adjacent sites (approximate location to shared property lines)
n Site section (for projects involving hillside/ridgeline lots)
n Topography lines (for projects involving hillside/ridgeline lots)
❑ Site details (i.e., screen walls, trash enclosures, trellises, decks, etc.)
n Photos with locations keyed to site plan
n Aerial photos (where appropriate)
3. Prepare a Floor Plan, clearly and legibly drawn to scale with the following information:
n Overall Floor Plan
n Windows and exterior doors located
n Exterior dimensions
4. Prepare Exterior Building Elevations, clearly and legibly drawn to scale with the following
information:
n Building elevations with height dimensions (for Downtown projects, show adjacent
structures, and include photo -simulation where appropriate)
❑ Door and window locations
n Roof elements
n 3 -Dimensional analysis (Downtown -where appropriate)
TOWN OF DANVILLE • 510 LA GONDA WAY • DANVILLE, CA 94526-1740
925.314.3310 PHONE • 925.838.0360 FAX • WWW.DANVILLE.CA.GOV
620-F003-0617
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
5. Prepare a Roof Plan, clearly and legibly drawn to scale with the following information:
n Eve overhangs, ridges, hips and valleys
n Roof pitch
6. Prepare a Preliminary Landscape Plan, clearly and legibly drawn to scale with the following
information:
n Existing trees (show species type, drip line and tree diameter measured 4 Y2 feet above
natural grade)
n Proposed tree location, type, quantity, and size (i.e. 15 gal)
n Proposed plant materials, type, location, and size
n Hardscape locations and finishes
n Water features
MATERIALS AND COLORS LABELING
Windows
n List type of frames (wood, aluminum, vinyl, etc.)
n Indicate color of exterior frames
n Label type of muntins or grilles (i.e., indicate us of: no muntins; interior muntins;
simulated divided light or true divided light)
Exterior doors
n List type of frames (wood, aluminum, vinyl, etc.)
n Indicate color
❑ Label type of muntins or grilles (i.e., indicate use of: no muntins; interior muntins;
simulated divided light or true divided light)
Siding
❑ Show locations of all siding (if more than one type)
n Show direction of material for wood siding (horizontal or vertical)
n Label masonry manufacturer and model for manufactured stone or brick
n Label type of stone, indicate if real
n Show/label masonry caps and trim
❑ Label type of texture if stucco
n Label sizes of all decorative trim for doors, windows, skirts, braces, posts, etc.
n Label with color scheme (Body, Trim, and Accent) and list colors in a legend
Roofing
n Label with type of material (wood, simulated shakes, metal, tile, composition)
n Label with manufacturer and color
Driveways, walks, decks & patios
n Label with type of material
n Label with color and finish texture
n Show railing details, finishes and materials
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Lighting
❑ Show location and type of fixture (uplight, downlight, flood, lantern)
n Show proposed landscape lighting, fixture type, and size (i.e. height)
n Provide fixture cut -sheets (commercial projects)
Please submit a copy of the completed checklist along with your project plans to the Planning
Division each time you submit an application for Planning Review.
SAMPLE OF MATERIALS AND COLORS LAF ELUNG
DOUBLE SOLDIER COURSE •
+UrNROW?oCKC��
OURA-R1C6E OR D UA? HIP & RIDGE TRIM ,.
ELK 4JYR COMPD5I7ION Bill NGLE5,
l'...EATH£RFD WOOD" COLOR
REAL USED BRICK
METAL
LOUVERED
VENT (TRW)
2)3 CE DAIS TRAIVi
2x4 CEDAR TKIM
(TRIM)
ANPER5ON S-.sLSLATF,D
D1ViD£D UTE WIND -DNS,
Vo'RITE FRAME COLOR
5/4 X b BEVELED
CEDAR SIDING.
Igo).)
l
7"7
2X10 CEDAR. BARGE RAFTERS
WITH 2x4 SHINGLE INGLE MLD
N(ACCENY)
iiiissists
•'•PROFILE"GL:'TL S
(r". CENT')
CROAR FA'CJA
(ACCENT)
2X4 CEDAR CORNER TRIM
r� I (BODY)
M rAL LOWERED
FOUNPATK}N VEt4-5
(BODY)
FRONT ELEVATION
[ )' L E SIGNATE.pp FAINT cD.La•
BODY - KELLY MOORE SKIT
TRSM = KELLY MQORE d1Cf
AC.CENia KELLY MOORE SX
tf4" - V -Q"
SLOPED CEDAR
WATERTAdLE
(BODY)
Ern
2X12 CEOAR SKIRT
(
TOWN OF DANVILLE DESIGN ttEVIEW MAO 5229.`#
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Cost Per Unit
Planning and Permit
Impact Fee %
$62,489.24
28.01%
71.99%
$33,369.19
3.67%
96.33%
$34,707.57
8.62%
91.38%
M
TOWN OF DANVILLE, CA
Site Information
Single Family
Multifamily - Large
Multifamily - Small
Unit S.F.
3100
Unit S.F.
800
Unit S.F.
800
# of Units
1
# of Units
100
# of Units
10
Valuation
$432,647.00
Valuation
$12,521,600.00
Valuation
$1,252,160.00
Fee Classification
Multiplier
Per
Cost
Multiplier
Per
Cost
Multiplier
Per
Cost
Entitlement Fees
Development Plan Pre -submittal
$300.00
Set
$300.00
$300.00
Set
$300.00
$300.00
Set
$300.00
Preliminary Residential Development
$3,120.00
Set
$3,120.00
$3,120.00
Set
$3,120.00
$3,120.00
Set
$3,120.00
Administrative - Single Family
$2,400.00
Set
$2,400.00
$2,400.00
Set
$2,400.00
$2,400.00
Set
$2,400.00
Fire Department Review
$342.00
Hr
$684.00
$342.00
Hr
$684.00
$342.00
Hr
$684.00
DRB - Pre -Submittal
$250.00
Set
$250.00
$250.00
Set
$250.00
$250.00
Set
$250.00
DRB - Administrative
$400.00
Set
$400.00
$3,600.00
Set
$3,600.00
$3,600.00
Set
$3,600.00
TOTAL ENTITLEMENT FEES
$7,154.00
$10,354.00
$10,354.00
Building Fees
Building Permit Fee
Based on Valuation
$2,856.57
Based on Valuation
$41,901.79
Based on Valuation
$6,403.05
Building Plan Check Fee
65% of Permit Fee
$1,856.77
65% of Permit Fee
$27,236.16
65% of Permit Fee
$4,161.99
Electrical Permit
20% of Permit Fee
$571.31
20% of Permit Fee
$8,380.36
20% of Permit Fee
$1,280.61
Plumbing Permit
17% of Permit Fee
$485.62
17% of Permit Fee
$7,123.30
17% of Permit Fee
$1,088.52
Mechanical Permit
18% of Permit Fee
$514.18
18% of Permit Fee
$7,542.32
18% of Permit Fee
$1,152.55
Electrical Plan Check
17% of Plan Check
$315.65
17% of Plan Check
$4,630.15
17% of Plan Check
$707.54
Plumbing Plan Check
20% of Plan Check
$371.35
20% of Plan Check
$5,447.23
20% of Plan Check
$832.40
Mechanical Plan Check
18% of Plan Check
$334.22
18% of Plan Check
$4,902.51
18% of Plan Check
$749.16
SMIP Fee
0.013% of Valuation
$56.24
0.013% of Valuation
$1,627.81
0.013% of Valuation
$162.78
CA Building Standards Fee
$1 per $25k Valuation
$17.31
$1 per $25k Valuation
$500.86
$1 per $25k Valuation
$50.09
Comprehensive Planning Fee
0.1% of Valuation ($2k min.)
$2,000.00
0.1% of Valuation ($2k min.)
$2,000.00
0.1% of Valuation ($2k min.)
$2,000.00
Planning Review
$300.00
Set
$300.00
$300.00
Set
$300.00
$300.00
Set
$300.00
Engineering Review
$300.00
Set
$300.00
$300.00
Set
$300.00
$300.00
Set
$300.00
Fire Protection Fee
$373.00
Set
$373.00
$373.00
Set
$373.00
$373.00
Set
$373.00
TOTAL BUILDING FEES
$10,352.24
$112,265.50
$19,561.68
Impact Fees
School District Fee
$3.79
SF
$9,854.00
$3.79
SF
$303,200.00
$3.79
SF
$30,320.00
CCC Sanitary District Connection Fee
$9,300.00
Unit
$9,300.00
$9,300.00
Unit
$930,000.00
$9,300.00
Unit
$93,000.00
Childcare Facilities
$335.00
Unit
$335.00
$115.00
Unit
$11,500.00
$115.00
Unit
$1,150.00
Park Land In Lieu
$12,449.00
Unit
$12,449.00
$7,251.00
Unit
$725,100.00
$6,824.00
Unit
$68,240.00
Southern Contra Costa Regional Fee
$1,593.00
Unit
$1,593.00
$1,593.00
Unit
$159,300.00
$1,593.00
Unit
$15,930.00
Southern Contra Costa Sub Regional Fee
$4,395.00
Unit
$4,395.00
$4,395.00
Unit
$439,500.00
$4,395.00
Unit
$43,950.00
Transportation Improvement Program
$2,000.00
Unit
$2,000.00
$1,400.00
Unit
$140,000.00
$1,400.00
Unit
$14,000.00
Tri -Valley Transportation Fee
$5,057.00
Unit
$5,057.00
$5,057.00
Unit
$505,700.00
$5,057.00
Unit
$50,570.00
TOTAL IMPACT FEES
$44,983.00
$3,214,300.00
$317,160.00
TOTAL PROJECT FEES
$62,489.24
$3,336,919.50
$347,075.68
Cost Per Unit
Planning and Permit
Impact Fee %
$62,489.24
28.01%
71.99%
$33,369.19
3.67%
96.33%
$34,707.57
8.62%
91.38%
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Draft for Public Review 1 July 1, 2022 Page H -G 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DANVILL
APPENDIX C
DANVI LLE
RESOURCES
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
1
2023-2031
HDLISINB ELEMENT
APPENDIX C DAN41.11-:
1. OVERVIEW
This appendix presents information on staff resources and funding available to support the Town
of Danville's housing developments. It provides a detailed list of the various programs developers
of housing can avail themselves of to fund housing projects, especially housing that is affordable.
Most affordable projects require multiple sources of funding to fully address the cost of housing,
sometimes as many as 12 sources of funding or more.
Financial Resources
The extent to which Danville can achieve its Housing Element goals and objectives is in large
part dependent on the availability of financial resources for implementation. A variety of funds
are available to support affordable housing activities in the Town, described below. Many, if not
most, of these funds do not flow directly to the Town, but rather are administered through the
County, the State, or the federal government. The Town will work with developers to pursue
these funding sources.
Town Funds
Successor Agency
The primary local source of funds for affordable housing in Danville has traditionally been its
Redevelopment Agency's Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Fund. However, due to
passage of Assembly Bill (AB)x1 26, redevelopment agencies across California were
eliminated as of February 1, 2012, removing the primary local tool for creating affordable
housing. With the subsequent passage of AB 1484 in June 2012, the Supplemental
Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (SERAF) borrowed by the State from
Redevelopment Agencies Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Funds were required to be
repaid and deposited into each Successor Agency's Housing Asset Fund, which is set up as
the Town's Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Funds. According to the 2021-2022 final
budget, the Town of Danville expects to have about $1.28M in its Low- and Moderate -Income
Housing Asset Fund by June 30, 2022.
County Funds
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The County is an Entitlement jurisdiction under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. As such, the
County receives funding from HUD on an annual basis and is able to provide grants to non-profit
and governmental agencies to develop viable urban communities through the provision of
services to the low- and moderate -income community. Programs and services include
development of housing for persons with special needs; services to the elderly, those with
disabilities, and children; expanding economic opportunities; and public improvements.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
HOME Investment Partnership Program
The County also uses HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds for projects to
acquire, rehabilitate, and construct housing for lower-income households. HOME funds can also
be used for home buyer or rental assistance.
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
ESG funds are used to provide shelter and related services to the homeless. The County
Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) coordinates the allocation of ESG funds
with the County's Homeless Program office and the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board.
Other Funding Sources
The following table identifies additional funding federal and State resources for affordable
housing activities, including but not limited to new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and
homebuyer assistance. This list includes those funding sources most likely to be available for
housing development in Danville.
TABLE 1: FUNDING SOURCES
Program
Description
Federal Programs
Continuum of Care (CoC) Program
Funding is available on an annual basis through HUD to quickly rehouse
homeless individuals and families.
Farm Labor Housing Direct Loans
& Grants (Section 514)
Provides affordable financing to develop housing for domestic farm
laborers.
Housing Choice Vouchers
The government's major program for assisting very low-income families,
the elderly, and the disabled to afford housing through rental subsidies that
pays the different between the current fair market rent and what a tenant
can afford to pay (i.e., 30 percent of their income).
Home Ownership for People
Everywhere (HOPE)
Provides grants to low-income people to achieve homeownership.
Housing Opportunities for Persons
with AIDS (HOPWA)
Funds are made available countywide for supportive social services,
affordable housing development, and rental assistance to persons living
with HIV/AIDS.
Housing Preservation Grants
Grants to sponsoring organizations for the repair or rehabilitation of
housing owned or occupied by low- and very -low-income rural citizens.
Low -Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) Program
Tax credits for the for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of
rental housing for lower-income households. Project equity is raised
through the sale of tax benefits to investors. 4% and 9% credits available.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Iry
2023. '2031
HOUSING ELEVENT
APPENDIX C DANVILLE.
Program
Description
Section 108 Loan Guarantee
Program
Loans to CDBG entitlement jurisdictions for capital improvement projects
that benefit low- and moderate -income persons.
HUD Section 202 Supportive
Housing for the Elderly Program
Interest-free capital advance to private, non-profit sponsors to cover the
costs of construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of very low-income
senior housing.
HUD Section 221(d)(3) and
221(d)(4)
Insures loans for construction or substantial rehabilitation of multi -family
rental, cooperative, and single -room occupancy housing.
Section 811 Project Rental
Assistance
Section 811 Project Rental Assistance offers long-term project -based
rental assistance funding from HUD. Opportunities to apply for this project -
based assistance are through a Notice of Funding Availability published by
CaIHFA.
State Programs
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities Program
(AHSC)
Funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects
that support infill and compact development and GHG emissions.
CalHome
Grants to local public agencies and non -profits to assist first-time
homebuyers become or remain homeowners through deferred -payment
loans. Funds can also be used for ADU/JADU assistance (i.e.,
construction, repair, reconstruction, or rehabilitation).
_CaIHFA Residential Development
Loan Program
Loans to cities for affordable, infill, owner -occupied housing
developments.
California Emergency Solutions
and Housing (CESH)
Grants for activities to assist persons experiencing or at -risk of
homelessness.
California Self -Help Housing
Program
Grants for sponsor organizations that provide technical assistance for low -
and moderate -income families to build their homes with their own labor.
Community Development Block
Grant -Corona Virus (CDBG-CV1) —
CARES Act Funding
A subsidiary of the CDBG program that provides relief to eligible entities
due to hardship caused by COVID-19.
Emergency Housing Assistance
Program (EHAP)
Funds for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and related services for
the homeless and those at risk of losing their housing.
Golden State Acquisition Fund
(GSAF)
Short-term loans (up to five -years) to developers for affordable housing
acquisition or preservation.
Homekey
Grants to acquire and rehabilitate a variety of housing types (e.g., hotels,
motels, vacant apartment buildings) to serve people experiencing
homelessness or who are also at risk of serious illness from COVID-19.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-3
DocuSign
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-4
Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Program
Description
Homeless Emergency Aid Program
(HEAP)
$500 million block grant program designed to provide direct assistance to
cities, counties and CoCs to address the homelessness crisis.
Homeless, Housing Assistance and
Prevention (HHAP) Program
HHAP Round 1: $650 million grant to local jurisdictions to support regional
coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address immediate
homelessness challenges.
.Round 2: $300 million grant that provides support to continue to build on
regional collaboration to develop a unified regional response to
homelessness.
Housing for a Healthy California
(HHC)
.Funding for supportive housing opportunities intended to create supportive
housing for individuals who are recipients of or eligible for health provided
through Medi -Cal.
Housing Navigators Program
$5 million in funding to counties for the support of housing navigators to
help young adults aged 18 to 21 secure and maintain housing, with priority
given to young adults in the foster care system.
Housing -Related Parks Program
Funds the creation of new park and recreation facilities or improvement of
existing park and recreation facilities that are associated with rental and
ownership projects that are affordable to very low- and low-income
households.
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
(IIG)
Grant funding for infrastructure improvements for new infill housing in
residential and/or mixed-use projects.
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
Grants
Assists cities and counties to plan for housing through providing one-time,
non-competitive planning grants.
Local Housing Trust Fund Program
(LHTF)
.Lending for construction of rental housing projects with units restricted for
at least 55 years to households earning less than 60%AMI. State funds
matches local housing trust funds as down -payment assistance to first-
time homebuyers.
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)
Program
Income tax credits to first-time homebuyers to buy new or existing homes.
Multi -Family Housing Program
(MHP)
Low-interest, long-term deferred -payment permanent loans for new
construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional
rental housing for lower-income households.
No Place Like Home
Invests in the development of permanent supportive housing for persons
who need mental health services and are experiencing homelessness or
chronic homelessness, or at risk of chronic homelessness.
Permanent Local Housing
Allocation Program (PLHA)
Grants (competitive for non -entitlement jurisdictions) available to cities to
assist in increasing the supply of affordable rental and ownership housing,
facilitate housing affordability, and ensure geographic equity in the
distribution of funds.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
'HOUSING ELEMEN.t.
APPENDIX C DAN LL'.
Program
Description
Predevelopment Loan Program
(PDLP)
Short-term loans to cities and non-profit developers for the continued
preservation, construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of assisted housing
primarily for low-income households.
Regional Early Action Planning
(REAP) Grants
Grant funding intended to help COGs and other regional entities
collaborate on projects that have a broader regional impact on housing.
SB 2 Planning Grants Program
One-time funding and technical assistance to help local governments
adopt and implement plans and process improvements that streamline
housing approvals and accelerate housing production.
Supportive Housing Multi -Family
Housing Program (SHMHP)
Low-interest loans to developers of permanent affordable rental housing
that contain supportive housing units.
Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) Program
Competitive grants for planning and implementation of community -led
development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental,
health, and economic benefits in the state's most disadvantaged
communities.
Transit Oriented Development
Housing Program (TOD)
Low-interest loans and grants for rental housing that includes affordable
units near transit.
Transitional Housing Program
(THP)
Funding to counties for child welfare services agencies to help young
adults aged 18 to 25 find and maintain housing, with priority given to those
previously in the foster care or probation systems.
Veterans Housing and
Homelessness Prevention Program
(VHHP)
Long-term loans for development or preservation of rental housing for very
low- and low-income veterans and their families.
Workforce Housing Program
Government bonds issued to cities to acquire and convert market -rate
apartments to housing affordable to moderate -/middle-income households,
generally households earning 80% to 120% of AMI.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES
Town Of Danville
The Town of Danville's Development Services provides administrative services, housing and
community development services to residents, developers, and others interested in housing
issues.
Contra Costa County Housing Authority
The Town does not operate its own housing authority but is served by HACCC. HACCC provides
rental subsidies and manages and develops affordable housing for low-income families, seniors,
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
and persons with disabilities in Contra Costa County. HACCC administers approximately 9,000
vouchers under the Housing Choice Voucher Program and offers rental assistance for units at
23 properties through the Project Based Voucher Program. HACCC also manages 1,168 public
housing units across the county, though none of these units are within Danville. The Housing
Authority does provide Housing Choice Vouchers to approximately 11 households in Danville.
Site Inventory Overview
A key component of the Housing Element is a projection of a jurisdiction's housing supply. State
law requires that the element identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing,
factory -built housing, and mobile homes, and make adequate provision for the existing and
projected needs of all economic segments of the community. This includes an inventory of land
suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for
redevelopment, including analysis of the development capacity that can realistically be achieved
for each site.
Per State law, the State of California, in conjunction with Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), has projected future population figures for the nine Bay Areas counties, which
translates into the need for additional housing units. Each jurisdiction is then assigned a portion
of the regional need based on factors such as growth of population and adjusted by factors
including presence of a major transit station, such as a BART station, proximity to jobs, and high
resource areas that have excellent access to amenities, such as good school and employment
centers. This assignment is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Each
jurisdiction must ensure that there is enough land at appropriate zoning densities to
accommodate its RHNA in its Housing Element in four income categories (very low-, low-,
moderate- and above moderate -income). The RHNA for Town of Danville for the Housing
Element 2023-2031 is 2,241 units.
The purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate whether there are sufficient sites with
appropriate zoning to meet the RHNA goal. It is based on the Town's current land use
designations and zoning requirements. The analysis does not include the economic feasibility of
specific sites, nor does it take into consideration the owner's intended use of the land now or in
the future. It does not dictate where residential development will actually occur, and the decision
whether or not to develop any particular site always remains with the owner of the property, not
the Town. Based on previous Housing Elements, the Town anticipates that some of the sites on
the list will be developed with new housing, some will not, and some housing will be built on sites
not listed in the inventory.
Based on the proposed list of sites, the number of units that might be able to be developed at
various affordability levels is then estimated, e.g., available land zoned at higher densities can
be counted toward the very low- and low-income level needs, and land zoned at lower densities
are counted toward the moderate and above moderate -income housing need. The analysis was
also completed using the actual average built densities for developments built on land with
various zoning designations over the past five years.
The adequate sites analysis demonstrates that there is enough land to meet the ABAG Regional
Housing Needs Allocation with the proposed rezonings. The analysis for affordable housing units
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C DANVILL
for extremely low, very low, and low-income households is based on the assumption that land
zoned at densities higher than 30 units to the acre can facilitate affordable housing development.
A more thorough discussion of the methodology is provided in the Housing Element base
document.
The Sites Inventory was developed to meet all applicable statutory requirements and provide a
realistic and achievable roadmap for the Town to meet and potentially exceed its RHNA. The
Sites Inventory is summarized as follows:
• The housing sites are spread throughout the Town, with all located in high resource areas,
to meet AFFH requirements.
• It includes conservative production and density assumptions for the identified housing
sites.
• The housing projections do not have any reliance on new units developed under SB9.
NON -VACANT SITES ANALYSIS
State law requires that for nonvacant sites, the Town must demonstrate the potential and
likelihood of additional development within the planning period based on extent to which existing
uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, past experience with
converting existing uses to higher density residential development, current market demand for
the existing use, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or
prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends,
market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional
residential development on these sites.
Further, if nonvacant sites accommodate 50 percent or more of the lower-income RHNA,
demonstrate the existing use is not an impediment to additional development and will likely
discontinue in the planning period, including adopted findings based on substantial evidence.
New multifamily development within Danville will be predominantly located within the downtown
where there are few sites that can be considered vacant. Given the lack of vacant land, the Town
has developed a track record of nonvacant sites redeveloping from non -housing to housing uses.
The following table illustrates that 178 total units in the pipeline are being developed on non -
vacant sites. Of these, 66 units are affordable, either because of inclusionary obligations or
because the owner is working with a non-profit builder. The West El Pintado Development
received a 20 percent density bonus and is an age restricted senior development.
In addition, the uses existing on-site were fully operational at the time development proposals
were submitted to the Town demonstrating that even properties with active commercial uses
have been changed to residential. The existing uses include offices, retail, service station, older
residential, and associated parking areas. In the sites inventory, the Town has identified non -
vacant sites with existing uses similar to those on redeveloped sites to best reflect the local
market trends.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 1:
Sit Project Locatio AP Acre In Prior Prior Use VL LI MO AM TOTA COMMENT
e # Name n N s HE?
D OD L S
1
600 Hartz
Avenue Mix
Use Project
600
Hartz
Avenue
208-
022-
041
1.19
N
Restaurant
6
27
33 Approved by
Planning
Commission
2 El Pintado
Residences
375 &
359
West El
Pintado
200-
140-
011
1.88
N
Single
Family
Residence
57
57 57 Senior
Condominiu
ms in public
hearing
process
3 Diablo Mixed 198 200 -
Use Diablo 211 -
Development Road 020
.35
N
Service
Station
3 3 Approved by
Planning
Commission
4 El Dorado 134 El 208 -
Dorado 041 -
Avenue 002
0.30
N
Single
Family
5 5 Under
Construction
5 Old Town 510 La 200- 1.5
Offices Gonda 131 -
Way 005
Offices 20 20 20 20
80 In
preliminary
discussions.
Unit
numbers are
preliminary
TOTALS 20 20 26 112 178
In addition, the Town has met with numerous owners of active commercial properties in the
downtown area who have indicated a desire to be included as a RHNA housing site and to
redevelop their properties. These sites include retail/restraint shopping centers, and sites with
existing old office buildings.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2
For Contra Costa County jurisdictions, please format the APN's as follows: 999-999-999-9
Jurisdiction Site
Name Address/
Intersection
5
Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidate
d Sites
General Plan Zoning
Designation Designation
(Current) (Current)
Min
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
Infra- Publicly
structure -Owned
Site
Status
Identified
in
Last/Last
Two
Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Optional Info
1
Optional
Info 2
Optional
Info 3
DANVILLE 114 El
94526
208-041-
R -MF M-20;
13
20
0.34
1
YES - Current NO -
Available
Not Used
6
6
Parcel is
Dorado
003
Multifamily
Residential
District
Privately
-Owned
in Prior
Housing
Element
immediately
adjacent to
motor court
housing being
replicated
down the
street.
DANVILLE
134 El
94526
208-041-
R -MF
M-20;
13
20
0.34
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
6
6
Parcel is
Dorado
005
Multifamily
Residential
District
Privately
-Owned
in Prior
Housing
Element
immediately
adjacent to
motor court
housing being
replicated
down the
street.
DANVILLE
144 El
94526
208-031-
R -MF
M-20;
13
20
0.34
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
6
6
Parcel is
Dorado
001
Multifamily
Residential
District
Privately
-Owned
in Prior
Housing
Element
immediately
adjacent to
motor court
housing being
replicated
down the
street.
DANVILLE
1475
94506
206-160-
R -CE P-1; PUD 1
1
5
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
4
4
Area is being
Lawrence
Road
016
Privately
-Owned
in Prior
Housing
Element
subdivided into
single family
residential
consistent with
Development
along
Lawrence
DANVILLE 1625
94506
206-170-
R -CE
P-1; PUD
0.4
0.4
10
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
4
4
Area is being
Lawrence Rd
011
Privately
-Owned
in Prior
Housing
Element
subdivided into
single family
residential
consistent with
Development
along
Lawrence
DANVILLE
1651 Peters
94526
208-570-
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
7.01
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
_
Ranch Road
014
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
17 Hilfred
94526
199-080-
R -CE
R-65; Single
1
1
1.12
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Way
012
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
1800 Peters
94526
208-580-
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
6.02
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Ranch Rd
001
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
198 Diablo 94526 200-211-
DMP
DBD2
9
9
0.38
Vacant YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
3
3
Road 020
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
2449Tassajar
94526
207-061-
C
R -CE
P-1; PUD
1
1
4.6
Vacant
YES - Current NO -
Pending
Not Used
4
4
a Ln.
008
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
2450
94526
207-010-
R -CE
P-1; PUD
1
1
1.3
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Tassajara Ln
016
Privately
I 1
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-9
DocuSign
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-10
Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
2451
94526
207-061-
R -CE
P-1; PUD
1
1
3.9
Vacant YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
3
3
Tassajara Ln.
009
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE 2460 94526
207-061-
R -CE
P-1; PUD
1
1
2.8
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Tassajara Ln 015
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
2471
94526
207-061-
C
R -CE
P-1; PUD
1
1
6
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
6
6
Tassajara Ln.
010
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
249 W EI
94526
200-200-
R -MF
M-13;
13
20
1.25
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
7.6
7.6
Pintado
004
Multifamily
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
2491Tassajar
94526
207-071-
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.5
0.5
12.2
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
5
5
a Ln.
001
1
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
2570
94526 217-010-
B
R -CE
P-1; PUD
1
1
4.75
Vacant
YES - Current NO -
Pending
Not Used
10
10
Sherburne
003
Privately
Project
in Prior
Hills Rd.
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
2830 Camino
94506 217-030-
R -SF
P-1; PUD
1
3
2.7
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
9
9
Tassajara
032
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
YES - Current
2850
94506 217-030-
R -SF P-1; PUD 1 3
0.81
1
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
C.Tassajara
004
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
2860
94506 217-030-
R -SF
P-1; PUD
1
3
1.15
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
C.Tassajara
009
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
2900 Camino 94506 217-040-
MU
P-1; PUD
20
25
17
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
8
46.55
54.55
Tassajara 021
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
3 Woodside
94506
217-030-
R -SF
P-1; PUD
1
3
0.84
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Ct.
031
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
30 Hidden
94506
206-570-
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.39
0.39
3.97
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Hills
004
I
Privately
-Owned
in Prior
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
3020 Fostoria
94526
218-090-
H
R -MF
P-1; PUD
25
30
0.29
Vacant YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
60
60
120
Way
031
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
3020 Fostoria
94526
218-090-
H
R -MF
P-1; PUD
20
25
2
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
20
20
40
Way
031
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
3511 Old
94506
203-160-
R -SF
P-1; PUD 1
3
3.9
2
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
10.45
10.45
Blackhawk
007
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
359 West EI
94526
200-140-
F
MU
P-1; PUD
20
25
0.3
1
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
7
7
Pintado
012
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
375 West EI
94526
200-140-
F
MU
P-1; PUD
20
25
1.6
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
51
51
Pintado
011
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
38 Alamo
94526
197-460-
R -SF
P-1; PUD
1 3
0.77
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Springs PI.
005
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-11
Element
DANVILLE
3900 Culet
94506
206-500-
R -CE
P-1; PUD
1
1
9.4
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
8
8
Ranch Ln
017
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
45 Sherburne
94526
217-010-
B
R -CE
P-1; PUD
0.3
0.3
13.2
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
4
4
Hills Rd.
018
8
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
481 El Alamo
94526
197-130-
R -CE
R-100;
0.4
0.4
2.51
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
020
Single
Privately
in Prior
Family
-Owned
Housing
Residential
Element
District
DANVILLE
487 El Alamo
94526
197-130-
R -CE R-100;
0.43
0.43
2.3
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
019
Single
Privately
in Prior
Family
-Owned
Housing
Residential
Element
District
DANVILLE
490
94526
199-450-
R -CE
R-65; Single
0.69
0.69
1.44
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Montcrest PI.
011
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
5320 Camino
94588
206-020-
R - SF/P-&-
A-2; General
0.2
0.2
20.1
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
4
4
Tassajara
059
OS-GOS
Agricultural
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
544 El Rio
94526
200-030-
R -CE
R-65; Single
1
1
1.05
Vacant
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Rd.
010
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
600 Hartz
94526
208-022
DMP
DBD11
20
30
1.19
•
•
Pending
Not Used
5
32
37
Ave
041
Project
in Prior
•
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
689 Gwen Ct.
94526
202-040-
GOS
P-1; PUD
0.27
0.27
3.65
•
Available
Not Used
1
1
010
in Prior
• .
Housing
Element
FDANVILLE 805 La
Gonda Way
94526
200-080-13
R -SF
R-20; Single
Family
1
3
1.4
1
YES - Current
NO -
Privately
Available
Not Used
in Prior
2
2
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
812 El
94526
197-140-
R -CE
R-100;
1
1
2.67
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Pintado Rd.
029
Single
Privately
in Prior
Family
-Owned
Housing
Residential
Element
District
DANVILLE
812 El
94526
197-140-
R -CE
R-100;
1
1
2.67
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Pintado Rd.
029
Single
Privately
in Prior
Family
-Owned
Housing
Residential
Element
District
DANVILLE
828 Diablo
94526
196-270-
R -SF
R-15; Single
1
3
2.7
Nursery
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
7.6
7.6
Rd.
029
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
850 Hornet
94526
196-391-
R -SF
R-15; Single
1
3
0.36
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Dr.
025
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
850 Hornet
94526
196-391-
R -SF
R-15; Single
1
3
0.37
Vacant YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Dr.
026
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
850 Hornet
94526
196-391-
R -SF
R-15; Single
1
3
0.4
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Dr.
027
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
850 Hornet
94526
196-391-
R -SF
R-15; Single
1
3
0.42
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1 1
Dr.
029
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
1
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-11
DocuSign
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-12
Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Element
DANVILLE
852 Podva
94526
207-011-
D
R -MF
M-13;
13
20
0.25
Office
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
5
5
Replication of
Rd.
005
Multifamily
Privately
in Prior
pattern like
Residential
-Owned
Housing
Sequoia grove
District
Element
DANVILLE
855 Podva Ln
94526
208-190-
E
R -MF
M-13;
13
20
0.4
6
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
2
2
Replication of
007
Multifamily
Privately
in Prior
pattern like
Residential
-Owned
Housing
Sequoia grove
District
Element
DANVILLE
856 Podva
94526
207-011-
D
R -MF
M-13;
13
20
0.25
Office
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
5
5
Replication of
Rd.
006
Multifamily
Privately
in Prior
pattern like
Residential
-Owned
Housing
Sequoia grove
District
Element
DANVILLE
861 Diablo
94526
202-010-
R -SF
R-15; Single
1
3
1.24
1
YES - Current NO -
Available
Not Used
4
4
Rd.
019
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
888 El
94526
197-120-
R -CE
R-100;
0.43
0.43
2.3
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Pintado Rd.
028
Single
Privately
in Prior
Family
-Owned
Housing
Residential
Element
District
DANVILLE
910 Podva Ln
94526
208-190-
E
R -MF
M-13;
13
20
0.4
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
2
5
7
Replication of
008
Multifamily
Privately
in Prior
pattern like
Residential
-Owned
Housing
Sequoia grove
District
Element
DANVILLE
918 Podva Ln
94526
208-670-
E
R -MF
M-13;
13
20
0.5
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
2
7
9
Replication of
007
Multifamily
Privately
in Prior
pattern like
Residential
-Owned
Housing
Sequoia grove
District
Element
DANVILLE
932 La
94526
197-110-
R -SF
R-20; Single
1
3
2.5
1
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
3
3
Gonda Way
013
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
Bolero
94526
207-510-
R -CF
R-15; Single
1
3
4.8
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
13.3
13.3
Heights
004
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
Camino
94506
206-020-
GOS & R -SF
A-2; General
0.24
0.24
20.1
Vacant YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
5
5
Tassajara
059
- LD
Agricultural
4
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Cross Bridge
94526
207-061-
R -SF
P-1; PUD
1
2.2
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
7
7
Dr.
020
I
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Diablo Rd
94526
202-050-
A
POS -A
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
36.4
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
7
7
071
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Diablo Rd
94526
202-580-
A
POS -A
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
159.
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
31
31
078
1
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Diablo Road
94526
215-040-
A
POS -A
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
3.2
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
1
1
002
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Diablo Road
94526
202-580-
A
R -SF -LD
P-1; PUD
1
3
5
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
15
15
080
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Diablo Road
94526
202-580-
A
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
17.2
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
3
3
079
Privately
Project
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE Diablo Road 94526 202-100-
A
R -RR P-1; PUD
0.2 0.2
38.9
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending Not Used
7
7
019
Privately Project in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Diablo Road
94526
202-100-
A
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2 40.8
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Pending
Not Used
8
8
017
I
I
Privately
Project
in Prior
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DANVILLE
Diablo Road
94526
YES - Current
-Owned
Housing
Element
202-100-
038
A
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2,
51.1
Vacant
NO -
Privately
-Owned
Pending
Project
Not Used
in Prior
Housing
Element
10
10
DANVILLE
El Rio
94526
200-040-
R -SF
R-15; Single
1
3
0.44
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
017
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
Elworthy East 94526
218-010-
P & OS - AG
A-4;
0.2
0.2
102
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
19
19
008
AgricuturalA
gricultural
Privately
-Owned
in Prior
Housing
Preserve
Element
DANVILLE
Glen Alpine
94526
199-440-
R -CE
P-1; PUD
0.58
0.58
1.7
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
021
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Glen Alpine
94526
199-440-
R -CE
R-65; Single 0.5
0.5
2.04
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
020
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE Hope Ln.
94526
195-080-
R -SF
R-15; Single
1
3
3.5
Vacant YES - Current NO -
Available
Not Used
10.45
10.45
021
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
La Gonda
94526
200-080-
R -SF
R-20; Single
1
1
0.4
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
Way
014
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE Lawrence Rd. 94506
206-570-
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.3
0.3
3.19
Vacant YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
005
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Montair Dr.
94526
199-120-
R -CE
R-65; Single
0.5
0.5
1.98
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
004
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE Sherbourne
94526
217-010-
R - RR
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
45.4
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
8
8
Hills
022
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Tassajara Ln
94526
207-061-
R- RR/CE
P-1; PUD
2
2
11.6
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
6
6
025
5
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE
Tassajara Ln
94526
207-071-
R -RR
P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
14.8
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
3
3
003
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
DANVILLE Toyon Terr.
94526
200-010-
R -CE
R-65; Single
0.65
0.65
1.54
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
024
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE
Toyon Terr.
94526
200-030-
R -CE
R-65; Single
0.47
0.47
2.14
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
1
1
028
Family
Privately
in Prior
Residential
-Owned
Housing
District
Element
DANVILLE Turnbridge 94526 207-510-
_
P & OS - AG P-1; PUD
0.2
0.2
70.6
Vacant
YES - Current
NO -
Available
Not Used
14
14
Rd. 005
Privately
in Prior
-Owned
Housing
Element
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need, Table Starts in CeII A2
For Contra Costa County jurisdictions, please format the APN's as follows: 999-999-999-9
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
ZIP
Code
Parcel
Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
2
Optional
Info
3
DANVILLE
11135 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
9,1526
208 230
1-6
40
S
20
1.38
OS AG
A-2
MF HD
P-4
30
40
55
Nen-
Vacant
Single
Family
Residence
YES
Historic
building and
field
used as
a corporation
yard
017
Current
DANVILLE
939 El Pintado
94526
200-020-
010
2014
148
403
245
1.63
R -CE
R-65
MF -HD
M -35P 1
30
4035
6530
Non-
Vacant
Child Care
YES -
Current
Across the
street from
Multi -family,
with
Montessori
school.
DANVILLE
53n io
�ao_La_G�,or- �aa
Way
9,1526
200 260
4
0
0
0
002
C LO
MF HD
P 1
30
40
4
Non
Vacant
Office
YES
Adjoining
parcel of
officeo
development
pattern
consistent
with 510, 520
La Gonda
002
Gurrent
DANVILLE
530 La Gonda
Way
94526
200 260
4
0
0
0
0.02
C LO
L-4
MF HD
P 1
30
40
1-
Nen-
Vacant
Office
YES
Adjoining
parcel of
office
development
pattern
consistent
with 510, 520
003
Gwent
La Gonda
DANVILLE
268 Rose St
94526
200-211-
005
20
40
=41
43
0.12
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
54
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Area has
been
redeveloped.
The corner of
front and
diablo and
has an
approval on
with an
interest in
development.
Town has
received
inquiries from
property
owners about
redevelopmen
t potential.
4
DANVILLE
199 E. Linda
Mesa
94526
200-211-
007
20
40
42
33
0.18
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
75
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Area has
been
redeveloped.
The corner of
Font and
Diablo and
has an
approval on
with an
interest in
development.
Town has
received
inquiries from
property
owners about
redevelopmen
4
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
"5 Digit
•
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
2
Optional
Info
3
t potential.
Area has
been
redeveloped.
The corner of
front and
diablo and
has an
approval on
with an
interest in
development.
Town has
received
inquiries from
property
owners about
200-211-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES-
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
254 Rose Ave
94526
016
30
20
22
46
0.27
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
-1-
30
4035
148
Vacant
Commercial
Current
t potential.
Area has
been
redeveloped.
The corner of
front and
diablo and
has an
approval on
with an
interest in
development.
Town has
received
inquiries from
property
owners about
200-211-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
67 Front St
94526
017
04
40
40
02
0.07
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
32
Vacant
Commercial
Current
t potential.
Area has
been
redeveloped.
The corner of
front and
diablo and
has an
approval on
with an
interest in
development.
Town has
received
inquiries from
property
owners about
200-211-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
77 Front St
94526
018
40
42
34
0.18
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
7 6
Vacant
Commercial
Current
t potential.
Area has
been
redeveloped.
The corner of
front and
diablo and
has an
approval on
with an
200-211-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
interest in
DANVILLE
85 Front St
94526
027
30
20
2
46
0.27
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
448
Vacant
Commercial
Current
development.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-15
DocuSign
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-16
Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
5 Digit
Site Address/
Assessor
Very
Low-
Low-
Moderate-
Above
Type of
Parcel
Current
General
Current
Proposed
General Plan
Proposed
Minimum
Maximum
Total
Vacant/
Description
Infra -
Optional
Optional
Optional
Name
Intersection ZIP
Code
Parcel
Number
Incom
e
Income
Income
Moderate-
Income
Shortfall
Size
(Acres)
plan
Designation
Zoning
(GP)
Designation
Zoning
Density
Allowed
Density
Allowed
Capacity
Non-
vacant
of Existing
Uses
structure
Info
1
Info
2
Info
3
Town has
received
inquiries from
property
owners about
redevelopmen
t potential.
Area has
been
redeveloped.
The corner of
front and
diablo and
has an
approval on
with an
interest in
development.
Town has
received
inquiries from
property
owners about
200-211-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
290 Rose Ave
94526
025
40
40
1
42
0.11
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
43
Vacant
Commercial
Current
t potential.
Older
underutilized
156 Diablo
200 211-
Ned-
YES
shopping
028
Current
DANVILLE
Read
94526
7
4
5
9
0.622
DBD1
DBD'I
MF HD
P 1
30
40
25
Vacant
Commercial
center
5353 San
Older
underutilized
Ramon Valley
208-043-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
shopping
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
020
02
40
42
24
0.16
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
6
Vacant
Auto
Current
center
554 San
Older
underutilized
Ramon Valley
216-090-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
shopping
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
019
78
45
42
93
0.61
DBD6
DBD6
MF -HD
4
30
4035
2418
Vacant
Commercial
Current
center
588 San
Older
underutilized
Ramon Valley
216-09-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
shopping
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
0023
4012
65
63
425
0.84
DBD6
DBD6
MF -HD
4
30
4035
3425
Vacant
Commercial
Current
center
Bowling Alley
owner has
contacted
town to
216-080-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
inquire about
DANVILLE
Boone Ct
94526
004
40
20
23
57
0.32
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
4
30
4035
4310
Vacant
Commercial
Current
development
Bowling Alley
owner has
contacted
town to
216-080-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
inquire about
DANVILLE
200 Boone Ct
94526
072
4618
910
84
1-97
1.3
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
4
30
4035
5239
Vacant
Commercial
Current
development
Church has
contacted
town with
interest in
developing
455 La Gonda
200-152-
P-1 (0-
Non-
St. Isador's
YES -
senior
DANVILLE
Way
94526
008
8260
4-733
4-214
10123
6.87
SF -LD
1)
MF -HD
M -35P-4
30
4035
275130
Vacant
Parking/Field
Current
housing
486 San
Crossroads
shopping
center. Town
has been
Ramon Valley
216-101-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
contacted by
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
001
24-24
13
1-06
2710
1.78
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
7-1-53
Vacant
Commercial
Current
owner for
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
2
Optional
Info
3
redevelopmen
t inquiry
DANVILLE
480 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
216-101-
002
4619
10
95
287
1.37
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
5541
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Crossroads
shopping
center. Town
has been
contacted by
owner for
redevelopmen
t inquiry
4
DANVILLE
San Ramon
Valley Blvd
94526
208-043-
021
40
40
40
02
0.07
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P--
30
4035
32
Non-
Vacant
Auto
YES -
Current
Crossroads
shopping
center. Town
has been
contacted by
owner for
redevelopmen
t inquiry
4
DANVILLE
509 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
208-043-
022
40
40
40
02
0.07
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
32
Non-
Vacant
Auto
YES -
Current
Crossroads
shopping
center. Town
has been
contacted by
owner for
redevelopmen
t inquiry
4
DANVILLE
5154 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
208-043-
024
50
30
24
68
0.4
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4612
Non-
Vacant
Restaurant
YES —
Current
Crossroads
shopping
center. Town
has been
contacted by
owner for
redevelopmen
t inquiry
4
DANVILLE
519 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
208-043-
025
30
20
42
46
0.26
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
408
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Crossroads
shopping
center. Town
has been
contacted by
owner for
redevelopmen
t inquiry
4
DANVILLE
620 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
216-080-
074
4012
65
53
425
0.83
DBD10
DBD10
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
3325
Non-
Vacant
Bank
YES -
Current
Former Bank
of America,
now a vacant
site across
street from
international
village
shopping
center which
was just
acquired for
multi -family.
4
DANVILLE
571 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
208-044-
015
40
20
23
57
0.32
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4310
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
redevelopmen
t
4
DANVILLE
551 San
Ramon Valley
94526
208-044-
4017
40
30
23
58
0.35
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4411
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
North of Town
and Country
4
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-17
DocuSign
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-18
Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Site Address/
Digit Assessor
Very
Low-
Low-
Moderate-
Above
Type of
Parcel
Current
General
Current
Proposed
General Plan
Proposed
Minimum Maximum
Total
Vacant/
Description
Infra -
Optional
Optional
Optional
Name
Intersection
ZIP Parcel
Code Number
Incom
e
Income
Income
Moderate-
come
Shortfall
Size
(Acres)
plan
Designation
Zoning
(GP)
Designation
Zoning
Density Density
Allowed Allowed
Capacity
Non-
vacant
of Existing
Uses
structure
Info
1
Info
Info
3
ii
NI
Blvd
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
redevelopmen
t
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
555 San
America, old
buildings ripe
for
Ramon Valley
208-044-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
018
40
20
23
46
0.29
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30 4035
1-29
Vacant
Commercial
Current
t
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
577 San
America, old
buildings ripe
for
Ramon Valley
208-051-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
009
40
20
23
46
0.29
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
429
Vacant
Commercial
Current
t
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
10 Town &
208-051-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
Country
94526
011
40
1
42
0.1
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
43
Vacant
Commercial
Current
t
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
30 Town &
208-051-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
Country
94526
010
40
41
1-2
0.1
DBD
0-1
MF -HD
4
30
4035
43
Vacant
Office
Current
t
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
5859 San
America, old
buildings ripe
for
Ramon Valley
208-060-
DBD13P-
Non-
Wells Fargo
YES -
redevelopmen
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
029
810
5
52
404
0.69
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
4
30
4035
2821
Vacant
Bank
Current
t
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
609 San
Pet
America, old
buildings ripe
Ramon Valley
208-060-
DBD13P-
Non-
Food/Walgre
YES -
for
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
055
89
45
42
403
0.65
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
4
30
4035
2619
Vacant
ens
Current
redevelopmen
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
2
Optional
Info
3
DANVILLE
615 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
208-060-
056
30
40
42
34
0.21
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
86
Non-
Vacant
City
Bank/Various
YES -
Current
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
redevelopmen
t
4
DANVILLE
607 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
208-060-
057
0
0
20
91
0.05
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
21
Non-
Vacant
Fitness
YES -
Current
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
redevelopmen
t
4
DANVILLE
589 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
208-060-
058
50
30
24
68
0.4
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
DBD -35P-
30
4035
4612
Non-
Vacant
McCaulous
YES -
Current
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
redevelopmen
t
4
DANVILLE
San Ramon
Valley Blvd
94526
208-060-
059
4-1-47
2326
2411
5418
3.4
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
DBD -13P-
30
4035
436102
Non-
Vacant
Parking Lot
YES -
Current
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
redevelopmen
t
4
DANVILLE
107 Town &
Country
94526
208-060-
053
4654
2729
2413
5921
3.89
DBD7
DBD7
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
156117
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
Building
YES -
Current
North of Town
and Country
and across
street from
Bank of
America, old
buildings ripe
for
redevelopmen
t
4
DANVILLE
185 Front
Street
94526
208-022-
036
810
45
52
494
0.7
DBD3
DBD3
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
2821
Non-
Vacant
Office
YES -
Current
Office space
next to town
owned
parking lot,
owner has
inquired about
redevelopmen
t.
4
DANVILLE
699 Old
Orchard Dr
94526
216-220-
008
4552
2627
2313
5720
3.77
P -SP
P-1;
PUD
MF -HD
MM35P--
30
4035
151112
Non-
Vacant
School
District
Offices
YES -
Current
Older
building.
Town has had
prior contact
from school
district for
inquiry about
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-19
DocuSign
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-20
Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
2
Optional
Info
3
teacher
housing
DANVILLE
20 Oak Ct
91526
216 090
7
4
3
8
-
0.55
DBD6
DBD6
MF HD
P 1
30
40
22
Non-
Vacant
Office
YES
Older-effice
use. Part of
the trend to
multi family
003
Current
DANVILLE
30 Oak Ct
91526
216 090
4
3
2
5
-
0.36
DBD6
DBD6
MF HD
P-4
30
40
44
Non-
Vacant
Officc
YES
Older effce
use. Part of
the trend to
multi family
004
Current
DANVILLE
40 Oak Ct
94526
216 090
4
2
2
6
-
042
OBE/5
DBD6
MF HD
P 1
30
40
43
Non
Vacant
Officc
YES
Oldcr officc
use. Part of
the trend to
005
Current
motti-family
DANVILLE
50 Oak Ct
91526
216 090
1-1-
7
6
1-4
-
095
DBD6
DBD6
MF HD
P 1
30
40
38
Non
Vacant
Office
YES
Older -office
usc. Part of
the trend to
multi -family
006
Current
DANVILLE
55 Oak Ct
91526
216 090
5
3
3
6
-
0/12
DBD6
DBD6
MF HD
P 1
30
40
47
Nen-
Vacant
Office
YES
Older office
use. Part
of
the trend to
multi family
007
Current
DANVILLE
65 Oak Ct
94526
216 090
4
2
3
6
-
037
DBD6
DBD6
MF HD
P 1
30
40
1-5
Non
Vacant
Office
YES
Older
office
use. Part of
the trend to
008
Gwent
multi family
DANVILLE
75 Oak Ct
91526
216 090
4
2
2
6
-
042
DBD6
DBD6
MF HD
P-4
30
40
43
Non
Vacant
Officc
YES -
Current
Oldcr
officc
use. Part of
the trend to
multi family
009
DANVILLE
85 Oak Ct
94526
216 090
6
3
4
7
-
0,5
0B136
DBD6
MF HD
P 1
30
40
20
Non
Vacant
Office
YES
Older office
use—Part-ef
the trend to
-
010
Current
multi—family
DANVILLE
520 La Gonda
Way
94526
200-052-
004
910
96
42
74
0.74
C -LO
L-1
MF -HD
M -35P-1-
30
4035
3022
Non-
Vacant
Office
YES -
Current
Owner
contacted
Town Staff to
inquire about
developing
into housing
DANVILLE
400 El Cerro
Blvd
94526
200-140-
016
4517
910
74
497
1.26
C -LO
0-1
MF -HD
M -35P-1
30
4035
5038
Non-
Vacant
Office
YES -
Current
Part of a
multi -family
development
trend
DANVILLE
510 La Gonda
Way
94526
200-131-
005
2723
2013
1-46
309
2.27
C -LO
L-1
MF -HD
M -35P-4
30
4035
9451
Non-
Vacant
Office
YES -
Current
Public Agency
Site being
vacated and
developed in
the future.
DANVILLE
155 Diablo
94526
208-010-
023
4214
78
63
455
1.01
DBD1
DBD1
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4030
Non-
Vacant
Bev & More
YES -
Current
Redevelopme
nt pattern
similar to
Danville Court
Apartments
and Alexan
riverwalk
development
on Diablo
Road
4
DANVILLE
3420 Fostoria
Way
94526
218-04-
0043
2424
4-213
446
2610
1.755
C -MF
L-1
MF -HD
M -35P 1
30
4035
7053
Non-
Vacant
Light
Industrial
YES -
Current
Older light
industrial
building.
Underutilized
and ripe for
re-
development
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-20
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
2
Optional
Info
3
DANVILLE
760 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
207-012-
007
50
30
34
69
0.42
C -LO
0-1
MF -HD
M -35P 1
30
4035
1-713
Non-
Vacant
Office
YES -
Current
Ripe for
redevelopmen
t
DANVILLE
770 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
207-012-
008
40
30
23
68
0.37
C -LO
0-1
MF -HD
M -35P-44
30
4035
1-511
Non-
Vacant
Office
YES -
Current
Ripe for
redevelopmen
t
DANVILLE
780 San
Ramon Valley
Blvd
94526
207-012-
009
40
30
33
58
0.38
C -LO
0-1
MF -HD
M -35P 1
30
4035
1-511
Non-
Vacant
Office
YES -
Current
Ripe for
redevelopmen
t
DANVILLE
790 San
94526
207-012-
0
0
3
8
.37
C -LO
0-1
MF -HD
M -35P-4
30
35
11
Non-
Office
YES -
Ripe for
Ramon Valley
redevelopmen
Blvd
010
Vacant
Current
t
DANVILLE
828 Diablo
Road
94526
196-270-
029
3236
1-920
1-69
41-14
2.7
SF -LD
R-15
MF -HD
M -35P 1
30
4035
1-8879
Non-
Vacant
Nursery
YES -
Current
Ripe for
redevelopmen
t. Potential
senior
housing
development
similar to east
of Diablo and
West El.
Pintado Road
and 359 West
El Pintado
which was
just approved
for senior
housing.
DANVILLE
Front St
94526
216-120-
029
314
48
43
36
0.21.04
8
DBD6
DBD6
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
831
Non-
Vacant
Parking/Cree
k/Office
YES -
Current
Similar to
Alexan
Riverwalk
Project -
Pattern of
development
4
DANVILLE
307 Diablo Rd
94526
216-120-
12
6
3
5
.865
DBD6
DBD6
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
35
26
Non-
Parkinq/Cree
YES -
Similar to
Alexan
Riverwalk
Project -
Pattern of
028
4
Vacant
k/Office
Current
development
DANVILLE
315 Diablo Rd
94526
216-120-
042
50
30
34
710
0.45
DBD6
DBD6
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4314
Non-
Vacant
Parking/Cree
k/Office
YES -
Current
Similar to
Alexan
Riverwalk
Project -
Pattern of
development
4
DANVILLE
319 Diablo
Road
94526
216-120-
043
4223
713
6
459
1.71
DBD6
DBD6
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4051
Non-
Vacant
Parking/Cree
k/Office
YES -
Current
Similar to
Alexan
Riverwalk
Project -
Pattern of
development
4
DANVILLE
108 Charles Lo
91526
196 201
4
4
4
4
-
0.21
SF LD
P 1 (R
MF HD
9-4
30
40
40
Nen-
Vacant
SF
Residence
YES
Staff is
-
aware
adjacent
church
Community
Presbyterian
Church
-land
acquisition
and possible
development
into multi
family
consistent
with land
patterns to the
002
12)
Current
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-21
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction Site Address/
Name Intersection
5 Digit Assessor
ZIP Parcel
Code Number
Very
Low- Low- Moderate-
Incom Income Income
e
Above
Moderate -
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current Proposed
General Current General Plan Proposed
Plan Zoning (GP) Zoning
Designation Designation
Minimum Maximum
Density Density
Allowed Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/ Description
Non- of Existing
vacant Uses
Infra-
structure
Optional Optional Optional
Info Info Info
1 2 3
DANVILLE
DANVILLE
10,1 Charles Ln
100 Charles Ln
9,1526
9,1526
196 201
003 4
196 201
904
4
4
4
4
4
0.2/1
045
SF LD
SF LD
P 1 (R
12)
P 1 (R
12)
MF HD
P1
P-4
30
30
DANVILLE
/117 Ilo Lo
9,1526
DANVILLE
1111 Ilo Ln
9452-6
196 201
905 4
196 201
096
4
3
DANVILLE
'157 110 Ln
9,1526
196 201
997
3
3
4
1-
2 2
2
2
2
0.25
0.211
0.211
SF LD
SF LD
SF LD
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-22
P 1 (R
12)
P 1 (R
12)
P 1 (R
12)
MF HD
MF HD
MF HD
P1
P4
P-1-
30
40
49
49
30
49
30
40
40
49
Non
Vacant
Nen-
Vacant
Residence
Residence
YES
Current
YES
Current
south.
Staff is aware
adjacent
church
Community
Presbyterian
Church land
acquisition
and posciblc
development
into multi
family
consistent
with land
patterns to thc
south.
Staff is aware
adjacent
church
Community
Presbyterian
Church land
asquisition
and possible
development
into multi
family
consistent
with -land
patterns to thc
south.
a40
49
49
Non -
Vacant
Non -
Vacant
Non -
Vacant
SF
Residence
SF
Residence
SF
Residence
YES
Current
YES
Current
YES -
Current
Staff is aware
adjacent
church
Community
Presbyterian
Ch, r land
acquisition all
but three of
the lots and
possible
development
into multi
family
consistent
with -land
south.
Staff is aware
adjacent
church
Community
Presbyterian
Church land
acquisition
and possible
development
into multi
family
consistent
with land
patterns to thc
south.
Staff is aware
adjacent
church
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
2
Optional
Info
3
Community
Presbyterian
Church -land
acquisition
and possible
development
into
multi
family
consistent
with land
patterns to the
south.
Staff is
aware
adjacent
church
Community
Presbyterian
Church land
acquisition
and possible
development
into multi
family
consistent
with land
196 201
P 1
Non
YES
patterns to the
008
(R
12)
Vacant
Current
DANVILLE
465 Ilo Ln
94526
1-
0
0
0
-
0.02
SF LD
1 MF HD
P 1
30
40
1-
Vacant
south.
Underutilized
old building,
ripe -far
redevelopmen
t. Building for
the
sale at
northeast
corner of
West Linda
Mesa and
Railroad
Avcnuc has
200 200
Nen-
YES
been
011
Current
DANVILLE
360 Rose
94526
2
4
4
3
-
048
DBD4
DBD4
MF HD
P 1
30
40
3
Vacant
Commercial
redeveloped.
Underutilized
old building,
ripe for
redevelopmen
t. Building for
sale at the
northeast
corner of
West Linda
Mesa and
Railroad
Avenue has
200-200-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
been
DANVILLE
344 Rose
94526
017
60
30
24
68
0.4
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
40
4612
Vacant
Commercial
Current
redeveloped.
Hartz/Railroad
Underutilized
site/out of
1111 Hartz
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
business
DANVILLE
Ave
94526
067
40
20
2
36
0.28
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
41-8
Vacant
Parking Lot
Current
flower shop
200-040-
Non-
YES -
Underutlized
DANVILLE
425 El Pintado
94526
012
3831
2217
4-97
4912
3.2
C -LO
0-1
MF -HD
M -35P 1
30
4035
42867
Vacant
Office
Current
office property
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
DANVILLE
115 Hartz
94526
035
40
20
33
67
0.34
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
4410
Vacant
Commercial
Current
feasible site
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-23
DocuSign
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-24
Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit Assessor
ZIP Parcel
Code Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
2
Optional
Info
3
DANVILLE
127 Hartz
94526
199-330-
064
30
20
2
25
0.22
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
97
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
feasible site
1-
DANVILLE
100 Hartz
94526
200-190-
024
30
20
1-2
24
0.21
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
86
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
feasible site
4
DANVILLE
110 Hartz
94526
200-190-
023
20
40
41
23
0.15
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
64
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
feasible site
4
DANVILLE
120 Hartz
94526
200-190-
028
40
20
23
46
0.3
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4-29
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
feasible site
4
DANVILLE
130 Hartz
94526
200-190-
018
30
20
42
46
0.26
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
488
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
feasible site
4
DANVILLE
Hartz Ave
94526
200-190-
010
40
20
23
57
0.33
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4310
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
feasible site
4
DANVILLE
150 Hartz
94526
200-190-
017
50
30
24
68
0.41
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
4812
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
feasible site
4
DANVILLE
180 Hartz
94526
200-190-
021
30
40
1-2
34
0.21
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
DBD13P-
30
4035
86
Non-
Vacant
Commercial
YES -
Current
Village
shopping
center
acquisition,
financially
feasible site
4
DANVILLE
2900 Camino
Tassajara
94526
217-040-
021
3685
2016
4320
4633
8
MU
P-1;
PUD
MUMF HD
P-1
30
4035
320184
Non-
Vacant
Woodranch
YES -
Current
Woodranch
headquarters
authorized for
mixed use -
property
owner has
contacted the
town to
inquire about
redevelopmen
t
DANVILLE
530 La Gonda
Way
91526
200 260
1-
0
0
0
-
0.02
C LO
L-1-
MF HD
P 1
30
40
1-
Non
Office
YES
-
004
Vacant
Current
DANVILLE
530 La Gonda
Way
94526
200 260
7
4
3
9
0-58
C LO
L-4
MF HD
P4
30
40
23
Nen-
Vacant
Office
YES
-
040
Current
DANVILLE
165 110 Ln
91526
196 201
4
2
2
4
0-31
SF LD
P 1 (R
MF HD
P-4
30
40
42
Nee-
Vacant
S€
Residence
YES
-
009
12)
Current
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-24
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address
Intersectio
Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
Low-
Incom
e
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of
Shortfall
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General
Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
a
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Non-
vacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infra -
structure
Optional
Info
1
Optional
Info
Optiona
Info
3
196 201
P 1
Nen-
S€
YES
049
(R
12)
Current
DANVILLE
,164110 Ln
94526
4
2
2
4
-
9-3
SF LD
MF HD
P 1
30
40
42
Vacant
Residence
196 201
P 1 (R
Non
S
YES
011
12)
Current
DANVILLE
456 110 Ln
94526
4
2
2
3
-
0.28
SF LD
MF HD
P 1
30
40
44
Vacant
Residcncc
196 201
P 1 (R
NOR-
S€
YES
012
12)
Current
DANVILLE
418 Ilo Ln
94526
3
2
4
3
-
0:23
SF LD
MF HD
P 1
30
40
9
Vacant
Residence
196 201
P 1
Non
SF
YES
0-1-3
(R
12)
Current
DANVILLE
440 Ilo Ln
94526
3
2
4
3
-
0-2-3
SF LD
MF HD
P 1
30
40
9
Vacant
Residcncc
196 201
P 1 (R
Non-
SF
YES
030
12)
Current
DANVILLE
101 Charles Ln
94526
3
2
4
3
-
043
SF LD
MF HD
P-4
30
40
9
Vacant
Residence
196 201
P 1
Non
SF
YES
031
(R
12)
Vacant
Current
DANVILLE
105 Charles Ln
94526
3
2
4
3
-
0-233
SF LD
MF HD
P 1
30
40
9
Residcncc
196 201
P 1
Non
SF
YES
032
(R
12)
Current
DANVILLE
109 Charles Ln
94526
4
3
2
5
-
0.36
SF LD
MF HD
P 1
30
40
44
Vacant
Residcncc
-
196 201
P 1 (R
Non
SF
YES
033
Current
DANVILLE
112 Charles Ln
91526
2
4
2
3
-
0.19
SF LD
12)
MF HD
P 1
30
40
8
Vacant
Residcncc
196 201
P 1 (R
Nen-
SF
YES
033
12)
Current
DANVILLE
120 Charles Ln
91526
6
4
3
8
-
0.53
SF MD
MF HD
P-4
30
49
24
Vacant
Residence
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
Railroad Ave
94526
055
20
40
1
23
0.13
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
54
Vacant
Commercial
Current
70 Railroad
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
Ave
94526
056
20
40
42
3
0.18
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
75
Vacant
Commercial
Current
199-0330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
145 Hartz
94526
058
910
56
42
444
0.72
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
2922
Vacant
Commercial
Current
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
171 Hartz
94526
063
30
20
2
46
0.28
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
448
Vacant
Commercial
Current
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
179 Hartz
94526
065
30
40
01
02
0.11
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
43
Vacant
Commercial
Current
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
80 Railroad
94526
009
20
40
1
43
0.13
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
54
Vacant
Commercial
Current
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
195 Hartz
94526
010
40
20
33
47
0.32
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
4310
Vacant
Commercial
Current
112 W. Linda
199-330-
DBD13P-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
Mesa
94526
027
20
40
0
02
0.06
DBD4
DBD4
MF -HD
4
30
4035
2
Vacant
Commercial
Current
MF
363 Diablo
216-120-
DBD13P-
Non-
Residential/C
YES -
DANVILLE
Road
94526
012
57
34
2
53
0.54
DBD6
DBD6
MF -HD
4
30
4035
2216
Vacant
reek
Current
MF
216-120-
DBD13P-
Non-
Residential/C
YES -
DANVILLE
Diablo Road
94526
015
822
412
45
98
1.578
DBD6
DBD6
MF -HD
4
30
4035
6347
Vacant
reek
Current
744 San
Ramon Valley
207-012-
Non-
YES -
DANVILLE
Blvd
94526
001
78
-
4
42
-
83
-
0.57
C -LO
0-1
MF -HD
M -35P-4
30
4035
—
2317
Vacant
Office
Current
Town-
DANVILLE
ADUs
-
Wide
72
72
72
—
24
—
TOTAL New
�m
1
Inventory:
757
444
331
523
Existing
Inventory:
97
656
TOTAL
Inventory:
757
444
428
1,179
RHNA Need w/
15% buffer
750
432
389
1.006
Total
Excess
Excess
Inventory:
7
12
39
173
Inventory:
231
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-25
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table C: Land Use, Table Starts in A2
Zoning Designation
From Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N
(e.g., "R-1")
General Land Uses Allowed (e.g.,
"Low-density residential")
P-1; PUD
A-4; Agricultural Preserve
A-2; General Agricultural
R-100; Single Family Residential District
Low Density Residential
Agricultural, one residence per 20 acres
Agricultural, one residence per
Residential, one unit pre 2.5 acres
R-65; Single Family Residential District
Residential, one unit per 1.5 acres
R-40; Single Family Residential District
R-20; Single Family Residential District
R-15; Single Family Residential District
Residential, one unit per acre
Residential, one unit per .5 acres
Residential, one unit per .33 acres
R-10; Single Family Residential District
Residential, one unit per .25 acres
R-7; Single Family Residential District
R-6; Single Family Residential District
D-1; Two Family District
Residential, 7,000 s.f. lot size minimum
Residential, 6,000 s.f. lot size minimum
Residential, two units per lot
M-8; Multifamily Residential District
Residential, eight units per acre
M-13; Multifamily Residential District
Residential, 13 units per acre
M-20; Multifamily Residential District
Residential, 20 units per acre
M-25; Multifamily Residential District
Residential, 25 units per acre
M-30; Multifamily Residential District
Residential, 30 units per acre
M-35; Multifamily Residential District
DBD 9; Multifamily Residential District
DBD 12; Multifamily Residential District
Residential, 35 units per acre
Residential, 30 units per acre
Residential, 30 units per acre
DBD 13; Multifamily Residential District
Residential; 35 units •er acre
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-26
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site A / 510 and 520 La Gonda Way / Danville & Hall and 1700
Investors LLC
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Commercial - Limited Office
Zoning: 0-1; Limited Office District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Scenario 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. baseline
density
Scenario 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Scenario 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 46.88 dus/ac (assumes a 35%
density bonus)
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownership
(Private or
Public)
Estimated
Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Building
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
200-131-
005
510 La Gonda
Way
Public
(Town of
Danville)
2.273
(portion)
1.50
Municipal
Offices
1973
13,043 sq. ft.
200-052-
004
520 La Gonda
Way
Private
(Danville &
Hall and
1700
Investors
LLC)
0.74
0.74
Office
Pre 1982
7,920 sq. ft.
Totals
3.013
acres
2.24 acres
-
-
20,963 sq. ft.
(21% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the two properties making up Housing Opportunity Site A (HOS
A) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS A properties with high density multifamily uses during
the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-27
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope gradients,
and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community
services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older rental office
space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon
Valley;
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop either individually or jointly; and
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple family
residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville 2023-2030
Housing Element.
• The following table for HOS A depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of both properties with a minimum of
67 units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of both properties with a maximum of
78 units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while
securing an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum
floor area ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 105 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 78 units. This scenario envisions development of both properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
nine units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 16
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-28
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS A.
• The analysis for HOS A deletes from consideration the possible redevelopment of the adjoining
property at 530 La Gonda Way with multiple family uses. That site's ownership frame work (i.e.,
commercial condominium) is considered to be a barrier to site redevelopment. Additional
impediments include the site's relatively higher current FAR; the presence of buildings with newer
construction (i.e., recent building additions); and significant recent owner reinvestment to the site
(i.e., redevelopment of the site's parking lot). Further complications are the site's irregular shape
(i.e., triangle with limited site depth at one end) and the presence of relatively significant slope
gradients over upwards of one third of the site.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-29
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site A / 510 and 520 La Gonda Way / Danville & Hall and 1700
Investors LLC - Development Scenarios reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site A / 510 and 520 La Gonda Way / Danville & Hall and 1700 Investors LLC - Development Scenario
1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
2.24
acres
(97,575
sq ft)
67 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac as the minimum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 78,050
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,165 sq. ft.
average size
15% (10 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
10 2-BDRs
(15%)
- ave 650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
57 3-BDRs
(85%)
- ave 1,255 sq.
ft.
(rowhouses)
27 at -grade (18%)
124 tandem or
standard (82%) for
151 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site A / 510 and 520 La Gonda Way / Danville & Hall and 1700 Investors LLC - Development Scenario
2:
Podium Apartments at 35 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.24
acres
(97,575
sq ft)
78 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the maximum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning without
density bonus
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 78,050
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(66,350 sq. ft.) /
850 sq. ft. ave
15% (12 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
12 Studios
(15%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
39 1-BDRs
(50%)
- ave 825 sq.
ft.
27 2-BDRs
(35%)
- ave 943 sq.
ft.
42 at -grade (30%)
99 podium (70%)
for 141 total
spaces -1.81
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site A / 510 and 520 La Gonda Way / Danville & Hall and 1700 Investors LLC - Development Scenario
3:
Podium Apartments at 46.88 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.24
acres
(97,575
sq ft)
105 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height by P-1 zoning
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 27
units to
46.88 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 92,700
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(78,800 sq. ft.) /
750 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (9 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (16 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
22 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
44 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
39 2-BDRs
(37%)
- ave 850 sq.
ft.
55 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
129 basement
(70% of spaces) /
184 total spaces
for 1.75 spaces
per unit
(46% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-30
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
M — '
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Ub.MVILLZ
Housing Opportunity Site B / 455 La Gonda Way / St. Isadore's Church
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Commercial - Limited Office
Zoning: 0-1; Limited Office District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative
Scenario 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses
density
Scenario 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments
Scenario 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments
density bonus)
Development Scenarios
and flats 30 dus/ac min. baseline
35 dus/ac max. baseline density
47.11 dus/ac (assumes a 35%
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
200-152-008
455 La Gonda
Way
Private
(Roman
Catholic
Bishop
Oakland)
5.763
4.33
Church /
School
Not
Known
890 sq. ft.
(sfr as office)
Totals
5.763
acres
4.33 acres
-
-
890 sq. ft.
(<1% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site B (HOS B) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS B with high density multifamily
uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope gradients,
and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-31
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
o Ability for the property to reasonably develop either as a single large development or in part.
• The following table for HOS B depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 130 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 151 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 204 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 151 units. This scenario envisions development of part or all of the property with a for -rent
podium apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an
average unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed
to increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two
possible options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a
minimum of 17 units for very low income households and the other making provision of a
minimum of 30 units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of
the recently constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes
authorization of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS B.
• 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 6.87 acres did not account for 25%+/- of the resultant 5.763 gross acreage that would be required
to be placed within a flood control channel for San Ramon Creek, which overlaps the property's west
boundary.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-32
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site B / 455 La Gonda Way / St. Isadore's Church - Development
Scenarios reflecting standards of a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High (30 to 35 units
per acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site B / 455 La Gonda Way / St. Isadore's Church - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
4.33
acres
(188,625
sq. ft.)
130 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
150,900 -sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,160 sq. ft.
ave
15% (20 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
20 2-BDRs
(15%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
110 3-
BDRs(85%)
- ave 1,255 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
53 at -grade (18%)
240 tandem or
standard (72%) for
293 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site B / 455 La Gonda Way / St. Isadore's Church - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
4.33
acres
(188,625
sq. ft.)
151 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the maximum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
150,900 -sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(128,265 sq. ft.)
/
850 sq. ft. ave
15% (23 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
24 Studios
(16%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
76 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
51 2-BDRs
(34%)
- ave 944 sq.
ft.
87 at -grade (30%)
204 podium
(70%) for 291 total
spaces -1.93
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site B / 455 La Gonda Way / St. Isadore's Church - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 47.11 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
4.33
acres
(188,625
sq. ft.)
204 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 53
units to
47.11 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 179,195
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(152,315 sq. ft.)
/
747 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (17 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (30 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
44 Studios
(22%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
86 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
74 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 844 sq.
ft.
121 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
284 basement
(70% of spaces) /
405 total spaces
for 1.96 spaces
per unit
(53% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-33
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site C / 425 El Pintado Road / Curtis TRE & Darby TRE
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Commercial - Limited Office
Zoning: 0-1; Limited Office District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Scenario 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. baseline
density
Scenario 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Scenario 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 46.88 dus/ac (assumes a 35%
density bonus)
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownership
(Private or
Public)
Estimated
Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Building
Age
Building
Size
200-040-
012
425 El Pintado
Rd.
Private
(Curtis
TRE &
Darby
TRE)
3.166
2.24
Office
1976
4,992 sq.
ft.
Totals
3.166
acres
2.24 acres
-
-
4,992 sq.
ft.
(5% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site C (HOS C) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of HOS C with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to 2030
planning period:
o (After accounting for reduction of the estimated gross area of the site down to around 2.24 acres
for anticipated creek setback areas) physical features of the property - (i.e., relatively large size
and regular shape of the resultant buildable area, absence of slope instability or erosion,
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-34
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031.
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
DN/IL
presence of onsite slopes covering the resultant buildable area that are limited to relatively minor
slope gradients, and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Relative walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of an extremely low floor area ratio
(FAR);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older rental office
space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon
Valley;
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple family
residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville 2023-2030
Housing Element.
• The following table for HOS C depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 67 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 78 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 105 units and a development density of just under 47
units after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density of 78 units.
This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project residential
product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around 750 square
feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80% standard
under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target units for
affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of nine units for very low income
households and the other making provision of a minimum of 16 units for low income households.
Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan Downtown
Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR compared to the
88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on HOS C.
• It is further noted that the cited acreage in and earlier draft of the Danville 2023-2030 Housing
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-35
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Element and in the webpage-hosted Housing Site Suggestion Site were incorrect. The cited acreage
of 3.2 acres did not account for 30%+/- of the gross acreage that would be required to be placed
within a drainage easement.
Additional Site-specific Opportunity and Constraints Considerations:
• Housing Opportunity Site C is an extremely underutilized property having been built as a use -specific
(i.e., chiropractic offices) in the mid 1970's. The older age and non-standard shape of building, as well
as the presence of a non-functional basement area, have made the site difficult to occupy since the
initial building use discontinued.
• HOS C is wrapped around two sides by an open drainage channel (which opens out from an upstream
closed system that drains portions of the El Pintado loop area and returns to a closed system southwest
of the site as drainage improvements cross over the 1-680 right-of-way). The drainage channel most
likely be required to be retained in some manner due both to water regulatory considerations and the
practical consideration that the channel would provide a desirable setback off El Cerro Blvd. and El
Pintado Rd. for any future residential project.
• The Site's proximity to 1-680 - the west boundary is fronted with the northbound onramp to 1-680 - means
noise mitigation measures and air quality considerations would need to be considered during project
specific development review.
• The Site's proximity to 1-680 also creates limitations for placement and design of the project's vehicular
entry, likely pointing to a practical need to have access taken off El Pintado Road (aligned with, or close
to, the current driveway location). A driveway connection to El Cerro would likely be considered
undesirable due to the Site's proximity to the signalized intersection for El Cerro and the on-ramp/off-
ramp legs at the east side of the freeway.
• Traffic analysis would need to verify whether the change to multifamily would necessitate signalization
of the intersection of El Pintado and El Cerro - which could be problematic due to the limited separation
to the signal at the intersection for El Cerro and the east on-ramp/off-ramp.
Housing Opportunity Site C / 425 El Pintado Road / Curtis TRE & Darby TRE - Development
Scenarios reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High (30 to 35 units per acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site C / 425 El Pintado Road / Curtis TRE & Darby TRE - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
2.24
acres
(97,575
sq ft)
67 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 78,050
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,165 sq. ft.
ave
15% (10 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
10 2-BDRs
(15%)
- ave 650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
57 3-BDRs
(85%)
- ave 1,255 sq.
ft.
(rowhouses)
27 at -grade (18%)
124 tandem or
standard (82%) for
151 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site C / 425 El Pintado Road / Curtis TRE & Darby TRE - Development Scenario 2:
For -rent project w/ parking structure
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.24
acres
(97,575
sq ft)
78 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the maximum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 78,050
85.0%
Leasable
(66,350 sq. ft.) /
850 sq. ft. ave
Podium
Apartments
12 Studios
(15%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
39 1-BDRs
42 at -grade (30%)
99 podium (70%)
for 141 total
spaces -1.81
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-36
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-37
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
Development
Scenario 2
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
15% (12 units)
for Moderate
(50%)
- ave 825 sq.
ft.
27 2-BDRs
(35%)
- ave 943 sq.
ft.
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site C / 425 El Pintado Road / Curtis TRE & Darby TRE - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 46.88 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.24
acres
(97,575
sq ft)
105 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height by P-1 zoning
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 27
units to
46.88 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 92,700
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(78,800 sq. ft.) /
750 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (9 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (16 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
22 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
44 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
39 2-BDRs
(37%)
- ave 850 sq.
ft.
55 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
129 basement
(70% of spaces) /
184 total spaces
for 1.75 spaces
per unit
(46% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-37
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site D / / Fountainhead Montessori
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Commercial — Limited Office
Zoning: 0-1; Limited Office District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Scenario 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. baseline
density
Scenario 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Scenario 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 46.88 dus/ac (assumes a 35%
density bonus)
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or PublicL
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
200-020-010
939 El Pintado
Road
Private
(Lind) and
Zimmerman)
1.634
1.014
Preschool
1950
(remodeled
sfrfor
commercial
Not
indicated
Danville
Pioneer
Totals
1.634
acres
1.014
acres
-
-
Not
available
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site D (HOS D) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of HOS D with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to 2030
planning period:
o (After accounting for a reduction of the site from the estimated gross area by up to 40% to remove
areas considered too steep to readily redevelop) physical features of the property - (i.e., relatively
large resultant size and regular shape, resultant absence of slope instability or erosion, presence
of onsite slopes that are limited to minor to moderate slope gradients, and absence of pollution
or contamination);
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-38
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR); and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS D depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 30 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 35 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 47 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 35 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of four units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of seven units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS D.
• 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.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-39
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site D / 939 El Pintado Road / Fountainhead Montessori - Development
Scenarios reflecting standards of a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High (30 to 35 units
per acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site D / 939 El Pintado Road / Fountainhead Montessori - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
acres
(44,175
sq. ft.)
30 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 35,350
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,178 sq. ft.
ave
15% (4 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
4 2-BDRs
(15%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
26 3-BDRs
(85%)
- ave 1,259 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
13 at -grade (19%)
55 tandem or
standard (71%) for
68 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site D / 939 El Pintado Road / Fountainhead Montessori - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
acres
(44,175
sq. ft.)
35 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 35,350
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(30,050 sq. ft.) /
858 sq. ft. ave
15% (4 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
6 Studios
(16%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
18 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
11 2-BDRs
(34%)
- ave 986 sq.
ft.
20 at -grade (30%)
48 podium (70%)
for 68 total spaces
-1.94 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site D / 939 El Pintado Road / Fountainhead Montessori - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 46.35 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
acres
(44,175
sq. ft.)
47 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 12
units to
46.35 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 41,950
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(35,650 sq. ft.) /
758 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (4 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (7 units) of
baseline units
for Low Income
Podium
Apartments
10 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
20 1-BDRs
(43%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
17 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 876 sq.
ft.
28 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
64 basement
(70% of spaces) /
92 total spaces for
1.96 spaces per
unit
(51 % of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-40
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site E / 400 El Cerro Blvd / El Cerro Hldgs LLC & Nearon
Enterprises LLC
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Commercial — Limited Office
Zoning: 0-1; Limited Office District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Scenario 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. baseline
density
Scenario 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Scenario 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 46.88 dus/ac (assumes a 35%
density bonus)
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildi
ng
Age
Building
Size
200-140-
016
400 El Cerro
Blvd.
Private
(400 El Cerro
Blvd / El Cerro
Holdings LLC
& Nearon
Enterprises
LLC)
1.26
1.26
Office
1982
16,128 sq.
ft.
Totals
1.26 acres
1.26 acres
-
-
16,128 sq.
ft.
(29% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site E (HOS E) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-41
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS E with high density multifamily
uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope gradients,
and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
o Ability for the property to reasonably develop either as a single large development or in part.
• The following table for HOS E depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 37 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 44 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 59 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 44 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of five units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of nine units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS E.
Additional site-specific Opportunity and Constraints Considerations:
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-42
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
411
APPENDIX C D.n�•l.
• These medical and dental offices, while recently receiving an exterior face-lift, are still 1983 -era
construction, marketed as two-story Class B office space with 50 surface parking spaces. The recent
upgrade makes the site less likely for redevelopment during the first portion of the 2023-2030
Planning Cycle.
• The site has two triangular pieces that would serve to challenge / compromise site redevelopment
efficiencies — but this fact is somewhat offset as podium parking could fit well into northeast corner
of the site because it sites 10'+ below surrounding street grade.
• The Site's proximity to 1-680 - the west boundary is fronted with the northbound onramp to 1-680 -
means noise mitigation measures and air quality considerations would need to be considered during
project specific development review.
• The Site's proximity to 1-680 also creates limitations for placement and design of the project's
vehicular entry, likely pointing to a practical need to have access taken off El Pintado Road (aligned
with, or close to, the current driveway location). Existing driveway connections to El Cerro are angled
with intent to limit them to one-way entry of exit.
Housing Opportunity Site E / 400 El Cerro Blvd / El Cerro Hldgs LLC & Nearon Enterprises LLC
- Development Scenarios reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High (30 to 35 units
per acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site E / 400 El Cerro Blvd / El Cerro Hldgs LLC & Nearon Enterprises LLC - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.26
acres
(54,875
sq ft)
37 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 43,900
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,186 sq. ft.
average size
15% (5 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
6 2-BDRs
(16%)
- ave 650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
31 3-BDRs
(84%)
- ave 1,290 sq.
ft.
(rowhouses)
16 at -grade (19%)
68 tandem or
standard (81%) for
84 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site E / 400 El Cerro Blvd / El Cerro Hldgs
For -rent project w/
LLC & Nearon Enterprises LLC - Development Scenario 2:
parking structure
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.26
acres
(54,875
sq ft)
44 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the maximum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 43,900
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(37,315 sq. ft.) /
848 sq. ft. ave
15% (6 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
6 Studios
(14%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
22 1-BDRs
(50%)
- ave 825 sq.
ft.
16 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 926 sq.
ft.
23 at -grade (31%)
52 podium (71%)
for 75 total spaces
-1.79 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site E / 400 El Cerro Blvd / El Cerro Hldgs LLC & Nearon Enterprises LLC - Development Scenario 3:
For -rent project with podium parking structure and with 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.26
59 Units - being 35.0
Development
80% FAR
85.0%
Podium
12 Studios
30 at -grade
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-43
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
acres
dus/ac plus a 35%
Scenario 3
Allowed
Leasable
Apartments
(20%) - ave
(30% of spaces) /
(54,875
density bonus / 3
assumes
95% FAR
(44,300 sq. ft.) /
625 sq. ft.
69 basement
sq ft)
stories and 35' building
Density
Assumed -
751 sq. ft. ave
25 1-BDRs
(70% of spaces) /
height by P-1 zoning
Bonus of 15
yielding 52,125
/ 11% (5 units)
(43%)
99 total spaces for
units to
sq. ft.
of baseline
- ave 725 sq.
1.68 spaces per
46.83 dus/ac
conditioned
units for VL
ft.
unit
/ 37' Height
space (Dev Stnd
Income or
22 2-BDRs
(44% of site
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
Concession -2)
20% (9 units) of
baseline units
for Low Income
(37%)
- ave 849 sq.
ft.
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-44
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site F / Charles Lane and Ilo Lane / Totals for 16 sfr
parcels
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Residential - Single Family - Low Density (1 to 3 dus/ac)
Zoning: P -1(R-12); Planned Unit Development District (R-12 District Standards)
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 47.11 dus/ac after 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimated
Gross Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildi
ng
Age
Building
Size
196-201-02
thru -10;
and -30
thru -33
100, 101,
104, 105,
108, 109, 112
and 120
Charles Lane
and 417, 440,
441, 448,
456, 457, 464
and 465 llo
Lane
Private
(Multiple
Owners -
Ma Peopled by
Meeting Christ
Foundation a
CPC non-
profit)
4.29 acres
aggregate
(total is without
accounting for
possible future
possible
public roadway
abandonment
after area's
redevelopment)
4.33 acres
aggregate
(total is with 0.04
st-
acresssaccounting as ir
pass
for possible
future public
roadway
abandonment
after area's
redevelopment)
Mix of for-
rent sfr
and
owner
occupied
sfr
Pre
1970's
Not
indicated
on Valley
Pioneer
Totals
4.29 acres
4.33 acres
-
-
Not
available
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-45
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• HOS F consists of sixteen existing single family lots between the east side of Community Presbyterian
Church (CPC) and existing multiple family residential uses at the west side edge of 1-680. The sixteen
lots total 4.29 acres and it is noted that the area available for development area could be supplemented
by area secured from abandonment of the public rights of ways for portions of Charles Lane and/or 110
Lane. Many of the properties are under one ownership (i.e., People Meeting Christ Foundation - a CPC
non-profit). Access to any multifamily residential redevelopment project would best come off of Diablo
Road rather than adding traffic onto West El Pintado Road. A Diablo Road access would involve a
vehicular bridge over Green Valley Creek - meaning at least two intervening properties would need to
be also secured and the uses on those sites removed.
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site F (HOS F) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of HOS F properties with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to
2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope gradients,
and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older single family
residential properties with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in
the San Ramon Valley;
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop as a single project or in some number of smaller
projects; and
o Current or prior expressed interest of the major property owner (i.e., People Meeting Christ
Foundation - a CPC non-profit) to be considered for multiple family residential land use
designation in the density range considered under the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element.
• The following table for HOS F depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 130
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of
151 units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while
securing an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum
floor area ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-46
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MEV
202.E-2031.
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 204 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 151 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
17 units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 30 units
for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS F.
Housing Opportunity Site F / Charles Lane and Ilo Lane / Totals for 16 sfr parcels -
Development Scenarios reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High (30 to 35 units
per acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site F / Charles Lane and Ilo Lane / Totals for 16 sfr parcels - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
4.33
acres
(188,625
sq. ft.)
130 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
150,900 -sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,160 sq. ft.
ave
15% (20 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
20 2-BDRs
(15%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
110 3-
BDRs(85%)
- ave 1,255 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
53 at -grade (18%)
240 tandem or
standard (72%) for
293 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site F / Charles Lane and Ilo Lane / Totals for 16 sfr parcels - Development Scenario 2:
For -rent project w/ parking structure
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
4.33
acres
(188,625
sq. ft.)
151 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the maximum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
150,900 -sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(128,265 sq. ft.)
/
850 sq. ft. ave
15% (23 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
24 Studios
(16%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
76 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
51 2-BDRs
(34%)
- ave 944 sq.
ft.
87 at -grade (30%)
204 podium
(70%) for 291 total
spaces -1.93
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site F / Charles Lane and Ilo Lane / Totals for 16 sfr parcels - Development Scenario 3:
For -rent project with podium parking structure and with 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-47
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-48
conditioned
space
Design
Spaces
4.33
204 Units - being 35.0
Development
80% FAR
85.0%
Podium
44 Studios
121 at -grade
acres
dus/ac plus a 35%
Scenario 3
Allowed
Leasable
Apartments
(22%) - ave
(30% of spaces) /
(188,625
density bonus / 3
assumes
95% FAR
(152,315 sq. ft.)
625 sq. ft.
284 basement
sq. ft.)
stories and 35' building
Density
Assumed -
/
86 1-BDRs
(70% of spaces) /
height assumed P-1
Bonus of 53
yielding 179,195
747 sq. ft. ave
(42%)
405 total spaces
zoning standards
units to
sq. ft.
/ 11')/0 (17 units)
- ave 725 sq.
for 1.96 spaces
47.11 dus/ac
conditioned
of baseline
ft.
per unit
/ 37' Height
space (Dev Stnd
units for VL
74 2-BDRs
(53% of site
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
Concession -2)
Income or
20% (30 units)
of baseline
units for Low
(36%)
- ave 844 sq.
ft.
occupied by
basement pkg.)
Income
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-48
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
•
DANVII.1.
Housing Opportunity Site G / North Hartz & Railroad / Eleven DBD 4
Parcels
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 4 Resident Serving Commercial
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 47.03 dus/ac 35% density bonus
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-49
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownersh
ip
(Private
or
Public)
Estimated
Gross Area
(acres)
Estimate
d
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
199-330-
115-A Hartz
Private
0.34
0.239
Restauran
1946
1,398 sq.
035
Ave.
(oroville
t
ft.
115-B Hartz
Property
LLC)
Retail
807 sq.ft.
Ave.
121 Hartz Ave.
Office
997 sq. ft.
123 Hartz Ave.
Restauran
t
1,248 sq.
ft.
125 Hartz Ave.
Restauran
t
1,580 sq.
ft.
199-330-
127 Hartz Ave.
Private
0.22
0.197
Retail
1946
5,796 sq.
064
(Reyes TRE)
ft.
199-330-
Railroad Ave.
Private
0.128
0.128
Parking
n/a
0 sq. ft.
055
(JKDSQ
LLC)
199-330-
145 Hartz Ave.
Private
0.72
0.72
Chevron
2001
2,804 sq.
058
(145 Hartz
- Retail
ft.
LLC)
Car Wash
1,047 sq.
ft.
Fuel
Canopy
2,288 sq.
ft.
199-330-
177 Hartz Ave.
Private
0.28
0.28
Retail
1953
5,156 sq.
063
(SSN Inv.,
Inc.)
ft.
175 Hartz Ave.
Retail
2,846 sq.
ft.
171 Hartz Ave.
Restauran
t
1949
912 sq. ft.
199-330-
70 Railroad
Private
0.18
0.18
Office
1952
2,432 sq.
056
Ave.
(Bates TRE)
ft.
199-330-
179, 181 & 183
Private
0.107
0.107
1953
3,550 sq.
065
Hartz Ave.
(Wong)
Retail &
ft.
Personal
Service
199-330-
80 Railroad
Private
0.129
0.129
Personal
1953
816 sq. ft.
009
Ave.
(Achf
Service
Kaplan)
199-330-
195 Hartz Ave.
Private
0.32
0.32
Service
1965
1,653 sq.
010
(Hirsch TRE)
Commerci
al
ft.
199-330-
112 W. Linda
Private
0.06
0.06
tbd
Pre-
1,617 sq.
027
Mesa
(DeOliveira
1982
ft.
TRE)
Totals
2.484
2.360
-
-
13,826 sq.
ft.
(tbd FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-50
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
41i
• The following site characteristics render the properties making up Housing Opportunity Site G (HOS G)
viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of HOS G properties with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to
2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., a range of small, medium and larger sized properties,
absence of slope instability or erosion, absence of any onsite slopes that would limit
redevelopment, and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to the core area of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the
community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of older commercial properties with
for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon Valley;
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop either in pairs or groupings of three or four
properties or, for the case of the property occupied by the Chevron gas station, individually; and
o Current or prior expressed interest of some of the affected property owners to be considered for
multiple family residential land use designation in the density range considered under the
Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element.
• The following table for HOS G depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 71
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of 82
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing
an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area
ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 111 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 82 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-51
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ten units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 23
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS G.
• It is also noted that redesignation of HOS G for Multiple Family High Density use, while being
substantially consistent with the policy direction for the area set forth in Danville 2030 General Plan
Special Concern Area discussion for the North Hartz area, would still necessitate revisions to the
current Special Concern Area text. The current pertinent language affecting HOS G reads as follows:
"The North Hartz Area is bounded by Railroad Avenue on the west, San Ramon Creek on the
east, San Ramon Valley High School on the north, and Linda Mesa Avenue on the south. Hartz
Avenue bisects the area. This 8 -acre area includes a mix of retail, office, and residential uses
which have been developed incrementally over many decades. Parcels vary in size and shape
compared to the more standardized lot pattern in the Downtown core.
While the North Hartz Area is part of Downtown Danville, the area lacks the fine-grained,
pedestrian -friendly character of the Old Town area to the south. Whereas Old Town is
characterized by continuous storefronts, interesting facades, historic buildings, and pedestrian -
friendly streets, the North Hartz Area is less cohesive in building placement, size and orientation.
The Town's vision is to extend the walkable character of Old Town into the area over the next
20 years through a combination of streetscape improvements, infill development, and
rehabilitation of older structures.
Property owners in this area may propose improvements or new structures in the coming
decades. As this occurs, high-quality development is strongly supported, with parcels
aggregated to create larger development sites wherever possible. Parcels along San Ramon
Creek should include a conservation easement along the creek bank, anticipating the possibility
of a future public trail. An update of the Downtown Master Plan is recommended to identify new
strategies for enhancing this area.
Where larger projects occur in the North Hartz area, buildings should be articulated into smaller
components, creating a scale and rhythm that effectively extends Old Town Danville. The
eclectic, finely detailed, and architecturally diverse character of Old Town should be carried
forward to the blocks north of Linda Mesa Avenue. Building heights should not exceed existing
zoning limits. Ground floor retail and restaurant uses are strongly encouraged to create a lively
street environment and enhance the image of the area as an integral part of Downtown Danville."
Parallel Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville calls for an expansion of the
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the creation
of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area be compatible
in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's architectural
heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of the current design
review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving the area's historic
buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a desirable destination.
Housing Opportunity Site G / North Hartz & Railroad / Eleven DBD 4 Parcels -
Development Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential
Very High
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-52
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
411,1
DA.NVILL
(30 to 35 units per net acre) land use and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site G / North Hartz & Railroad - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
2.36
acres
(102,800
sq ft)
71 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 82,250
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,158 sq ft ave
15% (7 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
10 2-BDRs
(14%)
- ave 650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
61 3-BDRs
(86%)
- ave 1,241 sq.
ft.
(rowhouses)
29 at -grade (18%)
131 tandem or
standard (82%) for
160 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site G / North Hartz & Railroad - Development Scenario 2:
For -rent project w/ parking structure
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.36
acres
(102,800
sq ft)
82 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the maximum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 82,250
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(69,925 sq. ft.) /
853 sq ft ave
15% (12 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
12 Studios
(15%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
41 1-BDRs
(50%)
- ave 825 sq.
ft.
29 2-BDRs
(35%)
- ave 945 sq.
ft.
44 at -grade (30%)
104 podium
(70%) for 148 total
spaces -1.80
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site G / North Hartz & Railroad - Development Scenario 3:
For -rent project with podium parking structure and with 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.36
acres
(102,800
sq ft)
111 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height by P-1 zoning
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 29
units to
47.03 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 97,650
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(83,000 sq. ft.) /
748 sq ft ave
/ 11% (10 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (23 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
24 Studios
(22%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
47 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
40 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 848 sq.
ft.
58 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
136 basement
(70% of spaces) /
194 total spaces
for 1.75 spaces
per unit
(46% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-53
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site H / Northeast Hartz Ave / Seven DBD 4
Parcels
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 4 Resident Serving Commercial
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.35 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
200-190-
110 Hartz Ave.
Private
0.15
0.15
Restauran
1973
1,164 sq.
023
(Adler TRE)
t
ft.
200-190-
100 Hartz Ave.
Private
0.21
0.04
Retail
1974
221 sq. ft.
024
(Adler TRE)
200-190-
120 Hartz Ave.
Private
0.30
0.25
Service
1958
1,296 sq.
028
(Adler TRE)
Commerci
al
ft.
200-190-10
130 Hartz Ave.
Private
0.59
0.43
Restauran
1980
3,490 sq.
& -18
(Forward Land
t
ft.
Company)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-54
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
200-190-
017
150 Hartz Ave.
Private
(Finlayson
TRE & Jones
TRE)
0.62
0.374
Restauran
t
1967
2,400 sq.
ft.
200-190-
021
180 Hartz Ave.
Private
(Finlayson
TRE & Jones
TRE)
0.20
Restauran
t
Pre-
1970's
2,100 sq.
ft.
Totals
1.87 acres
1.014
acres
-
-
10,671 sq.
ft.
(24% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the properties making up Housing Opportunity Site H (HOS H)
viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of HOS H properties with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to
2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., a range of small, medium and larger sized properties,
absence of slope instability or erosion, absence of any onsite slopes that would limit
redevelopment, and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to the core area of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the
community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of older commercial properties with
for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon Valley;
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop either in pairs or groupings of three or four
properties; and
o Current or prior expressed interest of some of the affected property owners to be considered for
multiple family residential land use designation in the density range considered under the
Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element.
• The following table for HOS H depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 30
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of 35
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing
an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-55
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 47 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 35 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
four units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of seven
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS H.
• It is also noted that redesignation of HOS H for Multiple Family High Density use, while being
substantially consistent with the policy direction for the area set forth in Danville 2030 General Plan
Special Concern Area discussion for the North Hartz area, would still necessitate revisions to the
current Special Concern Area text. The current pertinent language affecting HOS H reads as follows:
"The North Hartz Area is bounded by Railroad Avenue on the west, San Ramon Creek on the
east, San Ramon Valley High School on the north, and Linda Mesa Avenue on the south. Hartz
Avenue bisects the area. This 8 -acre area includes a mix of retail, office, and residential uses
which have been developed incrementally over many decades. Parcels vary in size and shape
compared to the more standardized lot pattern in the Downtown core.
While the North Hartz Area is part of Downtown Danville, the area lacks the fine-grained,
pedestrian -friendly character of the Old Town area to the south. Whereas Old Town is
characterized by continuous storefronts, interesting facades, historic buildings, and pedestrian -
friendly streets, the North Hartz Area is less cohesive in building placement, size and orientation.
The Town's vision is to extend the walkable character of Old Town into the area over the next
20 years through a combination of streetscape improvements, infill development, and
rehabilitation of older structures.
Property owners in this area may propose improvements or new structures in the coming
decades. As this occurs, high-quality development is strongly supported, with parcels
aggregated to create larger development sites wherever possible. Parcels along San Ramon
Creek should include a conservation easement along the creek bank, anticipating the possibility
of a future public trail. An update of the Downtown Master Plan is recommended to identify new
strategies for enhancing this area.
Where larger projects occur in the North Hartz area, buildings should be articulated into smaller
components, creating a scale and rhythm that effectively extends Old Town Danville. The
eclectic, finely detailed, and architecturally diverse character of Old Town should be carried
forward to the blocks north of Linda Mesa Avenue. Building heights should not exceed existing
zoning limits. Ground floor retail and restaurant uses are strongly encouraged to create a lively
street environment and enhance the image of the area as an integral part of Downtown Danville."
Parallel Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville calls for an expansion of the
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-56
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the creation
of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area be compatible
in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's architectural
heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of the current design
review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving the area's historic
buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a desirable destination.
APPENDIX C I 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-57
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site H / Northeast Hartz Avenue / Seven DBD 4 Parcels - Development
Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
35 units per net acre) land use and zoning designation
Housing Opportunity Site H / Northeast Hartz Ave / Seven DBD 4 Parcels - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
acres
(44,175
sq. ft.)
30 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 35,350
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,178 sq. ft.
ave
15% (4 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
4 2-BDRs
(15%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
26 3-BDRs
(85%)
- ave 1,259 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
13 at -grade (19%)
55 tandem or
standard (71%) for
68 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site H / Northeast Hartz Ave / Seven DBD 4 Parcels - Development Scenario 2:
For -rent project w/ parking structure
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
acres
(44,175
sq. ft.)
35 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 35,350
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(30,050 sq. ft.) /
858 sq. ft. ave
15% (4 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
6 Studios
(16%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
18 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
11 2-BDRs
(34%)
- ave 986 sq.
ft.
20 at -grade (30%)
48 podium (70%)
for 68 total spaces
-1.94 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site H / Northeast Hartz Ave / Seven DBD 4 Parcels - Development Scenario 3:
For -rent project with podium parking structure and with 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
acres
(44,175
sq. ft.)
47 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 12
units to
46.35 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 41,950
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(35,650 sq. ft.) /
758 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (4 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (7 units) of
baseline units
for Low Income
Podium
Apartments
10 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
20 1-BDRs
(43%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
17 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 876 sq.
ft.
28 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
64 basement
(70% of spaces) /
92 total spaces for
1.96 spaces per
unit
(51% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-58
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site 1 / Rose Street / Two DBD 4 Parcels
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 4 Resident Serving Commercial
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.35 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildi
ng
Age
Building
Size
200-200-
011
360 Rose St
Private
(Bansal TRE)
0.18
<0.09
Medical
Office
Pre-
1982
2,456 sq.
Ft.
200-200-
017
344 Rose St
Private
(Ritz Royalty
Group LLC)
0.40
<0.15
Medical
Office
Pre-
1982
2,901 sq.
Ft.
Totals
0.58
<0.24acres
-
-
5,357 sq. ft.
(54% FAR)
General Site Characteristics and Background Information:
Based upon current analysis, HOS 1 is not considered to be a viable site for redevelopment with multiple
family residential uses. The two properties involved have the majority of their respective gross area located
below top of bank for San Ramon Creek. The area above top of bank is currently encumbered by creek
setback zones and, with redevelopment, the area of encumberment would increase measurably as one of
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-59
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
the sites is non -conforming with the structure location built right at current top of bank. Both properties have
structures that have relatively large floor area ratios as measured against the net area available for
redevelopment. Both parcels have less onsite parking than required under the municipal code - with both
depending on the public right of way for Rose Street for back out areas.
APPENDIX C i 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-60
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
•
Housing Opportunity Site J / 155 Diablo Road / Beverages and More
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 11 Special Opportunity District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.35 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownership
(Private or
Public)
Estimated
Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Building
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
208-010-
023
155 Diablo
Road
Private
(Ong & Close)
1.014
1.014
Retail
Pre
1982
11,400 sq.
ft.
Totals
1.014
acres
1.014
acres
-
-
11,400 sq.
ft.
(26% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site J (HOS J) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of HOS J with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to 2030
planning period:
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-61
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, no limits on redevelopment options due to slope gradients, and absence of
pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Location within the center of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs); and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older rental commercial
space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon
Valley.
• The following table for HOS J depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 30 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 35 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 47 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 35 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of four units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of seven units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS J.
• A change to HOS J land use and zoning designations from Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area
11 Special Opportunity District to a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35
units per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning removes a current barrier to
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-62
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
site's redevelopment. Specifically, the change removes the requirement present with DBD — Area 1
requirements that require a land use permit to establish residential uses as a ground floor use.
• Redevelopment of HOS J will be directed in part by language set forth in Danville 2030 General Plan
Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville. The text calls for an expansion of the
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the
creation of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area
be compatible in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's
architectural heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of
the current design review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving
the area's historic buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a
desirable destination.
Housing Opportunity Site J / 155 Diablo Road / Beverages and More - Development Scenarios
reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units
per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site J / 155 Diablo Road / Beverages and More - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
acres
(44,175
sq. ft.)
30 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 35,350
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,178 sq. ft.
ave
15% (4 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
4 2-BDRs
(15%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
26 3-BDRs
(85%)
- ave 1,259 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
13 at -grade (19%)
55 tandem or
standard (71%) for
68 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site J / 155 Diablo Road / Beverages and More - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
acres
(44,175
sq. ft.)
35 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 35,350
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(30,050 sq. ft.) /
858 sq. ft. ave
15% (4 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
6 Studios
(16%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
18 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
11 2-BDRs
(34%)
- ave 986 sq.
ft.
20 at -grade (30%)
48 podium (70%)
for 68 total spaces
-1.94 spaces per
unit
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-63
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site J / 155 Diablo Road / Beverages and More - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 46.35 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
GP/Zoning and
Density
Floor Area Ratio
Unit Size /
Product
Unit Mix and
At -grade,
Size
Proposed Development
Bonus
(FAR) /
Affordability
Type /
Representative
Structure Parking
Density
Assumed
conditioned
space
Component
Parking
Design
Unit Sizes
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.014
47 Units - being 35.0
Development
80% FAR
85.0%
Podium
10 Studios
28 at -grade
acres
dus/ac plus a 35%
Scenario 3
Allowed
Leasable
Apartments
(21 %) - ave
(30% of spaces) /
(44,175
density bonus / 3
assumes
95% FAR
(35,650 sq. ft.) /
625 sq. ft.
64 basement
sq. ft.)
stories and 35' building
Density
Assumed -
758 sq. ft. ave
20 1-BDRs
(70% of spaces) /
height assumed P-1
Bonus of 12
yielding 41,950
/ 11% (4 units)
(43%)
92 total spaces for
zoning standards
units to
sq. ft.
of baseline
- ave 725 sq.
1.96 spaces per
46.35 dus/ac
conditioned
units for VL
ft.
unit
/ 37' Height
space (Dev Stnd
Income or
17 2-BDRs
(51 % of site
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
Concession -2)
20% (7 units) of
baseline units
for Low Income
(36%)
- ave 876 sq.
ft.
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-64
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Db.M VILLZ
Housing Opportunity Site K-1 / 307, 315 & 319 Diablo Road / Riele TRE & Montair
Associates
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 6 Offices
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 47.17 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
216-120-
307 Diablo
Private
0.865
0.39
Office
1976
5,090 sf
028
Road
(Riele TRE)
216-120-
Front Street
Private
1.05
0.52
Parking
-
Vacant
029
(Montair
Lot
216-120-
315 Diablo
Associates)
0.45
0.45
Office
1981
17,260 sf
042
Road
216-120-
319 Diablo
1.71
1.29
Office
1978
24,245 sf
043
Road
Totals
4.08
2.65
-
-
46,595 sf
(40.4%)
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-65
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the properties making up Housing Opportunity Site J (HOS J)
viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of HOS K-1 with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to 2030
planning period:
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, no limits on redevelopment options due to slope gradients [after accounting
for the presence of creek bank slopes for San Ramon Creek], and absence of pollution or
contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Close proximity to the center of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the
community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop either individually or jointly;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple
family residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville
2023-2030 Housing Element; and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older rental office
space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon
Valley.
• The following table for HOS K-1 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 80
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of 92
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing
an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area
ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 105 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 92 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-66
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
11 units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 19 units
for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS K-1.
• Redevelopment of HOS K-1 will be directed in part by language set forth in Danville 2030 General
Plan Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville. The text calls for an expansion of the
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the
creation of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area
be compatible in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's
architectural heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of
the current design review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving
the area's historic buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a
desirable destination.
Additional Site-specific Opportunity and Constraints Considerations:
• Housing Opportunity Site K-1 consists of four separate tax assessor parcels with separate ownerships
held by two property owners. The Site fronts at the southeast corner of the intersection of Diablo Road
and Front Street and is occupied by two, two-story office buildings (315 and 319 Diablo Road) and a
one-story office building (307 Diablo Road). The south boundary of the lot grouping overlaps San
Ramon Creek, an improved channel that is 25'-30' in depth. Slightly more than one-third of the gross
area of the aggregation of properties lies below the top of bank for San Ramon Creek. There are several
small commercial properties along Front Street lying across the creek.
• While any residential redevelopment project of the Site will have to accommodate CCCFC&WCD's
requirement to have easement access to San Ramon Creek, a reduction in the size of the current
easement area above top of bank may be feasible. The preliminary estimate of net property area
removes the area extending from the top of creek bank down into San Ramon Creek from the Site's
gross acreage. While the net acre has been calculated to allow preliminary density yield calculations,
recognition is made that the calculated area allows some overlap of anticipated development area and
existing creek easements. Where the flood control district would insist on use -restricted area for creek
access and maintenance needs, that area would need to come out of the calculate net development
area. As such, the net area is just a preliminary estimate - but reflects methodology used for the nearby
Alexan Downtown Danville project lying to the east.
• Based on approvals secured for the Alexan Downtown Danville project, any replacement project on Site
K-1 would likely be required to make some level of financial reimbursement to the Town of Danville
and/or to the developers of the Alexan project for costs that had been incurred for the pedestrian crossing
constructed over San Ramon Creek that connects the Diablo Road subarea directly to the core of
Downtown Danville.
• For Option 3 below, assuming a luxury apartment project similar to the Alexan project, anticipation of
density bonus development concessions on story height and/or building height and maximum FAR
(measured on conditioned space) should be made. DBD Area 12 (the most comparable current DBD
zoning district) has a 35' height limit (no story height is established) and caps floor area ratio to a
maximum 80% FAR standard.
• It is anticipated that a new DBD Area would need to be established to accommodate a DBD with a 30
unit minimum density. The development options below anticipate the 35' height limit and 80% maximum
FAR would pull forward from Area 12 to the new DBD Area - i.e., DBD Area 13 Multifamily Residential
Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre or 30 to 40 units per net acre).
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-67
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• While redevelopment of HOS K-1 with a replacement residential project was analyzed in terms of
potential environmental impacts in the Focused EIR prepared for the Danville 2030 General Plan,
the site's land use designation remained unchanged with the adoption of the 2030 Plan and, as
such, has not been a site identified to meet the Town's RHNA as a non -vacant site for the past two
Identified Housing Element Planning Cycles. If the site was redesignated with this review, it would
constitute its first planning review period under HCD site availability standards.
APPENDIX C I 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-68
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MEV
2023-2031
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site K-1 / 307, 315 & 319 Diablo Road / Riele TRE & Montair Associates -
Development Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential
Very High
(30 to 35 units per net acre) land use and zoning designations
Approved Final Development Plan for Alexan Downtown Danville - a 2015-2022 RHNA shortfall site constructed in 2020:
For -rent project; podium parking structure; 35% density bonus invoked; 40.4 units per acre density; 88.0% far; 86.3%
leasable; 827 sq. ft. average unit; 1.96 parking spaces per unit (Note: The Alexan project data supplied to document
market feasibility of K-1 Development Scenarios)
Note: The Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project is a starting point "template" for Site K-1. The building
height, story height, FAR, parking ratio and average unit size would be adjusted upward to reflect the new 30 to 35 units
per acre development density, being a slight increase over the 25 to 30 units per acre standard Alexan developed under
(and invoked density bonus provisions upon)
Parcel
Size -
Net
Acres
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at
30.0 units
per net acre
/ Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density
Bonus
(40.4 units
per net acre) /
Development
Concession
#1
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning / FAR
Approved (ratio
of conditioned
space to net
parcel sq. ft.)
Development
Concession #2
Percentage
Leasable Space
as a Ratio of
Total
Conditioned
Space / Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product Type
Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking
Spaces /
Podium
Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces and
Spaces per
Unit Ratio
Provided
Site Amenities Provided
3.71
Net
Acres
(161,600
square
feet)
111
Baseline
Units - 30.0
units per
net acre /
35'
maximum
building
height
allowed
Through
Density
Bonus - 150
units
at 40.4 units
per net acre /
37' Building
Height (as
Density
Bonus
Development
Standard
Concession -
1)
80% Allowed
FAR
/ 88%
Approved FAR
- yielding
143,750
square feet of
conditioned
space (as
Development
Standard
Concession -2)
86.3% Leasable
(124,050 sq. ft.)
13.7% Support
Non -Leasable
(19,725 sq. ft.)
/ 827 square feet
average unit
size
/ Secured ten
units affordable
to VL Income
Luxury
Apartments
Studios (10%)
1-BDRs (50%)
2-BDRs (40%)
82 at -grade
(39% of
spaces) / 212
basement
(61% of
spaces) /
294 total
spaces for 1.96
spaces per unit
(45% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
• Lobby/Leasing Area
• Clubhouse Area • Gym
• Swimming Pool (1)
• Common Meeting
Room
• Tot Lot
• BBQ Areas • Dog Area
• UPS/Moving Van
Parking Areas • Dog
Grooming Area • Gated
Common Area
Housing Opportunity Site K-1 / 307, 315 & 319 Diablo Road / Riele TRE & Montair Associates - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Net
Acres
Parcel
Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Minimum
Units at
30.0 units
per net acre
/ Min.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density
Bonus
(47.17 units
per net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning /
Approved
(conditioned
space divided
by net parcel
size)
Maximum
Conditioned
Space Available
for sale /
Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product Type
and Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking
Spaces /
Podium
Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces /
Spaces per
Unit Ratio
Provided
Site Amenities Provided
2.65
acres
(115,425
sq. ft.)
80 Units -
at 30.0 units
per net acre
/ 3 stories
and 35'
building
height
allowed and
assumed
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1 so
80 Units
at 30.0 units
minimum per
net acre
80% Allowed /
80% Assumed
(yielding
92,340 square
feet
conditioned
space)
92,340 sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,154 square
feet average unit
size
/ 15% (12 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Income
Households (12
of 12 Stacked
Flats)
Two- and Three-
story
Rowhouses &
Stacked Flats 1-
to 2 -car garages
12 2-BDRs
(15%) - @ 650
sq. ft. (stacked
flats)
68 3-BDRs
(85%)
- @ 1,243 sq. ft.
32 at -grade
spaces (20.0%)
/ 148 side -by-
side or tandem
garage spaces
(80.0%) / 180
total spaces /
2.25 spaces
per unit
As proposed by applicant
and as would be set
through the
project entitlement
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-69
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site K-1 / 307, 315 & 319 Diablo Road / Riele TRE & Montair Associates - Development Scenario 2:
Podium Apartments at 35 dus/acre
Net
Acres
Parcel
Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at
35.0 units
per net acre
/ Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density Bonus
(47.17 units
per net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning /
Approved
(conditioned
space divided
by net parcel
size)
Leasable Space
as Ratio of Total
Conditioned
Space / Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product Type
and Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking
Spaces /
Podium
Parking
Spaces / Total
Parking
Spaces /
Spaces per
Unit Ratio
Provided
Site Amenities Provided
2.65
acres
(115,425
sq. ft.)
92 Units -
at 35.0
units per
net acre / 3
stories and
35' building
height
allowed and
assumed
No Project
Density Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2 so
92 Units
at 35.0 units
maximum per
net acre
80% Allowed /
80% Assumed
(yielding 92,340
square feet
conditioned
space)
85.0% Leasable
(78,500 sq. ft.) /
853 square feet
average unit size
/ 15% (14 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Income
Households
Podium
Apartments
14 Studios
(15%) - @ 725
sq. ft.
46 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
32 2-BDRs
(35%)
- @ 950 sq. ft.
42 at -grade
spaces
(37.5%) / 70
basement
spaces
(62.5%) / 112
total spaces /
2.00 spaces
per unit
As proposed by applicant
and as would be set
through the project
entitlement
Housing Opportunity Site K-1 / 307,
Podium A?artments
315 & 319 Diablo Road / Riele TRE & Montair Associates - Development Scenario 3:
at 46 90 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Net
Acres
Parcel
Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at
35.0 units
per net acre
/ Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density Bonus
(47.17 units
per net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning / FAR
Approved (ratio
of conditioned
space to net
parcel sq. ft.)
Development
Concession -2
Percentage
Leasable Space
as a Ratio of
Total
Conditioned
Space / Average
Unit Size
Product Type
and Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking
Spaces /
Podium
Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces and
Spaces per
Unit Ratio
Provided
Site Amenities Provided
2.65
acres
(115,425
sq. ft.)
125 Units -
at 35.0
units per
net acre / 3
stories and
35' building
height
allowed and
assumed
By Density
Bonus of 33
units to 47.17
units per net
acre / 37'
Building
Height (as
Density Bonus
Development
Standard
Concession -1)
80% Allowed
FAR
/ 95.0%
Assumed FAR -
yielding
109,650
square feet of
conditioned
space (as
Development
Standard
Concession -2)
85.0% Leasable
(93,200 sq. ft.) /
746 square feet
average unit size
/ 11% (11 units)
of baseline units
for VL Income or
20% (19 units) of
baseline units for
Low Income
Households
Podium
Apartments
26 Studios
(21%) - @ 625
sq. ft.
53 1-BDRs
(42%)
- @ 725 sq. ft.
46 2-BDRs
(37%)
- @ 837 sq. ft.
78 at -grade
(30% of
spaces) / 184
basement
(70% of
spaces) / 262
total spaces
for 2.10
spaces per
unit
(55% of site
occupied by
basement
pkg.)
As proposed by applicant
and as would be set
through the project
entitlement
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-70
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
air
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site K-2 / 363 Diablo Road / Janlois Partners LP
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 6 Offices
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.90 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
216-120-
363 Diablo
Private
0.54
Not
Multifamily
1962
8,542 sf
012
Road
(tbd)
estimated
Residentia
I
216-120-
363 Diablo
Private
1.58
Not
Multifamily
1962
5,592 sf
015
Road
(tbd)
estimated
Residentia
1979
9,388 sf
I
Totals
2.12 acres
1.62 acres
-
-
23,522 sf
(33%
FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the properties making up Housing Opportunity Site K-2 (HOS
K-2) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-71
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS K-2 with high density multifamily uses during the 2023
to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, no limits on redevelopment options due to slope gradients [after accounting
for the presence of creek bank slopes for San Ramon Creek], and absence of pollution or
contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Close proximity to the center of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the
community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop either individually or jointly;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple
family residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville
2023-2030 Housing Element; and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of a very old apartment project with
for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS K-2 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of both properties with a minimum of
49 units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of both properties with a maximum of
56 units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while
securing an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum
floor area ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 76 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 56 units. This scenario envisions development of both properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
seven units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 12
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-72
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HI -USING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS K-2.
• Redevelopment of HOS K-2 will be directed in part by language set forth in Danville 2030 General
Plan Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville. The text calls for an expansion of the
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the
creation of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area
be compatible in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's
architectural heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of
the current design review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving
the area's historic buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a
desirable destination.
Additional Site-specific Opportunity and Constraints Considerations:
• HOS K-2 fronts along the south side of Diablo Road in the Downtown area, lying a bit west of the Diablo
Road/I-680 freeway interchange.
• The southwestern portion of the 1.62 acre (net) property lies behind a portion of the abutting 315 - 319
Diablo Road office complex (refer to HOS K-1).
• To the east of HOS K-2 is the relatively recently constructed Heritage Bank financial office building.
• Also lying to the east is the newly constructed Alexan Downtown Danville apartment project. The 3.75
acre (net) Alexan project replaced a 48,500 square foot 1979 -era low density office complex (30% floor
area ratio). The Alexan project site was one of two RHNA shortfall sites identified in the Danville 2015-
2022 Housing Element. The Danville 2030 General Plan changed the general plan land use designation
for the Alexan project site from Downtown Business District Area 6 Offices to a new DBD District -
Downtown Business District Area 12 Multifamily Residential High (25 to 30 units per net acre). The
Alexan project approval secured a 35% density bonus above the maximum allowable base density of
113 units and ultimately provided ten deed restricted units for very low income households.
• The south boundary of HOS K-2 includes a section of San Ramon Creek, an improved channel that is
approximately 25' in depth.
• The Stoneybrook project (a detached single family residential -motor court project consisting of 88 units
and reflecting a density of 12 units per acre) and the Danville Library and Community Center lie across
the San Ramon Creek from HOS K-2.
• Any replacement project developed on HOS K-2 may be directed through the entitlement review process
to pursue shared vehicular access with the Alexan Downtown Danville apartment project to mitigate the
potential for adverse project traffic impacts along Diablo Road.
• A replacement project will need to address CCCFC&WCD maintenance access needs to San Ramon
Creek. A slight reduction in the size of the historic flood control maintenance easement was granted by
the flood control district within the last ten years, resulting in a slight increase of the area available for
redevelopment. The request for the adjustment of the historic easement was initiated on behalf of the
owners of the existing apartment project, being pursued as they considered redevelopment options for
the existing 1962/1979 -era walkup apartment project around the time of the Town's 2013 adoption of
the Danville 2030 General Plan.
• Based on approvals secured for the Alexan Downtown Danville project, any replacement project on HOS
K-2 would likely be required to make some level of financial reimbursement to the Town of Danville
and/or to the developers of the Alexan project for costs that had been incurred for the pedestrian crossing
constructed over San Ramon Creek that connects the Diablo Road subarea directly to the core of
Downtown Danville.
• A "podium" or "wrap around" option for project parking for a redevelopment project might not be found
to be financially feasible unless a relatively high FAR for a project is secured through application of a
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-73
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
density bonus. The Alexan project provides a template for a possible podium project (see development
criteria below) as that density bonus project provided 61% of required project parking as basement
podium parking to allow the resultant two- and three-story apartment project with 88% FAR and 143,750
square feet of conditioned space for the 150 units in the project (144 units were ultimately constructed
by the builder who exercised the project entitlement — resulting in no measurable change to project's
FAR).
• For Option 3 below, assuming a luxury apartment project similar to the Alexan project, anticipation
of density bonus development concessions on story height and/or building height and maximum
FAR (measured on conditioned space) should be made. DBD Area 12 (the most comparable
current DBD zoning district) has a 35' height limit (no story height is established) and caps floor
area ratio to a maximum 80% FAR standard.
• It is anticipated that a new DBD Area would need to be established to accommodate a DBD with a 30
unit minimum density. The development options below anticipate the 35' height limit and 80% maximum
FAR would pull forward from Area 12 to the new DBD Area — i.e., DBD Area 13 Multifamily Residential
Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre or 30 to 40 units per net acre).
• The redevelopment feasibility of the site was underscored by the actions of the property owner to initiate
a General Plan Amendment Study after adoption of the Danville 2015-2022 Housing Element. The GPA
Study desired consideration of changing the property's land use designation from Downtown Business
District Area 6 Offices to Downtown Business District Area 12 Multifamily Residential High (25 to 30
units per net acre) — with a proposed for -sale product type being considered. That application ultimately
was not pursued. The DBD Area 6 designation is a non -conforming designation given the site's
apartment use.
• The extent that residential redevelopment of the site would facilitate the Town in meeting its 2022-2030
RHNA would be limited to the net difference between the number of existing for -rent residential units
present and the number of units ultimately authorized in a replacement project.
• While redevelopment of HOS K-2 with a replacement residential project was analyzed in terms of
potential environmental impacts in the Focused EIR prepared for the Danville 2030 General Plan, the
site's land use designation remained unchanged with the adoption of the 2030 Plan and, as such, has
not been a site identified to meet the Town's RHNA as a non -vacant site for the past two Identified
Housing Element Planning Cycles. If the site was redesignated with this review, it would constitute its
first planning review period under HCD site availability standards.
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-74
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
141116
Housing Opportunity Site K-2 / 363 Diablo Road / Janlois Partners LP - Development Scenarios
reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High
(30 to 35 units per net acre) land use and zoning designations
Approved Final Development Plan for Alexan Downtown Danville - a 2015-2022 RHNA shortfall site constructed in
2020: For -rent apartments; podium parking structure; 35% density bonus invoked; 40.4 units per acre density; 88.0%
far; 86.3% leasable; 827 sq. ft. average unit; & 1.96 parking spaces per unit (Note: The Alexan project data supplied to
document market feasibility of K-1 Development Scenarios)
Note: The Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project is a starting point "template" for Site K-1. The
building height, story height, FAR, parking ratio and average unit size would be adjusted upward to reflect the new 30
to 35 units per acre development density, being a slight increase over the 25 to 30 units per acre standard Alexan
developed under and baseline for the invoked density bonus.
Net
Acres
Parcel
Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at
30.0 units
per net acre
/ Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum Units
after 35%
invoking Density
Bonus
(40.4 units per
net acre) /
Development
Concession #1
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning / FAR
Approved
(ratio of
conditioned
space to net
parcel sq. ft.)
Development
Concession
#2
Percentage
Leasable Space as
a Ratio of Total
Conditioned Space /
Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product Type
Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking Spaces
/
Podium
Parking Spaces
/
Total Parking
Spaces and
Spaces per
Unit Ratio
Provided
Site Amenities
Provided
3.71
Net
Acres
(161,600
square
feet)
111
Baseline
Units - 30.0
units per
net acre /
35'
maximum
building
height
allowed
Through Density
Bonus - 150
units
at 40.4 units
per net acre /
37' Building
Height (as
Density Bonus
Development
Standard
Concession -1)
80% Allowed
FAR
/ 88%
Approved
FAR -
yielding
143,750
square feet
of
conditioned
space (as
Development
Standard
Concession-
2)
86.3% Leasable
(124,050 sq. ft.)
13.7% Support Non-
Leasable
(19,725 sq. ft.)
/ 827 square feet
average unit size
/ Secured ten units
affordable to VL
Income
Luxury Apartments
Studios (10%)
1-BDRs (50%)
2-BDRs (40%)
82 at -grade
(39% of
spaces) / 212
basement (61%
of spaces) /
294 total
spaces for 1.96
spaces per unit
(45% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
•
Lobby/Leasing
Area
• Clubhouse
Area • Gym
• Swimming
Pool
• Common
Meeting Room
• Tot Lot •
BBQ Areas •
Dog Area
• UPS/Moving
Van Parking
Areas • Dog
Grooming
Area • Gated
Common Area
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-75
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site K-2 / 363 Diablo Road / Janlois Partners LP - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Net Acres
Parcel Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Minimum
Units at 30.0
units per net
acre / Min.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after 35%
invoking
Density Bonus
(46.9 units per
net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning /
Approved
(conditioned
space divided
by net parcel
size)
Maximum
Conditioned Space
Available for sale /
Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product Type and
Unit Mix
At -grade Parking
Spaces /
Podium Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces / Spaces
per Unit Ratio
Provided
Site
Amenities
Provided
1.62 acres
(70,575 sq.
ft.)
49 Units -
at 30.0 units
per net acre /
3 stories and
35' building
height
allowed and
assumed
No Project
Density Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1 so
49 Units
at 30.0 units
minimum per
net acre
80% Allowed /
80% Assumed
(yielding
56,460 square
feet
conditioned
space)
56,460 sq. ft.
conditioned space
1,152 square feet
average unit size
/ 15% (7 units)
affordable to
Moderate Income
Households (7 of 8
Stacked Flats)
Two- and Three-
story
Rowhouses &
Stacked Flats 1- to
2 -car garages
8 2-BDRs (16%) -
@ 650 sq. ft. (
flats)
41 3-BDRs (85%)
- @ 1,250 sq. ft.
23 at -grade
spaces (20.0%) /
92 side-by-side
or tandem
garage spaces
(80.0%) / 115
total spaces /
2.50 spaces per
unit
As
proposed
by applicant
and as
would be
set through
the project
entitlement
Housing Opportunity Site K-2 / 363 Diablo Road / Janlois Partners LP - Development Scenario 2:
Podium Apartments at 35 dus/acre
Net Acres
Parcel Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at 35.0
units per net
acre / Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after 35%
invoking
Density Bonus
(46.9 units per
net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning /
Approved
(conditioned
space divided
by net parcel
size)
Leasable Space as
Ratio of Total
Conditioned Space /
Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product Type and
Unit Mix
At -grade Parking
Spaces /
Podium Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces / Spaces
per Unit Ratio
Provided
Site
Amenities
Provided
1.62 acres
(70,575 sq.
ft.)
56 Units -
at 35.0 units
per net acre /
3 stories and
35' building
height
allowed and
assumed
No Project
Density Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2 so
56 Units
at 35.0 units
per net acre
80% Allowed /
80% Assumed
(yielding
56,460 square
feet
conditioned
space)
85.0% Leasable
(48,000 sq. ft.) /
857 square feet
average unit size
/ 15% (8 units)
affordable to
Moderate Income
Households
Podium
Apartments
9 Studios (16%) -
@ 725 sq. ft.
28 1-BDRs (50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
19 2-BDRs (34%)
- @ 965 sq. ft.
42 at -grade
spaces (37.5%) /
70 basement
spaces (62.5%) /
112 total spaces
/ 2.00 spaces
per unit
As
proposed
by applicant
and as
would be
set through
the project
entitlement
Housing Opportunity Site K-2 / 363 Diablo Road / Janlois Apartments - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 46.90 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Net Acres
Parcel Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at 35.0
units per net
acre / Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after 35%
invoking
Density Bonus
(46.9 units per
net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning / FAR
Approved
(ratio of
conditioned
space to net
parcel sq. ft.)
Development
Concession -2
Percentage Leasable
Space as a Ratio of
Total Conditioned
Space / Average
Unit Size
Product Type and
Unit Mix
At -grade Parking
Spaces /
Podium Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces and
Spaces per Unit
Ratio Provided
Site
Amenities
Provided
1.62 acres
(70,575 sq.
ft.)
76 Units -
at 35.0 units
per net acre /
3 stories and
35' building
height
allowed and
approved
By Density
Bonus of 20
units to 46.90
units per net
acre / 37'
Building
Height (as
Density Bonus
Development
Standard
Concession -1)
80% Allowed
FAR
/ 95.0%
Assumed FAR
- yielding
67,050
square feet of
conditioned
space (as
Development
Standard
Concession -2)
85.0% Leasable
(57,000 sq. ft.) /
720 square feet
average unit size
/ 11% (7 units) of
baseline units for VL
Income or
20% (12 units) of
baseline units for Low
Income Households
Podium
Apartments
16 Studios (21 %) -
@ 625 sq. ft.
32 1-BDRs (42%)
- @ 725 sq. ft.
28 2-BDRs (37%)
- @ 850 sq. ft.
48 at -grade
(30% of spaces)
/ 111 basement
(70% of spaces)
/
159 total spaces
for 2.1 spaces
per unit
(47% of site
occupied by
basement
parking)
As
proposed
by applicant
and as
would be
set through
the project
entitlement
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-76
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
air
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site L-1 / Diablo Rose and Front / Seven DBD - Area 7 Parcels
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 2 Old Town Retail Transition and Area 4 -
Resident Serving
Commercial
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.90 dus/ac 35% density bonus
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-77
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
200-211-
268 Rose
Private
0.120
0.120
Personal
1924
738 sq. ft.
005
Avenue
(Weller
Service
Comm)
200-211-
199 E Linda
Private
0.180
0.180
Service
1967
8,231 sq. ft.
007
Mesa
(Weller
Commerci
Comm)
al
200-211-
254 Rose
Private
0.265
0.265
Restauran
1926
2,484 sq. ft.
016
Street
(McMahon)
t
200-211-
67 Front Street
Private
0.070
0.070
Service
1962
2,880 sq. ft.
017
(Glockner
TRE)
Commerci
al
200-211-
77 Front Street
Private
0.180
0.180
Service
1962
3,000 sq. ft.
018
(Tamarack
Gold Legacy
LLC)
Commerci
al
200-211-
290 Rose
Private
0.114
0.114
Restauran
1925
3,965 sq. ft.
025
Street
(McMahon)
t
200-211-
85 Front Street
Private
0.265
0.265
Service
1960
8,215 sq. ft.
027
(Madrid)
Commerci
al
Totals
1.194
1.194
-
-
29,513 sq.
ft.
(52% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the properties making up Housing Opportunity Site L-1 (HOS
L-1) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS L-1 properties with high density multifamily uses during
the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., a range of small to medium sized properties, absence of
slope instability or erosion, absence of any onsite slopes that would limit redevelopment, and
absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to the core area of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the
community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of older commercial properties with
for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon Valley;
and
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop either as groupings of three or four properties or
as a total sub -area.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-78
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
41116
DANV111.LE.
• The following table for HOS L-1 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 36
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of 41
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing
an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area
ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 56 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 41 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
five units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of nine
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS L-1.
• Redevelopment of HOS L-1 will be directed in part by language set forth in Danville 2030 General
Plan Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville. The text calls for an expansion of the
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the
creation of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area
be compatible in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's
architectural heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of
the current design review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving
the area's historic buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a
desirable destination.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-79
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site L-1 / Diablo Rose and Front / Seven DBD Area 2 and DBD Area 4
Parcels - Development Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily
Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1
zoning
Housing Opportunity Site L-1 / Diablo Rose and Front / Seven DBD Area 2 and DBD Area 4 Parcels - Development Scenario
1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.194
acres
(52,010
sq. ft.)
36 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 41,600
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,155 sq. ft.
ave
15% (5 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
6 2-BDRs
(15%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
30 3-BDRs
(85%)
- ave 1,257 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
17 at -grade (21%)
64 tandem or
standard (79%) for
81 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site L-1 / Diablo Rose and Front / Seven DBD Area 2 and DBD Area 4 Parcels - Development Scenario
2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.194
acres
(52,010
sq. ft.)
41 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 41,600
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(35,375 sq. ft.) /
863 sq. ft. ave
15% (6 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
6 Studios
(15%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
20 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
15 2-BDRs
(34%)
- ave 968 sq.
ft.
24 at -grade (30%)
56 podium (70%)
for 80 total spaces
-1.95 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site L-1 / Diablo Rose and Front / Seven DBD Area 2 and DBD Area 4 Parcels - Development Scenario
3:
Podium Apartments at 46.90 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.194
acres
(52,010
sq. ft.)
56 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus 56
units at
46.90 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 49,400
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(42,000 sq. ft.) /
750 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (5 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (9 units) of
baseline units
for Low Income
Podium
Apartments
12 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
24 1-BDRs
(43%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
20 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 855 sq.
ft.
33 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
77 basement
(70% of spaces) /
110 total spaces
for 1.96 spaces
per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-80
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MEV
2023-2031
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site L-2 / 156 Diablo Road / 156 Diablo Road LLC
•
DANVll..l f
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 2 Old Town Retail Transition
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.62 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
200-211-
028
156 Diablo
Road
Private
(156 Diablo
Road LLC)
0.622
0.622
Office
Pre
1982
26,415 sq.
ft.
Totals
0.622
0.622
-
-
26,415 sq.
ft. (97% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site L-2 (HOS L-
2) a viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS L-2 through reuse of the existing structure for
residential occupancy allowed under a high density multifamily land use designation during the 2023 to
2030 planning period:
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-81
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
o Physical features of the property (i.e., the existing three-story structure and supporting surface
and basement parking);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to the core area of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the
community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and demonstrated challenges to keep the office building
leased; and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a a reuse of the existing FAR and the replacement of current office use with for -sale and/or for -
rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS L-2 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes redevelopment at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions redevelopment of the property with a minimum of 18
units of for -sale condominium residential units through a reuse of the existing three-story / 50'
height structure and reuse of existing at -grade and basement parking. The scenario would yield
units with an average unit size of around 1,247 square feet while assuming a variance is secured
to take the floor area ratio standard for conditioned space from 80% allowed by zoning to 97%
in acknowledgement of the FAR of the existing structure. The analysis provides for the 15%
moderate income housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
and would be substantially over the current minimum parking standards for the product type
analyzed. No density bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes redevelopment at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions redevelopment of the property with a maximum of 21
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units through a reuse of the existing three-story /
50' height structure and reuse of existing at -grade and basement parking. The scenario would
yield a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around 1,069 square feet while
assuming a variance is secured to take the floor area ratio standard for conditioned space from
80% allowed by zoning to 97% in acknowledgement of the FAR of the existing structure. The
analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing obligation under Danville's current
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and be substantially over the current minimum parking
standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is anticipated with this development
scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 29 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 21 units. This scenario envisions redevelopment of the property with a maximum of 29 units
of for -rent podium apartment residential units through a reuse of the existing three-story / 50'
height structure and reuse of existing at -grade and basement parking. The scenario would yield
a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around 774 square feet while
assuming a development concession is secured to take the floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space from 80% allowed by zoning to 97% in acknowledgement of the FAR of the
existing structure. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target units for affordability
- one option resulting in provision of a minimum of three units for very low income households
and the other making provision of a minimum of five units for low income households.
Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan Downtown
Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 97% FAR compared to the
88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-82
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HI -USING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
DANVELI
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on property within HOS L-2.
• Redevelopment of HOS L-2 will be directed in part by language set forth in Danville 2030 General
Plan Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville. The text calls for an expansion of the
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the
creation of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area
be compatible in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's
architectural heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of
the current design review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving
the area's historic buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a
desirable destination.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-83
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site L-2 / 156 Diablo Road / 156 Diablo Road LLC - Development
Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
35 units per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site L-2 / 156 Diablo Road / 156 Diablo Road LLC - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale condominiums at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed
Development Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
0.622
acres
(27,094
sq. ft.)
18 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 97%
FAR Assumed
by variance -
being the
existing 26,415
sq. ft. of building
area
Assume the
reuse of
existing
structure with
85.0%
Leasable
(22,450 sq. ft.)
/
1,247 sq. ft.
ave
15% (3 units)
for Moderate
For -sale
Condominiums
with at -grade
and basement
parking
3 2-BDRs
(15%) -
- ave 750 sq. ft.
15 3-BDR
(85%) -
- ave 1,347 sq.
ft.
20 at -grade
(50%) 20 at -
grade or
basement (50%)
for 40 total
spaces -2.25
spaces per unit -
with significant
excess parking
provided
Housing Opportunity Site L-2 / 156 Diablo Road / 156 Diablo Road LLC - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed
Development Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.622
acres
(27,094
sq. ft.)
21 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 97%
FAR Assumed
by variance -
being the
existing 26,415
sq. ft. of building
area conditioned
and non-
conditioned
Assume the
reuse of
existing
structure with
85.0%
Leasable
(22,450 sq. ft.)
/
1,069 sq. ft.
ave
15% (3 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
3 2-BDRs
(15%) -
- ave 750 sq. ft.
18 3-BDR
(85%) -
- ave 1,222 sq.
ft.
24 at -grade
(50%) 24 at -
grade or
basement (50%)
for 48 total
spaces -2.25
spaces per unit -
with significant
excess parking
provided
Housing Opportunity Site L-2 / 156 Diablo Road / 156 Diablo Road LLC - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 47.11 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed
Development Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.622
acres
(27,094
sq. ft.)
29 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35'
building height
assumed P-1 zoning
standards
By Density
Bonus of 8
units to
46.62 units
per net acre /
Reuse of
existing
Building
Height (as
Density
Bonus
Development
Standard
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed 97%
FAR Assumed
by Development
Standard
Concession 2 -
being the
existing 26,415
sq. ft. of building
area conditioned
and non-
conditioned
Assume the
reuse of
existing
structure with
85.0%
Leasable
(22,450 sq. ft.)
/
774 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (3 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (5 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
29 3-BDR
(100%)
- ave 774 sq. ft.
33 at -grade
(50%) 33 at -
grade or
basement (50%)
for 66 total
spaces -2.25
spaces per unit -
with significant
excess parking
provided
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-84
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site M / 185 Front Street / Duggan TRE
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 3 Old Town Mixed Use
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 47.25 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
208-022-
036
185 Front
Street
Private
(Duggan TRE)
0.70
0.70
Office
Pre
1982
12,360 sq.
ft.
Totals
0.70
0.70
-
-
12,360 sq.
ft. (41% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site M (HOS M) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS M with high density multifamily
uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively Targe size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope gradients,
and absence of pollution or contamination);
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-85
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Location within the center of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR); and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS M depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 21 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 24 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 33 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 24 units. This scenario envisions development of the property with a for -rent podium apartment
project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of
around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from
the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to
supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of three units
for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of seven units for
low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed
Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS M.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-86
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MEV
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site M / 185 Front Street / Duggan TRE - Development Scenarios
reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units
per net acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site M / 185 Front Street / Duggan TRE - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
0.70
acres
(30,500
sq. ft.)
21 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 24,400
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,161 sq. ft.
ave
15% (3 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
4 2-BDRs
(19%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
17 3-BDRs
(81%)
- ave 1,282 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
9 at -grade (19%)
38 tandem or
standard (71%) for
47 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site M / 185 Front Street / Duggan TRE - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.70
acres
(30,500
sq. ft.)
24 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 24,400
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(20,750 sq. ft.) /
858 sq. ft. ave
15% (4 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
4 Studios
(16%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
10 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 865 sq. ft.
10 2-BDRs
(34%)
- ave 920 sq.
ft.
14 at -grade (30%)
33 podium (70%)
for 47 total spaces
-1.96 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site M / 185 Front Street / Duggan TRE - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 47.25 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.70
acres
(30,500
sq. ft.)
33 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 9
units to
47.25 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 28,975
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(24,625 sq. ft.) /
746 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (3 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (7 units) of
baseline units
for Low Income
Podium
Apartments
7 Studios
(21%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
14 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
12 2-BDRs
(37%)
- ave 842 sq.
ft.
20 at -grade
(31% of spaces) /
45 basement
(69% of spaces) /
65 total spaces for
1.97 spaces per
unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-87
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site N / 480 and 486 SRV Blvd / Crossroads Shopping Center
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 4 Resident Serving Commercial
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 47.19 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
216-101-
486 SRV Blvd.
Private
1.783
1.783
Crossroads
1961
Not
001
(Danville
Garden
Shopping
Shopping
Center - South
available
on Valley
Center and
Pioneer
Toland)
216-101-
480 SRV Blvd.
Private
1.374
1.374
Crossroads
1961
17,600 sq.
002
(McColm )
Shopping Center - North
ft.
Totals
3.157
3.157
-
-
Not
determined
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-88
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
• The following site characteristics render the two properties making up Housing Opportunity Site N (HOS
N) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS N properties with high density multifamily uses during
the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, absence of any onsite slopes that would limit redevelopment, and absence
of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older rental office
space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon
Valley;
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop either individually or jointly; and
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple family
residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville 2023-2030
Housing Element.
• The following table for HOS N depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of both properties with a minimum of
95 units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of both properties with a maximum of
110 units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while
securing an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum
floor area ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 149 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 110 units. This scenario envisions development of both properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
13 units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 22 units
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-89
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS N.
Housing Opportunity Site N / 480 and 486 SRV Blvd / Crossroads Shopping Center -
Development Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential
Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site N / 480 and 486 SRV Blvd / Crossroads Shopping Center - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
3.157
acres
(137,525
sq. ft.)
95 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
110,020
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,158 sq. ft.
ave
15% (14 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
18 2-BDRs
(19%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
77 3-BDRs
(81%)
- ave 1,276 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
41 at -grade (19%)
173 tandem or
standard (81%) for
214 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site N / 480 and 486 SRV Blvd / Crossroads Shopping Center - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
3.157
acres
(137,525
sq. ft.)
110 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
110,020
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(93,525 sq. ft.) /
850 sq. ft. ave
15% (16 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
18 Studios
(16%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
55 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
37 2-BDRs
(34%)
- ave 948 sq.
ft.
65 at -grade (30%)
151 podium
(70%) for 216 total
spaces -1.96
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site N / 480 and 486 SRV Blvd / Crossroads Shopping Center - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 47.19 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
3.157
acres
(137,525
sq. ft.)
149 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 39
units to
47.19 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 130,650
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(111,050 sq. ft.)
/
745 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (13 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (22 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
33 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
63 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
53 2-BDRs
(37%)
- ave 844 sq.
ft.
91 at -grade
(31 % of spaces) /
203 basement
(69% of spaces) /
294 total spaces
for 1.97 spaces
per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-90
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
411,1
DA ANLL
Housing Opportunity Site O / 509, 515 and 519 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd, Sonora Ave &
Estates Dr
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 4 Resident Serving Commercial
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- Podium apartments 47.25 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Development Scenarios
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
208-043-
SRV Blvd.
Private
0.073
0.073
Support
n/a
-
021
(Simmons
Parking
208-043-
509 SRV Blvd.
TRE and
Verhoek)
0.095
0.095
Service
1954
1,326 S ft.
q
022
Commercial
208-043-
535 SRV Blvd.
Private
0.128
0.128
Service
n/a
3,600 sq. ft.
023
(ACHF Kaplan
Commercial
LP)
208-043-
515 SRV Blvd.
Private
0.401
0.401
Restaurant
1962
1,326 sq. ft.
024
(Elwood
Carnegie LLC)
and Service
Commercial
208-043-
519 SRV Blvd.
Private
0.263
0.263
Service
1964
2,970 sq. ft.
025
(Joven
Commercial
Investments
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-91
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Danville LLC)
Totals
0.96
0.96
9,222 sq. ft.
(22% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the five properties making up Housing Opportunity Site 0 (HOS
0) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS A properties with high density multifamily uses during
the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties when considered in the aggregate (i.e., relatively large size
and regular shape, absence of slope instability or erosion, and presence of onsite slopes that
are limited to relatively minor slope gradients);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs); and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older service
commercial and restaurant space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high
demand in the San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS 0 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 29
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of 33
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing
an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area
ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 45 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 33 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
four units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of seven
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-92
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
iqk
APPENDIX C
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS O.
• It is also noted that the size of the respective properties in HOS 0, as well as their shapes as well
as their shapes and location relative to one another, makes it unlikely that HOS 0 could develop as
anything but a single project. While not all five properties may not need to be involved with a
redevelopment project, the apparent minimum size for a project would need to at least 6/10ths of an
acre.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-93
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Development Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High
(30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site O / 509, 515 and 519 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd, Sonora Ave & Estates Dr - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed
Development Density
Density Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
0.96
acres
(41,825
sq. ft.)
29 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily
Residential Very High
and P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 33,450
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,153 sq. ft. ave
15% (4 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
6 2-BDRs
(21%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
23 3-BDRs
(79%)
- ave 1,284 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
14 at -grade (21%)
52 tandem or
standard (79%)
for 66 total
spaces -2.28
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site 0 / 509, 515 and 519 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd, Sonora Ave & Estates Dr - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed
Development Density
Density Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.96
acres
(41,825
sq. ft.)
33 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily
Residential Very High
and P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 33,450
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0% Leasable
(28,425 sq. ft.) /
861 sq. ft. ave
15% (5 units) for
Moderate
Podium
Apartments
6 Studios
(18%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
16 1-BDRs
(49%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
11 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 988 sq.
ft.
19 at -grade (29%)
46 podium (71%)
for 65 total
spaces -1.96
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site O / 509, 515 and 519 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd, Sonora Ave & Estates Dr - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 47.25 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed
Development Density
Density Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.96
acres
(41,825
sq. ft.)
45 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35'
building height
assumed P-1 zoning
standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density Bonus
of 12 units to
47.25 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession -1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 39,725
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0% Leasable
(33,750 sq. ft.) /
750 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (4 units) of
baseline units for
VL Income or
20% (7 units) of
baseline units for
Low Income
Podium
Apartments
10 Studios
(22%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
19 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
16 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 858 sq.
ft.
27 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
62 basement
(70% of spaces) /
89 total spaces
for 1.97 spaces
per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-94
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site P-1 / 554 and 588 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd and Oak
Ct
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 6 Offices
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- Podium apartments 46.96 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Development Scenarios
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
216-090-
554 SRV Blvd.
Private
0.611
0.611
Retail &
1966
5,850 sq. ft.
019
(Rey TRE)
Service
Commercial
216-090-
588 SRV Blvd.
Private
0.837
0.837
Restaurant
Pre-
12,973 sq.
023
(Cal -North
Properties
and Service
Commercial
1982
ft.
LLC and
Sherman
Properties)
Totals
1.448
1.448
-
-
18,823 sq.
ft.
(30% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-95
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• The following site characteristics render the two properties making up Housing Opportunity Site P-1
(HOS P-1) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use
designation with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning
action, reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS A properties with high density multifamily uses
during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, and presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope
gradients);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older service
commercial and office space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high
demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
o Ability for the two properties to reasonably develop either individually or jointly.
• The following table for HOS P-1 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of both properties with a minimum of
44 units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of both properties with a maximum of
50 units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while
securing an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum
floor area ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 68 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 50 units. This scenario envisions development of both properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
six units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of ten
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-96
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS P-1.
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-97
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site P-1 / 554 and 588 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd and Oak Ct -
Development Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily
Residential Very High
(30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site P-1 / 554 and 588 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd and Oak Ct - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.448
acres
(63,075
sq. ft.)
44 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 50,450
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,147 sq. ft.
ave
15% (6 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
10 2-BDRs
(21 %) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
34 3-BDRs
(79%)
- ave 1,292 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
21 at -grade (21%)
78 tandem or
standard (79%) for
99 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site P-1 / 554 and 588 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd and Oak Ct -Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.448
acres
(63,075
sq. ft.)
50 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 50,450
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(42,875 sq. ft.) /
858 sq. ft. ave
15% (6 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
9 Studios
(18%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
25 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
16 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 983 sq.
ft.
28 at -grade (29%)
71 podium (71 %)
for 98 total spaces
-1.96 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site P(1) / 554 and 588 SRV Blvd / SRV Blvd and Oak Ct - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 46.96 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.448
acres
(63,075
sq. ft.)
68 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 18
units to
46.96 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 59,925
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(50,950 ft.) /
749 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (6 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (10 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
16 Studios
(22%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
29 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
23 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 866 sq.
ft.
40 at -grade (30%
of spaces) / 94
basement (70% of
spaces) / 134 total
spaces for 1.97
spaces per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-98
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
air
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site P-2 / 620 SRV Blvd / Bank of America
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 10
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.99 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
216-080-
074
620 SRV Blvd
Private
(VSA
Investments
North Bay
LLC and B of
A)
0.830
0.830
Financial
Office
1973
7,098 sq. ft.
Totals
0.830
0.830
-
-
7,098 sq. ft.
(20% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site P-2 (HOS P-
2) a viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-99
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS P-2 with high density
multifamily uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope gradients,
and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
o Ability for the property to reasonably develop either as a single large development or in part.
• The following table for HOS P-2 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 24 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 29 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 39 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 29 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of four units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of six units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS P-2.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-100
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site P-2 / 620 SRV Blvd / Bank of America - Development Scenarios
reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units
per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site P-2 / 620 SRV Blvd / Bank of America - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
0.830
acres
(36,150
sq. ft.)
25 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 28,925
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,157 sq. ft.
ave
15% (4 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
5 2-BDRs
(21 %) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
19 3-BDRs
(79%)
- ave 1,283 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
12 at -grade (22%)
44 tandem or
standard (78%) for
56 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site P-2 / 620 SRV Blvd / Bank of America - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.830
acres
(36,150
sq. ft.)
29 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 28,925
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(24,575 sq. ft.) /
847 sq. ft. ave
15% (4 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
5 Studios
(17%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
15 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
9 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 952 sq.
ft.
17 at -grade (30%)
40 podium (70%)
for 57 total spaces
-1.97 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site P-2 / 620 SRV Blvd / Bank of America - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 46.99 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.830
acres
(36,150
sq. ft.)
39 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 10
units to
46.99 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 34,325
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(29,175 ft.) /
748 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (4 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (6 units) of
baseline units
for Low Income
Podium
Apartments
8 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
16 1-BDRs
(41% )
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
15 2-BDRs
(38%)
- ave 838 sq.
ft.
23 at -grade (30%
of spaces) / 54
basement (70% of
spaces) / 77 total
spaces for 1.97
spaces per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-101
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site Q / 551, 555, 571 and 577 SRV Blvd &
10 and 30 Town and Country Dr / Six Service Commercial Parcels
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 4 Resident Serving Commercial
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 47.07 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
208-044-
571 SRV Blvd
Private
0.321
0.321
Service
1964
5,075 sq. ft.
015
(Gagnon
Commercial
Center LLC)
208-044-
551 SRV Blvd
Private
0.346
0.346
Service
1945
4,342 sq. ft.
017
(Hill TRE)
Commercial
208-044-
555 SRV Blvd
Private
0.290
0.290
Service
1954
600 sq. ft.
018
(Offenhartz
Commercial
TRE & No Cal
Rental Group
LLC)
208-051-
577 SRV Blvd
Private
0.290
0.290
Service
1966
6,009 sq. ft.
009
(Gallagher
Commercial
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-102
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the six properties making up Housing Opportunity Site Q (HOS
Q) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS A properties with high density multifamily uses during
the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties when considered in the aggregate (i.e., relatively large size
and regular shape, absence of slope instability or erosion, and presence of onsite slopes that
are limited to relatively minor slope gradients);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs); and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older service
commercial space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the
San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS Q depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 42
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of 48
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing
an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area
ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 65 units and a development density of just over 47
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-103
TRE)
208-051-
30 Town &
Private
0.034
0.034
Service
Unknow
1,470 sq. ft.
010
Country Dr
(Bloch TRE)
Commercial
n
208-051-
10 Town &
Private
0.10
0.10
Service
Unknow
760 sq. ft.
011
Country Dr
(Kadesh
Commercial
n
Properties
Holding LLC)
Totals
1.381
1.381
-
-
18,256 sq.
ft.
(30% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the six properties making up Housing Opportunity Site Q (HOS
Q) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS A properties with high density multifamily uses during
the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties when considered in the aggregate (i.e., relatively large size
and regular shape, absence of slope instability or erosion, and presence of onsite slopes that
are limited to relatively minor slope gradients);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs); and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older service
commercial space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the
San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS Q depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 42
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of 48
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing
an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area
ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 65 units and a development density of just over 47
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-103
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 48 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
six units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of ten
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS Q.
• It is also noted that the size of the respective properties in HOS Q, as well as their shapes and
location relative to one another, makes it unlikely that HOS Q could develop as anything but a single
project. While not all five properties may not need to be involved with a redevelopment project, the
apparent minimum size for a project would need to at least 6/10ths of an acre.
APPENDIX C I 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-104
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MEV
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site Q / 551, 555, 571 and 577 SRV Blvd & 10 and 30 Town and
Country Dr / Six Service Commercial Parcels - Development Scenarios reflecting
standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per
net acre) land use designation
and site-specific P-1 zoning
DA ANLL
Housing Opportunity Site Q / 551, 555, 571 and 577 SRV Blvd & 10 and 30 Town and Country Dr / Six Service Commercial
Parcels - Development Scenario 1: For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.381
acres
(60,150
sq. ft.)
42 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 48,125
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,145 sq. ft.
ave
15% (6 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
9 2-BDRs
(21 %) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
33 3-BDRs
(79%)
- ave 1,281 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
21 at -grade (22%)
74 tandem or
standard (78%) for
95 total spaces -
2.26 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site Q / 551, 555, 571 and 577 SRV Blvd & 10 and 30 Town and Country Dr / Six Service Commercial
Parcels - Development Scenario 2: Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.381
acres
(60,150
sq. ft.)
48 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 48,125
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(40,900 sq. ft.) /
852 sq. ft. ave
15% (7 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
9 Studios
(19%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
24 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
15 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 972 sq.
ft.
28 at -grade (30%)
66 podium (70%)
for 94 total spaces
-1.96 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site Q / 551, 555, 571 and 577 SRV Blvd & 10 and 30 Town and Country Dr / Six Service Commercial
Parcels - Development Scenario 3: Podium Apartments at 47.25 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.381
acres
(60,150
sq. ft.)
65 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 17
units to
47.07 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 57,150
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(48,575 sq. ft.) /
747 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (6 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (10 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
14 Studios
(22%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
27 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
24 2-BDRS
(36%)
- ave 844 sq.
ft.
38 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
90 basement
(70% of spaces) /
128 total spaces
for 1.97 spaces
per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-105
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site R-1 / 585 SRV Blvd / Wells Fargo
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 7 Retail
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.44 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
208-060-
059
585 SRV Blvd.
Private
(tbd)
0.689
0.689
Financial
Office
1967
5,215 sq. ft.
Totals
0.689
acres
0.689
acres
-
-
5,215 sq. ft.
(17%0 FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site R-1 (HOS R-
1) a viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS R-1 with high density
multifamily uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-106
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively Targe size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope gradients,
and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
o Ability for the property to reasonably develop either as a single large development or in part.
• The following table for HOS R-1 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 21 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 24 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 32 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 24 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of three units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of seven units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS R-1.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-107
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site R-1 / 585 SRV Blvd / Wells Fargo - Development Scenarios reflecting
standards
of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site R-1 / 585 SRV Blvd / Wells Fargo - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
0.689
acres
(30,025
sq. ft.)
21 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 24,025
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,144 sq. ft.
ave
15% (3 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
5 2-BDRs
(24%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
16 3-BDRs
(76%)
- ave 1,298 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
10 at -grade (22%)
37 tandem or
standard (78%) for
47 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site R-1 / 585 SRV Blvd / Wells Fargo - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.689
acres
(30,025
sq. ft.)
24 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 24,025
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(20,425 sq. ft.) /
851 sq. ft. ave
15% (3 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
4 Studios
(17%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
12 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
8 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 953 sq.
ft.
77 at -grade (34%)
179 podium
(66%) for 48 total
spaces -2.00
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site R-1 / 585 SRV Blvd / Wells Fargo - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 47.06 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
0.689
acres
(30,025
sq. ft.)
32 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 8
units to
46.44 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 28,525
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(24,250 5sq. ft.)
758 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (3 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (7 units) of
baseline units
for Low Income
Podium
Apartments
7 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
13 1-BDRs
(41 %)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
12 2-BDRs
(38%)
- ave 871 sq.
ft.
19 at -grade (30%
of spaces) / 44
basement (70% of
spaces) / 63 total
spaces for 1.97
spaces per unit
(51 % of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-108
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site R-2 / 589, 607, 609, 615 & 617 SRV Blvd / Town & Country
Shopping Center
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 7 Retail
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 47.25 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Owners
hip
(Private
or
Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
208-060-
609 SRV Blvd
Private
0.648
0.648
Retail
1972
27,436
055
(La Jolla
(Pet Food
Developmen
t Company)
Express)
208-060-
615 SRV Blvd
0.214
0.214
Retail
1972
9,300
056
208-060-
607 SRV Blvd
0.046
0.046
Retail
1973
1,955
057
208-060-
589 SRV Blvd
0.396
0.396
Retail
1973
18,593
058
(McCaulous)
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-109
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
208-060-
059
SRV Blvd
(Danville Town &
Country L P
and La Jolla
Management
Company)
3.401
3.401
Retail
(parking
areas)
-
0
Totals 1
4.705
4.705
-
-
57,284 sq.
ft.
(28% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the five properties making up Housing Opportunity Site R-2
(HOS R-2) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use
designation with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning
action, reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS A properties with high density multifamily uses
during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties when considered in the aggregate (i.e., relatively large size
and regular shape, absence of slope instability or erosion, and presence of onsite slopes that
are limited to relatively minor slope gradients);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Walkability to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs); and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older retail and
commercial space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the
San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS R-1 depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 142
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of
164 units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while
securing an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum
floor area ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 222 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-110
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
41i
of 164 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
19 units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 33 units
for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS R-2.
• It is also noted that the size of the respective properties in HOS R-2, as well as their shapes, location
relative to one another, and shared internal driveway and parking system makes it unlikely that HOS
R-2 could develop as anything but a single project.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-111
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site R-2 / 589, 607, 609, 615 & 617 SRV Blvd / Town & Country Shopping
Center - Development Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily
Residential Very High
(30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site R-2 / 589, 607, 609, 615 & 617 SRV Blvd / Town & Country Shopping Center - Development
Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
4.705
acres
(204,950
sq. ft.)
142 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
163,950
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,155 sq. ft.
ave
15% (21 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
34 2-BDRs
(24%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
108 3-BDRs
(76%)
- ave 1,313 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
70 at -grade (22%)
250 tandem or
standard (78%) for
320 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site R-2 / 589, 607, 609, 615 & 617 SRV Blvd / Town & Country Shopping Center - Development
Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
4.705
acres
(204,950
sq. ft.)
164 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
163,950
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(139,350 sq. ft.)
/
850 sq. ft. ave
15% (24 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
28 Studios
(17%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
82 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
54 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 952 sq.
ft.
109 at -grade
(34%) 212
podium (66%) for
321 total spaces -
2.00 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site R-2 / 589, 607, 609, 615 & 617 SRV
Scenario
Podium Apartments at 47.06 dus/acre
Blvd / Town & Country Shopping Center - Development
3:
after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
4.705
acres
(204,950
sq. ft.)
222 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 58
units to
47.25 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 194,700
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(165,500 5sq.
ft.)
758 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (19 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (33 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
47 Studios
(21 %) - ave
625 sq. ft.
91 1-BDRs
(41 %)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
84 2-BDRs
(38%)
- ave 835 sq.
ft.
131 at -grade (30%
of spaces) / 306
basement (70% of
spaces) / 437 total
spaces for 1.97
spaces per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-112
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MEV
2023-2031
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
•
Housing Opportunity Site S / Blake Griggs / Village Shopping Center
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 7 Retail
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to
Development
- Podium apartments 47.06 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Development Scenarios
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildi
ng
Age
Building
Size
208-060-
053
107-A Town &
Country Drive
Private
(Blake Griggs)
3.888
3.888
Shopping
Center
1977
66,722 sq.
ft.
Totals
3.888
acres
tbd acres
-
-
66,722 sq.
ft.
(39% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site S (HOS S) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-113
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
leading to the redevelopment of HOS S with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to 2030
planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, no limits on redevelopment options due to slope gradients, and absence of
pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Relative proximity to the center of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the
community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple family
residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville 2023-2030
Housing Element; and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older commercial
space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the San Ramon
Valley.
• The following table for HOS S depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 116 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 136 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 183 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 136 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of 15 units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 28 units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-114
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
DANVELI
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS S.
• Redevelopment of HOS S will be directed in part by language set forth in Danville 2030 General Plan
Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville. The text calls for an expansion of the
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the
creation of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area
be compatible in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's
architectural heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of
the current design review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving
the area's historic buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a
desirable destination.
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-115
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site S / Blake Griggs Properties / Village Shopping Center -
Development Scenarios reflecting standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High
(30 to 35 units per net acre) land use and zoning designation
Approved Final Development Plan for Alexan Downtown Danville - a 2015-2022 RHNA shortfall site constructed in 2020:
For -rent project; podium parking structure; 35% density bonus invoked; 40.4 units per acre density; 88.0% far; 86.3%
leasable; 827 sq. ft. average unit; 1.96 parking spaces per unit (Note: The Alexan project data supplied to document market
feasibility of Site S Development Scenarios)
Note: The Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project is a starting point "template" for Site K-1. The building
height, story height, FAR, parking ratio and average unit size would be adjusted upward to reflect the new 30 to 35 units per
acre development density, being a slight increase over the 25 to 30 units per acre standard Alexan developed under (and
invoked density bonus provisions upon)
Parcel
Size -
Net
Acres
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning baselines
-Maximum Units at
30.0 units per net
acre / Max. Density
/ Max. Story & Bldg.
Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density Bonus
(40.4 units per
net acre) /
Development
Concession
#1
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) Allowed
by zoning / FAR
Approved (ratio
of conditioned
space to net
parcel sq. ft.)
Development
Concession #2
Percentage
Leasable
Space as a
Ratio of Total
Conditioned
Space /
Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product
Type
Unit Mix
At -grade Parking
Spaces /
Podium Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces and
Spaces per Unit
Ratio Provided
Site Amenities
Provided
3.71
Net
Acres
(161,600
square
feet)
111 Units
- 30.0 units per net
acre
/ 35' maximum
building height
allowed
Through
Density Bonus
- 150 units
at 40.4 units
per net acre /
37' Building
Height (as
Density Bonus
Development
Standard
Concession -1)
80% Allowed
FAR
/ 88% Approved
FAR - yielding
143,750
square feet of
conditioned
space (as
Development
Standard
Concession -2)
86.3%
Leasable
(124,050 sq.
ft.)
13.7% Support
Non -Leasable
(19,725 sq. ft.)
/ 827 sq. ft ave
/ Secured ten
units affordable
to VL Income
Luxury
Apartments
Studios
(10%)
1-BDRs
(50%)
2-BDRs
(40%)
5200
82 at -grade
(39% of spaces) /
212 basement
(61% of spaces) /
294 total spaces
for 1.96 spaces
per unit
(43% of site as
basement pkg.)
• Lobby/Leasing
Area
• Clubhouse Area
• Gym • Swimming
Pool (1) • Common
Meeting Room •
Tot Lot • BBQ
Areas
• Dog Area • Dog
Grooming Area
• UPS/Moving Van
Parking Areas •
Gated Common
Area
Housing Opportunity Site S / Blake Griggs Properties / Village Shopping Center - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale Rowhouses & Stacked Flats
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed
Development
Density
Density Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
3.888
acres
(169,361
sq ft)
116 Units - being
30.0 dus/ac the
minimum density
allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High
and P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
135,500 sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,168 sq. ft
ave
15% (17 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
18 2-BDRs (16%)
- ave 650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
98 3-BDRs (84%)
- ave 1,330 sq. ft.
(rowhouses)
50 at -grade (19%)
211 tandem or
standard (81%) for
261 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site S / Blake Griggs Properties / Village Shopping Center - Development Scenario 2:
For -rent project w/ podium parking
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed
Development
Density
Density Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
3.888
acres
(169,361
sq ft)
136 Units - being
35.0 dus/ac the
maximum density
allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High
and P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
135,500 sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(115,175 sq.
ft.) /
847 sq. ft. ave
15% (20 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
20 Studios (15%) -
ave 725 sq. ft.
68 1-BDRs (50%)
- ave 825 sq. ft.
48 2-BDRs (35%)
- ave 928 sq. ft.
76 at -grade (31%)
174 podium
basement pkg
(71 %) for 245 total
spaces -1.80
spaces per unit
(33% of site as
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-116
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Mgr
2023-2031
1-1'OUSING
APPENDIX C
•
DANVII..I .E
Housing Opportunity Site S / Blake Griggs Properties / Village Shopping Center - Development Scenario 3:
For -rent project with podium parking structure and with 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
GP/Zoning and
Density Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
Unit Size /
Product
Unit Mix and
At -grade, Structure
Size
Proposed
(FAR) /
Affordability
Type /
Representative
Parking and Total
Development Density
Assumed
conditioned
space
Component
Parking
Design
Unit Sizes
Parking Spaces
3.888
183 Units - being
Development
80% FAR
85.0%
Podium
28 Studios
92 at -grade
acres
35.0 dus/ac plus a
Scenario 3
Allowed
Leasable
Apartments
(15%) - ave
(30% of spaces) /
(169,361
35% density bonus /
assumes
95% FAR
(136,765 sq. ft.)
625 sq. ft.
215 basement
sq ft)
3 stories and 35'
Density Bonus
Assumed -
/
79 1-BDRs
(70% of spaces) /
building height by P-1
of 47 units to
yielding 160,900
747 sq. ft. ave
(43%)
307 total spaces
zoning
47.07 dus/ac
sq. ft.
/ 11% (15 units)
- ave 725 sq.
for 1.68 spaces per
/ 37' Height
conditioned
of baseline
ft.
unit
(Devel Stnd
space (Devel
units for VL
76 2-BDRs
(41 % of site as
Concession -1)
Stnd
Income or
(37%)
basement pkg.)
Concession -2)
20% (28 units)
of baseline
units for Low
- ave 816 sq.
ft.
Income
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-117
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site T / 200 Boone Court / Danville Bowl
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Downtown Master Plan
Zoning: Downtown Business District (DBD) - Area 7 Retail
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: DBD Area 13 - Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1; Planned Unit
Development
- Podium apartments 46.91 dus/ac 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
216-080-
200 Bonne Ct.
Private
1.30
1.30
Service
1961
40,720 sf
072
(Glen Arms
Commerci
216-080-
Bonne Ct.
Estates Inc
and Eppler)
0.32
0.32
al
004
Totals
1.62 acres
1.62 acres
-
-
40,720 sf
(58%
FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property (it has two APNs but would perform as a single
property) making up Housing Opportunity Site T (HOS T) a viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to
35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with this redesignation, where coupled with a
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-118
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS T
with high density multifamily uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively Targe size and regular shape, absence of slope
instability or erosion, no limits on redevelopment options due to slope gradients, and absence of
pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Relative proximity to the center of Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the
community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple family
residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville 2023-2030
Housing Element; and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older service
commercial space with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high demand in the
San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS T depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed after application of standards of a new DBD - Area
13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre) land use designation and a site-specific
Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 49 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 59 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 76 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 59 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of seven units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of twelve units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-119
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS T.
• Redevelopment of HOS T will be directed in part by language set forth in Danville 2030 General Plan
Special Concern Area discussion for Downtown Danville. The text calls for an expansion of the
pedestrian -oriented development scale found along Hartz Avenue to new areas, calling for the
creation of more walkable streets and gathering places and directing that future growth in the area
be compatible in scale with existing development in Danville, with buildings that respect the Town's
architectural heritage and character. In addition, the text underscores the perceived importance of
the current design review process as a tool for achieving the desired form of development, preserving
the area's historic buildings, and extending the pedestrian -oriented qualities that make Downtown a
desirable destination.
Additional Site-specific Opportunity and Constraints Considerations:
• HOS T is wedged between a 69 -unit for -sale townhouse project (i.e., the Hartley Drive/Ashley Court
attached multifamily - developed a density of 13.8 dus/acre), the west embankment of the 1-680 freeway,
and commercial use (i.e., Sycamore Square Shopping Center and a gas station).
• Any residential project placed on the site would likely need to accommodate maintenance access to 1-
680 retaining wall at the east side of the project. The most comparable condition is how access over
individually owned rear yards was provided for in the Stonybrook project which had a fourteen foot width
"no -build" area at base of the wall for Caltrans maintenance/access purposes.
• Any redevelopment of the site would likely trigger a review of the right-of-way condition for Boone Ct.,
which appears to have an oversized right-of-way given its dead-end condition east of Hartley Drive. The
predecessor of Boone Ct. had extended east on past the current freeway to align with Laurel Drive.
Potentially up to one-third of the existing right-of-way could be deemed as excess right of way the section
of the roadway east of its intersection with Hartley Drive needs only be sufficient to handle traffic to the
subject property and truck delivery traffic serving Sycamore Shopping Center.
• It is anticipated that a new DBD Area would need to be established to accommodate a DBD with a 30
unit minimum density. The development options below anticipate the 35' height limit and 80% maximum
FAR would pull forward from Area 12 to the new DBD Area - i.e., DBD Area 13 Multifamily Residential
Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre).
• While redevelopment of HOS T with a replacement residential project was analyzed in terms of potential
environmental impacts in the Focused EIR prepared for the Danville 2030 General Plan, the site's land
use designation remained unchanged with the adoption of the 2030 Plan and, as such, has not been a
site identified to meet the Town's RHNA as a non -vacant site for the past two Identified Housing Element
Planning Cycles. If the site was redesignated with this review, it would constitute its first planning review
period under HCD site availability standards.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-120
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
DA.NVILL
Housing Opportunity Site T / 200 Boone Court / Danville Bowl - Development Scenarios
reflecting
standards of a new DBD - Area 13 Multifamily Residential Very High (30 to 35 units per net acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Approved Final Development Plan for Alexan Downtown Danville - a 2015-2022 RHNA shortfall site constructed in 2020:
For -rent project; podium parking structure; 35% density bonus invoked; 40.4 units per acre density; 88.0% far; 86.3%
leasable; 827 sq. ft. average unit; 1.96 spaces/unit (Note: The Alexan project data supplied to document market feasibility
of Site T Development Scenarios)
Note: The Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project is a starting point "template" for Site K-1. The building
height, story height, FAR, parking ratio and average unit size would be adjusted upward to reflect the new 30 to 35 units
per acre development density, being a slight increase over the 25 to 30 units per acre standard Alexan developed under
(and invoked density bonus provisions upon)
Parcel
Size -
Net
Acres
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at 30.0
units per net
acre / Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density
Bonus
(40.4 units
per net acre)
/
Development
Concession
#1
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning / FAR
Approved (ratio
of conditioned
space to net
parcel sq. ft.)
Development
Concession #2
Percentage
Leasable Space
as a Ratio of
Total
Conditioned
Space / Average
Unit Size
Product Type
Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking Spaces
/
Podium Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces and
Spaces per Unit
Ratio Provided
Site Amenities
Provided
3.71
Net
Acres
(161,600
square
feet)
111 Units -
30.0 units
per net acre
/ 35'
maximum
building
height
allowed
By Density
Bonus - 150
units
at 40.4 units
per net acre /
37' Building
Height (as
Density
Bonus
Development
Standard
Concession-
1)
80% Allowed
FAR
/ 88%
Approved FAR
- yielding
143,750
square feet of
conditioned
space (as
Development
Standard
Concession -2)
86.3% Leasable
(124,050 sq. ft.)
13.7% Support
Non -Leasable
(19,725 sq. ft.)
/ 827 sq. ft. ave
/ Secured ten
units affordable
to VL Income
Luxury
Apartments
Studios (10%)
1-BDRs (50%)
2-BDRs (40%)
82 at -grade
(39% of spaces)
/ 212 basement
(61 % of spaces)
/
294 total spaces
for 1.96 spaces
per unit
(45% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
• Lobby/Leasing Area
• Clubhouse Area •
Gym
• Swimming Pool (1)
• Common Meeting
Room • Tot Lot
• BBQ Areas • Dog
Area
• UPS/Moving Van
Parking Areas • Dog
Grooming Area •
Secured Common Area
Housing Opportunity Site T / 200 Boone Court / Danville Bowl - Development Scenario 1: For -sale Rowhouses/Flats;
podium parking structure; density bonus not invoked; 30 units per acre minimum density; 80.0% FAR; 1,152 sq. ft.
average unit; & 2.25 spaces/unit
Net
Acres
Parcel
Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Minimum
Units at 30.0
units per net
acre / Min.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density
Bonus
(46.9 units
per net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning /
Approved
(conditioned
space divided
by net parcel
size)
Maximum
Conditioned
Space Available
for sale /
Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product Type
and Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking Spaces
/
Podium Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces /
Spaces per Unit
Ratio Provided
Site Amenities
Provided
90 garages
1.62
acres
(70,575
sq. ft.)
49 Units -
at 30.0 units
per net acre
/
3 stories and
35' building
height
allowed and
assumed
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Option 1 so
49 Units
at 30.0 units
minimum per
net acre
80% Allowed /
80% Assumed
(yielding 56,460
square feet
conditioned
space)
56,460 sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,152 sq. ft. ave
/ 15% (7 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Income
Households (7 of
8 Stacked Flats)
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses &
Stacked Flats
1- to 2 -car
garages
8 2-BDRs
(16%) - @ 650
sq. ft. (stacked
flats)
41 3-BDRs
(85%)
- @ 1,250 sq.
ft.
21 at -grade
spaces (19%) /
90 side-by-side
or tandem
garage spaces
(81 %) / 111 total
spaces / 2.25
spaces per unit
As proposed by
applicant and as would
be set through the
project entitlement
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-121
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site T / 200 Boone Court / Danville Bowl - Development Scenario 2: For -rent project; podium
parking structure; density bonus not invoked; 35 units per acre maximum density; 80.0% FAR; 87.5% leasable; 965 sq. ft.
average unit; & 2.00 spaces/unit
Net
Acres
Parcel
Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at 35.0
units per net
acre / Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density
Bonus
(46.9 units
per net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning /
Approved
(conditioned
space divided
by net parcel
size)
Leasable Space
as Ratio of Total
Conditioned
Space / Average
Unit Size
/ Affordable
Component
Product Type
and Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking Spaces
/
Podium Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces /
Spaces per Unit
Ratio Provided
Site Amenities
Provided
1.62
acres
(70,575
sq. ft.)
56 Units -
at 35.0 units
per net acre
/
3 stories and
35' building
height
allowed and
assumed
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Option 1 so
56 Units
at 35.0 units
maximum
per net acre
80% Allowed /
80% Assumed
(yielding 56,460
square feet
conditioned
space)
85.0% Leasable
(48,000 sq. ft.) /
857 sq. ft. ave
/ 15% (8 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Income
Households
Podium
Apartments
9 Studios
(16%) - @ 725
sq. ft.
28 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
19 2-BDRs
(34%)
- @ 965 sq. ft.
42 at -grade
spaces (37.5%)
/ 70 basement
spaces (62.5%)
/ 112 total
spaces / 2.00
spaces per unit
As proposed by
applicant and as would
be set through the
project entitlement
Housing Opportunity Site T / 200 Boone Court /
parking structure; 35% density bonus invoked; 46.91
ft. average
Danville Bowl - Development Scenario 3: For -rent project; podium
units per acre maximum density; 95.0% far; 85.0% leasable; 720 sq.
unit; & 1.78 spaces/unit
Net
Acres
Parcel
Size
(square
feet)
GP/Zoning
baselines -
Maximum
Units at 35.0
units per net
acre / Max.
Density
/ Max. Story
& Bldg. Ht.
Maximum
Units after
35% invoking
Density
Bonus
(46.9 units
per net acre)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Allowed by
zoning / FAR
Approved (ratio
of conditioned
space to net
parcel sq. ft.)
Development
Concession -2
Percentage
Leasable Space
as a Ratio of
Total
Conditioned
Space / Average
Unit Size
Product Type
and Unit Mix
At -grade
Parking Spaces
/
Podium Parking
Spaces /
Total Parking
Spaces and
Spaces per Unit
Ratio Provided
Site Amenities
Provided
1.62
acres
(70,575
sq. ft.)
76 Units -
at 35.0 units
per net acre
/
3 stories and
35' building
height
allowed and
approved
Density
Bonus of 20
units to 46.91
units per net
acre / 37'
Building
Height (as
Density
Bonus
Development
Standard
Concession-
1)
80% Allowed
FAR
/ 95.0%
Assumed FAR -
yielding 67,050
square feet of
conditioned
space (as
Development
Standard
Concession -2)
85.0% Leasable
(57,000 sq. ft.) /
749 square feet
average unit size
/ 11% (7 units) of
baseline units for
VL Income or
20% (12 units) of
baseline units for
Low Income
Households
Podium
Apartments
16
Studios(21 %) -
@ 625 sq. ft.
32 1-BDRs
(42%)
- @ 725 sq.
ft.
28 2-BDRs
(37%)
- @ 850 sq. ft.
40 at -grade
(30% of spaces)
/ 95 basement
(70% of spaces)
/
135 total spaces
for 1.78 spaces
per unit
(47% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
As proposed by
applicant and as would
be set through the
project entitlement
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-122
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
DA.NVILL
Housing Opportunity Site U / 744, 760, 770, 780 & 790 SRV Blvd / 8 -sided office buildings
& gas station
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Commercial - Limited Office
Zoning: 0-1; Limited Office District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 47.03 dus/ac after 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
207-012-
001
744 SRV Blvd
Private
(Sartip)
0.571
0.571
Gas
Station
Pre-
1982
1,363 sq. ft.
207-012-
760 SRV Blvd
Private
Not
Not
Office
Pre-
4,652 sq. ft.
007
(Baroumand)
calculated
calculated
1982
207-012-
770 SRV Blvd
Private
Not
Not
Office
Pre-
4,652 sq. ft.
008
(Bute Dev
calculated
calculated
1982
LLC)
207-012-
780 SRV Blvd
Private
Not
Not
Office
Pre-
4,652 sq. ft.
009
(R&P
calculated
calculated
1982
Ventures)
207-012-
790 SRV Blvd
Private
Not
Not
Office
Pre-
4,652 sq. ft.
010
(Castello)
calculated
calculated
1982
Totals
2.36
2.36
-
-
19,971 sq.
ft.
(19% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the five properties making up Housing Opportunity Site U (HOS
U) viable candidates for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation
with this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action,
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-123
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
reasonably leading to the redevelopment of HOS A properties with high density multifamily uses during
the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the properties when considered in the aggregate (i.e., relatively large size
and regular shape, absence of slope instability or erosion, and presence of onsite slopes that
are limited to relatively minor slope gradients);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Relative proximity to Downtown Danville, viewed as the heart and soul of the community;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the properties and/or the presence of relatively low floor area ratios
(FARs);
o Ability for the properties to reasonably develop either in pairs, groupings of three or four
properties or jointly; and
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
a substantial increase from current FAR and the replacement of relatively older Class B office
space and a pre -1982 gas station with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have high
demand in the San Ramon Valley.
• The following table for HOS U depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a minimum of 71
units of for -sale attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses
intermixed with a limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average
unit size of around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio
standard for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income
housing obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development of the properties with a maximum of 82
units of for -rent podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing
an average unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area
ratio for conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 111 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 71 units. This scenario envisions development of the properties with a for -rent podium
apartment project residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to
increase from the 80% standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible
options to supply target units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of
ten units for very low income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 23
units for low income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently
constructed Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization
of 95% FAR compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-124
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
•
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS U.
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-125
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site U / 744, 760, 770, 780 & 790 SRV Blvd / 8 -sided office buildings
and
gas station - Development Scenarios reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site U / 744, 760, 770, 780 & 790 SRV Blvd / 8 -sided office buildings & gas station - Development
Scenario 1:
Development Scenario 1: For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
2.36
acres
(102,800
sq ft)
71 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 82,250
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,158 sq ft ave
15% (7 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
10 2-BDRs
(14%)
- ave 650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
61 3-BDRs
(86%)
- ave 1,241 sq.
ft.
(rowhouses)
29 at -grade (18%)
131 tandem or
standard (82%) for
160 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site U / 744, 760, 770, 780 & 790 SRV Blvd / 8 -sided office buildings & gas station - Development
Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.36
acres
(102,800
sq ft)
82 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the maximum
density allowed by
Multifamily -
Residential - High and
P-1 Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 82,250
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(69,925 sq. ft.) /
853 sq ft ave
15% (12 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
12 Studios
(15%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
41 1-BDRs
(50%)
- ave 825 sq.
ft.
29 2-BDRs
(35%)
- ave 945 sq.
ft.
44 at -grade (30%)
104 podium
(70%) for 148 total
spaces -1.80
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site U / 744, 760, 770, 780 & 790 SRV
Scenario
Podium Apartments at 46.83 dus/acre
Blvd / 8 -sided office buildings & gas station - Development
3:
after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.36
acres
(102,800
sq ft)
111 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height by P-1 zoning
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 29
units to
47.03 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 97,650
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(83,000 sq. ft.) /
748 sq ft ave
/ 11% (10 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (23 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
24 Studios
(22%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
47 1-BDRs
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
40 2-BDRs
(36%)
- ave 848 sq.
ft.
58 at -grade
(30% of spaces) /
136 basement
(70% of spaces) /
194 total spaces
for 1.75 spaces
per unit
(46% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-126
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031
HOLISING EL'E E JT
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site V / 1435 SRV Blvd / Curtis and Darby
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Open Space - Agricultural
Zoning: A-2; General Agricultural District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 46.54 dus/ac after 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
208-230-
047
1435 SRV Blvd
Private
(Curtis &
Darby)
1.375
1.375
OS -AG
1925
4,236 sq. ft.
Totals
1.375
1.375
-
-
4,236 sq. ft.
(7% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site V (HOS V) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS V with high density multifamily
uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of visual
slope instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope
gradients, and absence of pollution or contamination);
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-127
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
• The following table for HOS V depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 42 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 48 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 64 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 48 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of six units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 13 units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS V.
• The right of way across the frontage of HOS V that was necessary for the relatively recent widening
of San Ramon Valley Blvd. was secured in conjunction with the development of the surrounding
residential project to the north and road widening constructed for that project. Some additional right
of way may still be necessary to be secured.
• Extensive geotechnical analysis was done in conjunction with the processing of the surrounding
residential project. That work would need to be reviewed, and site-specific supplemental analysis
preformed, to determine if HOS V is protected from upslope deep seated landslides that dictated
extensive mitigation work above and around the surrounding residential project to the north.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-128
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site V / 1435 SRV Blvd / Curtis and Darby - Development Scenarios
reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High Density (30 to 35 units per acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site V / 1435 SRV Blvd / Curtis and Darby - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.375
acres
(59,900
sq. ft.)
42 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 47,925
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,141 sq. ft.
ave
15% (6 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
10 2-BDRs
(24%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
32 3-BDRs
(76%)
- ave 1,294 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
21 at -grade (22%)
74 tandem or
standard (78%) for
95 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site V / 1435 SRV Blvd / Curtis and Darby - Development Scenario 2
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.375
acres
(59,900
sq. ft.)
48 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 47,925
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(40,750 sq. ft.) /
849 sq. ft. ave
15% (7 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
8 Studios
(17%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
24 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
16 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 947 sq.
ft.
29 at -grade (30%)
66 podium (70%)
for 95 total spaces
-1.97 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site V / 1435 SRV Blvd / Curtis and Darby - Development Scenario 3
Podium Apartments at 46.54 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.375
acres
(59,900
sq. ft.)
64 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 16
units to
46.54 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 56,900
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(48,375 ft.) /
756 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (6 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (13 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
13 Studios
(20%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
26 1-BDRs
(41% )
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
25 2-BDRs
(39%)
- ave 856 sq.
ft.
38 at -grade (30%
of spaces) / 88
basement (70% of
spaces) / 126 total
spaces for 1.97
spaces per unit
(51 % of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-129
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site W / 828 Diablo Road / Sloat Nursery
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Residential - Single Family - Low Density (1 to 3 dus/ac)
Zoning: R-15; Single Family Residential District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 47.05 dus/ac after 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
196-270-
029
828 Diablo
Road
Private
(Parsons &
Parsons)
2.720
2.720
Plant Nursery
1942
900 sq. ft.
Totals
2.720
2.720
-
-
900 sq. ft.
(<1% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site W (HOS W)
a viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS W with high density multifamily
uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of visual
slope instability or erosion, and presence of onsite slopes that are limited to relatively minor slope
gradients)
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-130
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
• The following table for HOS W depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 82 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 95 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 128 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 95 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of eleven units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of nineteen units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS W.
• In conjunction with the redesignation of the property for Multiple Family High Density use,
redevelopment of HOS X will need to address direct inconsistencies with language set forth in
Danville 2030 General Plan Special Concern Area discussion for the Diablo / Green Valley / Stone
Valley Corridor area. The current language reads as follows:
"The north -south segment of Diablo Road between its intersections with Camino Tassajara and
El Cerro Blvd includes a number of parcels with development potential, particularly near the El
Cerro Blvd intersection. The General Plan designates this entire segment for Residential - Single
Family - Low Density (1-3 units per acre) uses. If development is proposed on vacant or
underutilized parcels in this area, it must occur in a manner that is compatible with nearby
residential uses. To the extent feasible, development on such parcels should not increase the
number of ingress and egress points to Diablo Road. New commercial or institutional uses are
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-131
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
not considered appropriate in this area, nor are medium or high density residential uses.
(Emphasis Added)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-132
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
Housing Opportunity Site W / 828 Diablo Road / Sloat Nursery - Development Scenarios
reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High Density (30 to 35 units per acre)
land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site W / 828 Diablo Road / Sloat Nursery -
Development Scenario 1: For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
2.720
acres
(118,475
sq. ft.)
82 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 94,780
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,155 sq. ft.
ave
15% (12 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
18 2-BDRs
(22%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
64 3-BDRs
(78%)
- ave 1,298 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
41 at -grade (22%)
144 tandem or
standard (78%) for
185 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site W / 828 Diablo Road / Sloat Nursery -
Development Scenario 2: Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.720
acres
(118,475
sq. ft.)
95 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 94,775
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(80,575 sq. ft.) /
848 sq. ft. ave
15% (14 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
16 Studios
(17%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
48 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
31 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 947 sq.
ft.
56 at -grade (30%)
131 podium
(70%) for 187 total
spaces -1.97
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site W / 828 Diablo Road / Sloat Nursery -
Development Scenario 3: Podium Apartments at 47.05 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
2.720
acres
(118,475
sq. ft.)
128 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 33
units to
47.05 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 112,550
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(95,675 ft.) /
747 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (11 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (19 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
27 Studios
(21%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
53 1-BDRs
(41%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
48 2-BDRs
(38%)
- ave 841 sq.
ft.
76 at -grade (30%
of spaces) / 176
basement (70% of
spaces) / 252 total
spaces for 1.97
spaces per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-133
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site X / 2900 Camino Tassajara / Wood Ranch Headquarters
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Mixed Use
Zoning: P-1; Planned Unit Development District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 47.25 dus/ac after 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
217-040-
021
2900 Camino
Tassajara
Private
(Wood &
Wood and
Company)
8.0
(Portion of
17.06
acres)
8.0
(Portion of
17.06
acres)
Historic
head-
quarters
for Wood
Ranch
Numero
us small
historic
ranch
head-
quarter
structure
s
Individual
building
sizes not
indicated
on Valley
Pioneer
Totals
8.0 acres
8.0 acres
-
-
Not
determined
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site X (HOS X) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS X with high density multifamily
uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
APPENDIX C I 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-134
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2023-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
D, NNITL!
o Physical features of the property (Le., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of visual
slope instability or erosion, and presence of large development zone whose slopes are limited to
relatively minor slope gradients)
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple
family residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville
2023-2030 Housing Element.
• The following table for HOS X depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 240 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 280 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 378 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 280 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of 31 units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of 56 units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• The following It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income
portion of Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on
Development Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS X.
• Except as may be changed in conjunction with the redesignation of an eight acre portion of the site
for Multiple Family High Density use, redevelopment of HOS X will be directed by language set forth
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-135
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
in Danville 2030 General Plan Special Concern Area discussion for the seventeen acre Wood Ranch
Headquarters site. The current language reads as follows:
"The 17 -acre Historic Wood Family Ranch Headquarters has served as the center of the Wood
family farming business since 1862. The property includes a dwelling built in 1853, plus several
other buildings with potential historic value. In the past, the idea of building a museum on the site
has been suggested. The Wood family previously indicated a willingness, under certain
conditions, to donate a portion of the site for such a facility.
The Town encourages the planned unit development approach in this area. Future development
should seek to preserve some of the historic buildings in the site plan and, to the extent there is
support by the Wood family, incorporate a museum component in the project. Inclusion of a
museum should be contingent on the identification of a government agency or a local nonprofit
organization capable of and willing to operate such a facility. The remainder of the site may be
developed with a variety of low profile mixed uses, including housing, offices, and a limited range
of specialty commercial uses, such as bed and breakfast lodging.
Because of the proximity of the site to established residential areas and its unique and historic
qualities, large scale community retail or general commercial uses are not considered
appropriate. Proposals which accommodate mixed uses such as housing and smaller -scale
commercial development may be considered, provided that the uses are compatible with
adjacent land uses. In any event, the project as a whole should incorporate building and
landscape designs that are compatible with surrounding uses.
Uses which capitalize on the site's historic ambiance and natural features should be encouraged.
Designs which incorporate the creek as a public amenity and which preserve mature trees and
the vegetation screen between the site and Camino Tassajara also are encouraged. Uses with
the potential to generate large amounts of traffic are discouraged. If housing is included,
opportunities to meet some of the special needs identified in the Town's Housing Element should
be explored. The density of any housing constructed on the site should be in the general range
of 20-30 units per net acre. Such housing could be in structures that are entirely residential or
incorporated on the upper floor(s) of structures with ground floor commercial uses.
Sycamore Creek crosses the Wood Ranch property, creating a riparian corridor through the site.
The creek corridor reduces the net developable acreage of the site but provides an opportunity
as a site amenity and a means of screening development from Camino Tassajara. Future
development proposals should retain the creek corridor as open space, conserve riparian
vegetation, and incorporate stormwater retention and water quality protection features. The open
space provides an opportunity for a linear park through the property, which could enhance the
aesthetic quality of future development on the site."
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-136
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX C
DA ANLL
Housing Opportunity Site X / 2900 Camino Tassajara / Wood Ranch Headquarters —
Development Scenarios reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High Density
(30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site X / 2900 Camino Tassajara / Wood Ranch Headquarters - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
8.00
acres
(348,480
sq. ft.)
240 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
278,784
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,162 sq. ft.
ave
15% (36 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
50 2-BDRs
(21 %) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
190 3-BDR
(79%)
- ave 1,296 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
112 at -grade
(21 %) 428 tandem
or standard (79%)
for 540 total
spaces -2.25
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site X / 2900 Camino Tassajara / Wood Ranch Headquarters - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
8.00
acres
(348,480
sq. ft.)
280 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
278,784
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(236,966 sq. ft.)
/
846 sq. ft. ave
15% (42 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
50 Studios
(18%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
140 1-BDR
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
90 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 947 sq.
ft.
136 at -grade
(29%) 334
podium (71 %) for
470 total spaces -
1.96 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site X / 2900 Camino Tassajara / Wood Ranch Headquarters - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 47.25 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
8.00
acres
(348,480
sq. ft.)
378 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 98
units to
47.25 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 331,056
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(281,400 sq. ft.)
/
744 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (31 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (56 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
83 Studios
(22%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
159 1-BDR
(42%)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
136 2-BDR
(36%)
- ave 840 sq.
ft.
223 at -grade (30%
of spaces) / 521
basement (70% of
spaces) / 744 total
spaces for 1.97
spaces per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-137
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site Y / 3420 Fostoria Way / Seacrest TRE & 3420 Fostoria
Way LLC
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Commercial - Light Industrial
Zoning: L-1; Light Industrial District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 46.96 dus/ac after 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
218-040-
043
3420 Fostoria
Way
Private
(Seacrest
TRE & 3420
Fostoria Way
LLC)
1.755
1.448
Light Industrial
Service
Commercial
1985
30,836 sq.
ft.
Totals
1.755
1.448
-
-
30,836 sq.
ft.
(49% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site Y (HOS Y) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS Y with high density multifamily
uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o Physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and regular shape, absence of visual
slope instability or erosion, and presence of large development zone whose slopes are limited to
relatively minor slope gradients)
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-138
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HOLISING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
41i
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
o Current or prior expressed interest of the property owners to be considered for multiple family
residential land use designation in the density range considered under the Danville 2023-2030
Housing Element.
• The following table for HOS Y depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 44 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 50 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 68 units and a development density of just under 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 50 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of six units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of ten units for low income
households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed Alexan
Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• The following It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income
portion of Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on
Development Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS Y.
• An existing 60 foot private roadway easement for Fostoria Way along south-southeast side of HOS
Y would likely need to remain - with the estimated area involved having been taken out of the above-
cited gross property size to indicate the amount of area available for redevelopment.
• The adjoining property to the west-southwest previously held a similar building and range of uses as
currently exists on HOS Y. That property was granted a general plan amendment for a property
owner -initiated study that resulted in the construction of the multiple family condominium use that is
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-139
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
currently present at the site (i.e., "The Preserves at Iron Horse Trail").
• Redesignation of the site for Multiple Family High Density use would be substantially consistent with
the policy direction for the site set forth in Danville 2030 General Plan Special Concern Area
discussion for the Fostoria East area site. The current pertinent language affecting HOS Y reads as
follows:
"The remainder of Fostoria East, comprising approximately 2.6 acres, retains its Commercial -
Controlled Manufacturing designation in the 2030 General Plan. The designation allows existing
uses to continue. Looking out over the next 20 years, the area also represents an opportunity for
livework type uses, incubator office space, and other technology -oriented or "creative economy"
uses.
Given the location of this site at the terminus of Fostoria Way, uses which generate large traffic
volumes (such as shopping centers or big box retail stores) should be discouraged. Any future
development or intensification of the Controlled Manufacturing sites would need to be designed to
minimize impacts on surrounding residential properties. Buffering and screening to adjacent
development on the north will be critical, with building heights of no more than two stories along the
northern property line. Ingress and egress should be limited to Fostoria Way. (Emphasis Added)
Housing Opportunity Site Y / 3420 Fostoria Way / Seacrest TRE and 3420 Fostoria Way LLC —
Development Scenarios reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High Density
(30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site Y / 3420 Fostoria Way / Seacrest TRE and 3420 Fostoria Way LLC -
Development Scenario 1: For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
1.448
acres
(63,075
sq. ft.)
44 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 50,450
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,147 sq. ft.
ave
15% (6 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
10 2-BDRs
(21 %) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
34 3-BDRs
(79%)
- ave 1,292 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
21 at -grade (21%)
78 tandem or
standard (79%) for
99 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site Y / 3420 Fostoria Way / Seacrest TRE and 3420 Fostoria Way LLC -
Development Scenario 2: Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
1.448
acres
(63,075
sq. ft.)
50 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding 50,450
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(42,875 sq. ft.) /
858 sq. ft. ave
15% (6 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
9 Studios
(18%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
25 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
16 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 983 sq.
ft.
28 at -grade (29%)
71 podium (71 %)
for 98 total spaces
-1.96 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site Y / 3420 Fostoria Way / Seacrest TRE and 3420 Fostoria Way LLC -
Development Scenario 3: Podium Apartments at 47.05 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -C-140
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Mgr
2023-2031
HOUSING ELF NT
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-141
conditioned
space
Design
Spaces
1.448
68 Units - being 35.0
Development
80% FAR
85.0%
Podium
16 Studios
40 at -grade (30%
acres
dus/ac plus a 35%
Scenario 3
Allowed
Leasable
Apartments
(22%) - ave
of spaces) / 94
(63,075
density bonus / 3
assumes
95% FAR
(50,950 ft.) /
625 sq. ft.
basement (70% of
sq. ft.)
stories and 35' building
Density
Assumed -
749 sq. ft. ave
29 1-BDRs
spaces) / 134 total
height assumed P-1
Bonus of 18
yielding 59,925
/ 11% (6 units)
(42%)
spaces for 1.97
zoning standards
units to
sq. ft.
of baseline
- ave 725 sq.
spaces per unit
46.96 dus/ac
conditioned
units for VL
ft.
(52% of site
/ 37' Height
space (Dev Stnd
Income or
23 2-BDRs
occupied by
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
Concession -2)
20% (10 units)
of baseline
units for Low
(36%)
- ave 866 sq.
ft.
basement pkg.)
Income
APPENDIX C 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-141
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site Z / 699 Old Orchard Dr / San Ramon Valley Unified School
District
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Public and Semi -Public
Zoning: P-1; Planned Unit Development District
Potential General Plan / Zoning Designations - Representative Development Scenarios
Option 1: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - For -sale rowhouses and flats 30 dus/ac min. density
Option 2: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 35 dus/ac max. baseline density
Option 3: MF High (30 to 35 dus/ac) / P-1 - Podium apartments 47.05 dus/ac after 35% density bonus
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Site
Address
Ownershi
p
(Private
or Public)
Estimate
d Gross
Area
(acres)
Estimated
Net Area
(acres)
Current
Use
Buildin
g
Age
Building
Size
(FAR)
216-220-
008
699 Old
Orchard Dr.
Public
(SRVUSD
3.773
3.018
SRVUSD
Admin Offices
tbd
tbd sq. ft.
Totals
3.773
3.018
(Assumes 20%
of site affected
by drainage
setback)
-
-
tbd sq. ft.
(tbd% FAR)
Site Characteristics and Analysis:
• The following site characteristics render the property making up Housing Opportunity Site Z (HOS Z) a
viable candidate for redesignation to a 30 to 35 units per acre multiple family land use designation with
this redesignation, where coupled with a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1 rezoning action, reasonably
leading to the redevelopment of some or all of the land making up HOS Z with high density multifamily
uses during the 2023 to 2030 planning period:
o (After accounting for reduction of the estimated gross area of the site by around 20% acres for
the existing drainage easement) physical features of the property (i.e., relatively large size and
regular shape, absence of visual slope instability or erosion, presence of onsite slopes that are
limited to relatively minor slope gradients, and absence of pollution or contamination);
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-142
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
202.E-2031.
HI -USING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C
o Proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public and community services;
o Proximity to high performing public and private schools;
o Age of improvements on the property and/or the presence of a relatively low floor area ratio
(FAR);
o The potential for significant economic return through redevelopment that may be secured through
conversion of this underutilized site with for -sale and/or for -rent multiple family uses that have
high demand in the San Ramon Valley; and
• The following table for HOS Z depicts three representative development scenarios, each reflecting
reasonable development yields that can be assumed under a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential -
High Density (30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and a parallel Town -initiated by -right P-1
rezoning action.
o Development Scenario 1 assumes development at the minimum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
30 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a minimum of 91 units of for -sale
attached multifamily residential units, being two- and three-story row houses intermixed with a
limited number of stacked flats. The scenario would yield units with an average unit size of
around 1,150 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio standard for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis provides for the 15% moderate income housing
obligation under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially
consistent with current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density
bonus is anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 2 assumes development at the maximum allowed baseline density (i.e.,
35 units per acre). This scenario envisions development with a maximum of 105 units of for -rent
podium apartment residential units, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average
unit size of around 850 square feet while observing an assumed maximum floor area ratio for
conditioned space of 80%. The analysis cites the 15% moderate income housing obligation
under Danville's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and is substantially consistent with
current minimum parking standards for the product type analyzed. No density bonus is
anticipated with this development scenario.
o Development Scenario 3 assumes a density bonus would be invoked by a future project
applicant, taking the project up to a total of 142 units and a development density of just over 47
units per acre after securing a 35% density bonus over the maximum allowed baseline density
of 105 units. This scenario envisions development with a for -rent podium apartment project
residential product, providing a range of unit sizes while securing an average unit size of around
750 square feet while observing a FAR for conditioned space allowed to increase from the 80%
standard under zoning to a FAR of 95%. The analysis cites two possible options to supply target
units for affordability - one option resulting in provision of a minimum of twelve units for very low
income households and the other making provision of a minimum of twenty-one units for low
income households. Development Scenario 3 is largely reflective of the recently constructed
Alexan Downtown Danville podium apartment project - but assumes authorization of 95% FAR
compared to the 88% FAR standard used in the Alexan project.
• It is noted that in the effort to document provision of adequate sites for the lower income portion of
Danville's RHNA, the Danville 2023-2030 Housing Element does not depend on Development
Scenario 3 occurring on properties within HOS Z.
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-143
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Housing Opportunity Site Z / 699 Old Orchard Dr / San Ramon Valley Unified School District -
Development Scenarios reflecting a recalibrated Multifamily - Residential - High Density
(30 to 35 units per acre) land use designation and site-specific P-1 zoning
Housing Opportunity Site Z / 699 Old Orchard Dr / San Ramon Valley Unified School District - Development Scenario 1:
For -sale rowhouses and stacked flats at 30 dus/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade and
Garage Parking
Total Parking
Spaces
3.018
acres
(131,450
sq. ft.)
91 Units - being 30.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 1
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
105,150
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
1,155 sq. ft.
ave
15% (14 units)
affordable to
Moderate
Two- and
Three-story
Rowhouses
& Stacked
Flats / 1- &
2 -car
garages
20 2-BDRs
(22%) - ave
650 sq. ft.
(stacked flats)
71 3-BDRs
(78%)
- ave 1,297 sq.
ft. (rowhouses)
45 at -grade (22%)
160 tandem or
standard (78%) for
205 total spaces -
2.25 spaces per
unit
Housing Opportunity Site Z / 699 Old Orchard Dr / San Ramon Valley Unified School District - Development Scenario 2:
Podium apartments at 35 units/acre
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
3.018
acres
(131,450
sq. ft.)
105 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac the minimum
density allowed by
DBD - Area 13
Multifamily Residential
Very High and P-1
Zoning
No Project
Density
Bonus
Assumed for
Development
Scenario 2
80% FAR
Allowed 80%
FAR Assumed
- yielding
105,150
sq. ft.
conditioned
space
85.0%
Leasable
(89,375 sq. ft.) /
852 sq. ft. ave
15% (16 units)
for Moderate
Podium
Apartments
18 Studios
(17%) - ave
725 sq. ft.
53 1-BDRs
(50%)
- @ 825 sq. ft.
34 2-BDRs
(33%)
- ave 959 sq.
ft.
62 at -grade (30%)
145 podium
(70%) for 207 total
spaces - 1.97
spaces per unit
Housing Opportunity Site Z / 699 Old Orchard Dr / San Ramon Valley Unified School District - Development Scenario 3:
Podium Apartments at 47.05 dus/acre after 35% density bonus invoked
Parcel
Size
GP/Zoning and
Proposed Development
Density
Density
Bonus
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) /
Assumed
conditioned
space
Unit Size /
Affordability
Component
Product
Type /
Parking
Design
Unit Mix and
Representative
Unit Sizes
At -grade,
Structure Parking
and Total Parking
Spaces
3.018
acres
(131,450
sq. ft.)
142 Units - being 35.0
dus/ac plus a 35%
density bonus / 3
stories and 35' building
height assumed P-1
zoning standards
Development
Scenario 3
assumes
Density
Bonus of 37
units to
47.05 dus/ac
/ 37' Height
(Dev Stnd
Concession-
1)
80% FAR
Allowed
95% FAR
Assumed -
yielding 124,875
sq. ft.
conditioned
space (Dev Stnd
Concession -2)
85.0%
Leasable
(106,150 sq. ft.)
/
747 sq. ft. ave
/ 11% (12 units)
of baseline
units for VL
Income or
20% (21 units)
of baseline
units for Low
Income
Podium
Apartments
30 Studios
(21%) - ave
625 sq. ft.
58 1-BDRs
(41 %)
- ave 725 sq.
ft.
54 2-BDRs
(38%)
- ave 840 sq.
ft.
84 at -grade (30%
of spaces) / 196
basement (70% of
spaces) / 280 total
spaces for 1.97
spaces per unit
(52% of site
occupied by
basement pkg.)
APPENDIX C 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-C-144
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX D
AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHERING FAIR
HOUSING
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
1. INTRODUCTION
The United States' oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns—and
Northern California cities are no exception. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
in its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to
historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage
approvals—as well as "structural inequities" in society, and "self -segregation" (i.e., preferences
to live near similar people).
Researcher Richard Rothstein's 2017 book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our
Government Segregated America chronicles how the public sector contributed to the
segregation that exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant developments in the Bay
Area region that played a large role in where the region's non-White residents settled.
Contra Costa County. The City of Richmond in Contra Costa County is used in Rothstein's
book to discuss the Federal government's role in intentionally segregating residents of color in
the area both in housing and in employment opportunity. Segregated development patterns in
Richmond in the 1940s during the war, and afterward in the 1950s, is not unique to Contra Costa
County. However, the county provides a poignant example of the types of discriminatory actions
that would shape the housing landscape throughout the nation for decades to follow.
According to Rothstein, the shipyards and war industries that occupied the coasts in Richmond
attracted a population boom. During the 1940s, industry was forced to allow people of color to
work in traditionally White occupations due to labor shortages that accompanied the war. As a
result of the population boom, the Federal government built public housing to support the
shipyards and industries that supplied the war. Housing developments constructed by the
government were explicitly segregated by race.
The federal government stepped in to provide low-interest loans for White families to purchase
homes and financed the mass development of for sale housing for White residents in a suburb
of Richmond. By 1950, three out of four Black households lived in government funded public
housing and others were forced to double up. According to Rothstein, an estimated 4,000 Black
residents were living in makeshift shacks, barns, or tents. White residents were offered
mortgages and new homes while Black residents were corralled in public housing projects in the
city in an early example of de jure segregation.
After the war, White troops returning from war were offered mortgages through the Veterans
Administration that required low or no down payments and low interest. These same benefits
were not available to returning veterans of color. Contra Costa County continued to develop
suburbs surrounding cities that are characterized by large lots and 3- and 4 -bedroom homes
and office parks—areas that were not accessible to person s of color because of direct housing
discrimination as well as economic gaps. These early acts of segregation remain evident in the
demographic and economic composition of the region today.
Danville. The present-day town was first inhabited by the Bay Miwok Indians. The town was
settled by Daniel and Andrew Inman in the mid -1850s. Settlers who came to Danville primarily
raised cattle, grazed sheep, and grew wheat, onions, and barley. Mission San Jose also used
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
the present-day town as grazing land. Prior to the cession of California to the United States, the
Government of Mexico allowed citizens to receive grants for land through a nominal fee. The
town was part of a land grant called Rancho San Ramon.
In 1982, residents in Danville voted to incorporate their community and have a more direct role
in "[shaping] future changes more directly." This sentiment has continued to shape Danville's
growth.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
FIGURE 2: MAJOR PUBLIC AND LEGAL ACTIONS THAT INFLUENCE FAIR ACCESS TO HOUSING
Legislative Related
Zoning Related
Slum and blight
clearance under
urban renewal
1949
•
Public housing
authorities are
subsidized
1937
Section 8 Voucher
Program created
1974
Fair Housing Act
passed, preventing
denial of housing,
found to apply to
local zoning laws
1968
•
Disparate impact cognizable
under FHAA (TDHCA v. ICP)
2015 •
Fair Housing Act is
amended to include
protections for people
with disabilities,
including reasonable
accommodations
1988
•
1915
Racial
segregation
ordinances
upheld by U.S.
Supreme Court
(Hopkins v. City
of Richmond)
1910
Racial zoning
ordinance
(Baltimore created,
State of Virginia
enabled legislation)
1922
U.S. Department of
Commerce
establishes State
Zoning Standards
•
1917
Racial zoning struck
down by U.S.
Supreme Court
(Buchanan v. Warley)
1926
Local codes with
residential
districts upheld
(Euclid v. Ambler
Realty)
•
1948
Racially restrictive
covenants in land and
property transactions
prohibited by U.S.
Supreme Court
(Shelley v. Kraemer)
1974
Exclusive
definition of
family upheld
(Belle Terre v.
Boraas)
2016
Disparate impact
found in failure to
rezone to allow
small lots (Avenue
6E v. City of Yuma)
•
1995
Limit on
unrelated parties
in group home
struck down (City
of Edmonds v.
Oxford House)
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2. REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
This Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Assessment, or AFFH, follows the April 2021
State of California State Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the Contra
Costa County Collaborative ("C4"), which assisted in the compliance with AFFH requirements
for many County jurisdictions. It was supplemented by analysis conducted in the Housing
Element Update by Diana Elrod Consulting and Root Policy Research.
The references to statistics for the County or region as a whole were excerpted from the Contra
Costa County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, also conducted by the C4 group, and it is
included in its entirety as an attachment.
The report sections include:
• Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the
primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges and the plan for taking meaningful
actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity.
• Fair Housing Outreach Capacity and Enforcement reviews lawsuits/enforcement
actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and
regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.
• Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of
segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.
• Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation,
economic development, and healthy environments.
• Disproportionate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate
housing needs including displacement risk.
Attachments:
• ABAG and UC Merced's analysis of segregation in Danville. Several indices were used
to assess segregation in the Town and determine how Danville differs from patterns of
segregation and integration in the region overall.
• Summary of key State laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination
and expanding housing choice.
• Contra Costa County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing.
3. OVERVIEW OF AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined "affirmatively further fair housing" to
mean "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns
of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity" for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
4. ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
AB 686 requires that all housing elements prepared on or after January 1, 2021, assess fair
housing through the following components:
• An assessment of fair housing within the jurisdiction that includes the following
components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the jurisdiction's fair
housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and
disparities in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and
identification and prioritization of fair housing goals and actions.
• A sites inventory that accommodates all income levels of the jurisdiction's share of the
RHNA that also serves the purpose of furthering more integrated and balanced living
patterns.
• Responsive housing programs that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing
opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing
factors identified in the assessment of fair housing.
The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time.
This analysis compares the locality at a county level for the purposes of promoting more inclusive
communities.
5. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports
• U.S. Census Bureau's Decennial Census (referred to as "Census") and American
Community Survey (ACS)
• Contra Costa Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-2025
(2020 Al)
• HCD's AFFH Data Viewer
• Local Knowledge
In addition, HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists
of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the
components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time
frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data in the 2020 Al. While some
data comparisons may have different time frames (often different by one year), the differences
do not affect the identification of possible trends.
6. PRIMARY FINDINGS
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for the Town
of Danville including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity,
integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing
factors and the Town's fair housing action plan.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Between 2016 and 2021 two discrimination complaints were made to ECHO by Danville
residents, one on the basis of national origin and one designated as "other."
• Households of color living in Danville are disproportionately impacted by low household
incomes, overcrowding, cost burden, home mortgage loan denials, homelessness, and
lack of affordable housing options compared to non -Hispanic White residents.
Specifically,
o Other Race/Multiple Race and American Indian/Alaska Native households have
the highest proportion of households making less than or equal to 50% AMI.
o Other Race/Multiple Race experience overcrowding at a significantly higher rate
than households in Danville overall.
o Other Race/Multiple Race (53%), Hispanic (41%), and Black (34%) households
have the highest rate of cost burden compared to non -Hispanic White (31 %) and
Asian (26%) households.
o Danville's residential permit and development patterns favor higher income
homeowners and limit opportunities for low- and moderate -income households—
who are most likely to be people of color.
o Mortgage denial rates are highest for American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and
Hispanic households.
o American Indian or Alaska Native and Black residents are overrepresented in the
homeless population compared to their share of the overall population.
• Danville has a similar distribution of household types as neighboring high income and
predominantly White communities - a high share of households that are married with
children - and a smaller proportion of households that are single parents.
• Danville's housing market caters to higher income households. The Town has
approximately three times the number of homes valued over $1 million compared to the
county as a whole. Similarly, Danville has a concentration of high rent rentals with four
times as many units priced above $3,000 compared to the county overall.
• Lack of affordable and reasonably priced housing has contributed to Danville's relatively
low share of low-income households, people of color, and single parent households
compared to the county overall.
• The areas west of 1-680 in Danville have a higher share of LMI households, persons
experiencing disabilities, cost burdened renters, and Housing Choice Voucher holders.
The concentration of renters and low-income households in areas west of 1-680 is
reflective of the relative density and affordability of the area.
o While Danville has a smaller proportion of residents experiencing disabilities than
the county (8% and 11%, respectively), the disability rate is highest among
Black/African American (14.4%) and Other Race/Multiple Race (12.5%)
households.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
o While Danville has the highest TCAC educational score (>0.75), indicating more
positive educational outcomes, the lowest performing school in the town is located
in this area.
o The areas west of 1-680 have relatively lower TCAC environmental scores
compared to the rest of the town.
7. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
This section summarizes the factors that contribute to the Town's fair housing challenges and
the fair housing action plan to address those challenges.
Danville is characterized by high -resourced neighborhoods where residents have good access
to employment opportunities and strong educational outcomes, and live in environmentally
healthy areas. Danville struggles, however, to provide the housing and affordability needed by
low- and moderate -income households. As such, Danville households who cannot afford
housing are significantly cost burdened and some live in overcrowded conditions.
Fair housing issue: Households of color (Hispanic, Other/Multiple Race, American Indian
or Alaskan Native, and Black/African American) have disproportionate housing needs.
These needs are evident in high levels of cost burden, mortgage denial rates, and
homelessness.
Contributing factors:
HIGH: Households of color are primarily concentrated in areas west of Interstate 680. According
to HCD, these areas have the highest concentration of low to moderate income populations,
cost burdened renters, and households utilizing housing choice vouchers.
HIGH: Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the town's very high costs of housing and
the very limited development of multifamily housing, which is typically more affordable.
HIGH: Where affordable housing exists, it is concentrated in the areas west of 1-680, resulting in
segregation of lower income households in neighborhoods with lower opportunity scores.
MEDIUM: Danville has approximately three times the number of homes valued over $1 million
compared to the county as a whole. Similarly, Danville has a concentration of high rent rentals
with four times as many units priced above $3,000 compared to the county overall.
LOW: While environmental opportunity scores for Danville are relatively high, the area with a
higher percentage of non-White households has the lowest TCAC environmental score in the
town.
LOW: It is well documented that before civil rights laws were enacted, persons of color —
particularly African Americans — were denied loans to purchase homes, were not allowed to
buy in many neighborhoods because of restrictive covenants, and were harassed if they
managed to purchase a home in a predominantly White neighborhood. These historical actions
have led to a significant homeownership gap among racial and ethnic minorities, except for Asian
households.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
1
Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities are concentrated in areas with higher cost
burden and lower environmental quality relative to the entire town.
MEDIUM: While the Town of Danville has a lower proportion of residents experiencing
disabilities than the county, residents with disabilities are concentrated in areas west of 1-680.
This area of the town has a concentration of low to moderate income households, high renter
cost burden, higher utilization of housing choice vouchers and scores relatively low on TCAC's
environmental opportunity areas compared to the entire town.
Fair housing issue: Few residents file fair housing complaints, indicating a potential lack
of awareness about fair housing rights.
Contributing factors:
MEDIUM: Lack of access to information about fair housing rights.
MEDIUM: Limited knowledge of fair housing by residents.
8. FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
[See draft fair housing action plan matrix]
9. FAIR HOUSING OUTREACH CAPACITY AND ENFORCEMENT
Primary Findings
• Between 2015 and June 30, 2020, a total of 148 fair housing cases were filed in Contra Costa
County, with disability being the top allegation of basis of discrimination followed by familial
status, race, national origin, and sex.
• In Danville, between 2016 and 2021 two discrimination complaints were made to ECHO, one on
the basis of national origin and one designated as "other."
• Overall, the capacity and funding for fair housing organizations in Contra Costa County is
insufficient. Greater resources would enable stronger outreach efforts, including populations
that may be less aware of their fair housing rights, such as limited -English proficiency residents.
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing
entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights and provide outreach
and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the
ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining
remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. The Fair Employment and Housing Act and the
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary California fair housing laws. California state law extends
anti -discrimination protections in housing to several classes that are not covered by the federal
Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968
In Contra Costa County, local housing, social services, and legal service organizations include
the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing, Bay Area Legal Aid, and Pacific Community Services.
TABLE 1: FAIR HOUSING PROVIDERS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DANVILLE
Provider
Services
Fair Housing Advocates of
Northern California (FHANC)
Non-profit agency that provides fair housing
information and literature in a number of different
languages, primarily serves Marin, Sonoma, and
Solano County but also has resources to residents
outside of the above geographic areas.
Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity (ECHO) Fair
Housing
Housing counseling agency that provides education
and charitable assistance to the general public in
matters related to obtaining and maintaining housing.
Bay Area Legal Aid
Largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay
Area counties. Has a focus area in housing
preservation and homelessness task force to provide
legal services and advocacy for those in need.
Pacific Community Services
Private non-profit housing agency that serves East
Contra Costa County (Bay Point, Antioch, and
Pittsburg) and provides fair housing counseling as
well as education and outreach
Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to
protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to
housing).
The FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex
(including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender
expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry,
familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person
perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) prohibits business establishments in California from
discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges
to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national
origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation,
citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California
to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their
persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual
orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or
because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.
Contra Costa County and the town of Danville comply with the following state and federal fair
housing laws. These laws protect County and Town residents from housing discrimination and
promote housing choice for lower-income households.
• Fair Housing Act (1988), prohibiting housing discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability status, and sexual orientation.
Contra Costa County and its jurisdictions routinely commit to protecting residents from
housing discrimination in the sale or rental of all housing;
• Senate Bill 1252 (2011), prohibiting business establishments from age discrimination in
the sale or rental of housing and allowing business establishments to preserve senior
citizen housing if accommodations meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens;
• The Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Act of 2014, allowing for the
acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable multifamily
supportive housing, affordable transitional housing, and affordable rental housing for
veterans and their families to access and maintain housing stability;
• Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibiting residential property owners from evicting
tenants without just cause and increasing gross rental rates more than 5% (plus the
percentage change in the cost of living) in any 12 -month period. The latter requirement
included in the 2019 Act is effective until January 2030;
• The Housing Crisis Act (HCA) of 2019 (SB 330),
• Senate Bill 591 (2022), creating a policy to support intergenerational housing for senior
citizens, caregivers, and transition age youth and permitting developers of local funds or
tax credits to restrict affordable rental housing occupancy to these groups;
• Assembly Bill 491 (2022), establishing protections for individuals in mixed -income
multifamily structures including equal access to common entrances, common areas, and
amenities; and
• Assembly Bill 1304 (2022), requiring local governments and public agencies to
affirmatively further fair housing in all housing and community development programs and
activities. AB 1304 amends Chapter 15: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing of the
Government Code to clarify fair housing requirements in local and public housing and
community development programs.
In addition to remaining compliant with fair housing laws and providing housing choice
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
programs, Contra Costa County and the Town of Danville provide fair housing services and
outreach targeted to prevent housing discrimination. Contra Costa County—and the region
overall—provide tenant/landlord counseling opportunities to help landlords and tenants
understand their housing rights and responsibilities.
For affordable development, the Town of Danville undertook initiatives and actions to
incentivize development projects. Achievements since the previous planning period's goals
and action items are described below.
• Consistent with the Housing Crisis Act (HCA) of 2019 (SB 330), Danville formalized
Residential Development Standards in 2021 to reduce the time it takes to process
applications for new housing development projects. Development standards adopted in
2021 also created a `preliminary application' process to provide certainty on development
standards, design guidelines, policies, and fees.
• To meet the requirements established in Senate Bill 9, the Town adopted TC Resolution
No. 85-2021. The Resolution requires that the Town identify objective development
standards, subdivision and design and minimum submittal requirements.
• Danville committed to facilitating the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as
an affordable housing alternative. This was achieved in 2019 when the Town created
mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which allowed
for the authorization of a 29 acre (7%)
Danville administers and participates in additional local and regional programs to facilitate
housing choice and opportunity for low-income homeowners and renters. These programs
include:
• Below Market Rate (BMR) Unit program, providing affordable housing to median and
moderate -income households. Affordable housing provided through the program are pre-
identified units that are deed restricted to remain affordable for a 20 -year period and made
available through new development projects and when owners sell their existing units.
Danville's BMR unit program is elaborated upon below.
• Tri -Valley Affordable Rental Housing, providing in-depth information on affordable units,
housing rights, waitlists, and services for special needs populations. Tri -Valley members
include Alameda and Contra Costa counties, Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton,
and San Ramon.
The Town of Danville—through the Tri -Valley Rental Housing Opportunity program—has eight
complexes with Below Market Rate units for a total of 258 BMR units available for very low, low
, and moderate -income households. Of these complexes, three are restricted to persons over
the aqe of 62 years and seven include accessible units (the Danville Hotel is the only complex
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
without accessible units). Income limits for these complexes range from 30% AMI to 120% AMI.1
As noted in the 2021 Tri -Valley Housing Opportunity Guide, however, waitlists for affordable
housing units are long and often closed for new applications. In fact, it is common for applicants
to remain on the waiting list for several years—few jurisdictions and properties in the County
offer interest lists that will notify applications when waitlists open.
Other regional housing agencies and related programs supplement the Town's housing program
resources and capacity. A concise list of housing programs provided throughout the region is
included below.
• Seasons of Sharing;
• Housing & Emergency Lodging Program (HELP);
• Tri -Valley Rapid Re -housing;
• Rental Assistance Program (RAP)—available to Pleasanton and Livermore residents
only;
• Project Share—available to Pleasanton and Livermore residents only;
• Housing Readiness Program;
• Senior Support Program;
• Contra Costa Crisis Center; and
• Shelter Inc. Services;
Regional Trends
Based on DFEH Annual Reports, Table 2 shows the number of housing complaints filed by
Contra Costa County to DFEH between 2015-2020. A slight increase in the number of
complaints precedes the downward trend from 2016-2020. Note that fair housing cases alleging
a violation of FEHA can also involve an alleged Unruh violation as the same unlawful activity
can violate both laws. DFEH creates companion cases that are investigated separately from the
housing investigation.
TABLE 2: NUMBER OF DFEH HOUSING COMPLAINTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (2020)
Year
Housing
Unruh Civil Rights Act
2015
30
5
2016
32
2
2017
26
26
2018
22
2
2019
22
2
2020
20
1
Source: https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/LegalRecords/?content=reports#reportsBody
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity (HUD FHEO) enforces fair housing by investigating complaints of housing
discrimination. Table 3 shows the number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra
1 Tri -Valley Rental Housing Opportunities Guide, https://www.danville.ca.gov/397/Housing-Information.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Costa County between 2015 and June 30, 2020. Note that no data was collected after June 30,
2020. A total of 148 cases were filed within this time period, with disability being the top allegation
of basis of discrimination followed by familial status, race, national origin, and sex. These findings
are consistent with national trends stated in FHEO's FY 2020 State of Fair Housing Annual
Report to Congress where disability was also the top allegation of basis of discrimination.
A summary of ECHO's Fair Housing Complaint Log on fair housing issues, actions taken, services provided,
and outcomes can be found in Table 4 and Table 5. Services that were not provided include (2.) Case
tested by phone; (4.) Case referred to HUD and (8.) Case accepted for full representation. The most
common action(s) taken/services provided are providing clients with counseling, followed by sending
testers for investigation, and conciliation with landlords. Regardless of actions taken or services
provided, almost 45% of cases are found to have insufficient evidence. About 12% of all cases resulted
in successful mediation.
TABLE 3: NUMBER OF FHEO FILED CASES BY PROTECTED CLASS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
(2015-2020)
Year
Number of
Filed Cases
Disability
Race
National
Origin
Sex
Familial
Status
2015
28
17
4
2
2
4
2016
30
14
8
7
5
6
2017
20
12
3
5
1
5
2018
31
20
6
3
4
9
2019
32
27
4
4
4
1
2020
7
4
1
0
2
1
Total
148
94
26
21
18
26
Percentage of Total Filed
63.5%
17.5%
14.2%
12.2%
17.6%
Cases
*Note that cases may be
filed on more than one
basis.
Source: Data.Gov - Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Filed Cases,
https://cataloq. data. qov/dataset/fheo-filed-cases
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 4: ACTION(S) TAKEN/SERVICES PROVIDED
Protected Class
1
3
5
6
7
Grand Total
Race
21
0
0
2
0
23
Marital Status
0
0
0
1
0
1
Sex
0
0
0
0
0
0
Religion
0
0
0
0
0
0
Familial Status
0
0
0
3
0
3
Sexual Orientation
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sexual
Harassment
0
0
0
1
0
1
Income Source
15
0
1
7
1
24
Disability
7
1
14
33
5
60
National Origin
13
0
0
1
0
14
Other
0
0
1
11
5
17
Total
56
1
16
59
11
143
1. Testers sent for investigation; 3. Referred to attorney; 5. Conciliation with landlord; 6. Client provided with counseling; 7. Client provided
with brief service; Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020 - 2021)
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 5: OUTCOMES
Protected
Class
Counseling
provided to
landlord
Counseling
provided to
tenant
Education
to Landlord
Insufficient
evidence
Preparing
Site Visit
Referred to
DFEH/HUD
Successful
mediation
Grand
Total
Race
0
0
2
20
0
1
0
23
National
Origin
0
0
1
13
0
0
0
14
Marital Status
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Sex
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Disability
2
25
2
12
0
4
15
60
Religion
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sexual
Orientation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Familial Status
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
Income
Source
3
3
0
16
1
0
1
24
Sexual
Harassment
0
8
2
2
1
4
0
17
Other
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Total
5
39
7
64
2
10
16
143
Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020 - 2021)
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Local Trends
There were two reported discrimination complaints in Danville between 2015 and 2021 (Table
6). The first complaint fell in the "other" category in 2016. The same year in the County there
were 30 total complaints of discrimination by protected class (Table 3). In 2021 there was one
complaint filed on the basis of national origin in Danville; there is no data for discrimination by
national origin in Contra Costa County for this same year.
TABLE 6: NUMBER OF FHEO FILED CASES BY PROTECTED CLASS IN DANVILLE (2015-2021)
Year
National
Origin
Other
2016
--
1
2021
1
--
Source: Echo Housing
Local factors
As shown in Table 6, although Danville complies with state housing laws and promotes
programs to further fair housing, the Town still confronts challenges in preventing housing
discrimination for protected classes (Map 1). Identifying the factors that contribute to these
challenges is especially important for Danville given the Town's tenure rates, housing types,
and lack of affordable housing. Local factors discussed here draw from local knowledge and
data and place specific emphasis on historical and current land use practices, zoning codes,
and zoning policies (e.g., exclusionary zoning).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 1: FHEO Cases—Disability Bias, 2020
1 IdAVNIZA. 13 41117 P61
▪ C cr—. 5a.rxinio,
pial F140 Corm. IlaaoarrOm NMI •t .3
▪ AD 811y $pi
— ,15%
8.: °:. ijj me
r
RZ. fie*—. S• Site 0.rr#Nlm 16A115't ra7
+reeT�-Jp ki- FTSy. ]rie• ,Aos 1 •. Ti
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Fair Housing Testing
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-17
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Fair housing testing is a randomized audit of property owners' compliance with local, state, and
federal fair housing laws. Initiated by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division in 1991,
fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective
renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and
federal fair housing laws.
ECHO conducts fair housing investigations in Contra Costa County (except Pittsburg) and
unincorporated Contra Costa County. The 2020 Contra Costa County Al, however, did not report
any findings on fair housing testing at the county level or for the Town of Danville. However, it
does bring to attention that private discrimination is a problem in Contra Costa County that
continues to perpetuate segregation.
Fair Housing Education and Outreach
Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing
discrimination know when and how to seek help. Below is a more detailed description of fair
housing services provided by local housing, social services, and legal service organizations
available in Contra Costa County.
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC)
FHANC is a non-profit agency with a mission to actively support and promote fair housing
through education and advocacy. Fair housing services provided to residents outside of Marin,
Sonoma, or Solano County include foreclosure prevention services and information, information
on fair housing law for the housing industry, and other fair housing literature. The majority of the
fair housing literature is provided in Spanish and English, with some provided in Vietnamese and
Tagalog.
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing
ECHO Fair Housing is a HUD -approved housing counseling agency that aims to promote equal
access in housing, provide support services to aid in the prevention of homelessness, and
promote permanent housing conditions. The organization provides education and charitable
assistance to the general public in matters related to obtaining and maintaining housing in
addition to rental assistance, housing assistance, tenant/landlord counseling, home seeking,
home sharing, and mortgage and home purchase counseling. Although ECHO serves most of
Contra Costa County, only one fair housing counselor serves the County. In Contra Costa
County, ECHO Fair Housing provides fair housing services, first-time home buyer counseling
and education, and tenant/landlord services (rent review and eviction harassment programs are
available only in Concord).
• Fair housing services encompasses counseling, investigation, mediation, enforcement,
and education.
• First-time home buyer counseling provides one-on-one counseling with a Housing
Counselor on the homebuying process. The Housing Counselor will review all
documentation, examine and identify barriers to homeownership, create an action plan,
and prepare potential homebuyers for the responsibility of being homeowners. The
Housing Counselor will also review the credit reports, determine what steps need to be
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
taken to clean up adverse credit, provide counseling on money -saving methods, and
assist in developing a budget.
• First-time home buyer education provides classroom training regarding credit information,
home ownership incentives, home buying opportunities, predatory lending, home
ownership responsibilities, government -assisted programs, as well as conventional
financing. The class also provides education on how to apply for HUD -insured mortgages;
purchase procedures, and alternatives for financing the purchase. It also includes
information on fair housing and fair lending, how to recognize discrimination and
predatory lending procedures, and how to locate accessible housing, if needed.
• ECHO's Tenant/Landlord Services provides information to tenants and landlords on rental
housing issues such as evictions, rent increases, repairs and habitability, harassment,
illegal entry, and other rights and responsibilities regarding the tenant/landlord
relationship. Trained mediators assist in resolving housing disputes through conciliation
and mediation.
• In cities that adopt ordinances to allow Rent Reviews (City of Concord only in Contra
Costa County), tenants can request a rent review from ECHO Housing by phone or email.
This allows tenants who experience rent increases exceeding 10% in a 12 -month period
to seek non-binding conciliation and mediation services.
Though the Contra Costa County Consortium Analysis of Impediments (Al) to Fair Housing
states that the organization provides information in Spanish, the ECHO website is predominantly
in English with options to translate the homepage into various languages. Navigating the entire
site may be difficult for the limited -English proficient (LEP) population.
Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal)
BayLegal is the largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra
Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). With respect to affordable
housing, BayLegal has a focus area in housing preservation (landlord -tenant matters, subsidized
and public housing issues, unlawful evictions, foreclosures, habitability, and enforcement of fair
housing laws) as well as a homelessness task force that provides legal services and advocacy
for systems change to maintain housing, help people exit homelessness, and protect unhoused
persons' civil rights. The organization provides translations for their online resources in over 50
languages and uses volunteer interpreters/translators to help provide language access. Its legal
advice line provides counsel and advice in different languages. Specific to Contra Costa County,
tenant housing resources are provided in English and Spanish.
The Housing Preservation practice is designed to protect families from illegal evictions,
substandard housing conditions, and wrongful denials and terminations of housing subsidies.
The practice also works to preserve and expand affordable housing and protect families from
foreclosure rescue scams. BayLegal helps low-income tenants obtain or remain in safe
affordable housing by providing legal assistance in housing -law related areas such as public,
subsidized (including Section 8 and other HUD subsidized projects) and private housing, fair
housing and housing discrimination, housing conditions, rent control, eviction defense, lock -outs
and utility shut -offs, residential hotels, and training advocates and community organizations.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-19
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
BayLegal also provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families to prevent
homelessness and increase housing stability as well as assist unhoused youth/adults address
legal barriers that prevent them from exiting homelessness. This is done through a mix of direct
legal services, coalition building and partnerships, policy advocacy, and litigation to advocate for
systems change that will help people maintain housing, exit homelessness, and protect
unhoused persons' civil rights. The Homelessness Task Force (HTF) was developed in response
to complex barriers and inequities contributing to homelessness and strives to build capacity
and develop best practices across the seven aforementioned counties to enhance BayLegal's
coordinated, multi -systems response to homelessness.
Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI)
PCSI is a private non-profit housing agency that serves East Contra Costa County (Bay Point,
Antioch, and Pittsburg) and provides fair housing counseling in English and Spanish. Housing
Counseling Services provided include:
• Foreclosure Prevention: Consists of a personal interview and the development of a case
management plan for families to keep their homes and protect any equity that may have
built up. Relief measures sought include loan modification or reduced payments,
reinstatement and assistance under 'Keep Your Home' program, forbearance
agreements, deed -in -lieu of foreclosure, refinancing or recasting the mortgage, or sale of
the property.
• Homeownership Counseling: Prepares first-time buyers for a successful home purchase
by helping them in budgeting, understanding the home purchase process, and
understanding the fees that lenders may charge to better prepare new buyers when
acquiring their first home.
• Rental Counseling; Tenant and Landlord Rights: PCSI provides information and
assistance in dealing with eviction and unlawful detainer actions, deposit returns,
habitability issues, getting repairs done, mediation of tenant/landlord disputes, assisting
tenant organizations, legal referrals to Bay Area Legal Aid and Bar Association resources,
pre -rental counseling and budgeting.
• Fair Housing Services: Include counseling regarding fair housing rights, referral services
and education and outreach. PCSI offers training for landlords and owners involving
issues of compliance with federal and state fair housing regulations.
• Fair Housing Education and Outreach: Offers informative workshops for social service
organizations and persons of protected categories. These workshops are designed to
inform individuals how to recognize and report housing discrimination.
Though PCSI's list of available services is comprehensive, their website lacks contact
information, resources, and accessibility.
Numerous agencies work throughout the region to coordinate housing and services for persons
with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and seniors—most of which are available
to Danville residents. The regional organizations serving persons with disabilities and homeless
persons are listed below.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-20
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Bay Area Community Services (BACS)—provides 24/7 residential programs to address
mental health and housing crises and provides short-term housing to persons
experiencing homelessness from two weeks to six months.
• Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB)—non-profit developers that own and
operate affordable shared housing for persons with developmental and mental health
related disabilities. HCEB owns and operates shared housing units throughout Alameda
County and Livermore.
• Tri -Valley REACH—provides housing in Pleasanton and Livermore for extremely lom.
income adults and adults with developmental disabilities who are able to live
independently with supportive services.
• East Bay Innovations—a non-profit agency that employs outreach methods to empower
persons with disabilities to live in their home, find employment opportunities, and
participate in their community. The agency also provides employment services,
independent living services, and supported living services.
• Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL)—helps individuals find accessible
and affordable housing and teaches clients how to look for appropriate housing, identify
resources for independent living, and financial counseling (e.q., improving credit reports
and identifying resources for a security deposit. CRIL also provides services to further fair
housing by negotiating with landlords and educating tenants on their rights and
responsibilities.
• Fremont Oak Gardens—serves as a regional housing resources and provides rental
housing for low-income deaf seniors, on-site case management, and assists with leasing
inquiries and terms.
Overall, the capacity and funding of the above organizations is generally insufficient. Greater
resources would enable stronger outreach efforts, including populations that may be less aware
of their fair housing rights, such as limited -English proficiency residents. A lack of funding and
resources constrains ECHO and BayLegal's ability to provide fair housing services for people
facing discrimination.
Capacity and Effectiveness.
As discussed, the Town of Danville participates in varying programs and housing activities to
further fair housing, facilitate housing choice for special needs populations, and promote
affordable development. This part of the section analyzes actions and goals the Town adopted
in the previous planning period to meet housing needs. It also provides a discussion on
capacity challenges and the effectiveness of fair housing and affordable development goals to
guide affordable development and fair housing goals for the current planning period.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-21
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
10. SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-22
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
f'611
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH
Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH
White, Non -Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH
Hispanic or Latinx
Disability Status
With a disability
Without a disability
Familial Status
Female -Headed Family Households
Male -headed Family Households
Married -couple Family Households
Other Non -Family Households
Single -person Households
Household Income
0%-30% of AM I
31%-50%ofAMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
Greater than 100% of AM I
Town of Danville Contra Costa County
■ 13% ■ 17%
8%
75% 44%
1 4% 1 5%
1 6% 26%
11%
8% ■ 11%
66%
2%
113
▪ 12%
1 5%
1 6%
22%
55%
■ 13%
In 11%
12%
• 9%
78% 54%
9%
Primary Findings
• Compared to Contra Costa County overall, Danville residents are much less diverse
racially and ethnically. Danville's residents are 75% non -Hispanic White. Persons of
Hispanic descent comprise 6% of Danville's residents. The next largest racial is Asian at
13%. Less than one% of Danville's residents are Black/African American. The county, in
contrast, is 44% non -Hispanic White and 26% Hispanic. Eight% of county residents are
Black/African American.
• Other Race/Multiple Races (23%), non -Hispanic White (11%) and American
Indian/Alaska Native (8%) have the highest shares of low-income households earning
less than 50% AMI.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-23
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Danville has a lower population with disabilities when compared to the county (8%
compared to 11% countywide). The disability rate is highest among Black or African
American (14.4 %) and Other Race (12.5%) residents.
• Danville has a similar distribution of household types as neighboring high income and
predominantly White communities—a high share of households that are married with
children and a smaller proportion of households that are single parents. A lower share of
low-income households, people of color, and single parent households in the Town of
Danville indicates a lack of housing opportunity for low- or moderate -income
households.
• The majority of units are 3- to 4 -bedrooms and owner occupied in Danville. The
distribution of housing types and size are consistent with the types of households that are
most prevalent in the Town—married-couple family households.
• Danville has approximately three times the number of homes valued over $1 million
compared to the county as a whole. Similarly, Danville has a concentration of high rent
rentals with four times as many units priced above $3,000 compared to the county overall.
• The areas west of 1-680 in Danville have a higher share of LMI households, cost burdened
renters, and Housing Choice Voucher holders. The concentration of renters and low-
income households in areas west of 1-680 is reflective of the relative density and
affordability of the area. The lack of diversity in surrounding neighborhoods indicates an
inadequate supply of rental housing or potential exclusionary behavior from
landlords in surrounding neighborhoods.
Segregation is defined as the separation or isolation of a race/ethnic group, national origin group,
individuals with disabilities, or other social group by enforced or voluntary residence in a
restricted area, by barriers to social connection or dealings between persons or groups, by
separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.
To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used
to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic
characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as block groups within a
community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning no segregation and 100 indicating
complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the
percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of
racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index score is above 60, 60%
of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following shows
how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related
fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-24
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
as household size, locational preferences and mobility. Prior studies have identified
socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated
with "doubling up"—households with extended family members and non -kin. These factors have
also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to
congregate in metropolitan areas though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by
economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or
immigration status (recent immigrants tend to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).
Regional Trends
Contra Costa County is a large, diverse jurisdiction in which people of color comprise a majority
of the population. As of the 2010 Census, 47.75% of residents were non -Hispanic Whites, 8.92%
of residents were non -Hispanic Blacks, 24.36% were Hispanics, 14.61% were non -Hispanic
Asians or Pacific Islanders, 0.28% were non -Hispanic Native Americans, 3.77% were non -
Hispanic multiracial individuals, and 0.30% identified as some other race. See Map 1 for the
distribution of non-white residents at the block group level.
In Contra Costa County, all minority (non-White) residents combined are considered moderately
segregated from White residents, with an index score of 41.86 at the Census tract level and
44.93 at the block group level (Table 7). Segregation between non-white and white residents
has remained relatively steady since 1990. However, since 1990 segregation has increased from
low to moderate levels for Hispanic residents, the largest increase among all racial/ethnic
groups. This trend is commonly seen throughout the State and is likely attributed to an increase
of Hispanic residents during the migration boom of the mid-to-late 1990s. A two% increase in
segregation also occurred for Asian or Pacific Islander residents. Block group level data reveals
that segregation is more prominent among Asian or Pacific Islander residents than what is
measured at the tract level (index score of 40.55 at the block group level versus 35.67 at the
tract level). For Black residents, segregation has decreased by 13% since 1990. The proportion
of Black residents has remained relatively steady during this same time period, indicating
segregation has been diminishing for the Black population (v. segregation declining because
Black residents have been displaced).
TABLE 7: RACIAL/ETHNIC DISSIMILARITY TRENDS (1990-2020)
Source: HUD's Affirmatively Further ng Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 3 — Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends,
Data version: AFFHT006, released July 10t", 2020.
Note: The table presents Decennial Census values for 1990, 2000, 2010, all calculated by HUD using census
tracts as the area of measurement. The "current" figure is calculated using block groups from the 2010 Decennial
Census, because block groups can measure segregation at a finer grain than census tracts due to their smaller
geographies. See https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair housing equal opp/affh for more information.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-25
Contra Costa County
Dissimilarity Index
1990
Trend
2000
Trend
2010
Trend
Current
(2010 Census Block
Group)
Non-White/White
41.19
41.95
41.86
44.93
Black/White
67.52
62.54
58.42
61.80
Hispanic/White
36.70
45.24
48.07
49.49
Asian or Pacific
Islander/White
34.89
32.73
35.67
40.55
Source: HUD's Affirmatively Further ng Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 3 — Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends,
Data version: AFFHT006, released July 10t", 2020.
Note: The table presents Decennial Census values for 1990, 2000, 2010, all calculated by HUD using census
tracts as the area of measurement. The "current" figure is calculated using block groups from the 2010 Decennial
Census, because block groups can measure segregation at a finer grain than census tracts due to their smaller
geographies. See https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair housing equal opp/affh for more information.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-25
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 21: REGIONAL RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS (2021)
P4rs&ni of Total Nan•Wkee pFp_ ..h.
MIA Grr[.,M
0
Scurem 4!.5. 7murrnan or
Ca. m Cc rub Grua.. am 1.
Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, the majority residents (over 75%) in
Danville are White, as reflected in Table 8 and Map 2. The majority of Danville census tracts
have between 21 to 40% non-white populations, and there are tracts in the Town where this
percentage falls below 20% (Map 2). There are three concentrations of census tracts where the
non-white population is between 41 to 60%. The area to the west of 1-680, which has a higher
non-white population, corresponds to higher rates of Housing Choice Vouchers (0-5%; Map 13),
areas of overpayment by renters (40 to 60%; Map 36), and areas with higher disability rates (10
to 20%; Map 4).
The other areas with higher percentages of non-white population are in southern Danville; these
census tracts border the City of San Ramon, which has a higher non-white population, so this
could be a spillover. Comparing racial demographic block group change between 2010 and
2018, there is an increase in census tracts with non-white populations between 21 to 40%,
demonstrating a diversifying community. The nearby City of San Ramon has more census tracts
with a higher non-white population, while nearby Walnut Creek has lower rates of non-white
population, more similar to Danville. Most other non-white populations are similarly represented
in the County and Danville. The one exception is Hispanic or Latino residents; Countywide,
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-26
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Hispanic or Latino residents comprise nearly 25% of the population, whereas Danville's
population of Hispanic or Latino is less than 7% of its total population. See Table 8 for a
comparison of racial composition in Contra Costa County and in the Town of Danville.
TABLE 8: RACIAL COMPOSITION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DANVILLE (2019)
*Asian and Pacific Islander combined
Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019; ABAG Housing Needs Data Package;
Contra Costa County Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2020-2025
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-27
Contra Costa
County
Danville
White, non -Hispanic
47.75%
75.3%
Black or African-American, non -Hispanic
8.92%
1.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native, non-
Hispanic
0.28%
0.01
Asian, non -Hispanic
14.61%*
13.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,
non -Hispanic
N/A
0.07%
Some other race, non -Hispanic
0.30%
0.10%
Two or more races, non -Hispanic
3.77%
3.7%
Hispanic or Latino
24.36%
6.5%
*Asian and Pacific Islander combined
Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019; ABAG Housing Needs Data Package;
Contra Costa County Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2020-2025
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-27
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 32: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF DANVILLE (2021)
Racial Demographics
®awrrap F*rtone
odrrpire., 6P{
bit itofild
YL pAMINO Inten
elit, SEW
Persons with Disabilities
0
1170.1rti rd Lrro.- t Hale
Milt G..rI T ITI fol ... C
s
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities
through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and
practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to
persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for
persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy
a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair
housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible
and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition,
many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.
Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 -year estimates, 118,603
residents (10.9% of Contra Costa County's population) reported having one of six disability types
listed in the ACS (hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living). The
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-28
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
percentage of residents detailed by disability are listed in Table 9 below. In both Contra Costa
County and the Town of Danville, the percentage of individuals with disabilities also increases
with age, with the highest percentage of individuals being those 75 years and older.
TABLE 9. POPULATIONS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES - CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY AND DANVILLE
Source: 2019 ACS 5 -year Estimates
In terms of geographic dispersal, there is a relatively homogenous dispersal of persons with
disability, especially in Central Contra Costa County, where most census tracts have less than
10% of individuals with disabilities. Towards Eastern Contra Costa County, the Western
boundary, and parts of Southern Contra Costa County; however, the percentage of population
with disabilities increases to 10-20%. Pockets where over 40% of the population has disabilities
can be observed around Martinez, Concord, and the outskirts of Lafayette. Comparing Map 3
and Map 11, note that areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities correspond
with areas with high housing choice voucher concentration (24% of people who utilize HCVs in
Contra Costa County have a disability). Though use of HCVs does not represent a proxy for
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-29
Contra Costa
County% with a
Disability
Danville% with
a Disability
Civilian non -institutionalized population
11.2%
7.9%
Race/ Ethnicity
Black or African American alone
16%
14.4%
American Indian and Alaska Native
alone
21.2%
0%
Asian alone
8%
5.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone
9.6%
0%
Some other race alone
7.4%
12.5%
Two or more races
9.9%
8.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
12.2%
8.3%
Hispanic of Latino (of any race)
9.4%
8.6%
Age
Under 5 years
0.5%
0%
5 to 17 years
4.9%
3.7%
18 to 34 years
6.6%
4.3%
35to64years
10.1%
5.1%
65to74years
21%
9.5%
75 years and over
47.2%
42.4%
Type
Hearing difficulty
3.1%
2.5%
Vision difficulty
1.9%
1%
Cognitive difficulty
4.7%
3%
Ambulatory difficulty
5.7%
4%
Self-care difficulty
2.4%
2%
Independent living difficulty
5.4%
4.2%
Source: 2019 ACS 5 -year Estimates
In terms of geographic dispersal, there is a relatively homogenous dispersal of persons with
disability, especially in Central Contra Costa County, where most census tracts have less than
10% of individuals with disabilities. Towards Eastern Contra Costa County, the Western
boundary, and parts of Southern Contra Costa County; however, the percentage of population
with disabilities increases to 10-20%. Pockets where over 40% of the population has disabilities
can be observed around Martinez, Concord, and the outskirts of Lafayette. Comparing Map 3
and Map 11, note that areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities correspond
with areas with high housing choice voucher concentration (24% of people who utilize HCVs in
Contra Costa County have a disability). Though use of HCVs does not represent a proxy for
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-29
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
actual accessible units, participating landlords remain subject to the FHA to provide reasonable
accommodations and allow tenants to make reasonable modifications at their own expense.
Areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities also correspond to areas with high
percentages of low -moderate income communities. The above demographic information
indicates socioeconomic trends of populations of persons with disabilities.
MAP 43: REGIONAL POPULATIONS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY TRACT (2019)
n
1
y Population with a Disability
}
•
Seip[ar+si
Ri ra#M aaf Pap4Ji718i whirl i [141161114
C,.ee, 4 r : 1066
94rc Iban 1 174fa-1"
0
�X.4�4lF' $"Yo1..lw'ti4�T4reOrvviri.
?DAA -299; J 6+prrv*roo al IFouw^4p -.
V^et+tire! kp .i,
Ca..1or .t _ 4I.a 9.511 MZI
Local Trends
In Danville, 7.9% of the population experiences a disability (Table 9). This rate is lower than both
Contra Costa County (11.2%). The disability rate is highest among Black or African American
residents at 14.4% followed by some other race at 12.5%. In the County, the highest percentage
of disabled residents by race is among American Indian and Alaskan Native residents (21.2%).
The largest percentage of residents in Danville with a disability are 75 years and older (42.4%),
which is also reflected in the County (47.2%). In Danville, the most common disability is
independent living difficulty (4.2%) followed by a hearing difficulty (2.5%). The highest
percentage of disability experienced by residents in Contra Costa County are those with
ambulatory difficulties (5.7%) followed by those with an independent living difficulty (5.4%).
In Danville, the majority of the Town has a population with a disability below 10%. The northern
part of Danville and the area to the west of 1-680 both have higher rates of individuals with a
disability, between 10 to 20%. The area to the west of 1-680 corresponds to census tracts that
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-30
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
have higher rates of overpayment (between 40 to 60%;(Map 36), and the only area in Danville
with census tracts that have zero to five% of renter units using housing choice vouchers.
Comparing to the surrounding cities of San Ramon, Walnut Creek, and Clayton, Danville has
more residents with disabilities than San Ramon and Clayton, but similar rates to Walnut Creek.
MAP 54: PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY — DANVILLE (2021)
Z.-
Rau.
._
Population with a Disability
''
. s-..7....-, ``fir .- 1
'LA
R Lt rAi lY
14.01• .l .5f .yrar:lYre+..1rh LA1%1111114,^
II?4 -
9iitkOfbed
�r 1.144 ®,_.•,•... 1011.
2.114011
0
2079;21111: :!. b.wma-n d
541x.
Sckely e4 Ces-4,1 Coil*. Mt
Familial Status
Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status.
Familial status covers the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, and any
person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster
parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with
children, evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody, or
requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single
parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the
need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-31
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of
particular consideration are female -headed households, who may experience greater housing
affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent or
male -headed households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the
discrimination faced by single mothers.
Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, 24.3% of households have children under the age of 18 (Table 10).
Within Contra Costa County, Clayton and Danville have the highest percentage of households
with children (30.8% and 29.9% respectively). Across all cities in Contra Costa County, there
are higher percentages of single -parent female households than single -parent male households.
Danville and Walnut Creek have a similar percentage of single -parent female households (3.8%
and 3% respectively). Lafayette and Danville have comparatively higher percentages of single -
parent male households compared to neighboring jurisdictions (1.9% and 1.1c1/0 respectively).
TABLE 10. HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND INCORPORATED CITIES
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5 -Year Estimates)
Map 5 indicates that most children living in Contra Costa County live in married -couple
households, especially in central parts of the county where the percentage of children in such
households exceed 80%. Census tracts adjacent to these areas also have relatively high
percentages of children living in married -couple households (60 to 80%). Census tracts with the
lowest percentage of children in married -couple households (less than 20%) are located
betweenbetween Pittsburg and Antioch.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-32
Bay
Area
Contra
Costa
County
Danville
Walnut
Creek
Lafayette
Clayton
Married Couple with
Children
23.8%
24.3%
29.9%
17.2%
29.2%
30.8%
Single -Parent, Male
2.3%
1.2%
1.1%
0.9%
1.9%
0.8%
Single -Parent, Female
5.7%
5%
3.8%
3%
2.2%
1.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5 -Year Estimates)
Map 5 indicates that most children living in Contra Costa County live in married -couple
households, especially in central parts of the county where the percentage of children in such
households exceed 80%. Census tracts adjacent to these areas also have relatively high
percentages of children living in married -couple households (60 to 80%). Census tracts with the
lowest percentage of children in married -couple households (less than 20%) are located
betweenbetween Pittsburg and Antioch.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-32
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Map : Regional Percentage of Children in Married -Couple Households by Tracts (2019)
PIP
Percent of Children in Married -Couple Households
lionemap fs•Wras Wraardago of thiI in in
Fssrekil•Cr.191e- N+Ar1eRh0Wk - Trite
kr? Ic.ro rr
Scrt
SWUM +y. �' •+' hitl�F
3-291# Gaprra-isit ad Ilc.rrls.
rrd ;A WI ltrrraprt4.+1-R91: r°
Cain. Cana 2021
Local Trends
The majority of households in Danville with children are married couple households (above 80%)
(Map 6). There is a concentration to the west of 1-680 where this percentage goes down to 41 to
60% of married -couple households with children. This area to the west of 1-680 corresponds with
census tracts that have a higher rate of overpayment by renters (40 to 60%; Map 36) and
overlaps with a small pocket where the low -moderate income population is between 25-50%
(Map 10). The neighboring city of San Ramon and unincorporated area to the north and
northeast of Danville have higher percentages of married couple households, while the City of
Walnut Creek has lower levels of married couple households.
In 2021, Danville administered an online and paper mail -in survey to determine priorities for the
upcoming planning period. According to mail -in post cards, a large proportion of respondents
reported "living with adult children" because they cannot afford housing in the area. For renters
living with children reported experiencing overcrowding, significant rent increases, and struggling
to make monthly rent payments. These results confirm data presented in Map 5. Trends retrieved
from the 2021 survey also suggest that renters living with children experience higher rates of
overpayment (as shown above).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-33
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP %b: PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN MARRIED -COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS — DANVILLE (2021)
-.. E'en:era Cif Children in
Married -Couple Households
Sammy F€abomi
1J0#
LI, aari MCI IR4.i►,
PireapiruisitorChlettenInIhtrricd.Cctpk
I4auP al%P- Tragi
54, FLiliCiaear{eiArCawsy
2W -2010.61.i. v fiprirl.w4
Cc5d1^a.
Regional Trends
Map 7 depicts the concentration of households headed by single mothers in the County by
Census Tract. Areas of concentration include Richmond, San Pablo, Rodeo, Bay Point,
Pittsburg, Antioch, and to the west of Concord. Those communities are also areas of high
minority populations. By contrast, central County, in general, and the portions of central County
to the south of the City of Concord have relatively low concentrations of children living in female -
headed households (less than 20%). These tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian
and Pacific Islander communities.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-34
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 87: REGIONAL% OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE -HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2019)
Phement of Children ill Female Headed Households
No Sioo sol P€Irtrleri
r1owiip Fiirs?ii
r;.;;;;,:!loans
Sint PIM n
S9rc
!rNIIr4�r,M-•
IS
L
Rome rano DI ChI6irin to ramai* Mwrdkd-Mt•n inki
Mi SP[EtPii rime F4.,106164 -Tei
•
'e}JDH Ge 4r' 440M
n. V�
5.1.1. VA, l* kms•Kite ..r-017
1113-2911. 01.. S.. Gi artrgaml 8! Ilawrg
rH 4A lrar, c u 0-! L r;#rrtp o
L 4l.I Cana 2021
Local Trends
In Danville, the % of children living in a female -headed household with no spouse/ partner is
below 20% for the entire Town (Map 8). The adjacent City of San Ramon and unincorporated
area to the north and northeast also have below 20% of female -headed households while Walnut
Creek has a few tracts where between 20 to 40% of households are female -headed with no
spouse.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-35
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 9g: PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS — DANVILLE (2021)
Percent •8f CI^ ldren 115
Female Headed H Ouseholds
(No Spuusei Pari ner)
-e pp
a
/
9a r1r►e p
F4.1 tom
Derrar04 I r.[r-r
R
11.1 p Anti ifttea6H
apr+Sava
1,•
Pkrtefil rtd -Maw In Nada
44L�34:++r4t1P41 9
hbipv w,e irI mrr 1!4uwhelk-iti2L
1": #5
PEW at #
— d7 ibis
10,1
0
1S
r..—. ..2
3arnrer- Amarlcas Corrrrarfr,
201159014.;65 T Tal
+•.�. .1 asd Ilr1Yw br.+ir r tr.
Hila . i:..v.+,yaI-filet Ca1441_ MO
It is important to note that large family households also have unique needs as unit sizes of
affordable housing significantly impacts their ability to access housing. In general, large family
households require housing with three or more bedrooms to avoid overcrowding. In 2017,
Danville had approximately 13,635 housing units of this size -10% of which were owner -
occupied and 90% renter -occupied. The lack of affordable housing provided in Danville has
increased cost burden rates among large family households with 12% cost burdened and 8%
severely cost burdened. Comparatively, 19% of "other households" are cost burdened and
14% severely cost burdened.
Income Level
Each year, the HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data
from the U.S. Census Bureau. Known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by
estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low
enough to qualify for HUD's programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80% of median income). HUD
defines a Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51%
of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80% of the Area Median
Income).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-36
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Regional Trends
Table 11 lists Contra Costa County households by income category and tenure. Based on the
above definition, 38.71% of Contra Costa County households are considered LMI as they earn
less than 80% of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). Almost 60% of all renters are
considered LMI compared to only 27.5% of owner households. In Danville, only 16% of owner
and renter households are low or moderate income. A much larger percentage of renter
households in Contra Costa County are low or moderate income (52.2%) compared to low- or
moderate -income owner households (24.9%). This breakdown is reflected in Danville as well
with 25.8% of renter households earning low or moderate incomes and only 14.4% of owner
households earning low or moderate incomes. Overall, Danville has a much larger percentage
of owner and renter households earning above the area median income (78.6%) compared to
the County (56.4%).
TABLE 11. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DANVILLE HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY AND TENURE
Contra Costa County
Income Category
Owner
Renter
Total
0%-30% of AMI
6.5%
23.4%
23.4%
31%-50% of AMI
8.2%
15%
10.5%
51%-80% of AMI
10.2%
13.8%
11.4%
81%-100`)/0 AMI
8.3%
10.7%
9.1%
Greater than 100%
of AMI
66.7%
36.8%
56.4%
Total
257,530
134,750
392,275
Danville
Income Category
Owner
Renter
Total
0%-30% of AMI
4.2%
14.2%
5.7%
31%-50% of AMI
5%
7.3%
5.3%
51%-80% of AMI
5.3%
4.3%
5%
81%-100% AMI
5%
3.9%
4.9%
Greater than 100%
of AMI
80%
70%
78.6%
Total
13,425
2,530
15,955
Source: HUD CHAS (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2020.
Map 9 shows the LMI areas in Contra Costa County by block group. Most of central Contra
Costa County has less than 25% of LMI populations. Block groups with high concentrations of
LMI (between 75-100% of the population) can be found clustered around Antioch, Pittsburg,
Richmond, and San Pablo. There are also small pockets with high percentages of LMI
populations around Concord. Other areas of the county have a moderate percentage of LMI
populations (25-75%).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-37
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 103: REGIONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF LMI HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2015)
04
Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels
P •
SPF
P,,,�„1 Cttira} I era�y
o
Jird PLer61
� l
!+..c
r •W.+W In
H.
F.4 rcrell er IngornipPriptgation
074
1si1• tT.
,r;•L • -.Y,r,
SS1 4t LM 47:ieb 0:44+,
1+1,17,20. U.S. Grp mi al Ikiaap
rid 'Jthri Dawrr,wrI. 0-14101, 4airiy d
•[iiia Conk 2021
Local Trends
In Danville, there are two concentrations of census tracts with 25-50% of LMI populations. The
concentrations are directly adjacent to 1-680. The census tracts to the west of 680 have higher
rates of renter units with housing choice vouchers between zero to five% as well as tracts with
lower median incomes (Map 19) below $125,000 and tracts with higher percentages of disabled
residents between 10 to 20%. The census tracts to the east of Highway 680 with higher rates of
LMI populations overlap with tracts that have a higher non-white population (21 to 40%) and
tracts with higher rates of overpayment (20 to 40%). The rest of Danville has less than 25% of
LMI populations (Map 10). Looking at surrounding communities, San Ramon and the
unincorporated area north and northeast of Danville have similar levels of LMI populations, while
Walnut Creek has concentrations where the LMI population is between 50 to 75%.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-38
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 119: POPULATION WITH Low TO MODERATE INCOME LEVELS - DANVILLE (2021)
r•'P
z3- -sur—...—. F,
Populatior with Low to M1adlerate
Income Levels
1
•
1•
Bawrrwp F*iwrss
c; r.-.;,;; 0.110.04 liwiruilry
31
b1p
c %i!
P4n[3m rar twoottle4ervie ltnsrri
rpula,tAon -Mock G
00M-Mbeak
®
Dram ISstex U
Ds om •a -±+aeon
G NC.X,1 ' Wag
SiL
4.I
� ff, j r �'
SOURS, 4.W. tr
71 I p End i#rbn bw pr -r -I.
,Ilia al °`--.raC. _i_
MIL
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Extremely low-income households often face greater challenges in accessing and keeping. In
Danville, these challenges have been exacerbated by high housing costs, a lack of affordable
and accessible housing, and the high demand for housing throughout the Town. Given these
challenges and the unique needs of extremely low-income households, this section provides an
analysis of these households including tenure, rates of cost burden, and household
characteristics.
In 2017, according to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, there were
1,585 low-income households and 890 extremely low-income households in the Town of
Danville. In fact, extremely low-income households comprise 6% of overall households in
Danville. This compares to the region's percentage of extremely low-income households at 15%.
The increasing trend of extremely low-income households in Danville and the region is largely
due to stagnant wages across varying industries and high housing prices and costs. The
maximum rent affordable to these households, for instance, is approximately $925—this is
overwhelmingly below average rents in Danville. In 2021, average rent in the area was $2,462
per month, a five percent increase from the following year. This means that households must
have a median income of $94,480 to afford these rental prices. Map 11 (below) illustrates
location affordability indexes (e.g., median gross rent) throughout the Town and neighboring
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-39
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
jurisdictions.
MAP 12: LOCATION AFFORDABILITY INDEX BY CENSUS TRACT, DANVILLE, 2020
1111, PM
e '.1Irx-lsl�+rt�
- .c32 SOO
rII I - •' 1,, I ' tude:4 IHL41}.0 "Ric, •$:ian)
®4.31._6 DO - .Ib ilFlit 9iA11 Z -
-•g&2
1 141,401
■ ■ 1 ■ 1 • 1
LS 1 �hri
■ f 1� 1.+� .,~4. max+- asY Aft- e
-1#111..-.:air. •. wit PIE C12 nam..,■
r. x= •rw S%1 ea.gegghogrisvg I% aaz 114r-. ... i Fig Mwrw.•i i•r ng 1.1 -1 vwni. l a ;3i
orm
Ya ,• Iiia: fl it
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-40
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Households in Danville making less than 30% AMI varies by racial and ethnic groups with
residents identifying as Non -Hispanic Other or Multiple Races comprising the largest portion of
extremely low- income households at 10%—this is followed by non -Hispanic White households
(6%), Asian households (5%), and Hispanic/Latino households (4%). Surprisingly, 0% of Black
or African American households and American Indian or Alaska Native households were
considered extremely low-income, though this is likely due to comparatively lower population
rates of both racial groups.
Homeowners of extremely low-income households are slightly higher than that of renter
households. This is likely due to the large portion of homeowners in Danville -84% of residents
in Danville own their home compared to 16% of residents who rent their housing units. Higher
income households with median income greater than 100% AMI, however, overwhelmingly
outweigh renters with incomes greater than 100% AMI. Extremely low-income households often
experience higher rates of cost burden (30% to 50% of income spent on housing) and severe
cost burden (over 50% of income spent on housing). In Danville, homeowners are slightly more
cost burdened than renters (18% v. 16%) while renters are significantly more likely to be severely
cost burdened than homeowners (24% v. 13%).
Housing Choice Vouchers
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) are a form of HUD rental subsidy issued to a low-income
household that promises to pay a certain amount of the household's rent. Prices, or payment
standards, are set based on the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay
any difference between the rent and the voucher amount. Participants of the HCV program are
free to choose any rental housing that meets program requirements.
An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the
program in improving access to opportunity for voucher holders. The absence of HCV holders
can indicate discriminatory behavior among landlords and a lack of opportunity for low-income
households or renter households more generally. One of the objectives of the HCV program is
to encourage participants to avoid high -poverty neighborhoods, and encourage the recruitment
of landlords with rental properties in low poverty neighborhoods. HCV programs are managed
by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (SEMAPS)
includes an "expanding housing opportunities" indicator that shows whether the PHA has
adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located
outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.
A study prepared by HUD's Development Office of Policy Development and Research found a
positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty
concentration and a negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty25F2. This
means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In
areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of
2 Devine, D.J., Gray, R.W., Rubin, L., & Taghavi, L.B. (2003). Housing choice voucher location patterns: Implications for participant and
neighborhood welfare. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, Division of Program Monitoring and Research.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-41
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
areas of poverty.
Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) administers
approximately 7,000 vouchers under the HCV program (and Shelter Care Plus program).
Northwest Contra Costa County is served by the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) that
administers approximately 1,851 HCVs. North -central Contra Costa County is served by the
Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg (HACP), which manages 1,118 tenant -based HCVs.
The HCV program serves as a mechanism for bringing otherwise unaffordable housing within
reach of low-income populations. With reference to Map 11, the program appears to be most
prominent in western Contra Costa County, in primarily Black and Hispanic areas, and in the
northeast of the County, in predominantly Black, Hispanic, and Asian areas. Central Contra
Costa County largely has no data on the percentage of renter units with HCVs. The correlation
between low rents and a high concentration of HCV holders holds true for the areas around San
Pablo, Richmond, Martinez, Pittsburg, and Antioch.
MAP 131: REGIONAL HOUSING HCV CONCENTRATION BY TRACT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (2021)
Housing Choice Vouchers
S rriPF■Elam
Imiherrem
r.' Fr do
- -
Rrir
.111.r i 113195riR'9
R. rgrtl of Fa ni cr SJIdi4 rrrl h
i191lE1F±J Ch*I St'MAW — Tr1£S
0
ssc U.S. r„
a.rr$a� Cerrra{siic. e:.l i.
Map 12 shows the Location Affordability Index in Contra Costa County. The Index was
developed by HUD in collaboration with DOT under the federal Partnership for Sustainable
Communities. One objective of the Partnership is to increase public access to data on housing,
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-42
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
transportation, and land use. Before this Index, there was no standardized national data source
on household transportation expenses, which limited the ability of homebuyers and renters to
fully account for the cost of living in a particular city or neighborhood.
The prevailing standard of affordability in the United States is paying 30% or less of your family's
income on housing, but this fails to account for transportation costs. Transportation costs have
grown significantly as a proportion of household income since this standard was established.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 1930's American households spent just 8%
of their income on transportation. Since then, as a substantial proportion of the U.S. population
has migrated from center cities to surrounding suburbs and exurbs and come to rely more heavily
(or exclusively) on cars, that percentage has steadily increased, peaking at 19.1% in 2003. As
of 2013, households spent on average about 17% of their annual income on transportation,
second only to housing costs in terms of budget impact. For many working-class and rural
households, transportation costs exceed housing costs.
In Contra Costa County, the majority of the county has a median gross rent of $2,000—$2,500.
Central Contra Costa County (areas between Danville and Walnut Creek) have the highest rents
(around $3,000 or more). The most affordable tracts in the county are along the perimeter of the
County in cities like Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg, and Martinez.
Map : Regional Median Gross Rent/ Affordability Index by Tract (2021)
Location Aff mlability Index.
•
•
ildrYp r..Wras 0.4,dlan C. ®LL#rd,-Trip#
�° �° °� c - •' ._--,�, .17,444
.47,'45
krxr 11 •di045
OKI Byrn - •414,+1
a--w.f., IF.., K{rF
S�m1:Il,3 Lbprrran 1
Com' 1, W CCM.' 1 MAUI, 2029
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-43
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Local Trends
In Danville, 2021 HUD data on HCV utilization is not available for the majority of the town (Map
13). However, there is a concentration of higher HCV use to the west of 1-680 which corresponds
to tracts overpaying for housing by 20 - 40%, as well as tracts with LMI percentages between 25
to 50%, tracts with higher overpayment by renters (between 40 to 60%), and tracts with lower
median incomes (below $125,000). The surrounding cities of Walnut Creek and San Ramon
have higher percentages of HCV use while Clayton has similarly low levels to Danville. Median
gross rent in Danville is higher than $2,000 for the entire Town. Central Danville has tracts with
populations paying greater than $3,000 in rent which corresponds to areas of higher
overpayment by renters (Map 36). Unincorporated areas to the north and northeast and portions
of San Ramon also have rent levels exceeding $3,000, while Clayton and Walnut Creek have
lower gross rents below $2,500.
MAP 153: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS - DANVILLE (2021)
housing Choiue Vouchers
�kliiap Flrirrrd
Inez Darr
- - p{p rrerrYa rvlm
Pawl o4ReMin kiwi*,
44ir-Trcn
e - I coN.
111.a OEM
— fir - I for
— rti—!x
= rb IHv
7 OS
54-0,4:14. Ili Dapatrrami.1
ma..414 i tI v+{.rdrr .41. ...be IKtrrrt
ia,rfra Coast' Cava, MCI
California's Department of Housing and Community Development also reports data on HCV
rates as a percentage of renter -occupied units (Map 14). 2022 data from HCV show that—where
data is provided—less than 0 to 5% of renter -occupied units use HCVs to afford their housing.
As of 2020, only 11 households in Danville used Section 8 assistance to afford their housing. In
Contra Costa County, Concord, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, and San Ramon have comparatively
APPENDIX D I 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-44
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
higher rates of HCVS with the highest HCVs (>15% to 30%) in San Ramon.
MAP 16: HOUSING VOUCHERS AS A PERCENT OF RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS,
2022
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-45
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Ci!Towu Boufitiklies _ :• .5e' G — 15%
� 1 H,usim CIi:ioe V4ur ireM- Tl c! Irk . %
•.y••
1 .
lm
Ikb
NO be Lrs 011::2Wmidne r•i4eF:b:. ra• wedgy
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Map 154 shows the Location Affordability Index for the Town of Danville. The most affordable
areas in Danville are west of 1-680. The census tracts in this area have higher HCV utilization
rates, concentrations of overpayment for housing (by 20-40%), and higher percentages of
disabled residents and lower income households. The central areas of the town have the highest
costs, with rents exceeding $3,000.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-46
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 174: LOCATION AFFORDABILITY INDEX - DANVILLE (2021)
Location AOorciabilityy Index
ma p F+aaana Wain &ImoP im -7rrn
Deparyo pima
aca
c4.* -,1
+440165
-'M
aaaaa�Comm&auS1OD
!ae»a: LL . CaR+rt1 a1
Caeoyp' aU Carte. 1Gi1.
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP)
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are geographic areas with
significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD developed a census -tract
based definition of R/ECAP that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a
poverty test. The threshold states that an area with a non-White population of 50% or more
would be identified as a R/ECAP; the poverty test defines areas of extreme poverty as areas
where 40% or more of the population live below the federal poverty line or where the poverty
rate is three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (whichever is lower). Thus,
an area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration, and the poverty test would be
classified as a R/ECAP. Identifying R/ECAPS facilitates an understanding of entrenched
patterns of segregation and poverty due to the legacy effects of historically racist and
discriminatory housing laws.
In Contra Costa County, the only area that meets the official definition of a R/ECAP is Monument
Corridor in Concord (highlighted with red stripes in Map 15 below).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-47
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 185: REGIONAL RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY "R/ECAPs" (2021)
. - , -� Racially € r Ethnically Concen'4.atad Areas of Pwwagtyr "RJECAPs-
. e;
L I
4.- 1 .k
r-� •I _.S , .-. —.3
. R>•a4 .... rk PMal. d
f
C.
4 -_ "carr Ha I k
1
lam: .i •
Lawripr..a aY
- -- 1.4araye D C.
�.r � w. kr1•r.M'r
axIli¢hnkalte ramp nirahflA
Arad .111 ps+Hiny I FLITCAFs I -TIME
Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
7c.41. Er.U'.g1.G44
5l..z SA S.fdaoan.s.ur. 1
21:4)5°•1:11 KKR iiarl..•a. iC71.
The HUD definition that utilizes the federal poverty rate is not suitable for analysis in the San
Francisco Bay Area due to the high cost of living, according to the 2020 Contra Costa County
Al. To account for the higher incomes in the region, the Contra Costa County Al proposes an
alternate definition of a R/ECAP that includes majority -minority census tracts that have poverty
rates of 25% or more, a lower threshold than HUD's. Under this definition, twelve other census
tracts would qualify as R/ECAPs in the areas of Antioch, Bay Point, Concord, Pittsburg, North
Richmond, Richmond and San Pablo (Refer to Map 16).
According to the 2012-2016 American Community Survey, 69,326 people lived in these
expanded R/ECAPs, representing 6.3% of the County's population. Hispanic and Black
populations make up a disproportionately large percentage of residents who reside in R/ECAPs
compared to the population of the County or Region as a whole. In Contra Costa County,
approximately 53% of individuals living in R/ECAPs are Hispanic, nearly 18% are Black, 19.57%
are Mexican American, 4.65% are Salvadoran American, and 1.49% are Guatemalan
Americans. Families with children under 18 still in the household comprise almost 60% of the
population in Contra Costa County's R/ECAPs, significantly higher than neighboring
metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward. To those already living in poverty,
the higher rate of dependent children in their households would translate to a greater strain on
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-48
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
their resources.
MAP 191-6: EXPANDED R/ECAPs IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Source: Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-
2025 (2020 Al).
Note: The 2020 Al does not provide a legend for the map shown above nor does it name the
specific 12 additional R/ECAPs identified. The map shows the general location of the
expanded R/ECAPs identified in the County.
Local Trends
There are no R/ECAP areas in the Town of Danville (Map 17).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-49
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 201-7: RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY `rR/ECAPs" - DANVILLE (2021)
J
i
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated
Areas or Poverty "I 'ECAPs"
7
ll,rarna p Fralurii
17.-..-:011' 4 it I!•aTSOii'
••••51.,-.11-
111.0,D.
'fid"ar-'RJ: IFD_ rrs
K.•
'r
Rad ad iv ae EIhnr Uri trw1ial
kremol Pawtrir
luota %I-rr.cL
ID
1
1
4 1'•
.'fit
tt
_ 5 .
Stti rcas us mTa %a1 Iioraiq
Ina ur'Izar l?. T„r.,,L Mr? nil
I.14i Czkon p a carer. [aanq, 21:121.
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined by the HUD as communities with
a large proportion of affluent and non -Hispanic White residents. According to a policy paper
published by the HUD, non -Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United
States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty
and high concentrations of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in
affluent, White communities. RCAAs are currently not available for mapping on the AFFH Data
Viewer. As such, an alternate definition of RCAA from the University of Minnesota Humphrey
School of Public Affairs is used in this analysis. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where (1)
80% or more of the population is white, and (2) the median household income is $125,000 or
greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
Regional Trends
Cross referencing Map 1 and Map 19, there are a string of RCAAs running from Danville to
Lafayette that taper off towards Walnut Creek. This aligns with the cities' racial demographic and
median income (summarized in Table 9 below). Although not all census tracts/block groups meet
the criteria to qualify as RCAAs, there is a tendency for census block groups with higher white
populations to have higher median incomes throughout the county.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-50
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 9: WHITE POPULATION AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF RCAAs IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
City/Local
Jurisdiction
White Population
Median Household
Income (2019)
Danville
80.53%
$160,808
Lafayette
81.23%
$178,889
Walnut Creek
74.05%
$105,948
Source: DataUSA.io (2019)
MAP 2148: REGIONAL MEDIAN INCOME BY BLOCK GROUP (2021)
5tar.rr F.rrmu.
kraa 1E.. n
t4er krr*4trapr.4,
Mac: 1.nN uu.aa:dInmm.
{F. Gimp
�.44!P
I15,41:1I 5
-G ittr,il7: @4S
0
`Syr67M1: it rrsfl• .rte •Sarmy
nil -20Y7:. US. Wpw,.n Ik
.,d kb bin Ell•PV:wrwt 017C 1: £:o,rriv of
ta„p. Cana. .7 2I
Local Trends
In Danville, the majority of the tracts in the Town have populations earning a median income of
$125,000 or greater (Map 19). These areas correspond to tracts with low non-white populations.
There are two areas adjacent to 1-680 where there are tracts with incomes below $125,000.
These tracts correspond with a higher percentage of non-white populations (between 41 to
60%). Lastly, there is an area in south Danville along the border of San Ramon where the median
income is below $87,000, which also corresponds to census tracts in the town with high rents
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-51
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
(above $3,000). The nearby cities of San Ramon, Clayton and Walnut Creek have similar income
distributions, although Walnut Creek has more areas in the city where the median income is
below $87,000. RCAAs in Danville and Contra Costa County overall are presented in Map 20.
MAP 224-9: MEDIAN INCOME — DANVILLE (2021)
ilmimmp!`ialir..
1d
W ow.
E517.4r.Pfahrhu1un
e ' P&;PK
M&dlan Maui alld Imam* - Clock
!7%m,71C1
- tiI.1 ..I K:1 K -Ir Y-'_-'ir. rirl
Go-Tzol7,!ZS DM
0
21.4"; Anwrize,C m3.tty
yr` eag d9'�f 20 14. -I 1. fl.p.. i -.rl
711 •0 roc 11..a4rartre
wiji : [miry •:;`ala,
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-52
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 23: RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE (RCAA) BY CENSUS TRACT,
DANVILLE, 2015-2019
_11:AriT.4A a41V1
I= telbvin ,d 3 WS
irci11 41:eks.- ie1JC: e ',NV) - a191 • Ps:}g
•
111.111-I..=r
1 2Ela .84G
4
-
4
LEM. E. .aril UWERIMWII EMS F{
viii; a•••• fi?+eraM
Leis eP�
tea..0 Lod Mr 4 41r +-ilii Urn- PYA F: Ya :Ffr& sm.= Fill 2N{9 F%1•044..r ]C1 .-L•9SEC lfi,..•. a :m+w. M7 ILi:
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-53
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Source: California Department of Housing and Community DevelopmentAFFH Data Viewer
As discussed above, all census tracts that comprise Danville are considered a Racially
Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA)—this is consistent with Contra Costa County as the
majority of jurisdictions in the County are RCAAs. There are a few exceptions in the distribution
of RCAAs: —Walnut Creek, Concord, Martinez, and San Ramon are the only areas without
census tracts that qualify as an RCAA. Importantly, these jurisdictions still have RCAAs but to a
lesser degree.
Danville's comparatively high number of RCAAs could be attributed to numerous local and
regional factors including slow rates of housing development and rising housing and rental
prices. Between 2010 and 2020, for example, the number of homes in Danville increased by
2%—this is substantially lower than housing development in Contra Costa County and the region
overall. Rising housing (74% since 2010) and rental prices (26% since 2010), along with
prohibitive housing costs, have also contributed to RCAAs in Danville. In fact, according to
research published by the University of California, Berkeley, 100% of households in Danville live
in neighborhoods where low-income households are excluded due to the progressive increase
in housing.
The characteristics of Census tracts that comprise the RCAAs within and immediately
surrounding Danville include:
■ Residents are majority White. On average, White residents make up 83% of the tract. This is twice
the average percentage White population in the associated Council of Governments (COG)
region.
■ RCAA dominant areas abut non -urbanized natural areas (Las Trampas Regional Wilderness, Mt.
Diablo State Park).
■ Fewer than 5% of rental units are occupied by Housing Choice Voucher holders.
■ There is no difference between RCAA dominant and non-RCAA areas in terms of overcrowded
households overall. For renter households, there is a higher proportion of renters living in
overcrowded conditions in non-RCAA areas. This is likely correlated with the opportunity to find
affordable rental housing—which is much less likely to exist in RCAAs.
■ RCAA dominant areas have more areas of moderate cost burdened owners (40-60% experiencing
burden) compared to non-RCAA areas.
■ RCAA dominant areas have fewer areas where the majority of renters are cost burdened. There
is one tract within Danville where more than 80% of renters and cost burdened, and two where
between 40 and 60% of renters are burdened.
■ Opportunity indices are of the "highest" resource. It is important to note that this is true for RCAA
dominant areas and those that are not RCAAs. In non-RCAA areas—namely San Ramon—the jobs
proximity index and environmental index are higher than in RCAA dominant areas.
■ RCAA dominant areas are not vulnerable to displacement.
The characteristics of Census tracts that are near Danville and not RCAAs include:
■ Racial and ethnic diversity is more balanced with the White population comprising about half of
the population. On average, White residents make up 83% of the tract. This is still above but
closer to the COG average White population.
■ Rental units are more likely to be occupied by voucher holders than in RCAAs, although the
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-54
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
proportion is moderately low—between 5% and 30%.
■ Fewer cost burdened owners compared to RCAA dominant areas, assumedly because housing is
relatively less expensive than in RCAA areas.
■ Higher proportions of cost burdened renters, with tracts more likely to have 40 to 60% of renters
burdened, compared to 20 to 40% in RCAA dominant areas.
■ Opportunity indices are of the "highest" resource. It is important to note that this is true for RCAA
dominant areas and those that are not RCAAs. In non-RCAA areas—namely San Ramon—the jobs
proximity index and environmental index are higher than in RCAA dominant areas.
■ The non-RCAA communities show low vulnerability to displacement except in a few areas which
are more urbanized locations. These vulnerable areas do not show differences in racial or ethnic
majorities, however, or poverty concentrations from RCAA dominant areas.
Racial and ethnic patterns in Danville also contribute to the jurisdiction's RCAAs. This is likely
due to market factors and government actions including exclusionary zoning, discriminatory
lending practices, and rates of displacement.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-55
3°,
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
11. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
Jobs to Household Ratio
Unemployment Rate
LEP Population
Town of Danville
0.81
5%
Contra Costa County
0.98
8%
6%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the Town of Danville
High/Highest Resource Area
16%
▪ American Indian or Alaska Native, NH
▪ Black or African American, NH
▪ Other Race or Multiple Races, NH
Employment by Disability Status
With A Disability
No Disability
With A Disability
No Disability
Town of Danville
/a6%
▪ Asian / API, NH
▪ White, Non -Hispanic (NH)
▪ Hispanic or Latinx
98%
96%
Contra Costa County
96%
97%
■ Employed ■ Unemployed
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-56
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Primary Findings
• The Town of Danville is composed of highest resources areas, with no variation in
composite scores (Map 21). This pattern is typically seen in other wealthy and less racially
diverse cities, such as Lafayette and Orinda. Cities with more non-white residents and
lower income households, such as Concord or Pleasant Hill, tend to have lower TCAC
composite scores.
• The entirety of Danville has the highest TCAC education score above 0.75 indicating
more positive educational outcomes (see Map 23). However, the lowest performing public
school in the town is located in an area with more cost burdened households, a
concentration of Housing Choice Voucher households, and a larger non-White population
compared to the rest of the Town, suggesting access to fewer resources.
• Danville has poor access to transit options. According to the Transit Trips index for Contra
Costa County, Black and Hispanic residents are most likely to utilize public transit options,
suggesting disparities in transit access for these residents.
• Overall, the Town of Danville has moderate to excellent proximity to jobs. The areas
directly adjacent to 1-680 show the highest proximity to jobs in the town. The eastern areas
of the town have the lowest scores on the job proximity index.
• The areas west of 1-680 have lower environmental scores compared to the rest of the
town. This suggests there may be some disparities in access to environmental
quality, where the areas west of 1-680 have higher proportions of cost burdened
households, households utilizing a housing choice voucher, and a concentration of
residents with disabilities.
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate the link between place -based characteristics
(e.g., education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g.,
health, wealth, and life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the
quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents' mobility
and access to 'high resource' neighborhoods.
TCAC Opportunity Maps
TCAC Maps are opportunity maps created by the California Fair Housing Task Force (a
convening of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)) to provide research and evidence -based policy
recommendations to further HCD's fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and
concentration of poverty and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and
affordable housing, program design, and implementation. These opportunity maps identify
census tracts with highest to lowest resources, segregation, and poverty, which in turn inform
the TCAC to more equitably distribute funding for affordable housing in areas with the highest
opportunity through the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.
TCAC Opportunity Maps display areas by highest to lowest resources by assigning scores
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-57
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
between 0-1 for each domain by census tracts where higher scores indicate higher "access" to
the domain or higher "outcomes." Refer to Table 12 for a list of domains and indicators for
opportunity maps. Composite scores are a combination score of the three domains that do not
have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate,
high, highest, and high poverty and segregation). The opportunity maps also include a measure
or "filter" to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30% of population under the federal poverty line;
• Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics,
Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
TABLE 12: DOMAINS AND LIST OF INDICATORS FOR OPPORTUNITY MAPS
Domain
Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median home value
Environmental
CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution
Indicators and values
Education
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/ HCD
Opportunity Maps, December 2020
High resource areas have high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators such as high
employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and
limited exposure to environmental health hazards. High resource tracts are areas that offer
low-income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic
advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Moderate resource
areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have
fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors
that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental
indicators. Low resource areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities for
employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and
educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized
for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.
Information from opportunity mapping can help highlight the need for housing element policies
and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas or areas of high
segregation and poverty, and to encourage better access for low and moderate income and
black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-58
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Regional Trends
Map 20 provides a visual representation of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County
based on a composite score, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of
the level of resources within the region. The only census tract in Contra Costa County
considered an area of high segregation and poverty is located in Martinez. Concentrations of
low resource areas are located in the northwestern and eastern parts of the county (Richmond
to Hercules and Concord to Oakley); census tracts with the highest resources are located in
central and southern parts of the county parts of the county (San Ramon, Danville, Moraga,
and Lafayette).
MAP 240: REGIONAL TCAC COMPOSITE SCORES BY TRACT (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas — Coirnposite Score
Etowah' p FtlPsard
31rn Pn r n
ICP' E#E
Rr.r
7"CA appuu u-1tpJipi■12}211•Cnrr sII Sears•Irma
•
- Iu,$ rsi ..i:n
r —1 lainNowa Pte:€Y+igin9r
® oink' ow PA-AmL
P.= klui 1e1..ficer:8aoa
�n�,rr t11 Cerii Curr, FM.
Local Trends
The Town of Danville has the highest resource level for composite TCAC score (Map 21). San
Ramon, directly to the south, and the unincorporated areas north and northwest of Danville
also have the highest resource level, while Walnut Creek has a mix of the highest resource
level score and high level, and Clayton has a high resource level score.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-59
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 2524: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS — COMPOSITE SCORE - DANVILLE (2021)
TCAC Opportunity true -
Compoito mora
Sammy ham,'
(.72.T cowaimckii
- USN PID1AFl
— • pr Asr• Ya lrrl err
m� la44.lr••
TCArC OF p is thatty .Iiwir-
Com pmolt iI# -Ttaae
Hart, Vrealaw,
d 4k a In alalm...01wiFasongI
• 54 rdlranrmaaarcr
Loa tror®r
u i. ri.tu.r.ri ral
Ho-scr9 and dW Drhrt:112ra.11
pn.flt cc. •..1 Cyaa.,.: 1•.
12I.
Opportunity Indices
This section presents the HUD -developed index scores based on nationally available data
sources to assess residents' access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County.
Table 13 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following
opportunity indicator indices:
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school -level data on the
performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods
have high -performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing
elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is
in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a
summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human
capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force
participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value,
the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-60
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family
that meets the following description: a 3 -person single -parent family with income at 50%
of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core -Based Statistical Area
(CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that
neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation
costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3 -person single -parent family
with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher
the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given
residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a
region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the
index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a
neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential
exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the
less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value,
the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a
census block -group.
Table 13: Opportunity Indices by Race/ Ethnicity - Contra Costa County
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -D-61
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Trip
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Contra Costa County
Total Population
White,
68.58
68.81
25.37
85.80
44.03
45.07
Non -
Hispanic
Black, Non-
33.93
41.36
47.38
87.29
24.51
27.23
Hispanic
Hispanic
37.52
41.48
38.92
87.46
28.52
33.18
Asian or
60.52
66.82
34.60
85.77
36.63
37.04
Pacific
Islander,
Non -
Hispanic
Native
47.92
50.96
32.08
86.46
31.05
39.26
American,
Non -
Hispanic
Population
Below Federal Poverty Line
White,
53.57
55.48
29.27
86.99
38.40
40.47
Non -
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -D-61
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Hispanic
Black, Non-
Hispanic
23.53
30.31
51.51
88.92
23.77
25.63
Hispanic
27.11
31.43
43.96
88.74
26.45
29.31
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non -
Hispanic
47.64
51.79
42.36
88.62
38.86
28.47
Native
American,
Non -
Hispanic
27.08
34.40
46.03
88.11
27.10
25.31
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See page 31 for index score
meanings.
Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-62
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Education
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze
access to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level,
school districts with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of
LMI families (largely composed of minorities). As test scores are a reflection of student
demographics, where Black/Hispanic/Latino students routinely score lower than their White
peers, less diverse schools with higher test scores tend to attract higher income families to the
school district. This is a fair housing issue because as higher income families move to the
area, the overall cost of housing rises and an exclusionary feedback loop is created, leading to
increased racial and economic segregation across districts as well as decreased access to
high -performing schools for non-White students.
Regional Trends
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Composite Score for a census tract is based on
math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rate
indicators. The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more
positive education outcomes and the lowest quartile signifying less positive outcomes.
There are 19 public school districts in Contra Costa County, in addition to 124 private schools
and 19 charter schools. Map 22 shows that the northwestern and eastern parts of the county
have the lowest education domain scores (less than 0.25) per census tracts, especially around
Richmond and San Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, east of Clayton, and Concord and its northern
unincorporated areas. Census tracts with the highest education domain scores (greater than
0.75) are located in central and southern parts of the county (bounded by San Ramon on the
south; Orinda and Moraga on the west; Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Clayton, and Brentwood on
the north). Overlaying Map 10 and Map 22 reveals that areas with lower education scores
correspond with areas with lower income households (largely composed of minorities) and vice
versa. With reference to Table 13, index values for school proficiency are higher for White
residents, indicating greater access to high quality schools, regardless of poverty status.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-63
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 262-2.: REGIONAL TCAC EDUCATION SCORES (2021)
TCAC Opportunity meas — Education Scone
/ -N-
4 ..,.._.. L
4
i
j
Elmtp Figrimmi
1CA.C. Oppvisu p A.[F L 12:21. • Cd_tali®n St®14. T,ati
i, .`.1 (owe, 'Y Penile., .,e.L.l Aim...
hkciwtri ,.� �.. .75. 75
7lra Pikrin 11 _is 3.3
Cpse Sc. c 4w enryt
Pio No
...{1.1 15111 .
0
s ,resc U.s ].c...Fsm
Gaara
4.11CcruaCcars..Kg 1.
Local Trends
There are 19 public schools and 18 private schools in Danville. The entirety of Danville has the
highest TCAC education score above 0.75 (Map 23). The unincorporated areas to the north
and northwest and east, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek also have TCAC education scores
above 0.75. Within Danville, there was one public school with a bottom 50% ranking (Del
Amigo High School); the rest of the public -school test scores are in the top 10% or above (Map
24). According to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) website, Del Amigo
High School is a continuation high school that serves the SRVUSD and is now located in San
Ramon on the Venture School campus. According to publicschoolreview.com Del Amigo High
has a large student body (top 20%). The area around the Danville location of Del Amigo High
School is an area with higher levels of overpayment by renters (40 to 60%), higher levels of
HCV use (zero to five%) and a larger non-white population (21 to 40%). These indicators all
suggest that this area has potentially fewer resources. Surrounding cities of San Ramon,
Clayton, and Walnut Creek all have TCAC education scores above 0.75 (more positive
education outcomes).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-64
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 2724: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS — EDUCATION SCORE — DANVILLE (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas-
�.�, Education Score
9arwtr14tp F�cawnn
L7,-;;;,:; ownft07 humane
batol,+tl
yra,wa111:1Ixtr.7+y
TUC 00pooruiter AVM •
[,ul Ian Scor- Tract
eieWeara
ate ki
n-st
tftripo318rwuar 0. k awl
1= lie MU
Ca -ay, o- r.'.a.aai COMA. iql.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-65
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 282-4: CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL RANKINGS (2021)
California Public School Rankings, 2021
1—
9 ensrra p Fr o Isms
r, ,1 Ca viar o: ra 11L4
1..91•••+r'.
SLrx 1sven
uo�es Nprx+eodint ri
i•} ri ipso
.
d• i r fey: Si
CillfomLi Sche.:l Riming. blood on 3Ludmtioot Scone'
06060 S•
lop 5`
lop 4M
r -0P' ZIA
k4#kaornieda
ea~
�e
}fir 4.4 t. MG41k_y
S.:koc,a• r441.t S --- 1:14%. .4-4.. I:
y,e L bw u cprw i
04.41)1. Ccgsny d C.7+:*4fi7.0a
Tra nsportation
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes
and rising housing prices, especially because lower income households are often transit
dependent. Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit
dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public
transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables
residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.
Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the transit trips index and (2) the
low transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families
in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher
values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The
low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public
transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower
transportation costs in that neighborhood.
Regional Trends
For Contra Costa County, neither index, regardless of poverty level, varies noticeably across
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-66
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
racial/ethnic categories. All races and ethnicities score highly on both indices with values close
in magnitude. If these indices are accurate depictions of transportation accessibility, it is
possible to conclude that all racial and ethnic classes have high and relatively equal access to
transportation at both the jurisdiction and regional levels. If anything, both indices appear to
take slightly higher values for non -Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics, suggesting better access to
transit and lower costs for these protected groups.
Contra Costa County is served by rail, bus, and ferry transit but the quality of service varies
across the county. Much of Contra Costa County is connected to other parts of the East Bay
as well as to San Francisco and San Mateo County by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail
service. The Richmond -Warm Springs/South Fremont and Richmond -Daly City/Millbrae Lines
serve El Cerrito and Richmond during peak hours while the Antioch -SFO Line extends east
from Oakland to serve Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Center/Pleasant Hill,
Concord, and the Pittsburg/Bay Point station. An eastward extension, commonly known as
eBART, began service on May 26, 2018. The extension provides service beyond the
Pittsburg/Bay Point station to the new Pittsburg Center and Antioch stations. BART is an
important form of transportation that helps provide Contra Costa County residents access to
jobs and services in other parts of the Bay Area. The Capitol Corridor route provides rail
service between San Jose and Sacramento and serves commuters in Martinez and Richmond.
In contrast to rail transportation, bus service is much more fragmented in the County and
regionally. Several different bus systems including Tri -Delta Transit, AC Transit, County
Connection, and WestCat provide local service in different sections of the County. In the Bay
Area, there are 18 different agencies that provide bus service. The lack of an integrated
network can make it harder for transit riders to understand how to make a trip that spans
multiple operators and add costs during a daily commute. For example, an East Bay Regional
Local 31 -Day bus pass is valid on County Connection, Tri -Delta Transit, and WestCAT, but
cannot be used on AC Transit. Additionally, these bus systems often do not have frequent
service. In central Contra Costa, County Connection buses may run as infrequently as every
45 to 60 minutes on some routes.
Within Contra Costa County, transit is generally not as robust in east County despite growing
demand for public transportation among residents. The lack of adequate public transportation
makes it more difficult for lower-income people in particular to access jobs. Average transit
commutes in Pittsburg and Antioch exceed 70 minutes. In Brentwood, average transit
commute times exceed 100 minutes.
Transit agencies that service Contra Costa County include County Connection, Tri Delta
Transit, WestCAT, AC Transit, and BART. The County Connection Bus (CCCTA) is the largest
bus transit system in the county that provides fixed -route and paratransit bus service for
communities in Central Contra Costa. Other non -Contra Costa agencies that provide express
service to the county include:
• San Francisco Bay Ferry (Richmond to SF Ferry Building);
• Golden Gate Transit (Line 40);
• WHEELS Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Route 70x);
• SolTrans (Route 80/82 and the Yellow Line);
• Capitol Corridor (Richmond/Martinez to cities between Auburn and San Jose);
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-67
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Fairfield & Suisun Transit (Intercity express routes);
• Altamont Corridor Express (commute -hour trains from Pleasanton); and
• Napa Vine Transit (Route 29).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-68
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 292-5: REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS (2021)
".''
.j• J_
1
Public Transit Access
u,, pardi - - -•
I
p
//!ii
L.� M° �rJS�9".aas ry•
lighweris
ikri
'r OM 51•Proc
Public Trani Ra riga
I`244Frriit
4.,
J 6
!Friars and !!3'ha'I DrairperrcL
20:19°4031ittlacil2. cd wI:
C41,0,1p JCarvi Crews 71:121
Local Trends
The website alltransit.org measures the number of transit trips per week a household takes
and the number of jobs accessible by transit for a geographic area and assigns a score. Based
on these factors, Danville has an AllTransit performance score of 1.9 out of 10. The Town is
served by County Connection which provides bus service to and from the Dublin/ Pleasanton
and Walnut Creek BART stations to Danville. The one bus stop for County Connection is at
Danville Boulevard and Alamo Plaza, on the western side of the 1-680 corridor in the
commercial area of the Town. This means that individuals who work in the commercial center
but live further away don't have transit options to access their jobs or to other locations within
Danville. The Town does offer 600 -series busses which coincide with school bell times as a
school transportation option. Rides are between $2 and $2.50 one way or $3.75 daily if paying
with a Clipper card. LINK Paratransit services is an extension of County Connection which
provides transportation services for seniors and those with disabilities. Overall, the lack of a
robust transit system in Danville likely means most households rely on cars to get around.
According to alltransit.org, only 1`)/0 of residents commute to work by walking and .53% of
residents commute to work by biking. San Ramon and Walnut Creek have higher AllTransit
performance scores (3 and 4.7 respectively).
APPENDIX D I 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-69
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Economic Development
Employment opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the labor market engagement index
and (2) the jobs proximity index. The labor market engagement index provides a summary
description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a
neighborhood, which accounts for unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and% with
a bachelor's degree or higher. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating
higher labor force participation and human capital. The jobs proximity index quantifies the
accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances
between jobs and places of residence. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to
better accessibility to employment opportunities.
Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, non -Hispanic Whites and non -Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders are at
the top of the labor market engagement index with scores of 68.81 and 66.82 respectively.
Non -Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics score the lowest in the county with scores around 32.
(Refer to Table 13 for a full list of indices). Map 26 shows the spatial variability of jobs
proximity in Contra Costa County. Tracts extending north from Lafayette to Martinez and its
surrounding unincorporated areas have the highest index values followed by its directly
adjacent areas. Cities like Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Hercules have the
lowest index scores (less than 20). Hispanic residents have the least access to employment
opportunities with an index score of 45.11 whereas White residents have the highest index
score of 49.3.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-70
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 302-6: REGIONAL JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX (2021)
ealmrrimp imatir
Lesa"?„, ••••15•13i •
hechwep.
krs no -An
Om 51.ex
(kr 1.r.AtiksilMl.n
kr,131 n4.411.5 rq. litAni C14.94n BIN% gm.
=EN t•otElmerul Piarinlv
Mwmil
N W 4: NA
▪ .rm
r-camore
0
Salved& U.S. Elorartriom
khl.vah.,...1.1.......1.141.ffit
21114-21)17; Co.ris al MINIUM C.mis 242"
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT Page H -D-71
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 3124: REGIONAL TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS — ECONOMIC SCORE (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas - EconQmk Score
tlar.rrap For Wrrs Mkt {Ippa It ur rill Amus 12021j • ram rrtt Seo re • Moet
to .,,1 1:a/ti, iikkaaLi etkiikwl, Fertaarik i*rt 1i
hilataarl
Sire "mule
ow. gip.
IYxr 4rPW41471•XWi Re beir
!D• FS
•Sa
t.ib llraaAnapr Cr./71.7•04 0..rmaT II
LIAM Ni u5. 3.6111a1.n oy'
W`ai'Q.r11,4+4. 1 [-WI Y.
Gz.ec, CumaCu rs. 2C71.
Local Trends
Residents living in tracts along the 1-680 corridor in Danville and the rest of the County
experience job proximity index scores between 60 — 80 and 80 and above (Map 26 and 28).
Any score above 80 is the closest job proximity index. This is likely because 1-680 provides
access to major employment centers while the rest of Danville is mostly residential. Despite
this, the other tracts in Danville still have a job proximity rate of 40 — 60 since Danville is not
that geographically large, and Targe employment centers are located to the south in San
Ramon and north in Walnut Creek. San Ramon and Walnut Creek also have tracts with the
highest job proximity index score corridor, while Clayton has tracts with the lowest job
proximity index score.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-72
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 322: JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX — DANVILLE (2021)
Bit Pum p F49lI
r
IYr.6tFi�1_a ..#ti
CV*, 50941
1dsLociUoc. li�lm, N.r,plan -Stark
.1110 Omni Pro:9140
X !.
St!
44-0
t .20 Crum u !Yak inr1
_._ PJ Erpr-rrrr. l WausFg
V.24,-. D+.eq:.J ilei_
P69 I i' r.enen r r£ f smr 1.xEi
307
In Danville, the entire Town has an TCAC economic score of .50 to .75 which means there is a
higher rate of labor force participation and human capital (Map 29). San Ramon, Walnut
Creek, and Danville also have TCAC economic scores of .50 to .75.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-73
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 332-9.: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREA — ECONOMIC SCORE - DANVILLE (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas
r-.
ECO ROM ic SCUM
.,5 fit
-
�I AT -4.-
7\-,1;;T
aal�i
9a[4nldp Rpm'
C, ...1 44rrr%12; h7
7+1114.gc*.a i
du, ANA MUrpt *i
ecle' Lacy
TEM Opisimatdirr✓{tare
Gmnomlr#mr .-Trott
I 8
!•. x 3i fl dm 'mow drercrrr a:rrri
7U i5
F4.
1.1 tar
ter.
""'
• .--C1. 0.,-
�" 1',,4 Ff 1. _~ � ti w•. ' I`� E m yB44, 11C-10
9am+.m: lest.Cgraal
FV.,3wX:.r IY•�,., Ele-, iii OLEO.
iavrV d Camra Cara itiil.
Environment
The Environmental Health Index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a
neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less
exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the
environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block -group.
There are modest differences across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to
environmental quality. All racial/ethnic groups in the Consortium obtained moderate scores
ranging from low 40s to mid -50s. Non -Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores
amongst all residents in Contra Costa County with scores of 43; whereas non -Hispanic Whites
and Asians/Pacific Islanders have the highest scores (over 50) amongst all residents in Contra
Costa County (Refer to Table 13).
CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA)
to evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community's vulnerability
to the adverse effects of pollution. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics
are combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Higher values on
the index indicate higher cumulative environmental impacts on individuals arising from these
burdens and population factors.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-74
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these
scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources
of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic
sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons
with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic
factors such as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.
Regional Trends
Map 30 displays the Environmental Score for Contra Costa County based on CalEnviroScreen
3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values that identifies communities in California disproportionately
burdened by multiple sources of pollution and face vulnerability due to socioeconomic factors.
The highest scoring 25% of census tracts were designated as disadvantaged communities. In
Contra Costa County, disadvantaged communities include census tracts in North Richmond,
Richmond, Pittsburg, San Pablo, Antioch, Rodeo, and Oakley.
MAP 3430: REGIONAL TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS — ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental Sore
Ultimap 7't Oppo Ii. EF Arras 12.1,21j1 • Erruremncrulal IrDir • hack
r;..;,:11 Celry iihdliL2Py if IWrq htrorrrlgre•*.174..°:?,.2 rnw.
I frvsra 6..— SI,• 75
Wac Pc4i r 15.99
rte,¢
*Tr te . PY lrrlt.4s 1 a Hr Wm
'Yaatcsc V.S. 3rcaan non cc'
1-10...4-.r9 .r 11 s...4T,.•.�fi ly'�?.
CC....c CCr41 3 rlmlr. ze21.
Map 354 shows updated scores for CalEnviroScreen 4.0 released by the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Generally speaking, adverse environmental
impacts are concentrated around the northern border of the county (Bay Point to Pittsburg) and
the western border of the county (Richmond to Pinole). Areas around Concord to Antioch have
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-75
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
moderate scores and the rest of the county have relatively low scores. From central Contra
Costa County, an almost radial gradient effect of green to red (least to most pollution) is
evident.
MAP 351: REGIONAL CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 (2021)
tl arlsss,ep Y■
f:.= — renLthawk+r
1, dpi
7{r.� Faun
- 't :r
OJT AexiVal Mum `.-a
cgipayinek-ggitaleuResuhk
-'fNGA
14-% I+1 r.:•
® 77#. at..
anti
11 1
0
IiI 1S Miami P:FItl7171*ti1*Y.. MTI.6.1 Digar17.1.1 -g
Local Trends
All of Danville has a CalEnviroScreen score of 24% or lower meaning there are fewer
cumulative environmental impacts on residents (Map 32). There are a number of factors that
contribute to this score but the lack of industry and significant point sources are the most likely
contributors. For example, there are no factories or sewage treatment facilities in Danville. In
addition, significant open space surrounds which likely helps to mitigate harmful pollutants and
toxins. The nearby cities of San Ramon, Walnut Creek, and Clayton all have CalEnviroScreen
score below 25 to 49%, also likely due in part to their distance from industrial and point source
pollutants and proximity to open spaces like Mt. Diablo State Park and the Black Hills.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-76
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 362: CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 - DANVILLE (2021)
CalEnuiroScreen 4.0, 2021
Barr4m1 p
0415ameadeAani. ti-T'nree
;GtoTris etv lisanolry—xr,. 01.414,.r
'44" tr.— J 254 Mk
aur&ma.-..r-. ros ar il.
SOLI rrc Cal101arela G 6e• al
E�,r.aT-vi M41Wvpv
d – I. -
1"L., r.r,a9'£ .re••
Health and Recreation
Residents should have the opportunity to live a healthy life and live in healthy communities.
The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change
community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool
was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing
community conditions across the state and combined 25 community characteristics such as
housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI percentile Score,
where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions.
Regional Trends
Map 33 shows the HPI percentile Score distributions for Contra Costa County. The majority of
the County falls in the highest quarter, indicating healthier conditions. These areas have a
lower percentage of minority populations and higher median incomes. Cities with the lowest
percentile ranking, which indicates less healthy conditions, are Pittsburg, San Pablo, and
Richmond. These areas have higher percentages of minority populations and lower median
incomes.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-77
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 373: REGIONAL HEALTHY PLACES INDEX (2021)
Magna p li; bJr i5
s{P9 PD -IPI
l44]l1hy PisrP4.R401
:Ty LiIF 1ti,mliiRr'klryj
I IIS Moldy Cm4.rgarg1
— is 54
7; •IR rwtimual£rattr.N
0
^iaulsq srtl Corr Grmlagr•+sr:.
MAI :d10.3 :-I_v:. H 1I 4. wil s• A9.
Ga,xl jd Cows CO41.4 NCH.
Local Trends
All of Danville has a HPI score between 75 to 100, indicating healthier conditions (Map 34) and
no real disparities locally in healthy living conditions.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-78
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 384: HEALTHY PLACES INDEX DANVILLE (2021)
Healthy Places Inde.
f ; .; , j Cwie to e q 6v,c•,aru5r
art
kra no -an
6.7,444•P 4eherAo
004 tiara
PY 0414244 Indra
[TotalPak-walk RNMI In0
UrannPMi4IYteredse 4
a iS
-Y3• IG*FrMe WCr..ee;
ii'SYlr-4e-1 s4
la,i•vy rd I.,s-}r..e4xr c.
5:11 f: -,.%C. 114 I1,144srrl 410. sr%
Cs err o4i 5aad:auk Xal.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-79
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
12. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, Town of Danville, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50%ofAMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
▪ 0%-30% of Income Used for Housing
8% 8%
15%
26%
40%
30%
35%
32%
81%
16%
▪ 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
Overcrowding, Town of Danville, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
0.1%
1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room
Owner
Hom elessness, Contra Costa County, 2019
0.5%
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing
2.3%
■ Renter
Share of Homeless Share of Overall
Race and Ethnicity Population Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 14% 0%
Asian / API 3% 17%
Black or African American 34% 9%
White 45% 56%
Other Race or Multiple Races 4% 1 8%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement Town of Danville Contra Costa County
Number of Units 0 417
% of Assisted Units 0% 8%
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-80
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Primary Findings
• In Contra Costa County, Hispanic and Black residents face particularly severe housing problems.
Additionally, there are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger
families (households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that
families of five or fewer people experience.
• In Danville, 46.82% of all households experience cost burden. Additionally:
o Renters experience higher rates of cost burden than owners (59.29% and 44.47%,
respectively).
o Other Race/Multiple Race (53%), Hispanic (41%), and Black (34%) households have the
highest rate of cost burden compared to non -Hispanic White (31%) and Asian (26%)
households.
o Unlike the county, large households face less cost burden (20%) compared to all other
household types (33%).
• Overall, the rate of overcrowding in Danville is small. However, 10.8% of Other Race/Multiple
Race households are considered overcrowded.
• Renters are 18 times more likely to lack complete kitchen facilities compared to owner -occupied
households.
• The Town of Danville makes up less than 1% of all publicly assisted units in the county but
accounts for 4% of the county's total housing units.
• American Indian and Black residents are overrepresented in the homeless population compared
to their share of the overall population.
• Mortgage denial rates are highest for American Indian or Alaska Native (25%), Black (22%), and
Hispanic (20%) households.
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant
disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing housing needs when
compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population in
the applicable geographic area. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income
level for different types of households in Contra Costa County. Housing problems considered by
CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30% of gross income;
• Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50% of gross income;
• Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom).
Severe housing problems are defined as households with at least 1 of 4 housing problems:
overcrowding, high housing costs, lack of kitchen facilities, or lack of plumbing facilities.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-81
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Regional Trends
According to the Contra Costa County Al, a total of 164,994 households (43.9%) in the county
experience any one of the above housing problems; 85,009 households (22.62%) experience
severe housing problems. Based on relative percentage, Hispanic households experience the
highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity, followed by Black households and
`Other' races. Table 15 lists the demographics of households with housing problems in the
County.
Table 15: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Contra Costa County
Source: Contra Costa County Al (2020)
There are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families
(households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems than families
of five or fewer people experience. Larger families tend to experience housing problems more
than smaller families. Non -family households in Contra Costa County experience housing
problems at a higher rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family
households. Table 16 lists the number of households with housing problems according to
household type.
Table 16: Household Type and Size in Contra Costa County
Household Type
Total
Number of
Households
Households with
Housing
Problems
Households with
Severe Housing
Problems
White
213,302
80,864
37.91%
38,039
17.83%
Black
34,275
19,316
56.36%
10,465
30.53%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
51,353
21,640
42.14%
10,447
20.34%
Native American
1,211
482
39.80%
203
16.76%
Other
10,355
5,090
49.15%
2,782
26.87%
Hispanic
65,201
37,541
57.58%
23,002
35.28%
Total
375,853
164,994
43.90%
85,009
22.62%
Source: Contra Costa County Al (2020)
There are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families
(households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems than families
of five or fewer people experience. Larger families tend to experience housing problems more
than smaller families. Non -family households in Contra Costa County experience housing
problems at a higher rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family
households. Table 16 lists the number of households with housing problems according to
household type.
Table 16: Household Type and Size in Contra Costa County
Household Type
No. of Households with
Housing Problems
Family Households (< 5 people)
85,176
Family Households (> 5 people)
26,035
Non -family Households
53,733
Source: Contra Costa County Al (2020)
Cost Burden (Overpayment)
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30% or more of their
gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Renters
are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Housing cost burden is
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-82
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have
difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical
costs.
Regional Trends
Concentrations of cost burdened renter households are seen in and around San Pablo,
Pittsburg, Antioch, west Brentwood and Oakley, East San Ramon, and northern parts of Concord
towards unincorporated areas (Map 35). In these tracts, over 80% of renters experience cost
burdens. The majority of east Contra Costa County has 60 — 80% of renter households that
experience cost burdens; west Contra Costa County has 20 — 40% of renter households that
experience cost burdens. Census tracts with a low percentage of cost -burdened households are
located between San Ramon and Martinez on a north -south axis. In these tracts, less than 20%
of renter households experience cost burdens.
MAP 3935: REGIONAL OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS (2021)
Overpayment by Renters
map F. a Lyn F2 Cwwpurum ri by R4nLeae
Oichrowry
Sim Bunn
P3+Y Tum Wi,n x.1 o k,
0
arv2.20 U Gopareriona•
lK,r, In bar. {a+*1.ir.■.m.traaCL
EarA.Ir d/Caw o Ccu 332 I.
Local Trends
As presented in Table 17, about 36%% of all households in the county experience housing cost burden.
This rate is much higher for renter households (48%) than owner households (29%). Danville households
have a higher rate of households experiencing housing cost burden (47%) compared to the county.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-83
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Renters experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (59% compared to 44%). Unlike the county,
large households (20%) experience less cost burden than all other households (32%) in Danville.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-84
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 17: HOUSEHOLDS THAT EXPERIENCE COST BURDEN BY TENURE IN CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY AND DANVILLE
Contra Costa County
Total Number of Households
Cost
burden >
30%
Cost
burden >
50%
Percentage of
Households that
Experience Cost
Burden
Owners Only
257,530
74,545
30,010
28.9%
Renters Only
134,750
65,055
33,040
48.3%
All Households
392,275
139,595
63,050
35.6%
Danville
Total Number of Households
Cost
burden >
30%
Cost
burden >
50%
Percentage of
Households that
Experience Cost
Burden
Owners Only
13,425
4,230
1,740
44.47%
Renters Only
2,530
960
540
59.29%
All Households
15,955
5,200
2,280
46.82%
Source: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html
There are a few areas in Danville with tracts where renters are overpaying for housing (Map 36).
To the west of 1-680 there are census tracts where between 40 to 60% of renters are overpaying
for housing. This area of overpayment overlaps with areas that have higher rates of HCV use (0
to 5%), low to moderate income populations (25 to 50%), lower rates of married couple
households (40 to 60%), lower median incomes (under $125,000), and higher disability rates
(10 to 20%). All of these factors likely contribute higher rates of overpayment. Directly to the east
of 1-680 there is an area with renters overpaying between 60 to 80%. This area has a median
gross rent of over $3,000. Lastly, central/south Danville has census tracts where 40 to 60% of
renters are overpaying. These areas correspond to some tracts with lower median incomes (less
than $87,000), higher rates of non-White population (21 to 40%), and areas where gross rent is
over $3,000. Nearby, San Ramon also has tracts where renters are overpaying by 40 to 60%
and 60 to 80%. In Walnut Creek there are tracts with overpayment by 20 to 40% and 40 to 60%,
while almost all Clayton renters experience overpayment by 40 to 60%.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-85
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 403§: OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS — DANVILLE (2021)
Twp FUSIN'
r: -z; Verrift.04 Frerdrr
orf
iiPtik* 1
lire MU i-= ...i -i
S0.1151; 411,S, kap
,P,. .NILE 14.
Cord iJeCY.
2133M.
Homeowners in Contra Costa County and Danville are also cost burdened, though cost burden
rates among homeowners in both the county and Town are significantly lower. As shown in Map
41, homeowners in Contra Costa County typically overpay by 20% to 40%. Census tract 3390.02
in Walnut Creek is the only area in the County with homeowners overpaying by less than 20%.
Alternatively, census tracts 3511.02 and 3511.01 near Lafayette are the only tracts with
homeowners overpaying by over 80%.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-86
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 41: OVERPAYMENT BY HOMEOWNERS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 2015-2019
Ocit. town ShI f I
14) Garglerimed W woo* Oar.-
20%
ar. + a
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
As illustrated above, the majority of homeowners in Danville overpay for housing by 20% to 40%.
Homeowners overpaying by 40% to 60% are concentrated in census tracts west of 1-680 (tract
3452.03) and east of 1-680 (tract 3462.01). Higher rates of overpayment among homeowners in
Danville are similar to that of surrounding areas.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-87
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Importantly, concentrations of cost burdened homeowners are located in areas with higher
populations of persons with disabilities. In these areas, 10 to 20% of the population has a
disability—this compares to surrounding census tracts with less than 10% of the population living
with a disability. Disproportionate cost burden rates among persons with disabilities in Danville
are representative of trends throughout Contra Costa County (Map 38).
MAP 42: POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY, DANVILLE AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
2015-2019
TrZr= Val
Oleg
= Oaf T ,+.a..arnE
I walla C +..r l 70111. ?0+11- ram
- ac% - 217"
- rt�a
: s 1,.-. w --r • ..--
1 aNiii kir%
A see
r� W.
.1111S -- sa,..aser.p mesa.. w q OS ow mewrq
�.a. - .PAY .aa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-88
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining
and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen).
Regional Trends
Map 37 indicates that generally, Contra Costa County has low levels of overcrowded
households. Tracts in San Pablo, Richmond, and Pittsburg with higher percentages of non-White
population show higher concentrations of overcrowded households compared to the rest of the
county. Monument Corridor, the only official R/ECAP in Contra Costa County, a predominantly
Hispanic community in Concord, also exhibits more overcrowding than other parts of the County.
MAP 37: REGIONAL OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2015)
Concentration c'f Overcrowded I'r
PN,.
;'
it rt
P F11Y6xa
earey naa�.a"r
ti'ite^J,•-•
Drwrsvr d.d M masted d
IAHSF -Tc[
kr&n N ml,Yv
mos'sC•ic4 - s 113
:a4ti
e,r bw rnl.4rrlti�.4ti.
0
Suralrle LOA .Eaiietrare l
Cmortkxai.:` Ne+.any 1L vlikA.y Sl1lr.:q.
%TION.$Til-Gari 04"-...1..41.} 1..1W}
21)11. MIS ; Ca,.ri ell {AIM Cxxu Yih2'
Local Trends
According to the 2019 five-year ACS estimates (Table 18), 2.6% of County households are
overcrowded. In Danville, only 0.4% of households are overcrowded or severely overcrowded.
Renter occupied units have the highest rate of severe overcrowding at 2.3%, compared to just
0.09% of owner households. The percentage of overcrowded renter and owner households is
significantly different in Contra Costa County (6.9% and 1.1% respectively). The percentage of
severely overcrowded units, defined as those with more than 1.5 persons per room, is higher for
renter than owner households (2.5% and 0.2%, respectively.) By race/ethnicity, Other
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-89
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Race/Multiple Race households face overcrowding at a disproportionate rate compared to all
other households in Danville (10.8% and 0.4%, respectively).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-90
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 18: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS — CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DANVILLE
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019. Table B25014
Map 38 shows that the entire Town has less than 8.2% (statewide average) of tracts with
overcrowded households. All of the cities surrounding Danville also report this same percentage
of overcrowded households.
Map 4388: Concentration of Overcrowded Households - Danville (2021)
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-91
Contra Costa County
Danville
Overcrowded
(>1.0 persons
per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons
per room)
Overcrowded
(>1.0 persons
per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons
per room)
Owner-
Occupied
1.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.09%
Renter-
Occupied
6.9%
2.5%
0.5%
2.3%
All HH
2.6%
0.8%
0.4%
0.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019. Table B25014
Map 38 shows that the entire Town has less than 8.2% (statewide average) of tracts with
overcrowded households. All of the cities surrounding Danville also report this same percentage
of overcrowded households.
Map 4388: Concentration of Overcrowded Households - Danville (2021)
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-91
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Concentration of Overcrowded
Households
rf..
5 ii �7 Yi�.� �gy. 1�� �'1 y •••(
i L \- 4_, pt ]moi . . ;l`� I , ~j3 e - -- ; L
i II
i 7
9 F 1* r ry p F4nrivi
r:....1 .'wrr+a OP
pArAdi
Larkle
1t
r
OrrsrtrD .ded itlbgdi
I Cm.i S: - rrsst
,cia''
ac3v
L
1
0
'masa 'J S,. [*v ,t-perr1 ow
n
AHI 1.1. r.¢..1.r1..n,01. 'ft,WV
.NrIPJ t arra, kW Csr«w rt} IL nrp
r krAA ?611 7£7 S. -I, LIC 4.6..4
Cbra.S.2:
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-92
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Substandard Conditions
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing
conditions.
Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, shown in Table 18, 0.86% of households in Contra
Costa County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.39% of households lack complete plumbing
facilities. Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner
households.
Local Trends
As depicted in Table 19, Danville renters are much more likely to lack complete kitchen facilities
(18%), compared to only 0.2% of owner households . Overall, 3% of households in Danville lack
complete kitchen facilities while only 0.3% of households lack complete plumbing facilities. rig
percent of households in Contra Costa County and Danville experiencing any four severe
housing conditions (e.q., lacking kitchen or plumbing facilities, severely overcrowded, and/or
severely cost burdened) are presented in Table 19 and Map 44. As shown below, less than 20%
of all households in Danville experience severe housing problems
Local knowledge and data retrieved from Danville's 2021 Housing Element survey seemingly
contradict these findings as numerous mail -in respondents indicated their greatest housing
challenge as rehabilitation needs and inability to afford rehabilitation and/or housing repairs.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-93
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 44: PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH ANY OF THE 4 SEVERE HOUSING
PROBLEMS
1
141N1 *Ihm-airia :10 i.rrea•
IMIA n :.,r rro r .,��
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Note: The four severe housing problems are defined by HUD as 1) lacks complete kitchen
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-94
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
facilities; 2) lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) severely overcrowded; and 4) severely cost
burdened.
TABLE 19: SUBSTANDARD HOUSING CONDITIONS — CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DANVILLE
Source: Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019, table B25053, table
B25049
Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out
and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley's
Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion
of very low income residents was above 20% in 2017 and the census tracts meets two of the
following criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40% in 2017; (2) Share of Non -White population
above 50% in 2017; (3) Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are also
severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or (4) Nearby areas have
been experiencing displacement pressures.
Regional Trends
Using this methodology, sensitive communities were identified in areas between El Cerrito and
Pinole; Pittsburg, Antioch and Clayton; East Brentwood; and unincorporated land in Bay Point.
Small pockets of Sensitive Communities are also found in central Contra Costa County from
Lafayette towards Concord (Map 39).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-95
Contra Costa County
Danville
Owner
Renter
All
HHs
Owner
Renter
All
HHs
Lacking complete kitchen
facilities
0.19%
0.67%
0.86%
0.2%
18%
3%
Lacking complete plumbing
facilities
0.19%
0.20%
0.39%
0.1%
1.1%
0.3%
Source: Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019, table B25053, table
B25049
Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out
and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley's
Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion
of very low income residents was above 20% in 2017 and the census tracts meets two of the
following criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40% in 2017; (2) Share of Non -White population
above 50% in 2017; (3) Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are also
severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or (4) Nearby areas have
been experiencing displacement pressures.
Regional Trends
Using this methodology, sensitive communities were identified in areas between El Cerrito and
Pinole; Pittsburg, Antioch and Clayton; East Brentwood; and unincorporated land in Bay Point.
Small pockets of Sensitive Communities are also found in central Contra Costa County from
Lafayette towards Concord (Map 39).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-95
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 453-: REGIONAL SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT BY TRACT (2021)
Sensitive Communities (UCB, Urban Displacement Project)
�ondp F..Wris
bins FI;An
cpst S ta•A
$+rJur. w+lrrl��.4
Ifuleardallty cfl dreormid
dvtuellisingPr3ptrtlVWun
•
--
Smoot fa, 0-6.11Lif161.
9r J •
}epiacr+rrrs 1", i. 2015E U'S. C..1-2.3,Torr. 0
Haysry aid 1.15 bun [hemp rrr N 9rri U i
•[oriCanw Gua, 202I.
Local Trends
No sensitive communities were identified in Danville (Map 469). However, the nearby cities of
San Ramon and Walnut Creek both have areas identified as sensitive communities.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-96
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 46G: SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES (UCB, URBAN DISPLACEMENT PROJECT) — DANVILLE (2021)
t rte..
1
ryI
�)+
5ensitnre Communities {UCS, Urban
Displacement Project)
II I
J _ /
1 1
it "•11
L.
lFnwnr p Ea 'wiz
r. _.._ Culvta r+In.ndidy
M qirw tm
91
IPM i0,1r9
Rrrr Aww %Mlr:
rhsr •4u,c
4niiw,.Fil my 431 imitgal
duel%Ealnp Pn erq+VI1
worms
5sr+r#t
1.••,_2„�
]9
Raving rt �+o-pr:. iG iI:
G4.er:111.0..0
1=rsd ll�n Or.+Icivr. rc
4..1 y.
Z121.
Table 20 shows the number of publicly assisted units at risk for conversion in the Town of
Danville by risk level from low to very high. All 73 units are at a low risk for conversion in the
town. The Town of Danville makes up less than 1`)/0 of all assisted units in the county but 4% of
the county's total housing units.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-97
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 20: PUBLICLY ASSISTED UNITS AT RISK FOR CONVERSION
Geography
Low
Moderate
High
Very
High
Total
Assisted
Units in
Database
Danville
73
0
0
0
73
Contra Costa County
13,403
211
270
0
13,884
Bay Area
110,177
3,375
1,854
1,053
116,459
Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020)
Table 21 shows the number of housing units permitted in Danville between 2015 and 2019.
Fourteen% of units permitted during this time are affordable for low to moderate income
households and 2% of units are affordable to very low-income households.
TABLE 21: HOUSING PERMITTED, 2015-2019, DANVILLE
Income Group value
Above Moderate -Income
Permits 383
Moderate Income Permits 42
Low Income Permits 23
Very Low -Income Permits 10
Totals 458
Source: 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
Homelessness
Table 22 shows the number of people experiencing homelessness by family type and presence
of children. Generally, households with children are more likely to use emergency shelters and
households without children are more likely to be unsheltered. Eighty-six% of people
experiencing homelessness are in households without children.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-98
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 22: PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
Source: Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019);
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019)
Map 41 (below) shows HUD's 2020 Point in Time Count for emergency shelters throughout the
County and in Danville. Notably, Danville and surrounding jurisdictions do not have emergency
shelter options for persons experiencing homelessness. Emergency shelters closest to Danville
are located in Walnut Creek. A lack of shelters in Danville could be attributed to land use
regulations and/or the Town's comparatively lower rates of poverty and homelessness—as well
as the high cost of land.
California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), however, provides for the development of emergency shelters
and transitional and supportive housing and requires jurisdictions to identify zones where
emergency shelters are permitted. It also prohibits local governments from denying emergency
shelter projects if the projects meets certain objective criteria and requires that zoning categories
allowing emergency shelters do not require conditional use permits or other discretionary review.
In Danville, emergency shelters are permitted in the Old Town Mixed Use district and most
conform to the property development standards in that district. Under Section 32-22.4 of
Danville's Municipal Code (Conditional Uses; Requiring a Land Use Permit and/or Development
Plan Permit),) -states -that transitional and supportive housing with seven or more persons are
permitted "upon issuance of a land use permit and/or development plan permit." Group homes
including community care facilities and residential care facilities are subject the same
requirement. It is likely that high land costs, property development standards, parking
requirements, and special permits for transitional and supportive housing discourage the
placement of such uses within Danville. Danville's 2030 General Plan, however, proposes further
review of zoning codes and development requirements and their intention to align zoning codes
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-99
People in
Households
Composed
Solely of
Children
Under 18
People in
Households
with Adults
and
Children
People in
Households
without
Children
Under 18
Sheltered - Emergency
Shelter
0
159
359
Sheltered - Transitional
Housing
0
32
118
Unsheltered
0
128
1,499
Source: Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019);
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019)
Map 41 (below) shows HUD's 2020 Point in Time Count for emergency shelters throughout the
County and in Danville. Notably, Danville and surrounding jurisdictions do not have emergency
shelter options for persons experiencing homelessness. Emergency shelters closest to Danville
are located in Walnut Creek. A lack of shelters in Danville could be attributed to land use
regulations and/or the Town's comparatively lower rates of poverty and homelessness—as well
as the high cost of land.
California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), however, provides for the development of emergency shelters
and transitional and supportive housing and requires jurisdictions to identify zones where
emergency shelters are permitted. It also prohibits local governments from denying emergency
shelter projects if the projects meets certain objective criteria and requires that zoning categories
allowing emergency shelters do not require conditional use permits or other discretionary review.
In Danville, emergency shelters are permitted in the Old Town Mixed Use district and most
conform to the property development standards in that district. Under Section 32-22.4 of
Danville's Municipal Code (Conditional Uses; Requiring a Land Use Permit and/or Development
Plan Permit),) -states -that transitional and supportive housing with seven or more persons are
permitted "upon issuance of a land use permit and/or development plan permit." Group homes
including community care facilities and residential care facilities are subject the same
requirement. It is likely that high land costs, property development standards, parking
requirements, and special permits for transitional and supportive housing discourage the
placement of such uses within Danville. Danville's 2030 General Plan, however, proposes further
review of zoning codes and development requirements and their intention to align zoning codes
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-99
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
and land use requirements with that of SB 2.
MAP 47: Emergency Shelter Housing, Contra Costa County and Danville, 2020 Point in Time
Count
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-100
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
•1 11
0 tie, T,N,h :r . 'e7ilYrR
# is 14— ern = &ammo Slither Hicmadv trPJD 4.
•1i
Th..* v tw . ynca €j . tw
14i Mb — o-ar,iwillio.rwrn..:At/ ::,, : . •
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Table 23 shows the share of the homeless and overall population by race and ethnicity in Contra
Costa County. American Indian or Alaska Native and Black residents are overrepresented in the
homeless population compared to their share of the overall population.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-101
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE 23: SHARE OF THE HOMELESS AND OVERALL POPULATION BY RACE, CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
Racial / Ethnic Group
Share of
Homeless
Population
Share of
Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non -
Hispanic)
14.5%
0.5%
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic)
3.1%
17.2%
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic)
33.8%
8.7%
White (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic)
45.0%
55.8%
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic)
3.7%
17.7%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019);
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019)
Table 24 shows the share of the homeless and overall population by ethnicity. Non -Hispanic
residents are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to Hispanic residents.
TABLE 24: SHARE OF THE HOMELESS AND OVERALL POPULATION BY ETHNICITY, CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
Latinx Status
Share of
Homeless
Population
Share of
Overall
Population
Hispanic/Latinx
16.6%
25.4%
Non-Hispanic/Latinx
83.4%
74.6%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019);
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019)
Residents experiencing homelessness and chronic substance abuse and severe mental illness
are the most prevalent special populations in Contra Costa County followed by victims of
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-102
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
domestic violence, veterans, and residents with HIV/AIDS.
TABLE 25: HOMELESS POPULATION BY SPECIAL POPULATION
Source: Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019);
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019)
Contra Costa County—along with Alameda County—have taken meaningful steps to address
the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and persons at -risk of being homeless. For
instance, the County's Coordinated Entry System assists homeless persons and persons at -
risk of homelessness by providing residents referrals to available resources and information on
housing, shelter, and social services available. Services provided include emergency housing
and shelter, food banks, and transitional housing. The Coordinated Entry System targets
various special needs populations including veterans, victims of domestic violence or human
trafficking, young adults (18 to 24 years), families, women, and persons with disabilities. In
October 2021, Contra Costa County had four centers located in Concord, Walnut Creek, and
San Pablo for residents to access services provided by the Coordinated Entry System.
The County currently operates ten shelters through a variety of agencies with the majority of
shelters located in Martinez and Richmond. The Town of Danville does not operate shelters for
persons experiencing homelessness or at -risk of homelessness—Town efforts to reduce
homelessness are largely centered around referrals and providing information on housing,
shelter, and social service availability. Regional and countywide agencies target special needs
populations including families, children and young individuals aged 9 to 21. Agencies serving
Contra Costa are listed below along with their location and target populations.
• Love a Child Center (Bay Point) for families and children;
• Shepherd's Gate (Brentwood) for families and singles;
• Concord Shelter (Concord) for single adults;
• Mountain View House (Martinez) for families;
• SAFE Place (Martinez) for youth aged 9 to 17;
• Shelter, Inc. (Martinez) for all persons experiencing homelessness;
• Bay Area Rescue Mission (Richmond) for families and singles;
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-103
Chronic
Substance
Abuse
HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally
III
Veterans
Victims
of
Domestic
Violence
Sheltered - Emergency
Shelter
86
4
128
25
28
Sheltered - Transitional
Housing
31
1
27
14
6
Unsheltered
377
4
364
75
80
Source: Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019);
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019)
Contra Costa County—along with Alameda County—have taken meaningful steps to address
the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and persons at -risk of being homeless. For
instance, the County's Coordinated Entry System assists homeless persons and persons at -
risk of homelessness by providing residents referrals to available resources and information on
housing, shelter, and social services available. Services provided include emergency housing
and shelter, food banks, and transitional housing. The Coordinated Entry System targets
various special needs populations including veterans, victims of domestic violence or human
trafficking, young adults (18 to 24 years), families, women, and persons with disabilities. In
October 2021, Contra Costa County had four centers located in Concord, Walnut Creek, and
San Pablo for residents to access services provided by the Coordinated Entry System.
The County currently operates ten shelters through a variety of agencies with the majority of
shelters located in Martinez and Richmond. The Town of Danville does not operate shelters for
persons experiencing homelessness or at -risk of homelessness—Town efforts to reduce
homelessness are largely centered around referrals and providing information on housing,
shelter, and social service availability. Regional and countywide agencies target special needs
populations including families, children and young individuals aged 9 to 21. Agencies serving
Contra Costa are listed below along with their location and target populations.
• Love a Child Center (Bay Point) for families and children;
• Shepherd's Gate (Brentwood) for families and singles;
• Concord Shelter (Concord) for single adults;
• Mountain View House (Martinez) for families;
• SAFE Place (Martinez) for youth aged 9 to 17;
• Shelter, Inc. (Martinez) for all persons experiencing homelessness;
• Bay Area Rescue Mission (Richmond) for families and singles;
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-103
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Brookside Shelter (Richmond) for single adults;
• CaIIi House (Richmond) for youth aged 14 to 21; and
• Winter Shelter Program (Richmond) for families with children.
Mortgage Applications
Table 26 shows mortgage applications in the Town of Danville by race and ethnicity. Mortgage
denial rates are highest for American Indian or Alaska Native (25%), Black or African American
(22%), and Hispanic (20%) households.
TABLE 26: MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS AND DENIAL RATE BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, DANVILLE
Racial / Ethnic
Group
Applicati
on
approved
but not
accepted
Applicati
on
denied
Applicati
on
withdraw
n by
applicant
File closed
for
incompleten
ess
Loan
originat
ed
Deni
al
Rate
American Indian or
Alaska Native,
Non -Hispanic
0
1
5
1
3
25%
Asian / API, Non -
Hispanic
26
116
98
26
514
18%
Black or African
American, Non -
Hispanic
3
5
4
1
15
22%
White, Non -
Hispanic
34
233
198
62
1,234
16%
Hispanic or Latinx
2
24
17
8
92
20%
Unknown
25
105
108
36
505
17%
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -D-104
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Totals
90
484
430
134
2,363
16%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-105
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
!DAL
APPENDIX D
ATTACHMENT 1:
AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHER FAIR
HOUSING:
ACTION PLAN
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Actions
Fair Housing Issues Contributing
Factors
Fair Housing
Category
Type of Responsible Objectives
Action Party
Quantified Objectives
Timeline
Action Area 1. Enhancing housing mobility strategies: removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access.
Action 1.1: Support
residential development
that brings new publicly
subsidized and naturally
affordable market rate
multifamily housing to
Danville.
Under -representation
of Hispanic and
Black/African
American residents in
Danville relative to
Contra Costa County.
Lack of affordable
housing and
opportunities for low
and moderate
income households;
community
resistance to
development.
Disparities in
access to
opportunities
Land use Town of
resources Danville
Provide staff support,
land use flexibilities,
and financial resources
to developers who
propose to develop
publicly subsidized and
naturally affordable
market rate housing.
Develop regular roundtable
discussions with developers
(every year in the winter) to
highlight goals, policies and
programs to meet development
needs. Include information on the
City's website about potential
opportunities for development,
including the list of housing
opportunity sites, development
and impact fees, and other
information.
Develop website
additions by the
middle of 2024;
conduct roundtable
discussions
beginning in
January 2025.
Action 1.2: Design a
regional forgivable loan
program for homeowners
to construct an ADU that
is held affordable for low
to moderate income
households for 15 years.
Under -representation
of Hispanic and
Black/African
American residents in
Danville relative to
Contra Costa County.
Lack of affordable
housing; Prevalence
of large lot single
family development
and zoning
restrictions; Lack of
land zoned to allow
moderate or high
density housing.
Disparities in
access to
opportunities
Land use
resources
ABAG funded
Contra Costa
County
Collaborative
(C4), EBHO,
other cities
Increase opportunities
for lower-income
households to find
housing that is
affordable.
Design a regional loan
forgiveness program.
Begin design in
Summer 2025 and
complete by winter
2026.
Action 1.3: Improve
access to fair housing
and affordable housing
information on Danville's
website.
Lack of fair housing
complaints filed
Lack of access to , Outreach
information about fair Capacity and
housing rights and Enforcement
affordable housing
opportunities in
general. Limited
knowledge of fair
housing by
residents.
Land use Town of
resources Danville
Provide an easy way
for residents and
property owners to find
information on fair
housing laws, rights,
and responses (filing a
complaint, ensure
property owners do not
violate fair housing
laws). Make it easier to
access information
about affordable
housing opportunities.
Conduct a best practices review
of other jurisdictions' websites.
Update Danville's website to
contain fair housing resources
and information on how to file
complaints, in addition to making
it easier to find affordable
housing opportunities.
Complete best
practice review by
spring 2023;
complete website
update by year end
2023.
Actions
Fair Housing Issues Contributing Fair Housing
Factors Category
Type of Responsible
Action Party
Objectives
Quantified Objectives
Timeline
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -D-107
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Action Area 2. Encouraging new housing choices and affordability in high resource areas: promoting housing supply, choices and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas
of concentrated poverty. Address this need through accessory dwelling units, SB 9 developments, and other programs.
Action 2.1: Pilot a by -right
approval for low density
attached housing that
exceeds the BMR
affordability requirements
(model after Austin's
Affordability Unlocked
program).
Lack of affordable Lack of affordable
housing townwide; low housing and
housing production opportunities for low
and moderate
income households
to live in the Town
Disproportionate
housing need
for low income
households and
protected
classes
Land use
resources
TBD
Increase development
of accessible units
beyond minimum
requirements
Develop pilot program with other
jurisdictions that would create
more opportunities for lower
income households to live in
Danville
End of 2027
Action 2.2: Evaluate and
adjust the Town's
inclusionary and density
bonus programs to allow
a smaller unit contribution
(<15%), larger density
bonuses, and/or
increased city support in
exchange for affordable
units that address the
needs of under-
represented residents
with disproportionate
housing needs (e.g.,
child -friendly
developments with day
care on site for single
parents, 3-4 bedroom
units for larger families,
units for people with
disabilit s, including
developmental, etc.).
Lack of affordable
housing townwide;
Low affordable
housing production;
Very little multifamily
housing production
Lack of affordable
housing and
opportunities for low
and moderate
income households
Disproportionate
housing need
for low income
households and
protected
classes
Land use Town of
resources Danville
Expand the variety of
housing units produced
under the inclusionary
housing and density
bonus programs after
those programs have
had time to produce
results. Ensure that the
units being created are
needed by and
affirmatively marketed
to county residents and
workers who are under-
represented in the city
Perform a feasibility analysis to
redesign the program to allow a
menu of options (e.g., 8% of
units for extremely low income or
15% for low income or 30% for
moderate income).
Begin design in
Summer 2024 and
complete by winter
2025.
Actions
Fair Housing Issues
Contributing
Factors
Fair Housing Type of Responsible
Category Action Party
Objectives
Quantified Objectives
Timeline
Action Area 3. Improving place -based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization including preservation of existing affordable housing: involves approaches that are
focused on conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-108
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Action 3.1: Prioritize town
capital improvement
investments to address
the challenges of the
areas west of 1-680, which
is disproportionately
occupied by low to
moderate households and
non-White residents.
Improve landscaping and
tree cover and parks,
reduce pollutants, and
create more walkability
and pedestrian safety.
Lower TCAC
environmental
outcomes in
neighborhoods with
the highest
concentration of low to
moderate income
households and non-
White households, as
well as the most
affordable housing in
the Town.
Affordable housing is
typically located in
areas where land
costs are lower and
density is easier to
achieve.
Fair Housing Issues Contributing
Factors
Segregation/
integration
patterns;
disparities in
access to
opportunities
Fair Housing
Category
Land use
resources
Town of
Danville/Contra
Costa County
Create opportunities for
livability improvements
without increasing
housing costs.
Type of Responsible Objectives
Action Party
Develop policy for the use of
Town funding that addresses
infrastructure needs of the
community. Work with the
County to address funding needs
through CDBG, etc.
Quantified Objectives
Begin best
practices research
in 2025; complete
review and develop
policy by 2026, with
implementation in
early 2027.
Timeline
Action Area 4. Protecting existing residents from displacement: strategies that protects residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserves housing
choices and affordability.
Action 4.1: Develop a plan
to preserve the city's
affordable units that will
expire in the next decade
to keep them affordable
long term.
Very high rates of cost
burden for <50% AMI
households and Black
and Hispanic
households; high
rates of overcrowding
among minority
populations.
Lack of affordable 1 Disproportionate I Human
housing citywide; low housing needs resources
housing production
Town of
Danville
Work with property
owners of existing
assisted housing
developments for
lower-income
households and partner
with nonprofits to
determine methods to
extend affordability
covenants to preserve
affordable units,
including assistance
from the City.
Conduct best practices research
on other jurisdictions' programs
and prepare recommendations to
City Council.
Conduct best
practices work in
2025; bring
recommendations
to Council in the
beginning of 2026;
implement program
by mid -2026.
Action 4.2: Partner with
fair housing service
providers to perform fair
housing training for
landlords and tenants.
Focus enforcement
efforts on race based
discrimination and
reasonable
accommodations.
General lack of fair
housing resources.
Lack of
understanding of
reasonable
accommodation
requirements by
landlords and
property owners;
Limited effort in
providing fair
housing information.
Outreach
Capacity and
Enforcement
Human
resources
Fair Housing
Service
Providers; C4
Increase awareness of
fair housing laws and
tenants' rights to
reduce unlawful
discrimination and
displacement.
Work with C4 and fair housing
service providers to provide
training every two years in the
Spring, targeting 50 landlords
each training. Update the Town's
website to provide residents with
information on fair housing
resources
Begin working with
C4 to develop
scope in 2024;
launch first training
in Spring 2025
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -D-109
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX D
ATTACHMENT 2:
AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHER FAIR
HOUSING:
SEGREGATION
REPORT
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 2 - AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 15:46:38
r--,,.____
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table of content
0.1 Table of content Error! Bookmark not defined.
0.2 List of figures 112
0.3 List of tables 113
1 Introduction 114
1.1 Purpose of this Report 114
1.2 Defining Segregation 115
1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area 116
1.4 Segregation and Land Use 116
2 Racial Segregation in Town of Danville 122
2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within Town of Danville) 122
2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Danville and other jurisdictions) 131
3 Income Segregation in Town of Danville 137
3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Danville) 137
3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Danville and other jurisdictions) 143
4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings 148
4.1 Segregation in Town of Danville 148
4.2 Segregation Between Town of Danville and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region
149
5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data 150
6 References 156
0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Danville (2020) 123
Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions
(2020) 125
Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area
Jurisdictions (2020) 129
Figure 4: Theil's H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Danville Compared to Other Bay
Area Jurisdictions (2020) 131
Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Danville and Surrounding Areas (2020) 132
Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Danville Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
134
Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Danville and Vicinity to the Bay Area
(2020) 135
Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Danville (2015) 138
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-112
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area
Jurisdictions (2015) 140
Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area
Jurisdictions (2015) 142
Figure 11: Income Group Theil's H Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area
Jurisdictions (2015) 143
Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Danville and Surrounding Areas (2015) 144
Figure 13: Income Demographics of Danville Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
146
0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Danville 124
Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Danville 128
Table 3: Theil's H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Danville 130
Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Danville and the Region 133
Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures 136
Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Danville 139
Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Danville 141
Table 8: Theil's H Index Values for Income Segregation within Danville 142
Table 9: Population by Income Group, Danville and the Region 145
Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures 147
Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Danville 150
Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Danville 152
Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures 153
Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures 153
Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Danville and the Region 155
Table 16: Population by Income Group, Danville and the Region 155
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-113
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
1 INTRODUCTION
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is derived from The Fair Housing
Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of
housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to
include familial status and disability.26F3 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill
686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant
disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.27F428F5 AB 686 requires that
jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive
community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH,
and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair
housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area
jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.
Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which
are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD's AFFH Guidance
Memo:
A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to
people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk
1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction
staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of
the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation
patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes.
3 https://www.iustice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
4 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
5 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-114
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with
disability.
This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using
several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra -city segregation),
this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil's-H index. The isolation
index measures segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures
segregation between two groups. The Theil's H -Index can be used to measure segregation
between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD's AFFH guidelines require
local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element.
Theil's H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between
cities within the Bay Area (inter -city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the
regional level as required by HCD's AFFH guidelines. HCD's AFFH guidelines also require
jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report
presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the
region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.
1.2 Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic
locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic
space. This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation
within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.
Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra -city): Segregation of race
and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if
a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80%
Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated
neighborhoods.
City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter -city): Race and income
divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal
numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly
segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.
There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of
segregation. Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against
people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage
lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and
local governments (Rothstein 2017). Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that
appear race -neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-115
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools,
neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public
safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly
people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including
lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and
Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey
2013).
1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate -income residents
are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The
highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The
analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within
Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This
finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC
Berkeley, which concluded that "[a]Ithough 7 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated
in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region
appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since."29F6
However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more
neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally,
there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the
state.
1.4 Segregation and Land Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing
land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of
housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendell 2000). These
land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of
houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the
people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine
2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different
neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and
ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).30F7 ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate
6 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-
2020.
7 Using a household -weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes,
regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander
residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data,
see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table
B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B190131.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-116
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay
Area
This section analyzes land use controls, regulations, and constraints in Danville to determine
how land use has impacted demographic trends and segregation patterns. It also provides an
analysis on the way in which land use controls have constrained housing development and
affordability in the area. Previous and current efforts the Town has taken to address housing
type constraints are also provided.
Maps 1 and 2 illustrate land use and zoning in Danville as determined by the 2030 General
Plan. Land use controls closely follow the General Plan's goal of keeping with the town's
residential character and preserving and enhancing single family residential areas—the
impacts of Danville's commitment to enhancing only single family areas is discussed below.
Maximum development densities in Danville are determined by undevelopable land, perimeter,
and interior streets. Density limits for Danville's multi -family and mixed-use areas are outlined
below.
• Multifamily districts with low density -8 to 13 units per acre.
• Multifamily districts with low to medium density -13 to 20 dwelling units per net acre. Danville identified
these areas as less proximate to transportation and employment centers and opportunities.
• Multifamily districts with high density -25 to 30 dwelling units per net acre. Danville's recent
development project (Sycamore Place) for senior housing is located here.
• Mixed-use areas—density and intensity of areas are determined on a site-specific basis. Approval for
development in mixed-use areas vary depending on housing type and range of use.
Projects that exceed the number of allowable units are subject to specific conditions set by the
town which—intentionally or unintentionally—constrain housing development. These
conditions include:
• Development projects must provide funding for area -wide improvements;
• Projects must exhibit its dedication to preserving trails or trail staging areas; and
• Developers are required to participate in the town -wide landscape and lighting assessment districts.
MAP 1: LAND USE MAP, DANVILLE
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-117
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Ism. .—_.>, -Y,
FM Owen
aama
.,...... •..#..
�...abOarm
:.._
I�
. ...#...r
v mar, r.aa. 2.
• #.w u.2 ar
r.iu#f .
lAMD V11 1•1SH)
Source: Danville's 2030 General Plan
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-118
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP 2: LAND USE MAP OF DOWNTOWN DANVILLE
M1wIrev $ Well* 44 0 rw+
Ii•r Crr Isom r
iw t UM,. rwr • ami..
ins 74 Of 1•••• 104m0
: 1 Ir.1r i fM'30••• limi lari
rw.4 -..s. _,#1ssiFWs � �4i.� 5•ril=f•+4041.*-..•.+r,
U.. . rte. ie.'. -14~ 3004.3
Source: Danville's 2030 General Plan
The town's 2030 General Plan also outlined numerous development, community, and housing
goals. Notable goals set forth by the plan include:
• Quality Development
o All future development projects must maintain Danville's small town character and establish
quality of life;
o Limited areas for multi -family development must be retained to limited areas and cannot be
developed in areas with single-family detached homes.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-119
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Community Design
o Development is prohibited on ridges and hillsides;
o All development projects must maintain Danville's existing open space areas—this policy is
enforced through the Hillside/Ridgeline Ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, and Subdivision
Ordinance.
• Housing
o Enable affordable development at a wide range of densities
Since Danville's 2010 General Plan was adopted, the town has made abundantly clear that
there is very little vacant land appropriate for new developments. In ABAG's 2020 RHNA Local
Jurisdiction Survey report, Danville qualified "land suitability" as a housing constraint. The
town's survey response reads, "As reflected in Danville's 2030 General Plan, Danville is
approaching the status of a built -out community, having significantly added to the area's
development to residential land use and zoning designation since its incorporation and having
provided for development of housing on such land over the last 35 years. At this point, the
amount of suitable land remaining available for urban development or for conversion to
residential use; the availability of underutilized land; and the opportunities for infill development
at increased residential densities has become a housing constraint."8 Accordingly, Danville has
adopted and implemented a "Growth Management" policy which intends to establish a
comprehensive and long-term program that matches housing demand with capital
improvement patterns. Growth management policies in Danville are consistent with Measure J-
2004 which implemented a development mitigation program to ensure development projects
pay costs to mitigate the project's impact on regional transportation systems. The development
mitigation program also requires that developments pay costs of local services (e.g., roads,
parks, fire, police, water, and flood mitigation)—new development projects will only be
approved if the project meets minimum performance standards.
Danville has made slight progress in encouraging housing development—specifically multi-
family developments. For example, Danville fulfilled California's Department of Housing and
Community Development requirement of rezoning opportunity sites by permitting mutli-family
housing on these sites "by right," meaning legislative actions or conditional use permit are not
required. The Town also proposed various actions to incentivize development including
creating a new zoning category that permits density up to 30 units per acre and updating its
Density Bonus Ordinance to align with Senate Bill 1818 (SB 1818).
Policies and programs established by Danville's 2030 General Plan and the town's
commitment to preserving single-family residential areas have the potential to significantly
influence segregation patterns and the town's demographic composition as low-income
8 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-
05/ABAG RHNA Local Jurisdiction Surveys Received.pdf.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-120
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
households—more often people of color—have been excluded from Danville's neighborhoods
and/or been displaced due to rising housing costs and the lack of affordable homes available.
Additionally, segregation throughout Dansville has been exacerbated by the town's focus on
preserving single-family residential areas than developing affordable housing. Low-income
households are likely unable to afford single-family homes without financial assistance and are
therefore forced to live in areas that permit multi -family development. These areas, however,
are further from transportation and employment opportunities. Low proximity to necessary
services have a disproportionate impact on low-income households as it makes it exceedingly
more difficult for residents to obtain and keep employment.
Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, "neighborhoods" are approximated
by tracts.31 F9 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the
U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the
Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay
Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger
jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns,
and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG.
Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses
the term "city" interchangeably with "jurisdiction" in some places.
Region: The region is the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area,
which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County,
Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo
County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.
9 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using
census tract data. However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census
blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block
groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial
differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census
tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups
contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-121
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN TOWN OF DANVILLE
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g. white or
Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino
ethnicity.32F10 This report combines U.S. Census Bureau
definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:
White: Non -Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race33F11
Black: Non -Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non -Hispanic Asian or Non -Hispanic
Pacific Islander
People of Color: All who are not non -Hispanic white (including
people who identify as "some other race" or "two or more
races")34F12
2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within Town of Danville)
Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a
specific geography. The racial dot map of Danville in Figure 1 below offers a visual
representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when
the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to
be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map,
segregation measures may be higher.
10 More information about the Census Bureau's definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html.
11 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central
American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx
has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group.
12 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups
not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes
these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-122
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• wee
▪ ca.. A1imo Oaks •
Jumikion
•
•;i
Diab o
•
•
J
s •
C'"M, ynlp* th
Safat rieli54Elet)
1.t�•'�. ".lMf .•s tiE'�
9 khi�wk.
of land
•
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Danville (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data
(Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for Town of Danville and
vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual
placement of people.
There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a
different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to
measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
• The isolation index compares each neighborhood's composition to the jurisdiction's
demographics as a whole.
• This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more
isolated from other groups.
• Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index
can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For
example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average
Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.
Within Town of Danville the most isolated racial group is white residents. Danville's isolation
index of 0.694 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a
neighborhood that is 69.4% white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-123
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values
for all racial groups in Danville for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1
below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population's isolation index has
changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000
and 2020.
The "Bay Area Average" column in this table provides the average isolation index value across
Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.35F13 The data in this column can be
used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial
groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 1 indicates the average isolation index value for
white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay
Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Danville
Danville
Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.112 0.208 0.182 0.245
Black/African American 0.011 0.013 0.010 0.053
Latinx 0.048 0.070 0.093 0.251
White 0.835 0.773 0.694 0.491
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau,
Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and
is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Figure 2 below shows how racial isolation index values in Danville compare to values in other
Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each
racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area
jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value
for that group in Town of Danville, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average
13 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which
is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions' segregation measures in this report. The
segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a
jurisdiction's census tracts to the jurisdiction's demographics, and such calculations cannot be
made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley,
Rio Vista, and Yountville).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-124
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how
segregation levels for racial groups in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the
region.
:x
a
0.6
a
- 0.3
0.
#Miar''Pacific Islander 6lIacklAfrican American Latina White
anvilie
G. 182
Fry itte
7.[5-.
anvi1le
0.09
0.694
- - Average of lather Jurisdictions Jurisdictions with Index Value: 0 Below Average -.Ateve Average
Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions
(2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index:
• This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods
relative to their representation in a city overall. The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction
level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move
neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.
• The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more
unevenly distributed (e.g. they tend to live in different neighborhoods).
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-125
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial
Group Populations
The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity
index values are unreliable for a population group if that group
represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction's total
population.
HCD's AFFH guidance requires the Housing Element to include the
dissimilarity index values for racial groups, but also offers flexibility
in emphasizing the importance of various measures. ABAG/MTC
recommends that when cities have population groups that are less
than 5% of the jurisdiction's population (see Table 4), jurisdiction
staff use the isolation index or Thiel's H -Index to gain a more
accurate understanding of their jurisdiction's neighborhood -level
segregation patterns (intra -city segregation).
If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this
indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region
(inter -city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the
jurisdiction's segregation patterns.
In Town of Danville, the Black/African American group is 0.9
percent of the population - so staff should be aware of this small
population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving
this group.
Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in
Danville between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific
Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all
residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three
time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).
In Danville the highest segregation is between Asian and white residents (see Table 2).
Danville's Asian /white dissimilarity index of 0.218 means that 21.8% of Asian (or white)
residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration
between Asian residents and white residents.
The "Bay Area Average" column in this table provides the average dissimilarity index values for
these racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-126
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities
of color are from white residents in this jurisdiction.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is required—by California Government
Code 65584.04(b)—to survey members jurisdictions during the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) process to gather and consider factors, resident needs, and government
constraints unique to each jurisdiction. The RHNA Local Jurisdiction Survey14 also collects
data and information on fair housing issues and the ways in which jurisdictions have overcome
historical patterns of segregation as well as removing barriers to equal housing opportunity.
The Town of Danville provided ABAG with explicit actions the Town has taken to address
segregation and equal housing opportunity. Actions provided by the town are outlined below.
• Land use changes to allow for a variety of housing types;
• Support for the development of larger affordable units for families—specifically the development of units
with 2 or 3 bedrooms;
• Support for affordable housing developments to accommodate the needs of special needs populations
including seniors, disabled persons, persons experiencing homelessness, and individuals with mental health
and/or substance abuse challenges;
• Financial support for low-income homebuyers;
• Funding for rehabilitation and accessible improvements for special needs populations;
• Streamlining—in accordance with SB 9—entitlement processes and removing development fees for
affordable housing construction;
• Inclusionary zoning to encourage mixed-use development; and
• Affirmative marketing strategies for affordable housing—according to Danville, this strategy targets all
segments of the community.
14 https://abaq.ca.gov/local-jurisdiction-survey-housinq-factors-and-fair-housing.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-127
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
For example, Table 2 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area
jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area
jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create
perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction.
Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Danville
Danville
Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.224 0.333 0.218 0.185
Black/African American vs. White 0.197* 0.277* 0.172* 0.244
Latinx vs. White 0.082* 0.120 0.105 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.147 0.217 0.145 0.168
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau,
Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and
is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial
group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable
numbers.
Figure 3 below shows how dissimilarity index values in Town of Danville compare to values in
other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For
each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values
among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes
the dissimilarity index value in Danville, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area
average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Similar to Figure 2, local staff can use this
chart to contextualize how segregation levels between white residents and communities of
color in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region. However, staff should be mindful of
whether a racial group in their jurisdiction has a small population (approximately less than 5%
of the jurisdiction's population), as the dissimilarity index value is less reliable for small
populations.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-128
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
6
0,2
0.0
Aslan,Pacific Islander Black/African American Latinx
vl white vs white v$ whikc.
Danville
People of Color
v white
u1 anville
0.105 — —_ _[>
— Average cf 104 Jurisdictions Jurisdictions with Made[ VaLue: 0 &Low Average Above Average
Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area
Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are
unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the
jurisdiction's total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population
groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction's population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff
could focus on the isolation index or Thiel's H -Index to gain a more accurate understanding of
neighborhood -level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.
The Theil's H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a
jurisdiction:
• This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the
whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play
a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation.
• The index ranges from 0 to 1. A Theil's H Index value of 0 would mean all
neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the whole city. A value of 1
would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-129
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity (multiple racial groups comprise more
than 10% of the population), Theil's H offers the clearest summary of overall
segregation.
The Theil's H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in Danville for the years 2000,
2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3 below. The "Bay Area Average" column in the table
provides the average Theil's H Index across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. Between 2010 and
2020, the Theil's H Index for racial segregation in Danville declined, suggesting that there is
now less neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil's H
Index for racial segregation in Danville was lower than the average value for Bay Area
jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Danville is less than in the
average Bay Area city.
Table 3: Theil's H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Danville
Danville
Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi -racial 0.022 0.053 0.022 0.042
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau,
Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and
is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Figure 4 below shows how Theil's H index values for racial segregation in Danville compare to
values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area
jurisdiction. Additionally, the black line notes the Theil's H index value for neighborhood racial
segregation in Danville, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil's H index value
across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood
racial segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-130
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
b_0
All Racial Groupe'.
0
8
OZZ
- - Average al Cather Jurisdiction&
Jurisdictions with Index Value BeLow Average Above Average
Figure 4: Theil's H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Danville Compared to Other Bay
Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Danville and other
jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between
neighborhoods. Racial dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood racial
segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore the racial
demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 5 below presents
a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Danville as well as in
nearby Bay Area cities.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-131
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Danville and Surrounding Areas (2020)
Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171)
Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for Town of Danville and
vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual
placement of people.
To understand how each city contributes to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look
at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition
of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in Danville for the years 2000, 2010, and
2020 can be found in Table 4 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine -
county Bay Area. As of 2020, Danville has a higher share of white residents than the Bay Area
as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a lower
share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-132
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Danville and the Region
Danville Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 8.9% 10.5% 15.1% 28.2%
Black/African American 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 5.6%
Latinx 4.7% 6.8% 9.1% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 2.5% 3.7% 6.5% 5.9%
White 83.0% 78.1% 68.4% 35.8%
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau,
Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and
is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Figure 6 below compares the racial demographics in Danville to those of all 109 Bay Area
jurisdictions.36F15 In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial
group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group's representation among Bay Area
jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the percentage of the
population of Town of Danville represented by that group and how that percentage ranks
among all 109 jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of
different racial groups in their jurisdiction to those groups' representation in other jurisdictions
in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the
region.
15 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with
more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be
made using all 109 jurisdictions.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-133
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
A3ianfpad fi ElIackiAfric n
Isknder Ar*rvri+ra,n
6
0
6
CI
471
1eDanville
15.1%
nke 62nd
Of lo -91
LetinM
iDa roni.
0,4%
nk3 8151
f 109
Other or
Multiple Rae=
White
Dayville
!1541.41.
0 on*: ) 8th
0
l t. f 149.)
Jurisdrcti'rr
Danville
6_'57
Fl ralS= l le
4111 vi 109I.
1
Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Danville Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171)
Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
The map in Figure 7 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between Danville and
other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Danville
and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
• Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay
Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points.
• Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional
percentage of people of color (within five percentage points).
• Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five
percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-134
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
% People of Color
Relative to Region
Fewer
About the Same
More
Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Danville and Vicinity to the Bay Area
(2020)
Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171)
Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non -Hispanic white. The nine -county
Bay Area is the reference region for this map.
Segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional
values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table 5 presents dissimilarity index,
isolation index, and Theil's H index values for racial segregation for the entire nine -county Bay
Area in 2010 and 2020. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level
racial segregation, these indices were calculated by comparing the racial demographics of the
census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table
5, these measures are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of local jurisdictions to
the region's racial makeup. For example, looking at the 2020 data, Table 5 shows the white
isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average white Bay Area residents
live in a jurisdiction that is 42.9% white in 2020. An example of regional dissimilarity index
values in Table 5 is the Black/white dissimilarity index value of 0.459, which means that across
the region 45.9% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to
evenly distribute Black and white residents across Bay Area jurisdictions. The dissimilarity
index values in Table 5 reflect recommendations made in HCD's AFFH guidance for
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-135
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
calculating dissimilarity at the region Ieve1.37F16 The regional value for the Theil's H index
measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the racial diversity of the
whole region. A Theil's H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area
have the same racial demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each
racial group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil's H index
value for racial segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2020, meaning that racial
groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.
Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Isolation Index Regional Level Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
Theil's H Multi -racial
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau,
2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4.
16 For more information on HCD's recommendations regarding data considerations for
analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-136
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
3 INCOME SEGREGATION IN TOWN OF DANVILLE
Definition of Terms - Income Groups
When analyzing segregation by income, this report uses income
group designations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation and the Housing Element:
Very low-income: individuals earning less than 50% of Area
Median Income (AMI)
Low-income: individuals earning 50%-80% of AMI
Moderate -income: individuals earning 80%-120% of AMI
Above moderate -income: individuals earning 120% or more of
AMI
Additionally, this report uses the term "lower-income" to refer to all
people who earn less than 80% of AMI, which includes both low-
income and very low-income individuals.
The income groups described above are based on U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
calculations for AMI. HUD calculates the AMI for different
metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the
following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County),
Oakland -Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and
San Mateo Counties), San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara Metro Area
(Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County),
and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).
The income categories used in this report are based on the AMI for
the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Danville)
Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot
maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures 1 and 5, are useful for visualizing
segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-137
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Danville in Figure 8 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income
groups within the jurisdiction. As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern
or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters
are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well.
Qu . 2? Nwvha4A
low
MoMM
Ai Om*
WiiwiNo
ff) widow,
Aa
MO
Danviiig
• '• i4.4••
•
•
• ,
•
••••
•
•
•
• :i
•.
• • * •
•
• -
•
•
•
•
•
,R
▪ *•
•
•
.. •
• •`
• •t.
••
! . •
•
"i •
•••• •.
•
hawk:• • Tai
r • l• • . •
•• ••
m
5•
• « • • • :C4;106(411' "S:ttetraptl P Er
. .' •
Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Danville (2015)
•
diP Paftw 4 r1 .
tiSinitureau f L nd •
R S,•USDA
•
Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey
5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for Town of
Danville and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be
construed as actual placement of individuals.
The isolation index values for all income groups in Danville for the years 2010 and 2015 can
be found in Table 6 below.38F17 Above Moderate -income residents are the most isolated
income group in Danville. Danville's isolation index of 0.736 for these residents means that the
average Above Moderate -income resident in Danville lives in a neighborhood that is 73.6%
17 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is
different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data
source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD's AFFH Guidelines. This
data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey
5 -year estimates. For more information on HCD's recommendations for calculating income
segregation, see page 32 of HCD's AFFH Guidelines.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-138
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Above Moderate -income. Among all income groups, the Above Moderate -income population's
isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income
groups between 2010 and 2015.
Similar to the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the "Bay Area
Average" column in Table 6 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area
jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. The data in this column can be used as a
comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by income groups in
this jurisdiction. For example, Table 6 indicates the average isolation index value for very low-
income residents across Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.269, meaning that in the average Bay Area
jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9% very low-income.
Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Danville
Danville
Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low -Income (<50% AMI) 0.090 0.095 0.269
Low -Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.071 0.063 0.145
Moderate -Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.116 0.152 0.183
Above Moderate -Income (>120% AMI) 0.775 0.736 0.507
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American
Community Survey 5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data. Data for
2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community
Survey 5 -Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Figure 9 below shows how income group isolation index values in Danville compare to values
in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For
each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among
Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group notes the isolation
index value for that group in Danville, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area
average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize
how segregation levels for income groups in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-139
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
01.6
Very
Lr +•InoonI
S0% ,1461}
1 nw•In,::n-nes .M,tedcratr.-InPPrpC
.1Y,; (8O6-1?1.1%APAI)
,JwiLLe
EO. .063
_ - Average of Other Jurlsdlctiorrs
anvil le
_O15-2-.
Ahowe
Mnclrlair •In :loft
101iCi'=&MJj
rwille
8
.wirisdictlons with Index Value: 0 Below Average : Awe Average
Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area
Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey
5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Table 7 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in
Danville between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80% of AMI) and those
who are not lower-income (earning above 80% of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements
described in HCD's AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower-income
households.39F18 Segregation in Danville between lower-income residents and residents who
are not lower-income increased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 7 shows
dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Albany between residents who are very
low-income (earning less than 50% of AMI) and those who are above moderate -income
(earning above 120% of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an
analysis of income segregation, as this index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction's
lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.
Similar to other tables in this report, the "Bay Area Average" column shows the average
dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in
2015. For example, Table 7 indicates that the average dissimilarity index between lower-
income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.198, so on average 19.8%
of lower-income residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different
18 For more information, see page 32 of HCD's AFFH Guidance Memo.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-140
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in that
jurisdiction.
In 2015, the income segregation in Danville between lower-income residents and other
residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions (See Table 7). This
means that the lower-income residents are less segregated from other residents within
Danville compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.
Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within
Danville
Income Group
Danville
Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.134 0.164 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.244 0.192 0.253
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American
Community Survey 5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data. Data for
2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community
Survey 5 -Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Figure 10 below shows how dissimilarity index values for income segregation in Danville
compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay
Area jurisdiction. For each income group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of
dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each
income group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Danville, and each dashed red line
represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Local staff can use
this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between lower-income residents and
wealthier residents in their jurisdiction compared to the rest of the region.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-141
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
[Sr. reed!''`° A0,41
Ahr.°Ycd ! J:
.41.41
!rl-° 5111'.,,
Lsial
AMI
Nariti 110
- Average of dither Jurdsdlcti s JI,rischictiQns with Index Value: 0 E4e°1aw Avery Awe Average
Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area
Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey
5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
The Theil's H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in Danville for the
years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 8 below. The "Bay Area Average" column in this
table provides the average Theil's H Index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different
income groups in 2015. By 2015, the Theil's H Index value for income segregation in Danville
was about the same amount as it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil's H Index value for
income group segregation in Danville was lower than the average value for Bay Area
jurisdictions, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in Danville than in
the average Bay Area city.
Table 8: Theil's H Index Values for Income Segregation within Danville
Danville
Bay Area
Average
Index 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi -income 0.032 0.027 0.043
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American
Community Survey 5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data. Data for
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-142
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community
Survey 5 -Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Figure 11 below shows how Theil's H index values for income group segregation in Danville
compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. In this chart, each dot represents a
Bay Area jurisdiction. Additionally, the black line notes the Theil's H index value for income
group segregation in Danville, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil's H index
value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how
neighborhood income group segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other
jurisdictions in the region.
AEIIrsr.nr: rDiir.
quill ----
0..027
- - Average of Other Junmllcticns ildrisdIctions with Index Value 0 Below Avera 4hc wse Averarge
Figure 11: Income Group Theil's H Index Values for Danville Compared to Other Bay Area
Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey
5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Danville and other
jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between jurisdictions instead of between
neighborhoods. Income dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood income
segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore income
demographic differences between jurisdictions in the region. Figure 12 below presents an
income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in Danville as well as in
nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-143
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Danville and Surrounding Areas (2015)
Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey
5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for Town of
Danville and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be
construed as actual placement of individuals.
When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine
how Danville differs from the region. The income demographics in Danville for the years 2010
and 2015 can be found in Table 9 below. The table also provides the income composition of
the nine -county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, Danville had a lower share of very low-
income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a
lower share of moderate -income residents, and a higher share of above moderate -income
residents.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-144
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 9: Population by Income Group, Danville and the Region
Danville Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low -Income (<50% AMI) 7.61% 8.43% 28.7%
Low -Income (50%-80% AMI) 6.06% 5.11% 14.3%
Moderate -Income (80%-120% AMI) 9.48% 12.68% 17.6%
Above Moderate -Income (>120% AMI) 76.84% 73.78% 39.4%
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American
Community Survey 5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data. Data for
2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community
Survey 5 -Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Figure 13 below compares the income demographics in Danville to other Bay Area
jurisdictions.40F19 Like the chart in Figure 3, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For
each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group's representation
among Bay Area jurisdictions. The smallest range is among jurisdictions' moderate -income
populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is
above moderate -income. Additionally, the black lines within each income group note the
percentage of Danville population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks
among other jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of
different income groups in their jurisdiction to those groups' representation in other jurisdictions
in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the
region.
19 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with
more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be
made using all 109 jurisdictions.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-145
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
c 75
a
1
2 ; u
.0
u
,L
D.
Very Low -Income L w•Inoorm'
{ S Qi# MAI} (5Q%-80% AMI M
c:
Danvt11a
E-41
Rank; 105th
mut of 10.91
Danville
5.-14
Ronke 144th
out .of 1011.
"Aerate -Income Above M derate•Inc' me
($0%-120% ,AMI) (}12Q% I)
Ponying'
]x'_74
Ronk; 92nd
out of 10-}]
0 Jurls ilctlon
Penufii■
7.3.111.
Ronk; Bth
(out of 109)
O
0
Figure 13: Income Demographics of Danville Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey
5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating
regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the regional racial
segregation measures shown in Table 5, Table 10 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index,
and Theil's H index values for income segregation for the entire nine -county Bay Area in 2010
and 2015. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level income
segregation, segregation indices were calculated by comparing the income demographics of
the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In
Table 10, these measures are calculated by comparing the income demographics of local
jurisdictions to the region's income group makeup. For example, looking at 2015 data, Table
10 shows the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is 0.315 for 2015,
meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is
31.5% very low-income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents and other
residents is 0.194 in 2015, which means that across the region 19.4% of lower-income
residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group
integration in the Bay Area as a whole. The regional value for the Theil's H index measures
how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the income group diversity of the whole
region. A Theil's H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the
same income demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each income
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-146
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil's H index value for
income segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2015, meaning that income groups
in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.
Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index
Isolation Index Regional Level
Group
Very Low -Income (<50% AMI)
Low -Income (50%-80% AMI)
•
2010 2015
0.277 0.315
0.157 0.154
Moderate -Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate -Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Theil's H Multi -income
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American
Community Survey 5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data. Data for
2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community
Survey 5 -Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-147
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
4 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
4.1 Segregation in Town of Danville
• The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity
index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil's H -Index can be
used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at
once.
• As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in
Danville, as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods
where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups.
• Among all racial groups, the white population's isolation index value has changed the
most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and
2020.
• According to the dissimilarity index, within Danville the highest level of racial
segregation is between Asian and white residents.41F2°
• According to the Theil's H -Index, neighborhood racial segregation in Danville declined
between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation stayed about the same
between 2010 and 2015.
• Above Moderate -income residents are the most segregated compared to other income
groups in Danville. Above Moderate -income residents live in neighborhoods where they
are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.
• Among all income groups, the Above Moderate -income population's segregation
measure has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income
groups between 2010 and 2015.
• According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and
residents who are not lower-income has increased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015,
the income segregation in Danville between lower-income residents and other residents
was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.
20 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable
for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction's
total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are
less than 5% of the jurisdiction's population (see Table 15 in Appendix 2), jurisdiction staff
could focus on the isolation index or Thiel's H -Index to gain a more accurate understanding of
neighborhood -level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-148
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
4.2 Segregation Between Town of Danville and Other jurisdictions in
the Bay Area Region
• Danville has a higher share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as
a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a lower
share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
• Regarding income groups, Danville has a lower share of very low-income residents than
other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a
lower share of moderate -income residents, and a higher share of above moderate -
income residents.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-149
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Appendix 2 combines tabular data presented throughout this report into a more condensed
format. This data compilation is intended to enable local jurisdiction staff and their consultants
to easily reference this data and re -use the data in the Housing Element or other relevant
documents/analyses.
Table 11 in this appendix combines data from Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 in the body of the
report. Table 12 in this appendix combines data from Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 in the body
of the report. Table 13 represents a duplication of Table 5 in the body of the report; Table 14
represents a duplication of Table 10 in the body of the report; Table 15 in this appendix
represents a duplication of Table 4 in the body of the report, while Table 16 represents a
duplication of Table 9 in the body of the report.
Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Danville
Index
Isolation
Danville
Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.112 0.208 0.182 0.245
Black/African American 0.011 0.013 0.010 0.053
Latinx 0.048 0.070 0.093 0.251
White 0.835 0.773 0.694 0.491
Dissimilarity
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.224 0.333 0.218 0.185
Black/African American vs. White 0.197* 0.277* 0.172* 0.244
Latinx vs. White 0.082* 0.120 0.105 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.147 0.217 0.145 0.168
Theil's H Multi -racial All 0.022 0.053 0.022 0.042
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau,
2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010
census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial
group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable
numbers.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-150
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-151
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Danville
Index
Income Group
Isolation
Dissimilarity
Theil's H Multi -racial
Very Low -Income (<50% AMI)
Low -Income (50%-80% AMI)
Danville
Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
0.090 0.095 0.269
0.071 0.063 0.145
Moderate -Income (80%-120% AMI)
0.116 0.152 0.183
Above Moderate -Income (>120% AMI)
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI
All
0.775 0.736 0.507
0.134 0.164 0.198
0.244 0.192 0.253
0.032 0.027 0.043
Universe: Population.
Source: Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
American Community Survey 5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American
Community Survey 5 -Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-152
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index
Group 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Isolation Index Regional Level Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Theil's H Multi -racial
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau,
2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4.
Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low -Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low -Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate -Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate -Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi -income
All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American
Community Survey 5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data. Data for
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-153
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community
Survey 5 -Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-154
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Danville and the Region
Danville Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 8.92% 10.52% 15.1% 35.8%
Black/African American 0.9% 0.84% 0.87% 5.6%
Latinx 4.66% 6.85% 9.07% 28.2%
Other or Multiple Races 2.53% 3.69% 6.54% 24.4%
White 82.99% 78.1% 68.42% 5.9%
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020
Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau,
2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010
census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Table 16: Population by Income Group, Danville and the Region
Danville Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low -Income (<50% AMI) 7.61% 8.43% 28.7%
Low -Income (50%-80% AMI) 6.06% 5.11% 14.3%
Moderate -Income (80%-120% AMI) 9.48% 12.68% 17.6%
Above Moderate -Income (>120% AMI) 76.84% 73.78% 39.4%
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American
Community Survey 5 -Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data. Data for
2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community
Survey 5 -Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate -Income Summary Data.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-155
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
6 REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. "The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on
urban poverty and inequality," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-66.
Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. "What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence
using Census Microdata," Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535.
Burch, Traci. 2014. "The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment," Law and Policy 36(3):
223-255.
Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. "The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I:
Childhood Exposure Effects," The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162
Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. "Are ghettos good or bad'?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics
112(3): 827-72.
Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. "Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More
Segregated by Income?," Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6-21.
Pendall, Rolf. 2000. "Local Land -Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion," Journal of the American Planning
Association 66(2): 125-142.
Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America.
New York: Liveright Publishing.
Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. "Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods," American Journal of Political Science
60(3): 709-725.
Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-D-156
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
D NV1LL
APPENDIX D
ATTACHMENT 3:
AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHER FAIR
HOUSING INVENTORY
OF SITES
SUPPLEMENT
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
It is important to note that the Town of Danville submitted an appeal request for the 2023-2031
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation. In July 2021, the Town of Danville
requested a substantial decrease in its RHNA Allocation from 2,241 units to 600-800 units—a
64% to 73% reduction. The Town's RHNA appeal document cites numerous issues with ABAG
and RHNA as justification for decreasing its required unit allocation. In brief, issues cited by
Danville Town staff include:
• ABAG failed to consider information based on the Local Jurisdiction Survey, particularly
information related to existing and project jobs, housing relationships to jobs, and the
availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential uses.
• ABAG failed to determine the jurisdiction's allocation in accordance with the Final RHNA
Methodology and the allocation undermined RHNA objectives. The Town also claimed
that the RHNA Methodology fails to affirmatively further fair housing as required by
Government Cde Section 65584(d)(5).
• Since Danville submitted its information for the Local Jurisdiction Survey, significant and
unforeseen circumstances have occurred. The appeal states, for example, that the
Town's water supply is no longer an opportunity for development, but a development
constraint due to drought and the effects of the pandemic were not considered.
Town staff further criticized RHNA as a "historic methodology anomaly" that is flawed because
"external forces—including the economy, construction labor costs, and land prices—have far
greater impact on housing production than RHNA, city practices or public policies."'
After reviewing the appeal request, ABAG staff submitted to their responses and
recommendation for action to the ABAG Administrative Committee and Town staff. In the
September 2021 document, staff recommended that the committee deny Danville's appeal as
many issues raised were not sufficient basis for appeal, the Final RHNA Methodology
considered local trends and patterns in Danville (e.g., jobs -housing relationship), the
Methodology follows and addresses statutory requirements (e.g., household growth, regional
transportation plans), and forecasts feasible growth within urban growth boundaries.2
Census Tract Sites Analysis
Table 1 shows all Census Tracts in the Town of Danville, the proportion of the population that
identifies as Hispanic, the non-White share of the population, the share of low and moderate
income households, the number of R/ECAPS and RCAAs, TCAC's opportunity score, and the
number of units by income proposed in the tract. The Town of Danville's proposed RHNA sites
can accommodate approximately 3,075 new units. The majority of proposed units (68%) are in
Census Tract 3452.03, which is located in west Danville between Interstate 680 and the Town
boundary. This Census Tract includes Downtown Danville, access to public transportation, San
1 https://danvilletowntalks.orq/11210/widgets/32929/documents/21827.
2 https://danvilletowntalks.org/11210/widgets/32929/documents/24443.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Ramon Valley High School, community gathering spaces (e.g., St. Isiedore Catholic Church,
Danville Women's Club) -,and neighborhood amenities.
Census Tract 3451.13
Characteristics. Census Tract 3451.13 is located in southeast Danville between Camino
Tassajara and the border of the City of San Ramon. This Census Tract is a low density area
containing the Sycamore Valley Open Space and predominantly single family residential
housing. RHNA sites in this tract are primarily located in the western area of the tract between
single family subdivisions to the west and Sherburne Hills to the west. The area is primarily
greenspace. There is also a cluster of sites along Camino Tassajara within this Census Tract.
Generally, the Census Tract is an area of high opportunity according the TCAC's opportunity
areas and contains a low share of low or moderate income households (13% of households in
the Tract). Nearly 40% of the population in this Tract are non-White and 7% identify as Hispanic.
Finally, the Tract is not an R/ECAP and is rated as stable or advanced exclusive under the Urban
Displacement designations. This Census Tract, and the entire Town, is an RCAA.
Assessment. The addition of 200 RHNA units including 56 for low and very low income
households would increase integration in the Town of Danville by increasing the share of low
income households in this high opportunity Census Tract. Neighborhoods in this area are
established and unaffordable to low or moderate incomclow- or moderate -income households—
characterized by advanced exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions. The addition of 7%
of the Town's total RHNA allocation within this Census Tract would provide the opportunity for
low and moderate income households in the region to access this high resource area.
Additionally, the introduction of affordable units in this RCAA will further integrate the Town
racially and economically by creating opportunity in this concentrated area of race and affluence.
Considerations. Propose 73 RHNA units in Census Tract 3451.13 for low and moderate income
households and 126 units for above moderate income households.
Census Tract 3451.14
Characteristics. Census Tract 3451.14 is located in south central Danville between Camino
Tassajara, Interstate 680, and the border of the City of San Ramon. This Census Tract is a low
density area containing the Osage Station Park, Crow Canyon Country Club, and predominantly
single family residential housing. RHNA sites in this tract are primarily located in the eastern
area of the tract between single family subdivisions to the west and Sherburne Hills to the west.
The proposed RHNA sites are primarily greenspace. Generally, the Census Tract is an area of
high opportunity according the TCAC's opportunity areas and contains a low share of low or
moderate income households (18% of households in the Tract). About one in four (27%) of the
population in this Tract are non-White and 7% identify as Hispanic. Finally, the Tract is not an
R/ECAP and is rated as stable or advanced exclusive under the Urban Displacement
designations. This Census Tract, and the entire Town, is an RCAA.
Assessment. The addition of 104 RHNA units including 33 for low and very low income
households would increase integration in the Town of Danville by increasing the share of low
income households in this high opportunity Census Tract. Neighborhoods in this area are
established and unaffordable to low or moderate income households—characterized by
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
advanced exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions. The addition of 3% of the Town's
total RHNA allocation within this Census Tract would provide the opportunity for low and
moderate income households in the region to access this high resource area. Additionally, the
introduction of affordable units in this RCAA will further integrate the Town racially and
economically by creating opportunity in this concentrated area of race and affluence.
Considerations. Propose 44 RHNA units in Census Tract 3451.14 for low and moderate income
households and 60 units for above moderate income households.
Census Tract 3452.02
Characteristics. Approximately half of Census Tract 3452.02 is located in southwest Danville on
the western side of Interstate 680 and the border of the City of San Ramon. This Census Tract
is a low density area containing office uses along 1-680, portions of Las Trampas Regional
Wilderness, and predominantly single family residential housing. RHNA sites in this tract are
scattered throughout with a handful of sites bordering wilderness areas in the south and
additional sites in the north end of the tract near the 1-680 and Caminor Tassajara interchange.
Generally, the Census Tract is an area of high opportunity according the TCAC's opportunity
areas and contains a moderate share of low or moderate income households (20% of
households in the Tract). The Tract is tied as the second most racially diverse Tract in the Town
of Danville with 46% of the population identified as non-White and 10% identified as Hispanic.
Additionally, this Census Tract is not yet Advanced Exclusive, but is at risk of becoming exclusive
according to the Urban Displacement definitions. All other Census Tracts in the Town of Danville
are already Advanced Exclusive. This Census Tract, and the entire Town, is an RCAA. Finally,
the Tract is not an R/ECAP.
Assessment. The addition of 146 RHNA units including 59 for low and very low income
households would increase integration in the Town of Danville by increasing the share of low
income households in this high opportunity Census Tract, and stabilize this Census Tract from
experiencing further displacement and becoming exclusive. Neighborhoods in this area are
established but relatively accessible to moderate income households—characterized by at risk
of becoming exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions. The addition of 5% of the Town's
total RHNA allocation within this Census Tract would provide the opportunity for low and
moderate income households in the region to access this high resource area and stabilize
existing low or moderate income households living in the Census Tract to prevent displacement.
Additionally, the introduction of affordable units in this RCAA will further integrate the Town
racially and economically by creating opportunity in this concentrated area of race and affluence.
Considerations. Propose 82 RHNA units in Census Tract 3452.02 for low and moderate income
households and 64 units for above moderate income households.
Census Tract 3452.03
Characteristics. Approximately half of Census Tract 3452.03 is located in western Danville
between Interstate 680 and the Town boundary. This Census Tract includes Downtown Danville
as well as extremely low density areas to the west that border the Las Trampas Regional
Wilderness Area. Downtown Danville includes access to public transportation, San Ramon
Valley High School, Del Amigo High School, Montair Elementary, community gathering spaces
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
(e.g., St. Isodore Catholic Church, Danville Women's Club), and neighborhood amenities. RHNA
sites in this tract are scattered throughout with a handful of sites bordering wilderness areas in
the west and the majority of sites in the east areas of the Tract near Downtown Danville, bus
lines, and 1-680. Generally, the Census Tract is an area of high opportunity according the TCAC's
opportunity areas and contains a moderate share of low or moderate income households (18%
of households in the Tract). The Tract contains the highest concentration of people who identify
as Hispanic in the Town with 11 % of the population in this Tract. Twenty-eight percent of the
population in this Tract are non-White. Additionally, this Census Tract is classified as Advanced
Exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions and is not an R/ECAP. This Census Tract, and
the entire Town, is an RCAA.
Assessment. The addition of 2,083 RHNA units including 962 for low and very low income
households would increase integration in the Town of Danville by increasing the share of low
income households in this high opportunity Census Tract. Neighborhoods in this area are
established and unaffordable to low or moderate income households—characterized by
advanced exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions. The addition of 68% of the Town's
total RHNA allocation within this Census Tract would provide the opportunity for low and
moderate income households in the region to access this high resource area. Additionally, the
introduction of affordable units in this RCAA will further integrate the Town racially and
economically by creating opportunity in this concentrated area of race and affluence.
Considerations. Propose 1,272 RHNA units in Census Tract 3452.03 for low and moderate
income households and 811 units for above moderate income households.
Census Tract 3462.01
Characteristics. Approximately one third of Census Tract 3462.01 is located in northern Danville
between Interstate 680, Diablo Road, and the Town boundary. This Census Tract includes
Monte Vista High School, Los Cerros Middle School, Green Valley Elementary, places of
worship, and primarily low density housing. RHNA sites in this tract are primarily located in the
western area near 1-680 with one site in the eastern area near the High School on the Town's
border. Generally, the Census Tract is an area of high opportunity according the TCAC's
opportunity areas and contains a moderate share of low or moderate income households (16%
of households in the Tract). The Census Tract has a low share of residents who are non-White
(29%) and 8% of the population identifies as Hispanic. Additionally, this Census Tract is
classified as Advanced Exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions and is not an R/ECAP.
This Census Tract, and the entire Town, is an RCAA.
Assessment. The addition of 212 RHNA units including 91 for low and very low income
households would increase integration in the Town of Danville by increasing the share of low
income households in this high opportunity Census Tract. Neighborhoods in this area are
established and unaffordable to low or moderate income households—characterized by
advanced exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions. The addition of 7% of the Town's
total RHNA allocation within this Census Tract would provide the opportunity for low and
moderate income households in the region to access this high resource area. Additionally, the
introduction of affordable units in this RCAA will further integrate the Town racially and
economically by creating opportunity in this concentrated area of race and affluence.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Considerations. Propose 120 RHNA units in Census Tract 3462.01 for low and moderate income
households and 92 units for above moderate income households.
Census Tract 3462.03
Characteristics. Census Tract 3462.03 is located in the center of Danville between Interstate
680 to the west, El Cerro Boulevard and Camino Tassajara to the north and east, and Sycamore
Valley Road to the south. This Census Tract includes primarily single family residential areas
with limited commercial uses at the interchange of 1-680 and Diablo Road. RHNA sites in this
tract are located along the southern border on Camino Tassajara and the northern border along
El Cerro Boulevard. Generally, the Census Tract is an area of high opportunity according the
TCAC's opportunity areas and contains a low share of low or moderate income households (14%
of households in the Tract). About one in four (25%) of the population in this Tract are non-White
and 8% identify as Hispanic. Additionally, this Census Tract is classified as Advanced Exclusive
by the Urban Displacement definitions and is not an R/ECAP. This Census Tract, and the entire
Town, is an RCAA.
Assessment. The addition of 263 RHNA units including 122 for low and very low income
households would increase integration in the Town of Danville by increasing the share of low
income households in this high opportunity and RCAA Census Tract. Neighborhoods in this area
are established and unaffordable to low or moderate income households—characterized by
advanced exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions. The addition of 9% of the Town's
total RHNA allocation within this Census Tract would provide the opportunity for low and
moderate income households in the region to access this high resource area. Additionally, the
introduction of affordable units in this RCAA will further integrate the Town racially and
economically by creating opportunity in this concentrated area of race and affluence.
Considerations. Propose 161 RHNA units in Census Tract 3462.03 for low and moderate income
households and 102 units for above moderate income households.
Census Tract 3462.04
Characteristics. Census Tract 3462.04 is located in the northeast area of Danville between
Camino Tassalara and the Town boundary. This Census Tract includes primarily single family
residential areas and hilly open space. RHNA sites in this tract are located in the center where
there is open greenspace. Generally, the Census Tract is an area of high opportunity according
the TCAC's opportunity areas and contains the lowest share of low or moderate income
households in the Town (11% of households in the Tract). About one in three (32%) of the
population in this Tract are non-White and 8% identify as Hispanic. Additionally, this Census
Tract is classified as Advanced Exclusive by the Urban Displacement definitions and is not an
R/ECAP. This Census Tract, and the entire Town, is an RCAA.
Assessment. The addition of 48 RHNA units including 0 for low and very low income households
would maintain current patterns in the Town of Danville by increasing the available units in this
high opportunity and RCAA Census Tract. Neighborhoods in this area are established and
unaffordable to low or moderate income households—characterized by advanced exclusive by
the Urban Displacement definitions. The addition of 2% of the Town's total RHNA allocation
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
within this Census Tract would have a minimal impact on existing patterns of integration and
segregation in the Town.
Considerations. Propose 0 RHNA units in Census Tract 3462.04 for low and moderate income
households and 48 units for above moderate income households.
Census Tract 3551.14
Characteristics. Census Tract 3551.14 is located in southeast Danville between Camino
Tassajara and the Town's border with the City of San Ramon. This Census Tract includes
primarily single family residential areas and a community shopping center with groceries, a
convenience store, and restaurants. RHNA sites in this tract scattered throughout. Generally,
the Census Tract is an area of high opportunity according the TCAC's opportunity areas and
contains a very low share of low or moderate income households in the Town (12% of
households in the Tract). Nearly half (46%) of the population in this Tract are non-White and
10% identify as Hispanic. Additionally, this Census Tract is classified as Advanced Exclusive by
the Urban Displacement definitions and is not an R/ECAP. This Census Tract, and the entire
Town, is an RCAA.
Assessment. The addition of 14 RHNA units including 0 for low and very low income households
would maintain current patterns in the Town of Danville. The addition of less than one percent
of the Town's total RHNA allocation within this Census Tract would have a minimal impact on
existing patterns of integration and segregation in the Town.
Considerations. Propose 0 RHNA units in Census Tract 3551.14 for low and moderate income
households and 14 units for above moderate income households.
Census Tract 3551.16
Characteristics. A very small portion of Census Tract 3551.16 is located in southeast Danville
along the Town's border with the City of San Ramon. This Census Tract includes a handful of
low density single family properties. There is one RHNA site in this Tract. Generally, the Census
Tract is an area of high opportunity according the TCAC's opportunity areas and contains a low
share of low or moderate income households in the Town (17% of households in the Tract).
More than three out of four (78%) of the population in this Tract are non-White and 5% identify
as Hispanic. Additionally, this Census Tract is classified as Advanced Exclusive by the Urban
Displacement definitions and is not an R/ECAP. This Census Tract, and the entire Town, is an
RCAA.
Assessment. The addition of four RHNA units within this Census Tract would have a minimal
impact on existing patterns of integration and segregation in the Town.
Considerations. Propose 0 RHNA units in Census Tract 3551.16 for low and moderate income
households and 4 units for above moderate income households.
FIGURE 1: DANVILLE PROPOSED RHNA SITES BY CENSUS TRACT SUMMARY
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Census Tract
AFFH Data
Pct.
Pct. Pct. Non- Low/Mod TCAC Opportunity
Hispanic White Income R/ECAP RCAA Areas Urban Displacement
RHNA Units Proposed
Very Above
Low Low Moderate Moderate
Census Tract 3451.13 7% 39% 13% 0 1 Highest Resource
Census Tract 3451.14 7% 27% 18% 0 1 Highest Resource
Census Tract 3452.02 10% 46% 20% 0 1 Highest Resource
Census Tract 3452.03 11% 28% 18% 0 1 Highest Resource
Census Tract 3462.01 8% 29% 16% 0 1 Highest Resource
Census Tract 3462.03 8% 25% 14% 0 1 Highest Resource
Census Tract 3462.04 8% 32% 11% 0 1 Highest Resource
Census Tract 3551.14 10% 46% 12% 0 1 Highest Resource
Census Tract 3551.16 5% 78% 17% 0 1 Highest Resource
Stable/Advanced
Exclusive
Stable/Advanced
Exclusive
At Risk of
Becoming
Exclusive
Stable/Advanced
Exclusive
Stable/Advanced
Exclusive
Stable/Advanced
Exclusive
Stable/Advanced
Exclusive
Stable/Advanced
Exclusive
Unavailable or
Unreliable Data
36 20 18
21 12 11 60
36 23 23 64
126
600 362 310 811
58 33 29 92
77 45 39 102
0 0 0 48
0 0 0 14
0 0 0 4
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer and Root Policy Research.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
FIGURE 2: DANVILLE CENSUS TRACT MAP
• ' •
,---.._____, r..„..._,_,...._a_.•„,,
, 1 y
i ,...
..,...!_.,....._... _...
? i._„,
..._,..____
ktvi
N5? 04
•
''kbc '91,013 Census ---
11 --.
liFi::'
12 dals sa -,. .. l'ilid
Jfd2.0.3
,,--
i 1
! 0 %
i .....--..,
.,. ,
.1)
..
Now s .
kao.
•;*5 1 05 ii
1?13.•••••11'--
furmis nocr
3.551 91
•
Pruipriy.:11 RHNA.
Cenu racts
L.iC ity Bou nd a ries
CArinsiko
3459 ,
_
5bn ROmon
Census
Urea 355 r id
-„
c7:44471° 'i
rfar-i , ?Nod 1
COMM _
.%, i As r 12 ',..1559 r5 i '•-,
\ RiKii 343111 ',,,
• ,
!
r ( i
can5643'
CiMLI 3?2ei
NAPI .k1161o.o3 \
• 245r2 •
A2
Ciff12112 Tilad1445 rr aLI
`u1/2,1••
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer and Root Policy Research.
Supportive Citywide Spatial Analysis
The following series of maps provide the location of proposed Danville RHNA sites overlaid on
demographic and fair housing data provided in HCD's AFFH data viewer.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT Page D-Att3-A-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Hispanic Population
Figure 3 shows Danville's RHNA sites overlaid with the percent Hispanic for each Census Tract
in the Town. All Census Tracts in the Town of Danville have below 20% Hispanic population.
The sites are evenly distributed geographically throughout the Town with an emphasis on
locating units near high access to public services, transportation, and opportunity. Census Tract
3452.03 has the highest share of Hispanic residents (11%) and is the location of 68% of the
proposed RHNA units. This area is also home to Downtown Danville, access to transit, and
community amenities.
FIGURE 3: DANVILLE PROPOSED RHNA SITES, PERCENT HISPANIC, 2019
f
J
1
Percgint Hiipank
B%-2
21% - z1ci6
4146-6i
6196-80%
81%-100%
PrOpOSe,J RHNA 50
Census Tracts
i�
Cipt Boundaries
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer and Root Policy Research.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Non -White Population
Figure 4 shows Danville's RHNA sites overlaid with the percent non-White for each Census Tract
in the Town. The majority of the Town of Danville is between 21% and 40% non-White, except
for Census Tracts that border on the City of San Ramon. Census Tracts 3452.02, 3551.14, and
3551.16 that border the City of San Ramon have higher shares of the population that identify as
non-White (greater than 40%). Five percent of the Town's proposed RHNA units are located in
these Census Tracts. The small proportion of units proposed for these areas will likely have no
significant impact on established patters of integration and segregation.
FIGURE 4: DANVILLE PROPOSED RHNA SITES, PERCENT NON-WHITE, 2019
I_.._.._..J
r
lb
D in viiie
Percent Non -White
0% - 20%
21% - 40%
41% - 60%
61% - 80%
81% - 100%
Proposed RHNA Sites
Census Tracts
i.„.! City Boundaries
1
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer and Root Policy Research.
•
Dublin
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Low and Moderate Income
Figure 5 shows Danville's RHNA sites overlaid with the percent low and moderate income for
each Census Tract in the Town. All census Tracts in the Town of Danville have a relatively low
share of low and moderate income households between 11 % and 25%. Census Tract 3452.02
has the highest share of low and moderate income households in the Town and 5% of the
proposed RHNA units. Overall, the Town of Danville is a high income community and the
allocation of low and moderate income RHNA units will provide additional opportunities for
households in the region to live in Danville.
FIGURE 5: DANVILLE PROPOSED RHNA SITES, PERCENT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME, 2019
. 1_.._.._..i ,t._.. `E..
•
\
rj••
iti iJ
Percent Low and Moderate Income
0°10 - 10%
11%-25%
26% - 50%
1.111 51% - 75%
76% - 100%
Proposed RHNA Sites
Census Tracts
4._.._] City Boundaries
r -
r
R4f
Dublin
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer and Root Policy Research.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP)
Figure 6 shows Danville's RHNA sites overlaid with the R/ECAPS. As shown in the figure, there
are no R/ECAPS in the Town of Danville.
FIGURE 6: DANVILLE PROPOSED RHNA SITES, RACIALLY/ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY (RECAP), 2019
.._.._.._ ._.._.._ ®
c•.
•lam.. � ��S
R/ECAP
Proposed RHNA Sites
Census Tracts
i _.._ i City Boundaries
t
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer and Root Policy Research.
\
Dublin
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
Figure 7 shows RCAAs in Danville. As shown in the figure, the entire Town of Danville is located
in an RCAA. Therefore, all of RHNA units are proposed in an RCAA and will provide access to
affluent neighborhoods in Danville for low and moderate income households.
FIGURE 7: RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE (RCAA) BY CENSUS TRACT, DANVILLE, 2015-2019
Clic. 1 . 1. ,. i
1 R 1 Racial" C;oa'rtmxt aimd Aid 21, OP itifi nat 'Moor S, .{i niij • UK!
..1..n 1E, .
iB o,.." 1
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-15
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
TCAC Areas of Opportunity
Figure 8 shows Danville's RHNA sites overlaid with TCAC's Areas of Opportunity. As shown in
the figure, the entire Town of Danville is classified as a "Highest Resource" area. The addition
of 3,075 RHNA units to the Town of Danville will provide increased access to resources in the
Town for households in the region.
FIGURE 8: DANVILLE PROPOSED RHNA SITES, TCAC AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY, 2019
,•f 1 i �.•-••,
/
i•~"•f
rf \ i
Danville
_ � J
•—.._ -.•tet •^..--•f
I 1
TCAC Areas of Opportunity
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource
min Low Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
Missing or Insufficient Data
Proposed RHNA Sites
Census Tracts
�•—••—•i City Boundaries
San Ramon
t
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer and Root Policy Research.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Urban Displacement
Figure 8 shows Danville's RHNA sites overlaid with the Urban Displacement classifications. As
shown in the figure, there is one Tract in the Town that is at risk of becoming exclusive. Census
Tract 3452.02 is located in the southwest area of the Town and borders the Wilderness Area.
Five percent of RHNA units are proposed for this Census Tract which will help stabilize existing
households and discourage additional displacement. The remaining areas of the Town are all
classified as Stable/Advanced Exclusive meaning that low and moderate income households
have minimal access to live in these neighborhoods. The introduction of 2,929 units in these
neighborhoods will further integrate the Town.
FIGURE 9: DANVILLE PROPOSED RHNA SITES, URBAN DISPLACEMENT, 2019
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-17
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Danville
Urban Displacement
Low-IncomelSusceptible to Displacement
Ongoing Displacement
At Risk of Gentrification
Stable Moderate/Mixed Income
At Risk of Becoming Exclusive
Becoming Exclusive
Stable/Advanced Exclusive
High Student Population
Unavailable or Unreliable Data
Proposed RHNA Sites
Census Tracts
�•_.._.i City Boundaries
t
r
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer and Root Policy Research.
}
n,Ramon
A
E.,
,Dublin'
Dublin
Segregation and Integration
The Town of Danville predominately White with exception of the Census Tracts that border the City of
San Ramon to the south. Census Tracts 3452.02, 3551.14, and 3551.16 that border the City of San Ramon
have higher shares of the population that identify as non-White (greater than 40%). The RHNA sites are
located equally throughout the Town and are not concentrated in areas with greater shares of racial and
ethnic minorities. Five percent of RHNA units are located in the Census Tracts with populations more
than 40% non-White. The vast majority of units are located in areas that are predominately white and
high income. The inclusion of units in these areas will further integrate the Town of Danville racially and
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
economically. These sites provide increased housing opportunities for all incomes and would not
exacerbate concentrations of non-White households.
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence
None of the proposed units are within an R/ECAP. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are
defined by HUD as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non -Hispanic White residents.
The entire Town of Danville is within an RCAAs. All potential units are within an RCAA, which provide
access to opportunity for residents of affordable housing and reduce existing segregation
patterns. These sites provide increased housing opportunities for all incomes and would not exacerbate
concentrations race and affluence.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The entire Town of Danville is classified as a "Highest Resource" area. The addition of 3,075
RHNA units to the Town of Danville will provide increased access to resources in the Town for
households in the region.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
The proposed RHNA sites are evenly distributed throughout the Town of Danville and do not concentrate
units in areas with greater housing problems or low income households in the Town. These sites provide
increased housing opportunities for all incomes and would not exacerbate concentrations of housing
problems or low income households.
APPENDIX D 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageD-Att3-A-19
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
19
APPENDIX D
ATTACHMENT 3:
AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHER FAIR
REGIONAL ANALYSIS:
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
APRIL 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Assessment of Fair Housing:
Contra Costa County Regional Analysis
Prepared by:
March 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table of Contents
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 3
Introduction and Overview of AB 686 3
Analysis Requirements 3
Sources of Information 3
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES 4
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach 4
Fair Housing Enforcement 5
Fair Housing Testing 9
Fair Housing Education and Outreach 9
Integration and Segregation 12
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas 24
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) 24
Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County 25
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) 26
Access to Opportunities 27
TCAC Maps 28
Opportunity Indices 30
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Introduction and Overview of AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined "affirmatively further fair housing" to
mean "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of
segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity" for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.
Analysis Requirements
AB 686 requires that all housing elements prepared on or after January 1, 2021, assess fair housing
through the following components:
An assessment of fair housing within the jurisdiction that includes the following components: a
summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City's fair housing enforcement and
outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities;
an assessment of contributing factors; and identification and prioritization of fair housing goals
and actions.
A sites inventory that accommodates all income levels of the City's share of the RHNA that also
serves the purpose of furthering more integrated and balanced living patterns.
Responsive housing programs that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing
opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing factors
identified in the assessment of fair housing.
The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time.
This analysis compares the locality at a county level for the purposes of promoting more inclusive
communities.
Sources of Information
The primary data sources for the AFFH analysis are:
• U.S. Census Bureau's Decennial Census (referred to as "Census") and American Community
Survey (ACS)
• Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-2025
(2020 Al).
• Local Knowledge
3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
In addition, HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists of
map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the
components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time
frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data in the 2020 Al. While some
data comparisons may have different time frames (often different by one year), the differences do
not affect the identification of possible trends.
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing
entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights, and provide outreach
and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the
ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining
remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. The Fair Employment and Housing Act and the
Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary California fair housing laws. California state law extends anti-
discrimination protections in housing to several classes that are not covered by the federal Fair
Housing Act (FHA) of 1968, including prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In Contra Costa County, local housing, social services, and legal service organizations include the
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
(ECHO) Fair Housing, Bay Area Legal Aid, and Pacific Community Services.
4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 1
Organization
Focus Areas
Fair Housing Advocates of
Northern California (FHANC)
Non-profit agency that provides fair housing information and
literature in a number of different languages, primarily serves
Marin, Sonoma, and Solano County but also has resources
to residents outside of the above geographic areas.
Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity (ECHO) Fair
Housing
Housing counseling agency that provides education and
charitable assistance to the general public in matters related
to obtaining and maintaining housing.
Bay Area Legal Aid
Largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area
counties. Has a focus area in housing preservation and
homelessness task force to provide legal services and
advocacy for those in need.
Pacific Community Services
Private non-profit housing agency that serves East Contra
Costa County (Bay Point, Antioch, and Pittsburg) and
provides fair housing counseling as well as education and
outreach
Fair Housing Enforcement
California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to
protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to housing).
The FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex
(including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender
expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry,
familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person
perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) prohibits business establishments in California from
discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges
to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship,
primary language, or immigration status.
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California
to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons
or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry,
5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual
orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute,
or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.
Table 2: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Contra Costa County (2020)
Year
Housing
Unruh Civil Rights Act
2015
30
5
2016
32
2
2017
26
26
2018
22
2
2019
22
2
2020
20
1
Source: https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/LegalRecords/?content=reports#reportsBody
Based on DFEH Annual Reports, Table 2 shows the number of housing complaints filed by Contra
Costa County to DFEH between 2015-2020. A slight increase in the number of complaints
precedes the downward trend from 2016-2020. Note that fair housing cases alleging a violation
of FEHA can also involve an alleged Unruh violation as the same unlawful activity can violate both
laws. DFEH creates companion cases that are investigated separately from the housing
investigation.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
(HUD FHEO) enforces fair housing by investigating complaints of housing discrimination. Table 3
shows the number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra Costa County between 2015
and 2020. A total of 148 cases were filed within this time period, with disability being the top
allegation of basis of discrimination followed by familial status, race, national origin, and sex. These
findings are consistent with national trends stated in FHEO's FY 2020 State of Fair Housing Annual
Report to Congress where disability was also the top allegation of basis of discrimination.
6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 3: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra Costa County (2015-2020)
Year
Number of Filed Cases
Disability
Race
National
Origin
Sex
Familial
Status
2015
28
17
4
2
2
4
2016
30
14
8
7
5
6
2017
20
12
3
5
1
5
2018
31
20
6
3
4
9
2019
32
27
4
4
4
1
2020
7
4
1
0
2
1
Total
148
94
26
21
18
26
Percentage of Total Filed Cases
*Note that cases may be filed on more
than one basis.
63.5%
17.5%
14.2%
12.2%
17.6%
Source: Data. Gov - Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)
Filed Cases, https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fheo-filed-cases
Table 3 indicates that the highest number of fair housing complaints are due to discrimination
against those with disabilities, followed by income source, race, and national origin.
A summary of ECHO's Fair Housing Complaint Log on fair housing issues, actions taken, services
provided, and outcomes can be found in Table 4 and Table 5.
Table 4: Action(s) Taken/Services Provided
Protected Class
1
3
5
6
7
Grand Total
Race
21
0
0
2
0
23
Marital Status
0
0
0
1
0
1
Sex
0
0
0
0
0
0
Religion
0
0
0
0
0
0
Familial Status
0
0
0
3
0
3
Sexual Orientation
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sexual Harrassment
0
0
0
1
0
1
Income Source
15
0
1
7
1
24
Disability
7
1
14
33
5
60
National Origin
13
0
0
1
0
14
Other
0
0
1
11
5
17
Total
56
1
16
59
11
143
1. Testers sent for investigation; 3. Referred to attorney. 5. Conciliation with landlord; 6 Client provided with counseling; 7.
Client provided with brief service; Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020 - 2021)
7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 5: Outcomes
Protected Class
Counseling
provided to
landlord
Counseling
provided to
tenant
Education to
Landlord
Insufficient
evidence
Preparing
Site Visit
Referred to
DFEH/HUD
Successful
mediation
Grand
Total
Race
0
0
2
20
0
1
0
23
National Origin
0
0
1
13
0
0
0
14
Marital Status
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Sex
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Disability
2
25
2
12
0
4
15
60
Religion
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sexual
Orientation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Familial Status
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
Income Source
3
3
0
16
1
0
1
24
Sexual
Harrassment
0
8
2
2
1
4
0
17
Other
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Total
5
39
7
64
2
10
16
143
Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020 - 2021)
Services that were not provided include (2.) Case tested by phone; (4.) Case referred to HUD and (8.) Case accepted for full representation.
The most common action(s) taken/services provided are providing clients with counseling, followed by sending testers for investigation,
and conciliation with landlords. Regardless of actions taken or services provided, almost 45% of cases are found to have insufficient
evidence. Only about 12% of all cases resulted in successful mediation.
8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Fair Housing Testing
Fair housing testing is a randomized audit of property owners' compliance with local, state, and
federal fair housing laws. Initiated by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair
housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for
the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair
housing laws.
ECHO conducts fair housing investigations in Contra Costa County (except Pittsburg) and
unincorporated Contra Costa County. The 2020 Contra Costa County Al, however, did not report
any findings on fair housing testing on the county level, however, it does bring to attention that
private discrimination is a problem in Contra Costa County that continues to perpetuate
segregation. Based on fair housing testing conducted in the City of Richmond, it was found that
there was significant differential treatment in favor of White testers over Black testers in 55% of
phone calls towards 20 housing providers with advertisements on Craigslist. Because Whites
receive better services, they tend to live in neighborhoods apart from minority groups.
Fair Housing Education and Outreach
Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination
know when and how to seek help. Find below a more detailed description of fair housing services
provided by local housing, social services, and legal service organizations
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC)
FHANC is a non-profit agency with a mission to actively support and promote fair housing through
education and advocacy. Fair housing services provided to residents outside of Marin, Sonoma, or
Solano County include foreclosure prevention services & information, information on fair housing
law for the housing industry, and other fair housing literature. Majority of the fair housing literature
is provided in Spanish and English, with some provided in Vietnamese and Tagalog.
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing
ECHO Fair Housing is a HUD -approved housing counseling agency that aims to promote equal
access in housing, provide support services to aid in the prevention of homelessness, and promote
permanent housing conditions. The organization provides education and charitable assistance to
the general public in matters related to obtaining and maintaining housing in addition to rental
assistance, housing assistance, tenant/landlord counseling, homeseeking, homesharing, and
mortgage and home purchase counseling. In Contra Costa County, ECHO Fair Housing provides
fair housing services, first-time home buyer counseling and education, and tenant/landlord services
(rent review and eviction harassment programs are available only in Concord).
9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Fair housing services encompasses counseling, investigation, mediation, enforcement, and
education.
• First-time home buyer counseling provides one-on-one counseling with a Housing
Counselor on the homebuying process. The Housing Counselor will review all
documentation, examine and identify barriers to homeownership, create an action plan, and
prepare potential homebuyers for the responsibility of being homeowners. The Housing
Counselor will also review the credit reports, determine what steps need to be taken to clean
up adverse credit, provide counseling on money -saving methods, and assist in developing
a budget.
• First-time home buyer education provides classroom training regarding credit information,
home ownership incentives, home buying opportunities, predatory lending, home
ownership responsibilities, government -assisted programs, as well as conventional
financing. The class also provides education on how to apply for HUD -insured mortgages;
purchase procedures, and alternatives for financing the purchase. Education also includes
information on fair housing and fair lending and how to recognize discrimination and
predatory lending procedures, and locating accessible housing if needed.
• ECHO's Tenant/Landlord Services provides information to tenants and landlords on rental
housing issues such as evictions, rent increases, repairs and habitability, harassment, illegal
entry, and other rights and responsibilities regarding the tenant/landlord relationship.
Trained mediators assist in resolving housing disputes through conciliation and mediation
• In cities that adopt ordinances to allow Rent Reviews (City of Concord only in Contra Costa
County), tenants can request a rent review from ECHO Housing by phone or email. This
allows tenants who experience rent increases exceeding 10 percent in a 12 -month period
to seek non-binding conciliation and mediation services.
Though the Contra Costa County Consortium Analysis of Impediments (Al) to Fair Housing states
that the organization provides information in Spanish, the ECHO website is predominantly in
English with options to translate the homepage into various languages. Navigating the entire site
may be difficult for the limited -English proficient (LEP) population.
Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal)
BayLegal is the largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra
Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). With respect to affordable
housing, BayLegal has a focus area in housing preservation (landlord -tenant matters, subsidized
and public housing issues, unlawful evictions, foreclosures, habitability, and enforcement of fair
housing laws) as well as a homelessness task force that provides legal services and advocacy for
systems change to maintain housing, help people exit homelessness, and protect unhoused
persons' civil rights. The organization provides translations for their online resources to over 50
languages and uses volunteer interpreters/translators to help provide language access. Its legal
advice line provides counsel and advice in different languages. Specific to Contra Costa County,
tenant housing resources are provided in English and Spanish.
10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
The Housing Preservation practice is designed to protect families from illegal evictions,
substandard housing conditions, and wrongful denials and terminations of housing subsidies. The
practice also works to preserve and expand affordable housing and protect families from
foreclosure rescue scams. BayLegal helps low-income tenants obtain or remain in safe affordable
housing by providing legal assistance in housing -law related areas such as public, subsidized
(including Section 8 and other HUD subsidized projects) and private housing, fair housing and
housing discrimination, housing conditions, rent control, eviction defense, lock -outs and utility shut-
offs, residential hotels, and training advocates and community organizations.
BayLegal also provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families to prevent
homelessness and increase housing stability as well as assist unhoused youth/adults address
legal barriers that prevent them from exiting homelessness. This is done through a mix of direct
legal services, coalition building and partnerships, policy advocacy, and litigation to advocate for
systems change that will help people maintain housing, exit homelessness, and protect unhoused
persons' civil rights. The Homelessness Task Force (HTF) was developed in response to complex
barriers and inequities contributing to homelessness, and strives to build capacity and develop best
practices across the seven aforementioned counties to enhance BayLegal's coordinated, multi -
systems response to homelessness.
Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI)
PCSI is a private non-profit housing agency that serves East Contra Costa County (Bay Point,
Antioch, and Pittsburg) and provides fair housing counseling in English and Spanish. Housing
Counseling Services provided include:
• Foreclosure Prevention: Consists of a personal interview and the development of a case
management plan for families to keep their homes and protect any equity that may have
built up. Relief measures sought include: loan modification or reduced payments,
reinstatement and assistance under 'Keep Your Home' program, forbearance agreements,
deed -in -lieu of foreclosure, refinancing or recasting the mortgage, or sale of the property
• Homeownership Counseling: Prepares first-time buyers for a successful home purchase by
helping them in budgeting, understanding the home purchase process, and understanding
the fees that lenders may charge to better prepare new buyers when acquiring their first
home.
• Rental Counseling; Tenant and Landlord Rights: PCSI provides information and assistance
in dealing with eviction and unlawful detainer actions, deposit returns, habitability issues.
getting repairs done, mediation of tenant/landlord disputes, assisting tenant organizations,
legal referrals to Bay Area Legal Aid & Bar Association resources, pre -rental counseling and
budgeting
• Fair Housing Services: Include counseling regarding fair housing rights, referral services
and education and outreach. PCSI offers training for landlords and owners involving issues
of compliance with federal and state fair housing regulations.
11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Fair Housing Education and Outreach: Offers informative workshops for social service
organizations and persons of protected categories. These workshops are designed to
inform individuals how to recognize and report housing discrimination.
Though promising, PCSI lacks contact information, resources, and accessibility on their website.
Overall, in terms of capacity, the capacity and funding of the above organizations is generally
insufficient. Greater resources would enable stronger outreach efforts, including populations that
may be less aware of their fair housing rights, such as limited -English proficiency and LGBTQ
residents. Although ECHO serves most of Contra Costa County, it suffers from a severe lack of
resources and capacity, with only one fair housing counselor serving the County. A lack of funding
also constrains BayLegal's ability to provide fair housing services for people facing discrimination,
which further burdens groups like ECHO that provide such services.
Integration and Segregation
Segregation is defined as the separation or isolation of a race/ethnic group, national origin group,
individuals with disabilities, or other social group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted
area, by barriers to social connection or dealings between persons or groups, by separate
educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.
To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to
measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic
characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as block groups within a
community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning no segregation and 100 indicating
complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the
percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of
racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index score is above 60, 60 percent
of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following shows
how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related
fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as
household size, locational preferences and mobility. Prior studies have identified socioeconomic
status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with "doubling up"—
households with extended family members and non -kin. These factors have also been associated
with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan
12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
areas though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities
moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants
tend to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).
Contra Costa County is a large, diverse jurisdiction in which people of color comprise a majority of
the population. As of the 2010 Census, 47.75% of residents were non -Hispanic Whites, 8.92% of
residents were non -Hispanic Blacks, 24.36% were Hispanics, 14.61% were non -Hispanic Asians or
Pacific Islanders, 0.28% were non -Hispanic Native Americans, 3.77% were non -Hispanic multiracial
individuals, and 0.30% identified as some other race.
The racial and ethnic demographics of Contra Costa County are similar to but not identical to those
of the broader Bay Area Region. Overall, the County is slightly more heavily non -Hispanic White and
slightly more heavily Hispanic than the Bay Area Region. The Bay Area Region is more heavily non -
Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander than the County. For all other racial or ethnic groups, the
demographics of the County and the Region are relatively similar. Table 6 shows the racial
composition of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area.
Table 6: Racial Composition
Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019; ABAG Housing Needs Data Package; Contra Costa County Consortium
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2020-2025
As explained above, dissimilarity indices are measures of segregation, with higher indices meaning
higher degree of segregation. In Contra Costa County, all minority (non-White) residents combined
are considered moderately segregated from White residents, with an index score of 41.86 at the
Census tract level and 44.93 at the block group level (Table 7). Segregation between non-white and
white residents has remained relatively steady since 1990. However, since 1990 segregation has
increased from low to moderate levels for Hispanic residents, the largest increase amongst all
racial/ethnic groups. This trend is commonly seen throughout the State and is likely attributed to
13
Contra Costa County
Bay Area**
White, non -Hispanic
47.75%
39.30%
Black or African-American, non -Hispanic
8.92%
5.80%
American Indian and Alaska Native, non-
Hispanic
0.28%
0.20%
Asian, non -Hispanic
14.61%*
26.70%*
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, non -Hispanic
N/A
N/A
Some other race, non -Hispanic
0.30%
N/A
Two or more races, non -Hispanic
3.77%
N/A
Hispanic or Latino
24.36%
23.50%
*Asian and Pacific Islander combined
**Bay Area refers to members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which are the counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma
Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019; ABAG Housing Needs Data Package; Contra Costa County Consortium
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2020-2025
As explained above, dissimilarity indices are measures of segregation, with higher indices meaning
higher degree of segregation. In Contra Costa County, all minority (non-White) residents combined
are considered moderately segregated from White residents, with an index score of 41.86 at the
Census tract level and 44.93 at the block group level (Table 7). Segregation between non-white and
white residents has remained relatively steady since 1990. However, since 1990 segregation has
increased from low to moderate levels for Hispanic residents, the largest increase amongst all
racial/ethnic groups. This trend is commonly seen throughout the State and is likely attributed to
13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
an increase of Hispanic residents during the migration boom of the mid-to-late 1990s. A two
percent increase in segregation also occurred for Asian or Pacific Islander residents. Block group
level data reveals that segregation is more prominent amongst Asian or Pacific Islander residents
than what is measured at the tract level (index score of 40.55 at the block group level versus 35.67
at the tract level). For Black residents, segregation has actually decreased by 13 percent since
1990. The proportion of Black residents has remained relatively steady during this same time
period, indicating segregation has been diminishing for the Black population. The above pattern
holds true for the greater Bay Area Region as well.
Table 7: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990-2020)
Source: HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 3 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, Data
version: AFFHT006, released July 10th, 2020.
Note: The table presents Decennial Census values for 1990, 2000, 2010, all calculated by HUD using census tracts as the
area of measurement. The "current" figure is calculated using block groups from the 2010 Decennial Census, because
block groups can measure segregation at a finer grain than census tracts due to their smaller geographies. See
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equaLopp/affh for more information.
According to the 2020 Al, the areas of segregation found throughout Contra Costa County
include:
• Black residents concentrated in the cities of Antioch, Hercules, Pittsburg, and Richmond
and the unincorporated community of North Richmond.
• Hispanic residents concentrated in the cities of Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo; in
specific neighborhoods within the cities of Antioch, Concord, and Oakley; and in the
unincorporated communities of Bay Point, Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, and
Rollingwood.
• Asians and Pacific Islanders concentrated in the Cities of Hercules and San Ramon,
unincorporated communities of Camino Tassajara and Norris Canyon, and within
neighborhoods in the cities of El Cerrito and Pinole.
14
Contra Costa County
Bay Area Region
Dissimilarity Index
1990
Trend
2000
Trend
2010
Trend
Current
(2010
Census
Block
Group)
1990
Trend
2000
Trend
2010
Trend
Current
(2010
Census
Block
Group)
Non-White/White
41.19
41.95
41.86
44.93
44.67
44.68
43.10
45.89
Black/White
67.52
62.54
58.42
61.80
66.72
63.71
59.29
63.49
Hispanic/White
36.70
45.24
48.07
49.49
43.56
49.67
49.59
51.24
Asian or Pacific
Islander/White
34.89
32.73
35.67
40.55
45.55
44.94
44.33
48.21
Source: HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 3 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, Data
version: AFFHT006, released July 10th, 2020.
Note: The table presents Decennial Census values for 1990, 2000, 2010, all calculated by HUD using census tracts as the
area of measurement. The "current" figure is calculated using block groups from the 2010 Decennial Census, because
block groups can measure segregation at a finer grain than census tracts due to their smaller geographies. See
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equaLopp/affh for more information.
According to the 2020 Al, the areas of segregation found throughout Contra Costa County
include:
• Black residents concentrated in the cities of Antioch, Hercules, Pittsburg, and Richmond
and the unincorporated community of North Richmond.
• Hispanic residents concentrated in the cities of Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo; in
specific neighborhoods within the cities of Antioch, Concord, and Oakley; and in the
unincorporated communities of Bay Point, Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, and
Rollingwood.
• Asians and Pacific Islanders concentrated in the Cities of Hercules and San Ramon,
unincorporated communities of Camino Tassajara and Norris Canyon, and within
neighborhoods in the cities of El Cerrito and Pinole.
14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Non -Hispanic White residents concentrated in the cities of Clayton, Lafayette, Orinda, and
Walnut Creek; in the Town of Danville; and in the unincorporated communities of Alamo,
Alhambra Valley, Bethel Island, Castle Hill, Diablo, Discovery Bay, Kensington, Knightsen,
Port Costa, Reliez Valley, San Miguel, and Saranap.
• There are also concentrations of non -Hispanic Whites within specific neighborhoods in the
cities of Concord, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill. In general, the areas with the greatest
concentrations of non -Hispanic Whites are located in the southern portions of central
Contra Costa County
Additionally, the AFFH Data viewer provides information on the proportion on non-white residents
at the block group level (Map 1) and further supports the trends highlighted in the 2020 Al.
a�scnvph..Lurn.
• :DM SW'
Wirr.nl IA MU! I NanaYh4p1:Ntign.
-Black Group.
011
s .1 US o.o.Nnm.ns
nig una 1.13ei CaPrcISl
Co"4'al'C 'i .*Ca 21221.
Map 1: Minority Concentrated Areas
Persons with Disabilities
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities
through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and
practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to
persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for
15
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair
housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible
and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition,
many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 -year estimates, 118,603
residents (10.9% of Contra Costa County's population) reported having one of six disability types
listed in the ACS (hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living). The
percentage of residents detailed by disability are listed in Table 8 below. Though Contra Costa
County has a higher percentage of population with disabilities, the county's overall disability
statistics are fairly consistent with the greater Bay Area, with ambulatory disabilities making up the
greatest percentage of disabilities, followed by independent living, cognitive, hearing, self-care, and
vision disabilities. Across the Bay Area and Contra Costa County, the percentage of individuals with
disabilities also increases with age, with the highest percentage of individuals being those 75 years
and older. Refer to Table 9 for the distribution of percentages by age.
Table 8: Percentage of Populations by Disability Types
Disability Type
Contra Costa County
Bay Area*
Hearing
2.9%
2.6%
Vision
1.8%
1.7%
Cognitive
4.4%
3.9%
Ambulatory
5.9%
5.4%
Self -Care Difficulty
2.4%
2.4%
Independent Living Difficulty
5.2%
5.1%
Percentage of Total Population with Disability
10.9%
9.8%
*Bay Area refers to San Francisco -Oakland -Berkeley, CA Metro Area
Source: 2019 ACS 5 -year Estimates
Table 9: Percentage of Population with Disabilities by Age
Age
Contra Costa County
Bay Area*
Under 5 years
0.8%
0.6%
5 - 17 years
4.9%
3.7%
18 - 34 years
6.2%
4.3%
35 - 64 years
9.7%
8.7%
65 - 74 years
21.5%
20.5%
75 years and over
51.2%
50.0%
*Bay Area refers to San Francisco -Oakland -Berkeley, CA Metro Area
Source: 2019 ACS 5 -year Estimates
16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
In terms of geographic dispersal, there is a relatively homogenous dispersal of persons with
disability, especially in Central Contra Costa County, where most census tracts have less than 1 O%
of individuals with disabilities. Towards Eastern Contra Costa County, the Western boundary, and
parts of Southern Contra Costa County, however, the percentage of population with disabilities
increases to 10-20%. Pockets where over 40% of the population has disabilities can be observed
around Martinez, Concord, and the outskirts of Lafayette. Comparing Map 2 and Map 6, note that
areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities correspond with areas with high
housing choice voucher concentration (24% of people who utilize HCVs in Contra Costa County
have a disability). Though use of HCVs do not represent a proxy for actual accessible units,
participating landlords remain subject to the FHA to provide reasonable accommodations and
allow tenants to make reasonable modifications at their own expense. Areas with a high
percentage of populations with disabilities also correspond to areas with high percentages of low -
moderate income communities. The above demographic information indicates socioeconomic
trends of populations of persons with disabilities.
Population with a Disability
LlM44mitp Ftpuluraa
1.1-16e Hawk"
Win Vat
riff 'ilkisitttkin
Rarrrnk n Qic .wih .1 ElLitLIEV
■� lift
—,
A irk
A
/04.1:415: CINTFTIFIlty 1.1.1111.
5-361.0. US, CiP16.1 e4n4n„ v,d
, mL
Cfmaair a4 ttswug.ipuek I.
Map 2 Distribution of Population with a Disability
Familial Status
Under the FHA, housing providers (e.g. landlords, property managers, real estate agents, or property
owners) may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status refers to the presence of
17
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
at least one child under 18 years old, pregnant persons, or any person in the process of securing
legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status
discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins
the family (through birth, adoption, or custody), enforcing overly restrictive rules regarding
children's use of common areas, requiring families with children to live on specific floors, buildings,
or areas, charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children,
advertising a preference for households without children, and lying about unit availability.
Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need
for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or
more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of particular
consideration are female -headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability
challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. Often,
sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.
111111P4 Percent cif Children ii Married -Couple liokisthalds
® Nem IpFtir i+
1U4. milli
kat A.rarmitoiri
t ncitiLagt caF ChIldiin hi
Mawr Cauprt,lr+z e Ivo kI -7.1141
®
ter. x,:.. -r $,.r..r.
2015-71:1 I. II:s. Daparimars cr Hfa,i:ngy
aid Liman f emi:R.1 'KM I- G:,rrf co
carts [wt. 2011.
Map 3 Distribution of Percentage of Children in Married -Couple Households
Map 3 indicates that most children living in Contra Costa County live in married -couple households,
especially in central parts of the county where the percentage of children in such households
exceed 80%. Census tracts adjacent to these areas also have relatively high percentages of children
18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
living in married -couple households (60 - 80%). Census tracts with the lowest percentage of
children in married -couple households (less than 20%) are located between Pittsburg and Antioch.
Map 4 depicts the concentration of households headed by single mothers in the County by Census
Tract. Areas of concentration include Richmond, San Pablo, Rodeo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch,
and to the west of Concord. Those communities are also areas of high minority populations. By
contrast, central County, in general, and the portions of central County to the south of the City of
Concord have relatively low concentrations of children living in female -headed households (less
than 20%). These tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian and Pacific Islander
communities.
Percent of Children in Pernale Headed Households
(fro Spouse/ Parkrl'r)
F
P14 6,1 HA
f
Pesionrigal i Ctille lrn & Riffled' He,rdrd Hoe,itlloldi
N 5p lPitnrit Hadaholdi Trac
.:mai,
i n. 4,
ai.
� E
Linrczrpmuti
w
OwicamoCioNYNea
fI553,' 1, vrh IJk}}!fl+r'.gsv qA a
i!4d 1kbl+i Drwilb(-vi-'i' 101:11. C&i*I ii
lrr+.adlx 2021
Map 4 Distribution of Percentage of Children in Female -Headed,
No -Spouse or No -Partner Households
Income Level
Each year, the HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from
the U.S. Census Bureau. Known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating
the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to
qualify for HUD's programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). HUD defines a
19
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the
population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).
Map 5 shows the LMI areas in Contra Costa County by block group. Most of central Contra Costa
County has less than 25% of LMI populations. Block groups with high concentrations of LMI
(between 75-100% of the population) can be found clustered around Antioch, Pittsburg, Richmond,
and San Pablo. There are also small pockets with high percentages of LMI population around
Concord. Other areas of the county have a moderate percentage of LMI population (25-75%).
Population with Li .w ti' Moderate Income Levels
,,. -.._
.11
•
Ba.r.. ap Fealvciii
r;,:`;;;; C maa s r iaxar.:ar
51.11-0
00711 NPR s
Lap limb V1'dwboar
Parcant of Low•Moduralc Income. I npulalaon
Nadu
c]Sk
1A^ far
CC&•Ji
1V%
3oucra: Aeransa. i Drr rcn#y Swag,
Z151140115: I lX lav -In nt e.1 Houitrg.
11141:un Clairrlais nwal {MIMI exustr 1'
Ca.ylrr Cuff" Z2I
Map 5 Distribution of Percentage of Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels
Table 10 lists Contra Costa County households by income category and tenure. Based on the above
definition, 38.71% of Contra Costa County households are considered LMI as they earn less than
80% of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). Almost 60% of all renters are considered
LMI compared to only 27.5% of owner households.
20
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 10: Households by Income Category and Tenure in Contra Costa County
Income Distribution Overview
Owner
Renter
Total
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI
7.53%
26.95%
14.40%
Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI
8.85%
17.09%
11.76%
Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI
11.12%
15.16%
12.55%
Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI
8.98%
9.92%
9.31 %
Household Income >100% HAMFI
63.52%
30.89%
51.98%
Total Population
248,670
135,980
384,645
Source: HUD Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) CHAS Data; 2011-2015 ACS
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) are a form of HUD rental subsidy issued to a low-income
household that promises to pay a certain amount of the household's rent. Prices, or payment
standards, are set based on the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay
any difference between the rent and the voucher amount. Participants of the HCV program are free
to choose any rental housing that meets program requirements
An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the
program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. One of the objectives of
the HCV program is to encourage participants to avoid high -poverty neighborhoods, and encourage
the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low -poverty neighborhoods. HCV programs
are managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure
(Section Eight Management Assessment Program) includes an "expanding housing opportunities"
indicator that shows whether the PHA has adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage
participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.
A study prepared by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive association
between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration, and a
negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty. This means that HCV use was
concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns
occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty.
In Contra Costa County, the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) administers
approximately 7,000 units of affordable housing under the HCV program (and Shelter Care Plus
program). Northwest Contra Costa County is served by the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) that
administers approximately 1,851 HCVs. North -central Contra Costa County is served by the
Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg (HACP), which manages 1,118 tenant -based HCVs.
The HCV program serves as a mechanism for bringing otherwise unaffordable housing within
reach of low-income populations. With reference to Map 6, the program appears to be most
prominent in western Contra Costa County, in heavily Black and Hispanic areas, and in the
21
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
northeast of the County, in predominantly Black, Hispanic, and Asian areas. Central Contra Costa
County largely has no data on the percentage of renter units with HCVs. The correlation between
low rents and a high concentration of HCV holders holds true for the areas around San Pablo,
Richmond, Martinez, Pittsburg, and Antioch.
Housin9 Choice Vouchers
ea m Firfrra l
wmrrry0041.cirp
V -t t ISmr#o
Sr f
INT Uars Wi rwb W
IMYyrvnt ofiliamirr llnlh.kb
111194 11. Oda. Youth Trot,
:.. bort - 10129
•r I fitit,. - yGh
s+ePy,- Icy
3 rrj v.
0
ast. I mar. au..icpt,rwa t
r.m•Jrcv mP CDMA Cia.Uh.21131.
Map 6 Distribution of Percentage of Renter Units with Housing Choice Vouchers
Map 7 shows the Location Affordability Index in Contra Costa County. The Index was developed by
HUD in collaboration with DOT under the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities. One
objective of the Partnership is to increase public access to data on housing, transportation, and
land use. Before this Index, there was no standardized national data source on household
transportation expenses, which limited the ability of homebuyers and renters to fully account for
the cost of living in a particular city or neighborhood.
The prevailing standard of affordability in the United States is paying 30 percent or less of your
family's income on housing, but this fails to account for transportation costs. One reason is that
transportation costs have grown significantly as a proportion of household income since this
standard was established. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 1930's American
households spent just 8 percent of their income on transportation. Since then, as a substantial
22
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
proportion of the U.S. population has migrated from center cities to surrounding suburbs and
exurbs and come to rely more heavily (or exclusively) on cars, that percentage has steadily
increased, peaking at 19.1 percent in 2003. As of 2013, households spent on average about 17
percent of their annual income on transportation, second only to housing costs in terms of budget
impact. And for many working-class and rural households, transportation costs actually exceed
housing costs.
In Contra Costa County, we see that the majority of the county has a median gross rent of $2,000—
$2,500. Central Contra County (areas between Danville and Walnut Creek) have the highest rents
around $3,000 or more. The most affordable tracts in the county are along the perimeter of the
County in cities like Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg and Martinez.
Location AFfordhb li ty Ind ic.
..n■p Per tmrh Medlend Wan Renk -Trici
ra..us•r
Mala 14cm+rE. - r9•1'AQG
• i},21:1
E Ay. A•«r rk t,"r:.r �. ..1.11400
Via.. Ih.n 11JC@4
ClPfn WWI
S{.1 S. 6.pa-01•47. 1
esrel} a1 to.irdraarls. 2[12 1.
Map 7 Location Affordability Index
23
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP)
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are geographic areas with
significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD developed a census -tract
based definition of R/ECAP that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty
test. The threshold states that an area with a non-White population of 50% or more would be
identified as a R/ECAP; the poverty test defines areas of extreme poverty as areas where 40% or
more of the population live below the federal poverty line or where the poverty rate is three times
the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (whichever is lower). Thus, an area that meets
either the racial or ethnic concentration, and the poverty test would be classified as a R/ECAP.
Identifying R/ECAPS facilitates an understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and
poverty due to the legacy effects of historically racist and discriminatory housing laws.
In Contra Costa County, the only area that meets the official definition of a R/ECAP is Monument
Corridor in Concord (highlighted with red stripes in Map 8 below).
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas Of POwarty ' R/ECAPs"
alk14114 F^ears'w i
e...24,111 icurgir-c
Il altlaeE.Ily toncrnirabsd
Aribilettfttitpr l [ ) -Trait
I3
—— tivas RIM I=
91.5 wranrba wt.
^J Ci.ta•shmthi
Fu.d.4,9 ra d Lidis a 6a.41.4.rs
71:1094.:11 C -...-:r ad Czervi C m, 2S21
24
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Map 8 R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
According to the 2020 Contra Costa County AI, however, the HUD definition that utilizes the federal
poverty rate is not suitable for analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area due to the high cost of living.
The HUD definition would severely underestimate whether an individual is living in poverty. The
Contra Costa County Al proposes an alternate definition of a R/ECAP that includes majority -
minority census tracts that have poverty rates of 25 percent or more. Under this definition, twelve
other census tracts would qualify as R/ECAPs in the areas of Antioch, Bay Point, Concord, Pittsburg,
North Richmond, Richmond and San Pablo (Refer to Map 9).
Map 9 Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
Source: Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-2025 (2020 Al).
Note: The 2020 Al does not provide a legend for the map shown above nor does it name the specific 12 additional
R/ECAPs identified. The map shows the general location of the expanded R/ECAPs identified in the County.
• Antioch: One R/ECAP located between Highway 4 (on the southern end) and railroad tracks
(on the northern end). Somerville Road and L Street form the eastern and western
boundaries.
• Bay Point: One R/ECAP located north of Willow Pass Road and goes all the way to the water.
It is roughly bounded to the east by Loftus Road and the west by Port Chicago Highway.
• Concord: Three R/ECAPS that share borders with each other. They are all located in the
Monument Corridor area of Concord and include the one official R/ECAP identified through
25
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
the HUD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool. The R/ECAPs are roughly bounded by Highway 242
to the west, and Monument Boulevard to the east.
• Pittsburg: Two R/ECAPS that border each other. The northern R/ECAP is bounded by E.
14th Street to the north and Highway 4 to the south. The other R/ECAP, immediately to the
south of the first, is similarly bounded by Highway 4 to the north and Buchanan Road to the
south. It is bounded by Railroad Avenue to the west.
• North Richmond: One R/ECAP with Giant Road as its eastern boundary. It lies between W.
Gertrude Avenue to the south and Parr Boulevard to the north. The census tract extends all
the way to the water on the west side.
• Richmond: Three R/ECAPs roughly located within the Iron Triangle area. Two of the
R/ECAPs are stacked on top of each other and form a triangle shape. The southern border
aligns with Ohio Avenue, and sides of the triangle area bounded by Richmond Parkway to
the west, and the railroad tracks along Carlson Boulevard to the east. The third R/ECAP is
directly to the east of the other two. It extends roughly to Highway 80 on its eastern side,
and the southern border is formed by Cutting Boulevard. The western boundary is shared
with the other two R/ECAPs, and is formed by the railroad tracks along Carlson Boulevard.
The northern boundary roughly aligns with Macdonald Avenue.
• San Pablo: One R/ECAP bounded by Highway 80 to the east, and El Portal Road to the north.
The western boundary is formed by San Pablo Avenue and 23rd Street. The southern
boundary roughly traces the San Pablo city boundary
According to the 2012-2016 American Community Survey, 69,326 people lived in these expanded
R/ECAPs, representing 6.3 percent of the County's population. Hispanic and Black populations
make up a disproportionately large percentage of residents who reside in R/ECAPs compared to
the population of the County or Region as a whole. In Contra Costa County, approximately 53% of
individuals living in R/ECAPs are Hispanic, nearly 18% are Black, 19.57% are Mexican American,
4.65% are Salvadoran American, and 1.49% are Guatemalan Americans. Families with children
under 18 still in the household comprise almost 60% of the population in Contra Costa County's
R/ECAPs, significantly higher than neighboring metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Oakland, and
Hayward. To those already living in poverty, the higher rate of dependent children in their
households would translate to a greater strain on their resources.
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined by the HUD as communities with a
large proportion of affluent and non -Hispanic White residents. According to a policy paper
published by the HUD, non -Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United
States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and
high concentrations of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in
affluent, White communities. RCAAs are currently not available for mapping on the AFFH Data
Viewer. As such, an alternate definition of RCAA from the University of Minnesota Humphrey
School of Public Affairs is used in this analysis. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where (1) 80
26
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
percent or more of the population is white, and (2) the median household income is $125,000 or
greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
By cross-referencing Map 1 and Map 10, we can see a string of RCAAs running from Danville to
Lafayette and that tapers off towards Walnut Creek. This aligns with the cities' racial demographic
and median income (summarized in Table 11 below). Although not all census tracts/block groups
meet the criteria to qualify as RCAAs, there is a tendency for census block groups with higher white
populations to have higher median incomes throughout the county.
Table 11: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Contra Costa County
City
White Population
Median Household Income (2019)
Danville
80.53%
$160,808
Lafayette
81.23%
$178,889
Walnut Creek
74.05%
$105,948
Source: DataUSA.io (2019)
Median I ntom
Machin Iietvi,,old Ince n.
- 11.1(1. rr•omp
Er—
Sout:os: Qrn(,rican Cownonity 5urvoy,
2015.2014; U.S. Departure' of Housing
an f Urban Derotopmem;HUD): County of
Conga Costa, 2021.
Map 10 Median Household Income in Contra Costa County
27
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Access to Opportunity
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate the link between place -based characteristics
(e.g. education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g. health,
wealth, and life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of
life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents' mobility and access
to 'high resource' neighborhoods.
TCAC Maps
TCAC Maps are opportunity maps created by the California Fair Housing Task Force (a convening
of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (TCAC)) to provide research and evidence -based policy recommendations
to further HCD's fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty
and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing,
program design, and implementation. These opportunity maps identify census tracts with highest
to lowest resources, segregation, and poverty, which in turn inform the TCAC to more equitably
distribute funding for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity through the Low -
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.
TCAC Opportunity Maps display areas by highest to lowest resources by assigning scores between
0-1 for each domain by census tracts where higher scores indicate higher "access" to the domain
or higher "outcomes." Refer to Table 12 for a list of domains and indicators for opportunity maps.
Composite scores are a combination score of the three domains that do not have a numerical value
but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high
poverty and segregation). The opportunity maps also include a measure or "filter" to identify areas
with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under the federal poverty line;
• Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics,
Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
28
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 12: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps
Domain
Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median Home Value
Environmental
CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values
Education
Math Proficiency
Reading Proficiency
High School Graduation Rates
Student Poverty Rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December
2020
High resource areas have high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators such as high
employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited
exposure to environmental health hazards. High resource tracts are areas that offer low-income
residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high
educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Moderate resource areas have access to
many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities,
lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes
across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators. Low resource areas are
characterized as having fewer opportunities for employment and education, or a lower index for
other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life
needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and
future residents.
Information from opportunity mapping can help highlight the need for housing element policies
and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas or areas of high
segregation and poverty, and to encourage better access for low and moderate income and black,
indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas.
Map 11 provides a visual representation of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County based
on a composite score, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of the level of
resources within the region. The only census tract in Contra Costa County considered an area of
high segregation & poverty is located in Martinez. Concentrations of low resource areas are located
in the northwestern and eastern parts of the county (Richmond to Hercules and Concord to Oakley);
census tracts with the highest resources are located in central and southern parts of the county
29
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
(San
Ramon,
Danville,
Moraga, and Lafayette).
TCAC Opp€ rt kality Areas - Composite Score
ARmtPr d:imp"
(NAM p Lea01 Wei
S Sall Y3}_AIL
(Nwe+Fef
OpporiwiRyAnlRFI 11 -C9rrEp9Obildxkkr. 'ME/
MEI:• -
® 44a7tit9t llata.me ilLgwrIte ¢Ywq*
Law 1p;s
Ww.w).1.sai'4. ra. pyl a
rr4� "{dds.isDirirt..ra
C. vweil.tiC rit. d04 ,
Map 11 Composite Score of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County
Opportunity Indices
This section presents the HUD -developed index scores based on nationally available data sources
to assess residents' access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table 13
provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity
indicator indices:
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school -level data on the
performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have
high -performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing
elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a
neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a
summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human
capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force
participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the
higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
30
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that
meets the following description: a 3 -person single -parent family with income at 50 percent
of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core -Based Statistical Area (CBSA).
The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize
public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs
for a family that meets the following description: a 3 -person single -parent family with
income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the
index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given
residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a
region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index
value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential
exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less
exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better
the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block -group.
31
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 13 Opportunity Indices in Contra Costa County
Index
School
Proficiency
Transit
Trip
Low
Transportation Cost
Labor
Market
Jobs
Proximity
Environmental
Health
Contra Costa County
Total Population
White, Non -Hispanic
69.32
79.83
71.72
68.76
49.30
54.75
Black, Non -Hispanic
34.34
81.81
75.62
42.52
48.12
43.68
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non
Hispanic
59.43
80.81
72.22
66.87
45.27
52.22
Native American, Non -Hispanic
49.99
80.47
73.09
51.19
49.04
47.92
Hispanic
39.38
82.31
75.57
42.30
45.11
43.85
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non -Hispanic
55.60
81.05
74.17
55.46
50.67
49.39
Black, Non -Hispanic
25.84
84.03
78.23
32.63
48.69
39.84
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non
Hispanic
46.48
84.04
77.75
52.15
50.02
41.52
Native American, Non -Hispanic
19.92
82.61
75.06
34.52
48.41
46.48
Hispanic
30.50
84.69
78.06
32.01
44.57
38.66
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability.
Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS LAI; LEHD; NATA
32
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Education
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze access
to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level, school districts
with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of LMI families
(largely composed of minorities). As test scores are a reflection of student demographics, where
Black/Hispanic/Latino students routinely score lower than their White peers, less diverse schools
with higher test scores tend to attract higher income families to the school district. This is a fair
housing issue because as higher income families move to the area, the overall cost of housing
rises and an exclusionary feedback loop is created, leading to increased racial and economic
segregation across districts as well as decreased access to high -performing schools for non-White
students.
According to the Contra Costa County Al, academic outcomes for low-income students are
depressed by the presence of high proportions of low-income classmates; similarly situated low-
income students perform at higher levels in schools with lower proportions of low income students.
The research on racial segregation is consistent with the research on poverty concentration—
positive levels of school integration led to improved educational outcomes for all students. Thus, it
is important wherever possible to reduce school-based poverty concentration and to give low-
income families access to schools with lower levels of poverty and greater racial diversity.
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Composite Score for a census tract is based on math
and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty rate indicators. The score
is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive education outcomes
and the lowest quartile signifying fewer positive outcomes.
There are 19 public school districts in Contra Costa County, in addition to 124 private schools and
19 charter schools. Map 12 shows that the northwestern and eastern parts of the county have the
lowest education domain scores (less than 0.25) per census tracts, especially around Richmond
and San Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, east of Clayton, and Concord and its northern unincorporated
areas. Census tracts with the highest education domain scores (greater than 0.75) are located in
central and southern parts of the county (bounded by San Ramon on the south; Orinda and Moraga
on the west; Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Clayton, and Brentwood on the north). Overlaying Map 10 and
Map 12 reveals that areas with lower education scores correspond with areas with lower income
households (largely composed of minorities) and vice versa. With reference to Table 13, we also
see that index values for school proficiency are higher for White residents, indicating a greater
access to high quality schools regardless of poverty status.
33
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TCAC Opportunity fleas 4 Education 5c a re
I
r
F
ada Map iFiMur i
r..::..:tigtt etWITIMy S Mae m kd ue,Rssr• OUT Y41
#w, ss ss
6s u f i1A.rsm 25 14
%tc*•`•prr pin'miter LcI.K.um 341 corm,:
ha( Al Pr W.Hr17= Ski r6a
Taw ofJpin 'maw M1irbsI]011I,6ddta7idn5{dFr Ti.CE
Scosaa. US, U,parlri
lickama grid CINvoirwmat Pill DE
eatiaiyts$Cama einka, 2112-i.
Map 12 TCAC Opportunity Areas' Education Score in Contra Costa County
Transportation
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and
rising housing prices, especially because lower income households are often transit dependent.
Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major
employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can
reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing
outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.
Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the transit trips index and (2) the low
transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a
neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values
indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low
transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation
by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs
in that neighborhood.
Neither indices, regardless of poverty level, varies noticeably across racial/ethnic categories. All
races and ethnicities score highly on both indices with values close in magnitude. If these indices
34
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
are accurate depictions of transportation accessibility, it is possible to conclude that all racial and
ethnic classes have high and relatively equal access to transportation at both the jurisdiction and
regional levels. If anything, both indices appear to take slightly higher values for non -Hispanic
Blacks and Hispanics, suggesting better access to transit and lower costs for these protected
groups.
Contra Costa County is served by rail, bus, and ferry transit but the quality of service varies across
the county. Much of Contra Costa County is connected to other parts of the East Bay as well as to
San Francisco and San Mateo County by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail service. The Richmond -
Warm Springs/South Fremont and Richmond -Daly City/Millbrae Lines serve El Cerrito and
Richmond during peak hours while the Antioch -SFO Line extends east from Oakland to serve
Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Center/Pleasant Hill, Concord, and the Pittsburg/Bay
Point station. An eastward extension, commonly known as eBART, began service on May 26, 2018.
The extension provides service beyond the Pittsburg/Bay Point station to the new Pittsburg Center
and Antioch stations. BART is an important form of transportation that helps provide Contra Costa
County residents access to jobs and services in other parts of the Bay Area. The Capitol Corridor
route provides rail service between San Jose and Sacramento and serves commuters in Martinez
and Richmond.
In contrast to rail transportation, bus service is much more fragmented in the County and regionally.
Several different bus systems including Tri -Delta Transit, AC Transit, County Connection, and
WestCat provide local service in different sections of the County. In the Bay Area, there are 18
different agencies that provide bus service. The lack of an integrated network can make it harder
for transit riders to understand how to make a trip that spans multiple operators and add costs
during a daily commute. For example, an East Bay Regional Local 31 -Day bus pass is valid on
County Connection, Tri -Delta Transit, and WestCAT, but cannot be used on AC Transit. Additionally,
these bus systems often do not have frequent service. In central Contra Costa, County Connection
buses may run as infrequently as every 45 to 60 minutes on some routes.
Within Contra Costa, transit is generally not as robust in east County despite growing demand for
public transportation among residents. The lack of adequate public transportation makes it more
difficult for lower-income people in particular to access jobs. Average transit commutes in
Pittsburg and Antioch exceed 70 minutes. In Brentwood, average transit commute times exceed
100 minutes.
Transit agencies that service Contra Costa County include County Connection, Tri Delta Transit,
WestCAT, AC Transit, and BART. The County Connection Bus (CCCTA) is the largest bus transit
system in the county that provides fixed -route and paratransit bus service for communities in
Central Contra Costa. Other non -Contra Costa agencies that provide express service to the county
include:
- San Francisco Bay Ferry (Richmond to SF Ferry Building);
- Golden Gate Transit (Line 40);
35
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
- WHEELS Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Route 70x);
- SolTrans (Route 80/82 and the Yellow Line);
- Capitol Corridor (Richmond/Martinez to cities between Auburn and San Jose);
- Fairfield & Suisun Transit (Intercity express routes);
Altamont Corridor Express (commute -hour trains from Pleasanton);
- Napa Vine Transit (Route 29)
Public Transit Access
Pvbllcmrinsa Rorlis
&,p rwert
Nal Lues
ig r iic Ilielypurtaggrri gri
honing End Ir aitran eiroulaprronl.
71:49-2V11 MUM L4bEn P :KIr7:
egarylp•d tarda toga I
Map 13 Public Transit Routes in Contra Costa County
Economic Development
Employment opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the labor market engagement index and
(2) the jobs proximity index. The labor market engagement index provides a summary description
of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood, taking
into account the unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent with a bachelor's
degree or higher. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating higher labor force
participation and human capital. The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a
neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances between jobs and places
of residence. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to better accessibility to
employment opportunities.
36
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
In Contra Costa County, non -Hispanic Whites and non -Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders are at the
top of the labor market engagement index with scores of 66.76 and 66.87 respectively. Non -
Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics score the lowest in the county with scores around 32. (Refer to
Table 13 for a full list of indices). Map 14 shows the spatial variability of jobs proximity in Contra
Costa County. Tracts extending north from Lafayette to Martinez and its surrounding
unincorporated areas have the highest index values followed by its directly adjacent areas. Cities
like Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Hercules have the lowest index scores (less than
20). Hispanic residents have the least access to employment opportunities with an index score of
45.11 whereas White residents have the highest index score of 49.30.
Jobs Proximity Index
Ela rrnrpNrw**
miming
Sr�oNltrar#c
lipdcr
4r .w+4
ndfnki.YPm imit"1¢
lab 1 a-eulinnm wllhrs,r Ile4inn - Nck „irgaip
ido Fi
20 -4a
'.3arrdic U S Grpe'9 ryrn
al kke,rwyoral U•atn Dprnnr iuc:
7A7i'7017 51camp Ch X67'
Map 14 Residential Proximity to Job Locations in Contra Costa County
37
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TCAC Opportunity Areas — Ecarxornic Sem*
$ladJn'hiip Fi�luliit
Scaamiivaaies
L.S.Plipbspor
,..,, sor,e,.iMd•,
TLl1t eipppoi!unit.Oaru ;310211 Etor.onrac 3 cnr! • Ticu
11-4:1 • PS
�as•sa
a.lb.a++a-v�ryti Er.r.r+r
1=1wa Biu,
0
'ri_L gJrA LIGi.idb-•alrr '1IJ�C
•:...-., -:1 L9rl'1 JCL:&
Map 15 TCAC Opportunity Areas' Economic Score in Contra Costa County
Environment
The Environmental Health Index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a
neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less
exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the
environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block -group. There are
modest differences across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to environmental
quality. All racial/ethnic groups in the Consortium obtained moderate scores ranging from low 40s
to mid -50s. Non -Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores amongst all residents in
Contra Costa County with scores of 43; whereas non -Hispanic Whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders
have the highest scores (over 50) amongst all residents in Contra Costa County (Refer to Table 13).
CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) to
evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community's vulnerability to the
adverse effects of pollution. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics are
combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Higher values on the index
indicate higher cumulative environmental impacts on individuals arising from these burdens and
population factors.
38
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores
to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of
pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites,
and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with
asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic factors such
as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.
Map 16 below displays the Environmental Score for Contra Costa County based on
CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values that identifies communities in California
disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and face vulnerability due to
socioeconomic factors. The highest scoring 25 percent of census tracts were designated as
disadvantaged communities. In Contra Costa County, disadvantaged communities include census
tracts in North Richmond, Richmond, Pittsburg, San Pablo, Antioch, Rodeo, and Oakley.
H CAC Oppor°Wriity d reaS - Envirurrrrlenlal Store
®a5crn.p rca-.r:c
Tr €a QiVarimlte .156an F-[rvr.rannwnral S oorap• Tran
t.. - .. � '.':.� `:l t-. •J:7aM1' ill Wimp 156S#? Grwagn W e ui
ixgip.ur. I' 18 7i
law rMuir. _ IS 39
+5e�r,'Scr. t
3:16frtalemmva•Dwinneauil0Lawral
rspaurWILY
0
S• n' u -. 4.674.1.•••••/ d
Flom.* 4.46•ar Grvrta mut
Ce4ruCan& n99.
Map 16 TCAC Opportunity Areas' Economic Score in Contra Costa County
39
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Map 17 shows updated scores for CalEnviroscreen 4.0 released by the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Generally speaking, adverse environmental impacts are
concentrated around the northern border of the county (Bay Point to Pittsburg) and the western
border of the county (Richmond to Pinole). Areas around Concord to Antioch have moderate scores
and the rest of the county have relatively low scores. From central Contra Costa County, we see an
almost radial gradient effect of green to red (least to most pollution).
Diumcp Iwo
rt��w I1Fb
}JiR lti a9Pf
{WEivp I megmath #A Rastas
- TalcI
k i.w ws eiivmpa a44, lmtYoePis'
2021.
11 S.�.r.I --i r1.tir ,witl.nr.s
wrtv,i r.FILG;. GlArra, n. Cant 7041
Map 17 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in Contra Costa County
40
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Health and Recreation
Residents should have the opportunity to live a healthy life and live in healthy communities. The
Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change
community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool
was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing
community conditions across the state and combined 25 community characteristics such as
housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where
lower percentiles indicate lower conditions.
Map 18 shows the HPI percentile score distributions for Contra Costa County. The majority of the
County falls in the highest quarter, indicating healthier conditions. These areas have a lower
percentage of minority populations and higher median incomes. Cities with the lowest percentile
ranking, which indicates less healthy conditions, are Pittsburg, San Pablo, and Richmond. These
areas have higher percentages of minority populations and lower median incomes.
Ioar4rr++p puewo
iuot Roam
'T T Nam.
ui,. Ma ed.Ns
Mt1IiiIr plagtiIitltx
;notal Pitman Ilankingl
u 1. ,uae l Itaa ar Coruna,'e
-Yr D
-i r%
71 . "I, 1.414.61,1 R s qty
0
Mauim mad Jain ria.*apararI.
.7t�v 26IR{M It
Comm.vl iCmum Cama..2021.
Map 18 Healthy Places Index in Contra Costa County
Home Loans
41
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a
home, particularly considering the continued impacts of the lending/credit crisis. In the past, credit
market distortions and other activities such as "redlining" were prevalent and prevented some
groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and
the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) were designed to improve access to credit
for all members of the community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending.
Under HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan
applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants.
However, lending discrimination continues to be a contributing factor to disproportionate housing
needs, as class groups who struggle to obtain access to loans are more likely to experience housing
problems such as cost burdens, overcrowding, and substandard housing, and to be renters rather
than homeowners. When banks and other financial institutions deny loan applications from people
of color, they are less likely to achieve home ownership and instead must turn to the rental market.
As Contra Costa's rental housing market grows increasingly unaffordable, Blacks and Hispanics
are disproportionately impacted. Table 14 below shows that home loan applications by
Black/Hispanic/Latino individuals are uniformly denied at higher rates than those of Whites or
Asians. Because blacks and Hispanics in the region are denied loans at far higher rights than white
and Asians, their families are far more likely to have less access to quality education, healthcare,
and employment.
When minorities are unable to obtain loans, they are far more likely to be relegated to certain areas
of the community. While de jure segregation (segregation that is created and enforced by the law)
is currently illegal, the drastic difference in loans denied between whites and minorities perpetuates
de facto segregation, which is segregation that is not created by the law, but which forms a pattern
as a result of various outside factors, including former laws.
Table 14: Home Loan Application Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity in Contra Costa County
Race/
Ethnicity
FHA, FSA/RHA,
and VA Home—
Purchase Loans
Conventional
Home -Purchase
Loans
Refinance
Loans
Home
Improvement
Loans
Multi Family
Homes
White, non -
Hispanic
9.2%
8.0%
16.6%
19.5%
9.5%
Black, non -
Hispanic
14.8%
13.5%27.1%°
34.6 /0
°
29.4 /o
Asian, non
Hispanic
1
13. °i°12.3%
9.8%
15.2i°
19.3i°
Hispanic
11.3%
12.0%
22.3%
31.0%
28.6%
Source: Contra Costa County Al (2020)
42
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant
disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing
need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total
population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. The
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides
detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Contra
Costa County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income;
• Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income;
• Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom)
According to the Contra Costa County Al, a total of 164,994 households (43.90%) in the county
experience any one of the above housing problems; 85,009 households (22.62%) experience severe
housing problems. Based on relative percentage, Hispanic households experience the highest rate
of housing problems regardless of severity, followed by Black households and `Other' races. Table
15 lists the demographics of households with housing problems in the County.
Table 15: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Contra Costa County
Source: Contra Costa County Al (2020)
There are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families
(households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that families of
five or fewer people experience. Larger families tend to experience housing problems more than
smaller families. Non -family households in Contra Costa experience housing problems at a higher
rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family households. Table 16
lists the number of households with housing problems according to household type.
43
Total Number of
Households
Households with
Housing Problems
Households with Severe
Housing Problems
White
213,302
80,864
37.91%
38,039
17.83%
Black
34,275
19,316
56.36%
10,465
30.53%
Asian/Pacific Islander
51,353
21,640
42.14%
10,447
20.34%
Native American
1,211
482
39.80%
203
16.76%
Other
10,355
5,090
49.15%
2,782
26.87%
Hispanic
65,201
37,541
57.58%
23,002
35.28%
Total
375,853
164,994
43.90%
85,009
22.62%
Source: Contra Costa County Al (2020)
There are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families
(households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that families of
five or fewer people experience. Larger families tend to experience housing problems more than
smaller families. Non -family households in Contra Costa experience housing problems at a higher
rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family households. Table 16
lists the number of households with housing problems according to household type.
43
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Table 16: Household Type & Size
Household Type
No. of Households with Housing Problems
Family Households (< 5 people)
85,176
Family Households (> 5 people)
26,035
Non -family Households
53,733
Source: Contra Costa County Al (2020)
Cost Burden (Overpayment)
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30 percent or more of their
gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Renters are
more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Housing cost burden is considered a
housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording
other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.
As presented in Table 17, almost 52% of all household's experience cost burdens. Renters
experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (72.80% compared to 40.60%).
Table 17: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Contra Costa County
Total Number of Households
Cost burden >
30%
Cost burden >
50%
Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only
257,530
74,545
30,010
40.60%
Renters Only
134,750
65,055
33,040
72.80%
All Households
392,275
139,595
63,050
51.66%
Source: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html
Referring to Map 19, we see concentrations of cost burdened renter households in and around San
Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, west Brentwood and Oakley, East San Ramon, and northern parts of
Concord towards unincorporated areas. In these tracts, over 80% of renters experience cost
burdens. Majority of east Contra Costa has 60 - 80% of renter households that experience cost
burdens; west Contra Costa has 20 - 40% of renter households that experience cost burdens.
Census tracts with a low percentage of cost -burdened households are located between San Ramon
and Martinez on a north -south axis. In these tracts, less than 20 percent of renter households
experience cost burdens.
44
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Overpayment by Renters
eximm tp •eulume
kn id
Valli Ilnuwa
SPWP
SWAMA red derLoan
FINIKINyrrillwrl Rimy!,
— %Kt
0
3a..v.._ Ar,wlcr, Co., rowel! S+w+F
£+OhS.X11 . LES. Deparlimm.4i
i -I u, d4 T 4=#tUDt
C:anwl.g ilf Ccr* a Cam.. 9!041.
Map 19 Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Contra Costa County
Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining
and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Map 20 indicates that Contra Costa County
in general has low levels of overcrowded households. Tracts in San Pablo, Richmond, and Pittsburg
with higher percentages of non-White population show higher concentrations of overcrowded
households compared to the rest of the county. Monument Corridor, the only official R/ECAP in
Contra Costa County, a predominantly Hispanic community in Concord, also exhibits more
overcrowding than other parts of the County.
45
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
l
a
-ii *.
Pfibl.+rap. Fi814+4-'
€ wilut.wdid Heuithbldi
ail -Trim
Concentration of Overcrowded Households
PSra•.. nl R.
-. . `
ud.€oFt —`
\ 4 _ �•
r
11.
0
Sass+:uS Osprotori+rT
PLeui.ni .+a 1.6bin Cirwittg.704 NUM.
Cc, -,+,.MA nc,.v.i ag,uix3I, HAS:
a. V S, X4.414. ;Srn..i, Cowv,vm ey rr.r,yCIC
2541-21115; C•oi rtp . { Ce nd. Coils. 21131.
Map 20 Distribution of Percentage of Overcrowded Households in Contra Costa County
Substandard Conditions
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, shown in Table 18, 0.86% of households in Contra Costa
County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.39% of households lack complete plumbing facilities.
Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households.
Table 18: Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure in Contra Costa County
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2079 (5 -Year Estimates)
46
Owner
Renter
All HHs
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
0.19%
0.67%
0.86%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
0.19%
0.20%
0.39%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2079 (5 -Year Estimates)
46
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out
and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley's
Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion
of very low income residents was above 20% in 2017 and the census tracts meets two of the
following criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40 percent in 2017; (2) Share of Non -White population
above 50 percent in 2017; (3) Share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that
are also severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or (4) Nearby areas
have been experiencing displacement pressures. Using this methodology, sensitive communities
were identified in areas between El Cerrito and Pinole; Pittsburg, Antioch and Clayton; East
Brentwood; and unincorporated land in Bay Point. Small pockets of Sensitive Communities are also
found in central Contra Costa County from Lafayette towards Concord (Refer to Map 21).
Sensitive Communities WCB, Urban Displacement Project)
j• 4
L
•
••` ••� ' 1 !
Yvlrwl hrli�� dl[76.lr[.irtrritli
■io !Wimp hrosp tty YaIwe
I 6¢F. -1p1
rrM�n
.. _ iaprr5tu'•
Ys &makw rtaon
—
�mOsv ta, l *3.0
r
!gamic UC - nievrn
QG4#Ll m 01 MI , 04 C .. ! r.+
1-k59rsp .11 Pistil.. CFi-Fb p...Fa 1 MUD..
Co rya aulCurnr.hCaaha 232'
Map 21 Sensitive Communities as Defined by the Urban Displacement Project
47
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E
REVIEW OF PRIOR
HOUSING ELEMENT
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-E-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
T
GOAL 1.0
Review of the Prior Housing Element1
INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING WITH A PRIORITY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
INCLUDING HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
nd/or h�
Notes:
As Danville approaches a built out condition, infill development becomes a more important component for meeting future housing
needs. Implementation of an effective infill development strategy will require the use of a variety of related strategies, including: (i)
mixed use development; (ii) density bonuses; (iii) intensification of underdeveloped lots; (iv) development of second units; and (v)
rezoning non-residential land for residential use. The objective of this policy is to facilitate the development of small infill single
family and multifamily residential projects that might otherwise not occur, with assistance coming in the form of authorizing project
densities to exceed those otherwise allowed by right under current zoning. Authorization of development should be linked to the
inclusion of an affordable component and/or the accommodation of the needs of special housing populations.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
1.1.1. By the end of 2016, review the merits of establishing, and approve where deemed appropriate, alternatives to density standards
(e.g., floor area ratio standards, lot coverage standards and/or other design standards) that would serve as a catalyst for the
development of small infill projects.
Actions Taken:
(1) Adopted TC Resolution No. 21-2018 approving General Plan Amendment request LEG17-01 (GPA) changing the General
Plan land use designation for the east side of El Dorado Avenue from Residential - Single Family - Low Density (1 to 3
units per acre) to Residential - Multifamily - Low/Medium Density (13 to 20 units per acre). Concurrently approved
Ordinance No. 2018-03 approving P-1; Preliminary Development Plan - Rezoning request (LEG17-02 PUD) as a Town -
initiated rezoning of a 3.24 -acre subarea on the east side of El Dorado Avenue from M-30; Multiple Family Residential
District to a P4; Planned Unit Development District and creating area -specific zoning standards to facilitate small lot
multifamily development. The P4 action served to eliminate the need for future development projects proposed in the area
to need to secure a legislative action (i.e., a zoning approval) while also implementing design standards that would provide
future projects with flexibility in building setback standards as compared with the standards set forth by previously
applicable M-30; Multiple Family Residential District standards.
(2) Adopted TC Resolution No. 22-2018 approving General Plan Amendment request LEG17-03 amending the definition of net
density for the small number of remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped properties designated as Residential - Single
Family - Low Density (1 to 3 units per acre) and Residential - Single Family - Medium Density (3 to 5 units per acre) under
the 2030 General Plan. The GPA change was made to accommodate development at historic, pre -2030 General Plan
residential densities - which based density on gross rather than net acreages. With this change, a projected 15%-25% more
1In addition to this status report, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has provided guidance on reporting about the impact of actions of special needs groups,
specifically: "Provide a description of how past programs were effective in addressing the housing needs of the special populations. This analysis can be done as part of describing the
effectiveness of the program if the jurisdiction has multiple programs to specifically address housing needs of special needs populations or if specific programs were not included, provide a
summary of the cumulative results of the programs in addressing the housing need terms of units or services by special need group."
Because of its small size and the fact that it is not an entitlement jurisdiction with federal funds, the Town does not provide direct services to individuals or households and as such does not
have a mechanism for tracking services to special needs groups. In addition, with the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies in 2012, the Town lost its primary source of funding to assist
in the development of affordable housing, including housing that would serve special needs groups. The following status update includes information on special needs groups only to the
extent that information was made available to the Town.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
individual lots are anticipated to than could have been requested on the affected properties. The potential additional
development was an estimated 20-40 additional single family residences between 2017 and 2030 - the horizon year
established in the Danville 2030 General Plan.
(3) As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "In recognition of the staff effort committed from
Fall 2019 through to June 2020 to roll out three "permit -ready" ADU options, as well recognition of anticipated enhanced
staff effort to process ADUs once the program is operational (an annual tripling of ADUs is anticipated), no additional
work on Housing Implementation Measure 1.1.1. is anticipated to occur through the end of the current Housing Element
Planning Period. With options for permit ready ADUs of 600 square foot, 850 square foot and 1,000 square foot, the permit
ready ADU program will result in a measurable increase in the production of housing units in Danville appropriate for
low- and moderate -income households by simplifying the design, permitting and construction need for ADUs and by
reducing the costs associated with ADUs."
(4) (As a follow up to approval of LEG17-01 GPA discussed in Entry #1 above) Adopted PC Resolution No. 2020-12 approving
Major Subdivision - Tentative Map and Final Development Plan request DEV20-0011 to create a five -unit "motor court"
project on the east side of El Dorado Avenue consistent with prior "motor court" projects developed in the area.
(5) In 2021, formalized Residential Development Standards consistent with Senate Bill SB 330 ("The Housing Crisis Act (HCA)
of 2019") to reduce the time it takes to process development applications for new housing and creating a "preliminary
application" process that serves to provide developer -certainty on development standards, design guidelines, policies, and
fees - with these aspects of the development review process locked in upon the submittal of a preliminary application
deemed complete for processing.
(6) Adopted TC Resolution No. 85-2021 identifying applicable objective development standards, subdivision standards, design
standards, and minimum submittal requirements related to the implementation of the mandated requirements of State
Senate Bill 9 whose passage was intended to "facilitate the process for homeowners to build a duplex or split their current
residential lot, expanding housing options for people of all incomes that will create more opportunities for homeowners to
add units on their existing properties." Any application submitted under SB 9 is subject to a ministerial review process,
requiring action to be taken based on nondiscretionary, objective development standards, with no public notification nor
public hearings. Furthermore, applications submitted under SB 9 are exempt from all otherwise applicable requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While the State law limits the Town's discretionary review process for
both two -unit housing developments and urban lot splits, the Town may apply objective development standards, objective
subdivision standards, and objective design standards contained within various sections of the Town's Municipal Code.
In addition, the Town may establish minimum application submittal requirements which will allow for a thorough and
timely review of these applications.
1.1.2. By the end of 2016, review, and approve where deemed appropriate, a tiered density bonus program based on lot size to
encourage consolidation of small lots for multifamily residential projects.
Actions Taken: No action taken during the 2015-2022 Planning Period to consider change to a tiered density bonus program.
1.1.3. By the end of 2016, review the merits, and approve where deemed appropriate, reduced side and rear yard minimum setbacks
for smaller multifamily properties to facilitate their development.
Actions Taken: As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "No additional work on Housing
Implementation Measure 1.1.3. is anticipated to occur through the end of the current Housing Element Planning Period. The
impending delivery by Danville of three options for permit ready ADUs. when coupled with the anticipated effects of statewide
changes dealing with ADUs going into effect in early 2020, will reasonably result to production of an additional 25 to 50 ADUs
each year over historic production rates. This enhanced yield of ADUs will result in the equivalent of adding one to two acres of
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-3
multifamily residential in Danville annually - and will result in development of units that are more appropriate for low- and
moderate -income households than could be anticipated to be delivered by market rate housing projects on multifamily designated
property without significant financial subsidy."
1.1.4. On an ongoing basis, continue to encourage and facilitate the consolidation of smaller multifamily development sites through
a variety of incentives including, but not limited to, financial incentives; land write-downs; assistance with on- or off-site
infrastructure costs; and other pre -development costs associated with the assemblage of multiple parcels.
Actions Taken: No actions were taken specifically addressing this implementation measure during the 2015-2022 Planning
Period.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified at the time of adoption of the 2015-2022 Housing Element.
Actual Unit Production: For other than Entry #6 for Policy 1.1.1., the potential additional development with these actions is
estimated to be in the range of 40-80 units (30-65 units net - after accounting for related demolitions of existing units) that would not
otherwise have occurred between 2015 and 2030 - the horizon year established in the Danville 2030 General Plan. The net added
units resulting from SB 9 (Entry #6 for Policy 1.1.1.) could be relatively extensive by 2030, with initial yield pointing a likelihood of
6-12 net additional units per year.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 1.1. but should be modified to tie into the development yield tied to implementation of SB 9. In the
current draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive for Policy 1.1. appears as Policy 8.1. and the intent of Programs
1.1.1. is covered in Program 8.1.b. The policy directive for existing Program 1.1.4. is covered by draft Policy 10.2 and draft Program
10.2.a.
Notes:
Mixed use development combines residential uses with one or more other uses, typically office use and/or retail use. Mixed use
development can be either "vertical" integration (i.e., mixing uses within a single structure) or "horizontal" (i.e., mixing uses on a
large site, with each use confined to a separate building or portion of the site). The intent of this policy would be to facilitate the
development of mixed use projects containing housing that might otherwise not occur, with assistance coming in the form of
authorizing underutilized parcels to redevelop at higher densities than would be allowed by right under current zoning. Qualifying
projects would be eligible for relaxed development criteria (e.g., would be allowed to provide less parking in recognition that
residential uses have a parking demand that is off-peak from the parking demand of most commercial uses).
Programs and
Actions Taken:
1.2.1. On an ongoing basis, refer commercial project developers to successful housing developers when commercial sites are in the
early stages of review so as to encourage developers to consider a mixed use approach inclusive of a residential component.
Actions Taken: Discussions and referrals occurred over the course of the 2015-2022 Planning Period as called for by this policy.
1.2.2. On an ongoing basis, provide incentives, such as density bonuses and increases in floor area ratios, when proposed mixed use
development projects include a housing component.
Actions Taken:
(1) Adopted TC Resolution No. 56-2016, vacating excess street right-of-way for a mixed use project at 501 Hartz Avenue to
facilitate creation of ground floor commercial and three second story residential rental units - in conjunction with a
Historic Resource designation for an existing structure on the property and the waiver of a majority of associated
development fees and waiver or relaxation of several development standards, including a numerical parking reduction.
(2) Adopted PC Resolution No. 2019-07 approving Development Plan (DEV18-20) to allow the construction of a 10,600 square
foot two-story mixed-use building on a 0.38 site located at 198 Diablo Road with a concurrent Land Use Permit request
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-4
(LUP18-0011) to allow inclusion of two proposed second -story residential units (a one -bedroom unit and a two-bedroom
unit) with a Variance request (VAR18-0010) to allow the project to have a 38% dependency on off-site municipal parking.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 1.2 is recommended for retention. Programs 1.2.1. and 1.2.2. are recommended for retention but should be reviewed as far as
wording and scope after taking into consideration the characteristics of new housing sites created by land use designation changes
in response to the Town's very low-, low-, and moderate -income assignments from its 2022-2030 RHNA. The intent of the directive
contained in existing Policy 1.2 and existing Programs 1.2.1. and 1.2.2. are covered in draft Policies 2.1, 2.2, 8.1 and 10.2 and draft
Programs 2.1.a, 8.1.a, 8.1.b and 10.2.a.
Notes:
The objective is to increase upon the relatively strong historic production rate of second units within existing single family
neighborhoods. In areas where the dominant land use is single family residential, second units provide a substantial source of
housing, typically being housing affordable -by -design to lower income households. A second dwelling unit is an attached or
detached residential dwelling unit that includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation and which
is located on the same lot as the corresponding primary residence. It is the Town's objective to increase upon the relatively strong
historic production rate of second units within existing single family neighborhoods. To that end, the Town made another round of
amendments to the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance in 2014. In areas where the dominant land use is single family residential,
second units provide an important source of housing, typically being housing affordable "by -design" to lower income households.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
1.3.1. On an ongoing basis, continue encourage development of second units through application of the Town's second dwelling
unit ordinance.
Actions Taken: The 2015-2022 Planning Period saw the majority of units that were developed that were appropriate for low-
income households having been developed as second dwelling units (aka "Accessory Dwelling Units" or "ADUs").
1.3.2. On an ongoing basis, continue to encourage second units in new construction as a development option to meet the
requirements of the Town's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Actions Taken:
(1) The 22 -unit single family project ("Red Hawk") at the western terminus of Midland Way complied with the project
inclusionary housing requirements by provision of two of twenty-two overall single family single family residential -
detached units being built with attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs). As the ADUs were less under 500 square feet in
size, they aligned with the HCD-certified 2015-2022 Housing Element framework as "affordable -by -design" units
appropriate for low-income households.
(2) Adoption of Ordinance No. 2019-04 and approval of TC Resolution No. 31-2019 rezoning the 5.05 -acre Tassajara Nursery
property at 2550 Camino Tassajara and authorizing development of a single family residential project ("The Collection")
through approval of PUD 18-01/SUB 18-01/DEV 18-09 into 18 single family homes and associated second dwelling units
with associated approval of the applicant -requested 20% density bonus resulting in the provision of eight attached square
foot Junior ADUs whose size met the standards under the 2015-2022 Housing Element for acceptance as affordable as design
ADUs appropriate for use by low-income households.
(3) Adopted Ordinance No. 2019-06 and approved TC Resolution No. 46-2019 approving Preliminary Development Plan -
Rezoning request LEG 10-04, Major Subdivision request SD 9291, Final Development Plan request DEV 10-72 and certifying
a Final Revised Environmental Impact Report and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Magee Preserve - Davidon Homes) authorizing
the development of approximately 29 acres (7%) of a 410 -acre project site with 69 single family homes seven attached
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with the remaining 381 acres (93%) of the project site to be preserved as permanent open
space and public trails.
(4) As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "Significant changes that will affect the review
process for ADUs and will lead to an increase in the production of ADUs were put in motion at the state level in 2019,
culminating with the adoption of revised statewide ADU legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2020. Danville
prepared and posted an update to its ADU Handout reflective of early summaries of the new state regulations. Danville
also launched efforts to prepare and approve permit -ready ADUs to incentivize construction of ADUs. The program will
ultimately provide Danville residents with three size options of pre -approved permit -ready detached ADU building plans.
These plans will be available for free -of -charge downloading. Because these ADU plans will have been pre -plan checked,
they will be eligible for expedited processing and lower building permit fees. Taken together, the state changes for ADU
standards (importantly leading to Danville's removal of owner -occupancy requirements and, under certain circumstances,
the ability for properties to provide two ADUs per residential property) will lead to a reduction in market rental rates of
ADUs as the changes will result in a measurable increase in the number of ADUs built in Danville. Other jurisdictions that
have created permit ready ADU programs (e.g., the City of Encinitas) experienced a tripling of the annual output of ADUs
after the programs were introduced. A change in the relative scarcity of number of ADUs that are available will make both
existing and future ADUs more affordable to low- and moderate -income households. Significantly, the increase in the
number of ADUs moving forward will have occurred at a time where the "buying power" of low- and moderate -income
households in the area has substantially increased. The 2014 HCD-published income figures indicated a two -person low
income household had an income range that would make rental housing affordable (i.e., <30% of gross household income)
where rents were in the range of $935 to $1,350 a month. The 2020 HCD-published income figures indicate a two -person low
income household now has an income range that would make rental housing affordable (again holding housing costs to
<30% of gross household income) where rents were in the range of $1,305 to $2,090 a month. At the high end of the ranges,
this is a $740 a month (55%) swing on the relative "buying power" of low income households in the area. With these
changes, Danville will recalibrate the size of ADUs it will consider to be affordable by design for low- and moderate -
income households for the 2015-2022 Planning Period. Danville will assume new ADUs delivered in the eight year period
to be affordable by design for one- or two -person low income households where the ADU is <851 square feet in size.
Additionally, Danville will assume new ADUs delivered in the eight year period to be affordable by design for one- or
three-person moderate income households where the ADU is in a size range of 851 square feet to 1,200 square feet."
1.3.3. By the end of 2016, initiate multi -jurisdictional discussions (using the Tri -Valley Affordable Housing Committee or an
equivalent forum) with a goal of presenting a coordinated, multi -jurisdictional voice to pertinent utility agencies seeking reduction
of capital facility and/or connection fees assessed on new second units.
Actions Taken:
(1) Adopted TC Resolution No. 39-2015 adjusting the Tri Valley Transportation Development Fee Schedule pursuant to the
requirements of the Tri Valley Transportation Council's Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, in part eliminating traffic
impact fees on ADUs.
(2) Legislative action taken at the State level in 2017 served to restrict utility agencies from assessing capital facility fees for
provision of sewer or water service for new ADUs. That action fully addressed the issue identified in this implementation
policy. As a result, during the remainder of the 2015-2022 Planning Period, the Town saw a measurable increase in ADU
requests as this action served to significantly reduce the development costs associated with construction of ADUs.
(3) As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "The primary focus of the Tri -Valley Affordable
Housing Committee during 2019 was tracking statewide housing legislation. Housing legislation going into effect on
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
January 1, 2020, further advanced changes made at the state level in 2017 as regards restrictions on the amount of capital
facility fees that may be assessed on new ADUs.
1.3.4. By the end of 2015, update and make general distribution (posting on the Tow's website) of the Town's "How -To" brochure
for development of second units, with updates to include "value engineering" suggestions to assist potential applicants as to ways
to minimize development costs associated with construction regulations, impact fees, and capital facility and/or connection fees.
Actions Taken:
(1) The "How-to" brochure was updated in early 2015 and then subsequently updated again in mid -2017 to reflect changes to
the Town's Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance (referred to as the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance moving forward) to
address changes in state legislation pertaining to accessory dwelling units (i.e., SB 1009, AB 2299 and AB 2406).
(2) Another round of updates occurred in 2019 as Danville prepared and posted an update to its ADU Handout reflective of
early summaries of the new state regulations.
(3) Adopted TC Resolution No. 19-2020 appropriating $160,000 secured as a Senate Bill 2 grant to develop construction -
detailed plans for "Permit -Ready Accessory Dwelling Units", with the goal to offer property owners a selection of pre -
approved and ready -to -construct ADU building plans that met the State ADU unit size restrictions (i.e., <_ 850 SF) where
the plans had completed the plan check review process and were accompanied with a ADU construction guide.
(4) These ADU handouts have been revised several times since the initial round of changes and serve to advise residents of the
permit -ready ADU program.
1.3.5. By the end of 2017, review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the regulations set forth in the Town's
Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance relative their effectiveness in meeting the intent of Policy 1.3 and the purpose of the Ordinance.
Actions Taken:
(1) In late 2014, the Town amended the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance to be consistent with the directive of SB 2.
(5) Adopted Ordinance No. 2017-05 in 2017 repealing the existing Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and adopting the Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) Ordinance through approval of Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 17-01 - with the new standards
incorporating regulations from three state bills (i.e., SB 1069, AB 2299 and AB 2406).
(6) As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "Danville's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
was rendered moot by the adoption of new statewide ADU legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2020. The Town
has begun the process of amending the prior ordinance to have it align with the new state standards, while working to
develop a new local ordinance consistent with the State Law."
(7) Adopted Ordinance No. 2021-01 approving amendments to the Town's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to comply with
the requirements of the five separate State laws that went into effect on January 1, 2020, to reduce barriers to ADU
development, provide better streamlining of the review and approval processes and to expand capacity to accommodate
the development of ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) while setting minimum development standards.
1.3.6. On a unit -by -unit basis, strive to legalize illegal second units if these units meet the requirements specified
in the zoning regulations and are modified to address deficiencies identified through a life/safety inspection
performed by the Town Building Division.
Actions Taken: On a unit -by -unit basis the Town actively worked to identify pathways to legalize illegal second units
throughout the course of the 2015-2022 Planning Period. Changes to state regulations pertaining to ADUs altered the available
options for legalization - e.g., applying retroactive minimum setbacks and height standards that would be available for such units.
1.3.7. With a minimum frequency of once every three years, survey second dwelling unit rents to see which income groups they are
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-7
serving.
Actions Taken:
(1) Reflective of HCD input and concurrence, the Danville 2007-2014 Housing Element assumed accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) of up to 750 square feet in size could be reasonably assumed to be appropriate for low-income households and that
ADUs between 751 and 1,000 square feet in size could be reasonably assumed to be appropriate for moderate -income
households. Changes in market rental rate conditions leading into the start of the 2015-2022 Planning Period prompted
Danville, again with HCD input and concurrence, to adjust the assumptions on affordability of ADUs. With the adoption
of the 2015-2022 Housing Element, Danville documented that ADUs that were up to 550 square feet in size could be
reasonably assumed to be appropriate for low-income households and thatADUs between 551 and 1,000 square feet in size
could be reasonably assumed to be appropriate for moderate -income households.
(2) As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "In recognition of discussion (for Policy tbd)
regarding the size of ADUs that may be considered affordable by design to low- and moderate -income households, Danville
will review market rate rent conditions once the permit -ready ADU program comes online."
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: 35-70 traditional second units and 20-40 inclusionary second units.
Actual Unit Production: Not calculated as production came on many different "fronts" and is prone to potential double -counting.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 1.3 and Programs 1.3.1., 1.3.2, 1.3.4., 1.3.6. and 1.3.7. are recommended for retention. The intent of the directive contained in
existing Policy 1.3 is covered in draft Policy 6.3. The intent of the directives contained in the Programs recommended for retention
are covered in draft Programs 6.3.a (Permit -Ready ADUs - aligning with existing Program 1.3.1.), 6.3.b (ADU regulations - aligning
with existing Program 1.3.5.), Program 6.3.c (ADU fee reductions - aligning with existing Program 1.3.4.) and Program 6.3.d (ADU
Occupancy Survey - aligning with existing Program 1.3.7.). Existing Program 1.3.3. can be dropped as the state's action on ADUs
relative the ability of utility hookup fees now no longer being able to be assessed for ADUs eliminated the need for its retention.
Program 1.3.2. directs support of ADUs to meet Inclusionary Housing obligations and has the intent of the directive covered in
draft Policy 6.1 and draft Program 6.1.c. as the existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance explicitly provides the option of using
ADUs to satisfy residential project inclusionary housing obligation.
Notes:
The Tri -Valley Affordable Housing Committee (TVAHC) continues to function as the sub -region's affordable housing forum and
Danville will continue to be an active participant. A continuing focus of the TVAHC is the continued support of the Tri -Valley
Housing Opportunity Center (TVHOC) in Livermore, operating as a non-profit organization with initial financial support from
HUD and the five member cities. The TVHOC offers classes on how to find, qualify for, and buy a home as well as credit counseling
and financial preparation. Participants can also obtain information about local (Town/City/County) and lender programs,
including down payment assistance programs, first-time homebuyer programs, as well as receiving housing counseling,
introduction to mortgage products, etc.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
1.4.1. Continue participation in the Tri -Valley Affordable Housing Committee and related support of the Tri -Valley Housing
Opportunity Center.
Actions Taken:
(Note the following items are not specifically related to the Tri -Valley Affordable Housing Committee but pertain to sub -regional
and regional analysis that occurred during the 2015-2022 Planning Period of pending housing legislation and housing issues.)
(1) Adopted TC Resolution No. 16-2019 accepting the Danville analysis and adopting policy positions related to the CASA
Compact: A 15 -Year Emergency Policy Package to Confront the Housing Crisis in the San Francisco Bay Area.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-8
(2) Adopted TC Resolution No. 17-2019 supporting the Tri -Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework as a supplement to
the Tri -Valley Cities Legislative Framework on housing matters.
(3) Town Council support (separate from Tri -Valley Housing Committee) of AB 1335 Atkins to generate up to 700 million
dollars annually for affordable rental or ownership housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing
and other housing needs via a recordation fee on certain real estate transactions.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
To the extent that the Tri -Valley Affordable Housing Committee and the Tri -Valley Housing Opportunity Center (or their successor
equivalent entities) continue to be viable and deemed to be a productive option to serve the interests of Town of Danville residents,
Policy 1.4 and Program 1.4.1. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of the directive contained
in existing Policy 1.4 and existing Program 1.4.1. would be best pulled into modified language for draft Policy 7.2 and draft Program
7.2.a.
Maintain an up to date site inventory that details the amount, type and size of vacant and underutilized parcels to assis
Notes:
As part of the 2014-2022 Housing Element update, an analysis of the residential development potential in Danville was conducted.
(Refer
to Tables 32, 33 and 34 and Figure A of the 2015-2022 Housing Element) Based on that assessment, Danville can potentially
accommodate between 875-1,075 new units on vacant or underutilized properties during the current planning period. Sharing this
information with potential developers will facilitate the development of new housing.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
1.5.1. Annually update the residential development site inventory of the housing element (i.e., Tables 28, 29 and 30 and Figure A)
to facilitate the dissemination of the amount, type, location and size of vacant and underutilized land suitable for residential
development.
Actions Taken:
(1) The residential development site inventory was updated in conjunction with 2016 Contra Costa County ULL Review.
(2) The residential development site inventory was again updated in 2018 in conjunction with the review of how development
densities are calculated for single family low density and single family medium density properties.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 1.5 and Program 1.5.1. is recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of the directives
for Policy 1.5 and Program 1.5.1. are covered in draft Policy 10.2 and draft Program 10.2.a.
ough financial assista
Notes:
The Town partnered with Bridge Housing, Inc. to develop of a 74 -unit rental project in the Downtown area. Subsidies required to
make the project affordable to extremely low- and very low-income senior households required Danville's Community
Development Agency to pre -assign the majority of future housing set-aside funds to the payoff of bonds issued for the project.
Similar, smaller subsidized housing projects may be possible for other sites in the Downtown area and/or its periphery.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
1.6.1. On an ongoing basis, support affordable housing development by fee waiver or reduction, through direct financial assistance,
by way of zoning incentives (e.g., density bonuses, relaxation of parking requirements, etc.).
Actions Taken: Adopted TC Resolution No. 78-2016 accepting and approving the 2016 Downtown Parking Utilization
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-9
Assessment Study - Final Report implementing effective parking management strategies and identifying the need to develop new
public parking resources for the long term economic health of the Downtown and to facilitate additional development in the
Downtown.
1.6.2. Continue to direct Successor Agency funds towards the payoff of bonds issued for the existing Bridge Housing senior
apartment project).
Actions Taken:
(4) Adopted TC Resolution No. 81-2015 SA approving and adopting Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule Successor
Agency to the former Community Development Agency of the Town of Danville - in part covering the ongoing bond
payment obligations for the Bridge Housing extremely low- and very low-income Senior housing rental project to
maintain project affordability.
(5) Adopted TC Resolution No. 92-2018 SA appropriating funds from the Low and Moderate income Housing Special Revenue
Fund For architectural studies or the BRIDGE Housing -Sycamore Place Seniors Housing Project at 35 Laurel Drive which
opened in 2003 and provides 75 units of affordable housing for Extremely Low and Very Low income senior households in
downtown Danville. (Note: The Town and former CDA' s financial contribution to the project was funded from the low
and moderate housing fund that all redevelopment agencies were required to maintain. Although the CDA was dissolved
in 2011, the Town retained the fund balance from the housing fund and is obligated to spend those funds on the creation
and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing units in Danville. The current fund balance in the Low and Moderate Housing
Fund at the time of this appropriation was approximately $1,156,000.)
1.6.3. On an ongoing basis, continue to encourage, through incentives (e.g., parking reductions, etc.), the development of senior
housing that offers a wide range of housing choices, for both affordable and market -rate, from independent living to assisted living
with services on site, including healthcare, nutrition, transportation and other appropriate services.
Actions Taken: Beyond ongoing discussions with potential developer interests seeking information about the potential to
develop new senior housing, no actions were taken specifically addressing this implementation measure during the 2015-2022
Planning Period.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: 25-50 affordable units.
Actual Unit Production: No additional new residential units associated with a project using financial assistance occurred during
the 2015-2022 Planning Period. New residential units associated with a project provided a zoning incentive are not counted here
but are tabulated under Housing Unit Production reviews for other Programs (e.g., under section tying back to density bonus).
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 1.6 and Programs 1.6.1., 1.6.2., and 1.6.3. are recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The
intent of the directive for Policy 1.6. is covered in draft Policy 6.1 and draft Program 6.1.b (Funding Sources to Support Affordable
Housing Development) and Program 6.1.e (Waive Processing Fees for Multifamily Lot Consolidations). Draft Policy 6.4 (Available
Funding Sources) also overlaps with the intent of the directives for existing Policy 1.6. Draft Program 6.1.b (Funding Sources to
Support Affordable Housing) contains language aligned with the intent of existing Program 1.6.2. (Direction on use of Successor
Agency Funds). Draft Program 6.1.d (Parking Standards for Different Housing Types) aligns largely with the intent of existing
Program 1.6.3. (Use of Incentives - e.g., parking reductions).
Notes:
Analysis done in conjunction with the preparation of the 2007-2014 Housing Element identified a RHNA "shortfall". The shortfall
was established to be a need to designate an additional 8.75 acres of land to a multifamily land use designation with a 25 unit per
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-10
acre minimum development density (to accommodate 187 extremely low- and very low-income units from the 2007-2014 RHNA)
and to designate an additional 1.7 acres to a multifamily land use designation with a 20 unit per acre minimum development
density (to accommodate 34 low-income units from the 2007-2014 RHNA). In response to the RHNA shortfall, the Town, by way
of the adoption of the 2030 General Plan, designated 8.75 acres to a newly established Residential - Multifamily - High (25-30
units/acre) land use designation and designated an additional 2.0 acres to the Residential - Multifamily - High/Medium (20-25
units per acre) land use designation. The 2030 Plan also served to recalibrate multifamily residential density ranges to accommodate
the requisite minimum development densities to serve the extremely low-, very low- and moderate -income components of
Danville's 2007-2014 RHNA. Both properties securing new multifamily residential land use designations were subsequently
rezoned by a Town -initiated rezoning action to establish the right to develop at the cited densities as an at -right land use.
Programs and
1.7.1. On an ongoing basis, continue to work with pertinent individuals and groups (e.g., property owners and prospective
Actions Taken:
multifamily developers) to maintain the continued availability and development feasibility of the properties designated for
multifamily use as a result of the 2007-2014 RHNA shortfall analysis.
Actions Taken:
(1) Through its approval of a 150 -unit for -rent project, the Alexan/Diablo Road RHNA shortfall site on the 3.75 acres abutting
the south side of Diablo Road along the east side of the southbound onramp for I-680, the Town culminated a several -year
effort to facilitate the redevelopment of an aging office project to a multifamily use. The project site had been identified
as a RHNA shortfall site in the Danville 2030 General Plan and secured Residential - Multiple Family - High Density (25
to 30 units per acre) land use designation with the adoption of the 2030 General Plan. That action was followed by a
Town -initiated rezoning of the site, eliminating the need for a future development project for the property to secure a
legislative action while also implementing design standards that would provide the future project with flexibility in
building setback standards when compared with the standards set forth M District standards in the municipal code. As a
for -rent project on a RHNA shortfall site, the project was determined to be exempt from an additional CEQA review
beyond the program level review secured through the EIR prepared for the 2030 General Plan. As a project invoking a
density bonus, the project secured a 10% relaxation in otherwise applicable maximum allowable floor area ratio -
provided as a density bonus project development concession. As a density bonus project, the baseline yield for the site was
allowed to increase from 113 units to 150 units - being a 35% density bonus above the top end of the site's 25-30 units per
acre density range. The target affordable units to occur on the site were for very low-income households, with a minimum
of thirty years of affordability term per density bonus standards.
(2) Adopted TC Resolution No. 72-2017, affirming compliance with the Surplus Land Act (Assembly Bill 2135) which requires
local agencies to prioritize affordable housing, as well as parks and open space, when disposing of surplus land to
strengthen priorities for affordable housing in the state's Surplus Land Act.
(3) During the later stages of 2017, the Town actively worked with Trammell Crow Residential (TCR) as they were
transitioning into the role of project developer for the Alexan/Diablo Road RHNA shortfall project. The effort resulted in
an issuance of a determination of "substantial conformance" for project changes proposed by TCR - with all changes
having been deemed by the Town to be project upgrades. Securing a "substantial conformance" determination allowed the
project to progress with a smoother and faster transition from the 2017 entitlement approval to TCR's building permit
submittal - thus avoiding project uncertainty that could have occurred if another round of project public hearings was
determined to be required. As a result, TCR moved forward and submitted building permits and ultimately constructed the
project.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-11
(4) Frequent discussions with potential residential builders occurred in 2019 through 2020 involving the EBRPD/Borel site
(being two acres of Residential - Multifamily - High/Medium Density (20-25 units per acre) and five acres of Residential -
Multifamily - High Density (25 to 30 units per acre) - as well as being the last undeveloped RHNA shortfall sites created
by the adoption of the 2030 General Plan.
(5) Frequent discussions with potential residential builders occurred in 2019 through 2020 regarding the Mixed Use Faz
Restaurant property in the Downtown Core Area - with a land use designation that would provide residential uses in a
20-25 units per acre range.
(6) Ongoing discussions pertaining other, smaller mixed use and multifamily sites were occurred over the course of the 2015-
2022 Planning Period.
1.7.2. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the regulations contained in the
Municipal Code that address non -conforming uses to assure significant non-residential reuse of sites designated for multifamily
use does not occur without careful consideration through a land use permit review as to whether the proposed reuse of the site
would preclude conversion of the site for residential use in the reasonable future.
Actions Taken: In advance of processing the Development Plan request for the for -rent density bonus Alexan/Diablo Road
RHNA shortfall site project, the Town denied the property owner's request for a land use permit to expand and extend the life of
the non -conforming office uses that occupy the 3.75 acre site.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 1.7 and Programs 1.7.1. and 1.7.2. are recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of
the directives for Policy 1.7 and Programs 1.7.1. and 1.7.2 are covered in draft Policy 10.3 (Town Leadership) and draft Programs
10.2.a (RHNA Monitoring Program) and 10.3.a. (Zoning to Accommodate RHNA).
„. licy 1.8
Notes:
use.
Several of the remaining vacant or underutilized multifamily residential parcels in Danville are less than one acre in size. (Refer to
Table 33 of the 2015-2022 Housing Element) Their relatively small size may serve as a barrier from their being redeveloped with
multifamily uses or, as applicable, denser multifamily uses than current present. A zoning text amendment review should be
initiated to allow application of a zoning overlay that applies floor area ratio, building coverage and building height standards for
these smaller multifamily properties to facilitate their redevelopment with newer, denser multifamily residential uses.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
1.8.1. Consistent with Policies 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, and 3.08 of the Danville 2030 General Plan initiate a zoning text amendment by the
end of 2017 to create a zoning overlay district for smaller, underutilized multifamily residential parcels to facilitate their
redevelopment with new, or denser, multiple family residential uses.
Actions Taken:
(1) The Town -initiated reconciliation of the existing zoning/general plan inconsistency along the east side of El Dorado
Avenue to correct a mapping error in the 2030 General Plan served to allow the remaining parcels with single family or
duet units to be redeveloped in a pattern consistent with the predominant multifamily land uses on the east side of El
Dorado Avenue.
(2) As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "In recognition of the staff effort committed
from Fall 2019 through to June 2020 to roll out three "permit -ready" ADU options, as well recognition of anticipated
enhanced staff effort to process ADUs once the program is operational (an annual tripling of ADUs is anticipated), no
additional work on Housing Implementation Measure 1.8.1. is anticipated to occur through the end of the current Housing
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-12
Element Planning Period. With options for permit ready ADUs of 600 square foot, 850 square foot and 1,000 square foot,
the permit ready ADU program will result in a measurable increase in the production of housing units in Danville
appropriate for low- and moderate -income households by simplifying the design, permitting and construction need for
ADUs and by reducing the costs associated with ADUs."
1.8.2. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the regulations contained in the Density
Bonus Ordinance relative the merits of offering a tiered density bonus program based on lot size to encourage of small lots for
multifamily development.
Actions Taken: As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "In recognition of the staff effort
committed from Fall 2019 through to June 2020 to roll out three "permit -ready" ADU options, as well recognition of anticipated
enhanced staff effort to process ADUs once the program is operational (an annual tripling of ADUs is anticipated), no additional
work on Housing Implementation Measure 1.8.2. is anticipated to occur through the end of the current Housing Element Planning
Period. With options for permit ready ADUs of 600 square foot, 850 square foot and 1,000 square foot, the permit -ready ADU
program will result in a measurable increase in the production of housing units in Danville appropriate for low- and moderate -
income households by simplifying the design, permitting and construction need for ADUs and by reducing the costs associated
with ADUs."
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 1.8 and Programs 1.8.1. and 1.8.2. are recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of
the directive for Policy 1.8. is covered in draft Policy 8.1 (Infill Development) and draft Program 8.1.b (Lot Consolidation and
Redevelopment of Non -Vacant Sites) and Program 6.1.e (Waive Processing Fees for Multifamily Lot Consolidations).
ro . ear
• .
Notes:
The current RHNA indicates the need for Danville to accommodate the development of 583 new housing units during the 2015-
2022 Planning Period. With the provision of these units, Danville will have moved yet closer to a built out condition. While it is
not possible to estimate Danville's RHNA for the housing element Planning Period that follows the 2015-2022 Planning Period, it
is likely that Danville will need sites for residential densification for that subsequent Planning Period. To be in a position to have
those sites available early in the that Housing Element Planning Period, related studies should commence during the later stages
of the current Housing Element Planning Period.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
1.9.1. During the later stages of the current Housing Element Planning Period, update the Downtown Master Plan and/or prepare
one or more planning studies for the area along San Ramon Valley Boulevard between downtown and the south end of the
commercial district to facilitate redevelopment and the introduction of additional housing serving the Downtown.
Actions Taken:
(1) Approvals in September2014 updated relevant sections of the Municipal Code necessary to qualify the Danville 2015-2022
Housing Element for expedited review by HCD - with affected code sections including the R -Single Family Residential
Ordinance; the D-1: Two Family Ordinance; the M -Multiple Family Ordinances; the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; the
Density Bonus Ordinance; and the Second Dwelling Ordinance while also adding a new Reasonable Accommodation
Ordinance and a new Condominium Conversion Ordinance. (i.e., a starting point for the baseline policy document for the
2015-2022 Housing Element Planning Period).
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-13
(2) Adopted TC Resolution No. 35-2015 approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and approving
General Plan Amendment request GPA 14-01, the update to the Housing Element of the Danville 2030 General Plan (Le., a
starting point for the baseline policy document for 2015-2022 Housing Element Planning Period).
(3) As a follow-up to the adoption of the 2016-2021 Comprehensive Economic Development Plan (CEDP), which focused on
the enhancement and promotion of a thriving and economically viable downtown, a "white paper" was prepared and
presented to the Town Council which, in part, discussed the merits and feasibility of amending the DBD Ordinance to
adapt current land use and development standards and to conduct an in-depth feasibility analysis of the "North Hartz"
Avenue area. This was followed up by the adoption of TC Resolution No. 18-2017, appropriating $30,000 to execute a
contract to update the Downtown Business District (DBD) Ordinance related to the Downtown Core area and then
consideration of Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 17-10 to receive information on economic and market trends, and discuss
potential future Commission and Council consideration of amendments to Downtown Business District Areas 1, 2, 2A, 3
and 11. Ultimately no changes were deemed necessary or feasible..
(4) Conducted a Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Study Session to consider proposed changes to the Town's
Downtown Business District Ordinance, with potential amendments including updating the use definitions and allowable
uses to adapt to changing market demand as well as simplifying and streamlining the land use regulatory process.
(5) Adopted TC Ordinance No. 2017-07, amending the DBD: Downtown Business District to, in part, streamline the regulatory
review process.
(6) Adopted TC Resolution No. 41-2021 initiating consultant services for the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental
Impacts Report related to the adoption of the 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element, recognizing that in order for the
Town to meet its RHNA a number of parcels throughout the Town will need to be considered for General Plan land use
designation amendments and associated rezoning's to provide for additional by -right housing development sites.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 1.9. and Program 1.9.1. are recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of the
directive for Policy 1.9. is covered in draft Policy 10.3 (Town Leadership) and draft Programs 10.2.a (RHNA Monitoring Program)
and 10.3.a. Zonin• to Accommodate RHNA
GOAL 2.0
IMPROVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY FOR BOTH RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS
• licy 2.1
_
Support the development of additionalonus Ordinance'
or flexible development standards
Notes:
Consistent with Government Code §65915 and Danville's Density Bonus Ordinance, Danville provides density bonuses and
additional housing incentives to qualified new housing projects. The obligation to provide a density bonus is triggered when a
residential development sets aside units for one or more of the following: (i) at least 5 percent of the total units as units affordable
to very low income households; (ii) at least 10 percent of the total units as units affordable to low-income households; (iii) at least
10 percent unit ownership in a planned development for moderate income households; or (iv) 100 percent of the units for occupancy
by senior citizens. Development concessions or incentives may include but are not limited to: (i) a reduction in site development
standards; (ii) a modification of zoning code requirements (e.g., a reduction in setbacks); (iii) approval of mixed use zoning (under
specified conditions); or (iv) other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the Town which result in
identifiable cost reductions. A project that receives a density bonus and concession or incentive must retain affordability of the
units for at least 30 years.
Programs and
2.1.1. Utilize the applicable density bonus regulations to encourage the development of affordable housing.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Actions Taken:
Actions Taken:
(1) Adopted TC Resolution No. 32-2017, denying the appeal of Danville Citizens for Responsible Growth and upholding the
Planning Commission's approval of Final Development Plan Request DEV 2016-74 for a 150 -unit apartment project at
373-383 Diablo Road that included the provision of rental units for 13 very low-income households. With the action, the
appeal was denied and the project approval was upheld - with such action based on the proposed project's conformance
with the Town's General Plan, in consideration of Government Code Section 65583.2(D)(i) ("use by right" status for
development applications for rental multifamily residential housing), and under Government Code Section 65915 (density
bonus statues).
(2) Adopted of Ordinance No. 2018-02 approved "Abigail Place" (SD 9437/FDP 16-0107/PUD16-0110) rezoning 2.97+/- acre
site at 3743 and 3755 Old Blackhawk Road to a new P-1; Planned Unit Development District with applicant -initiated
density bonus leading to the creation of a duet unit to supply two single family attached for -rent units for moderate -
income households with a thirty-year term of affordability among 19 overall project units.
(3) Related action - Adopted TC Resolution No. 80-2020 authorizing the execution of a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration
of Restrictive Covenants for the below market rate attached accessory dwelling units (BMR ADUs) required through
approval of Final Development Plan request DEV18-09 (Edendale - 2550 Camino Tassajara) - a project with an applicant -
initiated density bonus.
(4) Related action - Adopted TC Resolution No. 4-2019 authorizing execution of a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants for the below market rate (BMR) residential units required in Alexan Riverwalk - DEV16-0014 at
373 Diablo Road with the new developer (Trammell Crow Residential - dba MM Danville Apartments, LLC) electing to
reduce the project size to 144 units change the project density bonus from 35% to 30% and correspondingly reducing the
number of required BMR Units in the project from 13 to 10.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Net added housing units resulting from projects invoking density bonus not calculated.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 2.2 should be retained and the intent of the directive in Programs 2.2.1. through 2.2.4. should be pulled forward into the
2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of the directive for Policy 2.2. is covered in draft Policy 8.3 (Density Bonus) and draft
Pro • am 8.3.a Densit Bonus Re • lations .
olicy 2.2
Promote energy conserving practices in the location, construction, renovation, and maintenance of housing in Danville.
Notes:
Conservation of energy remains an important issue in housing policy because of historic and projected rises in energy costs. The
residential sector offers an opportunity to achieve energy savings through conservation measures, awareness and the application
of appropriate technology. Energy consumption can be reduced by assuring new residential development is compact in design; is
located near jobs, services, and public transportation; takes into consideration solar orientation; and/or complies with State energy
conservation. Conserving energy reduces the percentage of household income devoted to housing related costs through utility bill
savings.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
2.2.1. Using the development review process, integrate new multifamily housing developed in and around the Downtown area
through linkages to shopping, transit facilities, and civic uses - maximizing the walkability of the ultimate project design.
Actions Taken:
(1) The Alexan/Diablo Road RHNA shortfall project discussed above under Policy 1.2.2 will lead to an installation of a
critical pedestrian linkage in the Downtown Area, with the project cost to be initially split 50/50 between developer and
the Town and with provision of possible future reimbursement to the developer if abutting private properties redeveloped.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-15
(2) The Trammell Crow Residential project was under construction throughout 2019 and the developer is taking the lead to
assure the construction of the pedestrian bridge over San Ramon Creek in a partnership with the Town.
2.2.2. Allow minor variations to minimum zoning setbacks where such flexibility serves to increase energy efficiency of new
housing units.
Actions Taken: No variances received during the 2015-2022 Planning Period requesting deviation from underlying zoning
setbacks to secure energy efficiency. (Note: The Town has changed the review process for ground mounted solar panels in areas
subject to discretionary design review to make these permits ministerial - i.e., building permit only).
2.2.3. Enforce the State's energy efficiency standards for new residential construction and renovations to existing structures (i.e.,
the 2013 California Energy Code).
Actions Taken: Standards enforced as required.
2.2.4. Encourage innovative design to maximize passive energy efficiencies. Take into consideration goals and policies of the
Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) adopted in March 2013 when reviewing new residential development proposals to help the Town
goal of reducing the current level of greenhouse emissions by 15% by the year 2020.
Actions Taken:
(1) Adopted Ordinance No. 2015-03 establishing a streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar
systems.
(2) In 2019 launched an Environment and Sustainability section on the Danville website.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 2.1. and Program 2.1.1. are recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of the
directive for Policy 2.1. is covered in draft Policy 3.1 (Energy Conservation, Sustainability and Climate Change), Policy 3.2 (Energy
Conservation) and Policy 3.4 (Home Energy Retrofit) and, collectively for these three policies, draft Programs 3.1.b (Electrification
for New Residential Construction) and 3.1.c (Green Building Incentives).
1
■ i
Notes:
The Town's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was reviewed and updated in 2014. Through the regulations contained in the
Ordinance, the Town requires between 10 and 15 percent of housing in new developments be provided as low- or moderate -income
housing. Pursuant to the inclusionary regulations, this housing is to be provided with appropriate deed restrictions to assure long
term affordability of the below market rate units is maintained. While the ordinance provides an opportunity to use an "in lieu" fee,
the Town will continue to use its discretion to push for development of affordable housing within each new qualifying project.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
2.3.1. Continue to require new developments to provide the requisite minimum percentage of low or moderate income housing in
their project through imposition of the regulations contained in the Town's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Actions Taken:
(1) In September 2014, the Town amended the Town's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - no subsequent amendment of the
regulations occurred during the 2015-2022 Planning Period.
(2) Adopted TC Resolution No. 8-2015 authorizing execution of a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants for the Danville Hotel Project for the two below market rate inclusionary units that were required to be made
available for moderate -income households for a thirty year term.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-15
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-16
(3) Adopted TC Resolution No. 55-2018 authorizing execution of a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants for the below market rate inclusionary unit appropriate for a moderate -income household that was required in
the Abigail Place - PUD16-0110/SD 9437/DEV16-0107 project.
(4) Adopted Ordinance No. 2010-02 approved on February 16, 2010 (SD 9204/FDP 2007-14/PUD2007-01) rezoning 0.75+/- acre
site at 943 Camino Ramon from M-9: Multiple Family Residential District to P-1: Planned Unit Development District
and to subdivide the site to allow development of nine attached single family lots with one below market rate inclusionary
unit appropriate for moderate -income households required to maintain a twenty-year term of affordability.
(5) Projects greater than eight units in size continued to be required to address Danville's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Related actions have been the preparation of a new handout describing the process that would need to be taken to allow
temporary rental of ownership below market rate units. That handout was last updated in October 2014.
(6) Two significant residential projects secured approvals the later portion of the 2015-2022 Planning Period that will lead
to development of units appropriate for low- or moderate -incomes households as a result of the imposition of the Town's
inclusionary housing requirements - specifically the Magee Ranch/Davidon Homes project (which would supply ADUs
appropriate for low-income households) and the West El Pintado project (which will supply for -sale moderate -income
condominiums).
2.3.2. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the regulations set forth in the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to assure they continue to meet the intent of Policy 2.3 and the stated purpose of the Ordinance.
Actions Taken: Merits of making changes were considered during the update of the inclusionary requirements under ZTA 14-06
- with the updated ordinance not changing the threshold for project size (deemed to constitute too large a burden on smaller
projects) and not changing the term of affordability (deemed to potentially make units overly burdensome to sell). No subsequent
additional review occurred during the 2015-2022 Planning Period.
2.3.3. Review current regulations contained in the Town's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to address both constraints and
opportunities associated with small infill developments.
Action Taken: This review occurred as part of the review for ZTA 14-06.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Annual production of 4-8 moderate units and 4-8 low income units.
Actual Unit Production: Not calculated as production came on many different "fronts" and is prone to potential double -counting.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 2.3 and Programs 2.3.1. and 2.3.2. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In
the current draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 6.1 (Production of New
Lower -Income Units) and Program 6.1.c (Update Inclusionary Housing Ordinance).
Notes:
Working at home is linked to the affordability of housing because a home-based business may reduce the need to rent business
space elsewhere and thereby can lessen a household's overall financial burden by leveraging housing expenses. Home businesses
can also save considerable time and expense associated with commuting and allows residents who must be at home a means to
supplement their income. The changes the Town has made since the initial adoption of the regulations (including updates made
in 2014) have consistently liberalized the range of businesses that may be considered for operation out of the home and the
operational restrictions for home occupations (e.g., loosening of restrictions regarding presence of non -occupant employees and
allowed daily client visits).
Programs and
Actions Taken:
2.4.1. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the home occupation regulations to
assure they continue to meet the intent of Policy 2.4 and of the stated purposed of the regulations.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-17
Actions Taken: Through the September2014 approvals of ZTA 14-01, ZTA 14-02 and ZTA 14-03, the Town made a new round of
revisions to the regulation further liberalizing what it allows as home occupations. No subsequent additional review occurred
during the 2015-2022 Planning Period.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 2.4 and Program 2.4.1. does not need to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element.
Ongoing review of the regulations can be assumed to be handled by implementation of the Comprehensive Economic Development
Plan CEDP
11F2 5
Convene the Town Council in its role as the Housing Advisory Committee to provide a forum of ongoing review and support 4
of the goals, policies and implementation measures of the 2014-2022 Housing Element and to make the requisite annual reports
of housi -
Notes:
Providing a forum for regular, ongoing review of progress made to implement adopted housing goals, policies and implementation
measures will help assure the Town stays on point to develop and implement the programs set forth in the 2015-2022 Housing
Element in a timely and thorough manner.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
2.5.1. On a minimum once -a -year basis, conduct a noticed public hearing before the Town Council to review progress made to
further the goals, policies and implementation measures of the 2014-2022 Housing Element, with such effort to parallel the
preparation and submittal of the Housing Element Progress Report to HCD.
Actions Taken: Following the preparation and Town Council review of Annual Progress Reports (APRs) covering the first couple
of calendar years for the 2015-2022 Planning Period, the Town Council has regularly reviewed APRs for the Danville 2015-2022
Housing Element with those reviews being followed by submittal of the APRs to HCD in the requisite format.
2.5.2. Secure direction from the Town Council to prioritize housing implementation efforts on an ongoing basis.
Actions Taken: See comments for 2.5.1 above.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 2.5. and Programs 2.5.1. and 2.5.2. are recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent
of the directive for Policy 2.5. is covered in draft Policy 10.4 (Annual Report of Housing Element Implementation) and draft
Program 10.4.a (Annual Report).
Notes:
With the elimination of redevelopment agencies throughout the state, the Town agreed to take on the task of serving as the
Successor Housing Agency to the former Community Development Agency (CDA) of the Town. While the former CDA had
actively facilitated the provision of affordable housing in the downtown project area through the use the CDA's 20% housing set
aside funds, the resources of the Successor Housing Agency are considerably more limited and the legal powers/ obligations of the
Successor Housing Agency have not been clearly defined as of the time of the adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element. The
Successor Housing Agency does have assets, including ownership of two small parcels of land in the Downtown, which could
potentially be sold or used for the provision of affordable housing.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
2.6.1. Explore opportunities of the Successor Housing Agency to leverage its remaining assets towards provision of affordable
housing units in the community.
Actions Taken:
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-17
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-18
(1) Adopted TC Resolution No. 92- 2018 appropriating funds from the Low and Moderate income Housing Special Revenue
Fund For architectural studies or the BRIDGE Housing -Sycamore Place Seniors Housing Project at 35 Laurel Drive. The
project opened in 2003 and provides 75 units of affordable housing for extremely low- and very low-income senior
households in Downtown Danville. The Town and former CDA' s financial contribution to the project was funded from
the low and moderate housing fund that all redevelopment agencies were required to maintain. Although the CDA was
dissolved in 2011, the Town retained the fund balance from the housing fund and is obligated to spend those funds on the
creation and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing units in Danville. The current fund balance in the Low and Moderate
Housing Fund at the time of this appropriation was approximately $1,156,000.00.
(2) The marketing and sale of properties in the Downtown Area held by the Successor Housing Agency prompted parallel
consideration and discussion of how to use the proceeds from the sales to further the Town's Housing Element
Implementation policies.
(3) Adopted TC Resolution No. 22-2016, approving the purchase of real property located at 115-125 Hartz Avenue from the
Successor Agency to the former Community Development Agency of the Town of Danville, appropriating funds for CIP
Project C-319 and approving the transfer to funds from CIP Project C-319 related to the purchase.
(4) Adopted TC Resolution No. 23-2016 SA, approving the purchase of real property located at 341 Rose Street from the
Successor Housing Agency to the former Community Development Agency of the Town of Danville and appropriating
funds for CIP Project C-592 related to the purchase.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Two replacement units needed at the time of adoption of the 2015-2022 Housing Element.
Actual Unit Production: Need met by the 74 -unit extremely low and very low income Bridge/Danville senior apartment project.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 2.6 and Program 2.6.1 should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of the directive for Policy
2.6. is covered in draft Polic 6.1 and draft Pro • am 6.1.b Fundin • Sources to Su .. ort Affordable Housin • Develo . ment).
• licy 2.7
Assure that all affordable housing development receiving gov
mechanisms providing for long term affordability.
Notes:
Once affordable housing is developed, it is important to determine ways to assure that the housing continues to be affordable for
as long
as feasible. This is especially true of housing projects benefiting from governmental and/ or private sector subsidies since the typical
magnitude of the required subsidy that is provided to make units available to lower income households is so large that it would be
an irresponsible expenditure of funding if a long term of affordability was not built into the project's affordability program.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
2.7.1. Maintain affordability for intended period of time through well written contracts and/ or deed restrictions and ongoing
monitoring for compliance.
Actions Taken: The Town continued to use deed restrictions to address term of affordability obligations for affordable housing
established in Town.
2.7.2. Monitor affordability of units developed through the Town's inclusionary housing program to assure that rents paid and
incomes of occupants are consistent with applicable guidelines and/or recorded affordable housing agreements.
Actions Taken: Note is made of the conversion of the 54 -unit Rose Garden and 38 -unit Podva/Sequoia Grove apartment projects
from their original affordable -by -design status. Both projects had been deemed affordable -by -design as long as all the units in the
respective projects were subject to a rental schedule making them affordable to households earning median income. With the
change, 15% of the units in the respective projects were required to be documented to be occupied by qualifying households whose
incomes have been reviewed by the Town to assure incomes are at, or below, 110% of median income. Parallel to this effort is the
ongoing oversight of the Quail Ridge BMRs to assure full compliance with the requirement to have seven of the thirteen for -rent
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-19
multifamily units in that project occupied by very low-income households.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 2.7 and Programs 2.7.1. and 2.7.2 should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of the directive
for Policy 2.6. is covered in draft Policy 6.2 (Retention of Lower -Income Units) and associated draft Program 6.2.b. (Retention of
Affordable Rental Units) as well as Policy 6.5 (Ongoing Monitoring of Conversion Units).
Notes:
Participate with Contra Costa County, non-profit organizations, and other agencies, as applicable, to offer first-time
homeownership programs.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
2.8.1. Participate, where opportunities present themselves through County -administered housing programs, with first-time
homeownership programs.
Actions Taken: The Town's participation as part of the Urban County translates to the availability of more funding to programs
like the County administered Mortgage Credit Certificate program. The criteria used to determine qualifying buyers means few
existing units in Danville qualify for the program due to high cost of housing in Danville. Actions that can, and should continue
to be taken by the Town, includes the dissemination of information to the public about this and other County -administered
programs.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not applicable.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 2.8 and Program 2.8.1. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The intent of the directive for Policy
2.8. is covered in draft Policy 6.4 (Available Funding Sources) and Draft Program 6.1.b (Funding Sources to Support Affordable
Housing) under draft Policy 6.1 (Production of Newer Lower -Income Units).
Notes:
Contra Costa County has established programs to encourage and support the provision of shared housing. Under a shared housing
program, a person who has a home to share is matched with a person, or persons, in search of a home to share. Typically, providers
are senior residents with living space to share while home seekers are typically lower income adults in need of an inexpensive place
to stay. To support such a program, Danville could make contributions to County agencies already providing the service and/ or
could support community-based organizations to support programs that would help residents find affordable housing
opportunities, including shared housing and roommate referrals.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
2.9.1. By the end of 2015, research the opportunities and merits of supporting shared housing opportunities in Danville through
Town -contribution to appropriate County agencies and/or community-based organizations.
Actions Taken: No actions taken beyond dissemination of information about County -administrated programs. Housing
options made available under the heading of small family or large family residential care facilities have the potential to address
this policy as well.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not applicable.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 2.9 and Program 2.9.1. are recommended to not be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-19
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
GOAL 3.0
INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF APPROPRIATE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
Notes:
In addition to the development of affordable housing in general, Danville should work to identify and address the housing needs
of special needs households and individuals in Danville, including the mentally and physically disabled persons, seniors, large
family households, persons with developmental disabilities, etc.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
3.1.1. Allow techniques such as use of smaller unit sizes, parking standard reductions and common dining facilities and fewer
amenities for senior projects and other special needs groups as deemed appropriate to increase affordability.
Actions Taken: Senior independent living facilities entitled by the Town (e.g., Danville Lodge and Sycamore Place) have been
authorized with reduced parking standards - with such review being on a project -by -project basis. No state housing laws
approved during the 2015-2022 Planning Period provide residential developers that option to utilize default parking standards
that would be less than the Town's standards.
3.1.2. Facilitate the development and operation of proposed small family residential care facilities (6 or fewer beds) and large family
residential care facilities (7 - 12 beds) serving special needs households and individuals, with special emphasis on meeting the
housing needs of Danville residents with developmental disabilities.
Actions Taken: Consistent with the requirements of SB2, ZTA 14-01 (Single Family Residential Districts), ZTA 14-02 (Two
Family Residential District), and ZTA 14-03 (Multifamily Residential Districts), amended the municipal code to all to the list of
allowed uses group homes, transitional housing, and supportive housing including six or fewer residents. These three ZTAs also
amended the municipal code to establish group homes, transitional housing, and supportive housing including more than six
residents to be added in those districts as uses that may be considered through the conditional uses permit process. -
3.1.3. Where deemed appropriate and on an ongoing basis, support the development of housing for special needs populations
through direct financial assistance, zoning incentives (e.g., density bonuses) and/or land write-downs (e.g., fee waiver or
reduction), with a priority given to the housing needs of extremely low income households.
Actions Taken: Beyond "by -right" facilities serving six or fewer persons, no projects proposed for cited special needs population
were established during the 2015-2022 Planning Period. Town regularly cites the Morris/Storer rental project, which serves up to
six developmentally disabled persons, as a means to meet inclusionary housing requirements in a manner where the below market
rate units are small (one -bedroom or studio) and where the units do not need to be supplied with corresponding parking.
3.1.4. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to existing land use controls, building
codes, and permit and processing procedures relative their potential to constrain development, maintenance, and improvement of
housing for persons with disabilities.
Actions Taken: Adopted TC Resolution No. 14-2020 establishing residential development standards consistent with the
directives from Senate Bill SB 330 "The Housing Crisis Act (HCA) of 2019" with the intent to reduce the time it takes to approve
housing development proposals - including residential developments of any size, mixed use where at least two-thirds of the square
footage is residential, and transitional or supportive housing - by creating a "preliminary application" process that provides
developer certainty by locking in development standards, design guidelines, policies, and fees in affect at the time a preliminary
application is submitted and deemed complete.
3.1.5. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the Reasonable Accommodation
Ordinance relative its effectiveness to provide relief to Code regulations and permitting procedures that may have a discriminatory
effect on housing for individuals with disabilities, with the monitoring to include a review of the procedures for requesting
accommodation, the timeline for processing requests and appeals, and the criteria used for determining whether a requested
accommodation is reasonable.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-20
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-21
Actions Taken: As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "Changes in state legislation that went
into effect in both January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2020, will be reviewed to determine if revisions to Danville's regulations that
might serve to constrain development, maintenance, or improvement for persons with disabilities need to be made to assure the
regulations remain consistent with the intent and requirements state housing law." That review had not occurred as of the end of
the 2015-2022 Planning Period and should occur early in the 2022-2030 Planning Period.
3.1.6. Enforce Universal Design requirements issued by California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Actions Taken: Standards are enforced through efforts of the Development Services Department - Building Division.
3.1.7. Encourage (through incentives such as parking reductions, etc.) the development of senior housing that offers a wide range
of housing choices, for both affordable and market -rate, from independent living to assisted living with services on site, including
healthcare, nutrition, transportation and other appropriate services.
Actions Taken: No direct action taken on this Policy during the 2015-2022 Planning Period.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: 6 to 12 beds yearly.
Actual Unit Production: Not quantified as small family facilities do not require planning entitlements or planning review.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 3.1. framing policies and programs to serve special populations should be pulled forward into the
2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and related work programs
appear as Goal 7, Policies 7.1 and 7.2, and Programs 7.1.a, 7.1.b, 7.1.c. and 7.2.a.
Notes:
Emergency shelters provide housing, with minimal supportive services, for homeless persons. Occupancy in emergency shelters is
limited to six months or less, with such occupancy not to be denied because of an inability to pay. While there are not any homeless
shelters within the San Ramon Valley, there are various facilities in Contra Costa County operating as a result of funding made
available to the Urban County. As a member -jurisdiction of the Urban County, these facilities are available to qualifying households
and individuals from Danville. In recognition of Senate Bill 2, the Town's zoning regulations were amended in 2014 to make
emergency shelters a permitted use upon issuance of a ministerial permit for properties with DBD Area 3 zoning. Elsewhere in the
Town, emergency shelters currently may be
considered only upon issuance of a land use permit.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
3.2.1. Continue to support the creation and operation of transitional housing programs operated by Contra Costa County and non -
profit housing groups.
Actions Taken: The Town's participation is as a member of the Urban County - with Danville's population contributing to the
funding received for use on the various programs associated with transitional housing. Transitional housing in specified context
became an allowed use in residential districts.
3.2.2. Establish and maintain an active relationship with agencies serving the Tri -Valley's homeless population (e.g., Shelter, Inc.)
to secure up-to-date information about the number, type, and needs of the homeless population in the Tri -Valley.
Actions Taken: Information on the location and use restrictions/regulations of Contra Costa County facilities and facilities
serving the Alameda County cities of the Tri -Valley are disseminated to Danville staff that may have contact with homeless.
3.2.3. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the current regulations pertaining to
emergency shelters (amended in 2014 by way of approval of LEG 13-02) relative their effectiveness to meet the intent and
requirements of Policy 3.2 and the intent and requirements of SB 2 approved by the state in 2007.
Actions Taken: As reported to HCD for the 2015-2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2019 - "Changes in state
legislation that went into effect in both January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2020, will be reviewed to determine if revisions relative to
Danville's re lations ertainin • to emer : en shelters need to be made to assure the re lations remain consistent with the intent 1
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-21
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-22
and requirements state housing law."
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 3.2 and Programs 3.2.1., 3.2.2. and 3.2.3 should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current draft
of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 7.1 (Special Populations Housing
Needs) and as Program 7.1.d (Transitional and Supportive Housing), Program 7.1.e (Transitional and Supportive Housing
Regulations), 7.1.f (Homeless Population) and Program 7.1.g (Homeless Shelter Regulations).
Notes:
California Health and Safety Code §50675.2 defines supportive housing as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied
by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the
housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
To facilitate and encourage the provision of an adequate amount of supportive housing in Danville, the Municipal Code was
amended in 2014 to define supportive housing and to identify zoning districts that permit or conditionally permit supportive
housing.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
3.3.1. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the current regulations pertaining to
supportive housing relative their effectiveness to meet the intent of Policy 3.3 and the intent and requirements of SB 2 approved by
the state in 2007.
Actions Taken:
(1) In September 2014, the Town amended the municipal code to provide a definition of Supportive Housing consistent with
the directive of SB 2 and amended the regulations in the single family, two family, and multifamily zoning districts
allowing Supportive Housing serving six or fewer residents as an allowed use and allowing consideration of Supportive
Housing serving more than six residents as a conditional use (see "Action" note for Policy tbd).
(2) As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "Changes in state legislation that went into
effect in both January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2020, will be reviewed to determine if revisions to Danville's regulations that
might serve to constrain development, maintenance, or improvement for persons with disabilities need to be made to
assure the regulations remain consistent with the intent and requirements state housing law."
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: 6 to 12 beds for Planning Period.
Actual Unit Production: Not quantified as small family facilities do not require planning entitlements or planning review
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 3.3 and Program 3.3.1. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current draft of the updated
Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 7.1 (Special Populations Housing Needs) and as
Program 7.1.d (Transitional and Supportive Housing) and Program 7.1.e (Transitional and Supportive Housing Regulations).
Polic 3.4
Notes:
Transitional housing means buildings configured as rental housing developments but operated under program requirements that
require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined
future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. To facilitate and encourage the
provision of an adequate amount of transitional housing in Danville, the Municipal Code was amended in 2014 to define
transitional housing and to identify zoning districts that permit or conditionally permit transitional housing.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
3.4.1. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the current regulations pertaining to
transitional housing relative their effectiveness to meet the intent of Policy 3.4 and the intent and requirements of SB 2 approved
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-22
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-23
by the state in 2007.
Actions Taken: In September 2014, the Town amended the municipal code to provide a definition of Transitional Housing
consistent with the directive of SB 2 and amended the regulations in the single family, two family, and multifamily zoning districts
allowing Transitional Housing serving six or fewer residents as an allowed use and allowing consideration of Transitional
Housing serving more than six residents as a conditional use.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: 8 to 14 beds for Planning Period.
Actual Unit Production: Not quantified as small family facilities do not require planning entitlements or planning review
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Policy 3.4 and Program 3.4.1. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current draft of the updated
Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 7.1 (Special Populations Housing Needs) and as
Pro • ram 7.1.d Transitional and Su ..ortive Housin • and Pro • am 7.1.e Transitional and Su .. ortive Housin • Re : ulations .
GOAL 4.0
MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Notes:
The County -administered weatherization program provides free energy efficiency upgrades for eligible low income households to
lower their monthly utility bills. The Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department, Community Services
Bureau (County Bureau CSD) administers the federally funded Low -Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which
assists with energy bills and offset heating and/or cooling energy costs for eligible low income households. CSD also administers
the Energy Crisis Intervention Program (ECIP), which provides payments for weather-related or energy-related emergencies to
low-income households.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
4.1.1. Through the Town's website disseminate information on the Weatherization Program and the LIHEAP and ECIP Programs.
Actions Taken: The information was posted on the Town's website as a part of the 2015-2022 Housing Element.
4.1.2. Provide education on energy conservation.
Actions Taken: The information was posted on the Town's website as a part of the 2015-2022 Housing Element. Related
"Sustainability" actions - Joined MCE Clean Energy, a Community Choice Energy program, providing ratepayers with greater
choices for renewable energy options; Planned for the installation of additional EV charging stations in the new Village Theatre
Municipal Parking Lot; and continued a reduction in electricity usage through operation of photovoltaic arrays at four separate
Town facilities.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
The policy directives set forth in Policy 4.1. and Programs 4.1.1. are recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing
Element. The intent of the directive for Policy 4.1. is covered in draft Policy 3.1 (Energy Conservation, Sustainability and Climate
Change), Policy 3.2 (Energy Conservation) and Policy 3.4 (Home Energy Retrofit) and, collectively for these three policies, draft
Programs 3.1.b (Electrification for New Residential Construction) and 3.1.c (Green Building Incentives).
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-23
Notes:
The Contra Costa County Housing Authority administers the Housing Choice Voucher and Shelter Care Plus programs, providing
housing and rental assistance to lower income individuals and families. The Authority actively seeks to reduce the historic
geographic isolation of lower income households and has established payment standards applicable to the Danville area, thereby
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-23
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-24
promoting tenant mobility and addressing a goal of de -concentration of tenant -based assistance in some of the County's
historically concentrated lower income areas. The relatively high rental costs for housing in Danville can serve as a barrier for use
of this program, but the program criteria may allow some number of existing or future rental units in Town to qualify. Educating
property owners of rental properties about the program may lead to higher utilization of the program in Danville.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
4.2.1. Through the Town's website, disseminate information about federal rental assistance programs that provide rent subsidies
to apartment project owners/managers and to potential program recipients.
Actions Taken: Meetings with prospective builders whose projects would be subject to inclusionary requirements and/or are
considering invoking density bonus for the project includes discussion of how very low income households might be an option
where Section 8 vouchers could be utilized.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
The policy directives set forth in Policy 4.2. and Programs 4.2.1. are recommended to be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing
Element. The intent of the directive for Policy 4.2. is covered in draft Policy 6.8 (Support Ongoing Rental Subsidies in Danville) -
with no corresponding programs set forth in the current draft of the 2022-2030 Housing Element.
Notes:
The Neighborhood Preservation Program provides loans both to low income households (potentially as no -interest, deferred
payment loans) and to moderate income households (potentially as three percent interest loans). Recipients must be owner -
occupants of their homes, with a minimum ownership of six months required. The loans are to correct health and safety problems
and improving livability. The program is administered by the County through the County Building Inspection Department and is
available to residents of communities that are part of the Urban County.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
4.3.1. Through the Town's website, disseminate information about the Neighborhood Preservation Program to owners of rental
projects.
Actions Taken: The information was posted on the Town's website as a part of the 2015-2022 Housing Element.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 4.3 and Program 4.3.1 should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current
draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive is covered in draft Policy 10.1 (Housing Rehabilitation and Preservation)
- with no corresponding programs set forth in the current draft of the 2022-2030 Housing Element.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-24
'or oos.
Notes:
Continue the high level of maintenance of public improvements.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
4.4.1. Continue to develop and maintain critical infrastructure through the Capital Improvement Program and the Lighting and
Landscape District.
Actions Taken: Substantial annual investment in maintenance of public improvements continued through the Planning
Period. Review of proposed private improvements assured their design and construction was compatible in quality to public
improvements. Facilitating the development of a particular density bonus project at the southeast quadrant of the Town adopted
TC Resolution No. 96-2015, appropriating funds for CIP Project C-586 to complete the purchase of right-of-way at 1435 San Ramon
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-24
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-25
Valley Boulevard for improvements associated with the Elworthy/KB Homes PUD project that provided seven Very Low Income
units through its approved Density Bonus.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 4.4 and Program 4.4.1 should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current
draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 1.1, Program 1.1.a and Policy 1.3.
Notes:
Continue code enforcement and inspection activities as a means to preserve and maintain the appearance and safety, and prevent
deterioration, of residential neighborhoods. The code enforcement function is handled through the Planning Division of the
Community Development Department. Where applicable and feasible, investigation efforts should be directed to County -
administered rehabilitation loan and grant programs.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
4.5.1. Continue to carry out code enforcement activities as a means to maintain the quality of the housing stock and residential
neighborhoods.
Actions Taken:
(1) The implementation of Program 4.5.1. is met through ongoing code enforcement efforts.
(2) Adopted TC Ordinance No. 2016-06 amending the Municipal Code strengthening the code enforcement process by
authorizing the recordation of Notices of Non -Compliance for violations of the Town's building codes.
4.5.2. Continue to refer eligible homeowners and rental project owners to appropriate County -administered programs for assistance.
Actions Taken: Referrals are made as inquiries are received by the Town.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 4.5 and Programs 4.5.1. and 4.5.2. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In
the current draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 10.1 (Housing
Rehabilitation and Pro • am 10.1.a Code Enforcement .
GOAL 5.0
MITIGATE POTENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABILITY
Notes:
The Town engages in an ongoing process of review of its regulations for the environmental and development review and permitting
process for consistency with State laws to ensure that Danville's requirements do not act as a constraint to new development.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
5.1.1. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance to ensure that
Danville's subdivision policies and regulations do not constrain housing development and affordability.
Actions Taken: This work program was not undertaken during the 2015-2022 Planning Period.
5.1.2. By the end of 2017 complete Phase 2 of the update to the zoning and land use sections of the Municipal Code, including a
review of opportunities to provide for more housing on lands within the Downtown Business District.
Actions Taken: Completed.
5.1.3. Expedite the development review process for housing projects with long-term affordability restrictions.
Actions Taken: Program directive met, projects with long-term affordability components received expedited review.
5.1.4. Through various outreach efforts, promote the Town's interests in working cooperatively to increase housing development.
Actions Taken: Accomplished with workshops, study sessions for the Town Council and Planning Commission, and through
dissemination of information on the Town website - with a focused effort at the end of the 2015-2022 Planning Period to secure
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-25
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-26
public understanding and input of the large increase in the Town's RHNA for 2022-2030.
5.1.5. Promote the utilization of the Town's pre -development application review.
Actions Taken: The vast majority of proposals for residential development handled each year benefit from one or more pre -
submittal meetings, where significant feedback on the submittal is generated and supplied to the applicants, along with where clear
and detailed direction on the review process that will be utilized.
5.1.6. On an on-going basis, pursue technological enhancements to the Town's development review process that will speed up
and/or simplify the process.
Actions Taken:
(1) Adopted TC Resolution No. 80-2015, appropriating $78,000 in FY 2015/16 designated Technology Upgrades funds and
authorizing amendment to the EnerGov-Tyler Technologies contract to implement the Land Management System for
processing building permits.
(2) Adopted TC Resolution No. 32-2016, appropriating $225,000 for the continued implementation of the Information
Technology Master Plan which focused on permit processing software update.
(3) Adopted TC Resolution No. 77-2016, appropriating $155,000 designated Technology Upgrades for Phase 2 of its
implementation.
(4) In 2019 - Increased efficiencies within the MUNIS Financial System, EnerGov Permitting and Land Management System
and Office 365 suite by completing the move to cloud -based services that offer 24/7/365 availability with ISO 9000 security
levels and automatic updates.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 5.1 and Programs 5.5.1. through 5.5.6. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element.
In the current draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 9.1 (Design and
Aesthetics) and Program 9.1.a (Objective Design Standards) as well as in Policy 10.5 (Public Participation) - with no corresponding
programs set forth in the current draft of the 2022-2030 Housing Element.
Notes:
The use of the Planned Unit Development (P-1) process leads to the development of more creatively and flexibly designed residential
projects than under conventional zoning regulations. The flexibility allowed often leads to variation in otherwise applicable
development standards and enables the development plan to better respond to specific needs or environmental constraints that are
present at the development site. The P-1 regulations also allow more flexibility to mix different structure type or different housing
product within the same project. The Town eliminated the five acre minimum parcel size restriction for P-1 projects in the mid-
1990s, making the process available for use by most new projects.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
5.2.1. Encourage utilization of the Planned Unit Development (P-1) to allow use of, where deemed appropriate and warranted on a
project-specific/location-specific basis, reduced street widths, reduced number and/or size of sidewalks, and/or use of utility or
sidewalk easements instead of right-of-ways.
Actions Taken:
(1) 2015 action for 943 Camino Ramon rezoned a 0.75 acre site from M-9: Multiple Family Residential District to P-1 to allow
development of nine attached single family lots, including one BMR Moderate Income Household Unit;
(2) Adopted TC Resolution No. 46-2019 certifying a FEIR and approving Preliminary Development Plan - Rezoning request
LEG 10-04, Major Subdivision request DEV 10-71, Final Development Plan request DEV 10-72, and Tree Removal request
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-26
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-27
TR 10-28 for the 410 +/- acre site located on the south side of Diablo Road and Blackhawk Road extending approximately
two miles east from the intersection of Diablo Road/Green Valley Road/McCauley Road. The actions served to rezoned
the property from A-4; Agricultural Preserve District, A-2; General Agricultural District, and P-1; Planned Unit
Development District to P-1; Planned Unit Development District; to authorize the subdivision of the site to create 69 single
family residential lots and associated parcels; to authorize a minimum of 10% of the lots created to include an Accessory
Dwelling Units ("ADUs" - designed to qualify under the policies of the 2015-2022 Housing Element to be deemed as
affordable -by -design units available to low- or moderate -income households in accordance with the Town's inclusionary
housing requirements); to establish architectural design and landscape details for the development; to authorize the
removal of 15 Town -protected trees; to permanently set aside over 375 acres of the project site as open space; and to provide
for the development of approximately two miles of trails for public dedication that will create connections to the Sycamore
Valley Open Space.
(3) Adopted Ordinance No. 2019-07 and approved TC Resolution No. 55-2019 approving General Plan Amendment request GPA
2015-01, Preliminary Development Plan - Rezoning request PUD 2015-01), Major Subdivision/Final Development Plan
request DP 2015-65), and Tree Removal permit request TR 2015-39) to allow for the development of a 37 -unit townhouse
development at a 1.9+/- acre site identified as 359 and 375 West El Pintado Road. The residential project approval would
provide for the construction of eight new multifamily townhome buildings with six of the units (15 percent of the total
project) required to be made available as below market rate units in accordance with the Town's inclusionary housing
requirements.,
(4) Approved Final Development Plan request for the 1.19 -acre parcel located at 600 Hartz Avenue (site of the FAZ Restaurant)
to authorize the construction of 2,700 square feet of commercial space, thirty-three residential condominium units within
a two-story building and an 83 -space subterranean parking garage with five of the units (15 percent of the total project)
required to be made available as below market rate units in accordance with the Town's inclusionary housing requirements.
5.2.2. Encourage utilization of the Planned Unit Development (P-1) process, particularly in areas where the underlying general plan
land use designation is Residential - Multifamily - Medium, High/Medium, or High.
Actions Taken: PUD and General Plan Amendment Study approval for West El Pintado project for 38 townhomes - GPA and
flexible development standards implemented serve to accommodate transition from multifamily to abutting single family
development.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 5.2 and Programs 5.2.1. and 5.2.2. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In
the current draft of the 2022-2030 Housing Element the policy directive and work programs do not overtly appear, with the nearest
direction focusing just on the Downtown Area within policy direction in Policy 2.1 (Downtown Development) and Policy 2.2 (New
Mixed -Use Development) Program 9.1.a (Objective Design Standards) as well as in Policy 10.5 (Public Participation) - with no
directly aligned corresponding programs set forth (i.e., programs supporting the utilization of the Planned Unit Development (P-1)
process) in the current draft of the 2022-2030 Housing Element.
Notes:
Planning, Building and Engineering fees, combined with costs for required site improvements imposed through the development
review process, add to the end -cost of housing. While Danville's processing fees are comparable to fees levied by other Contra Costa
County jurisdictions and Alameda County Tri -Valley Region jurisdictions, fee deferrals, reductions, or waivers provided to
affordable housing projects would assist the development of such projects.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-27
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Programs and
Actions Taken:
5.3.1. In conjunction with the annual review of the fee schedule, review, and approve where deemed appropriate, fee deferrals,
reductions, or waivers to developers of housing projects with long-term affordability restrictions.
Actions Taken:
(1) Implementation measure met through the annual budget process where adjustments to application fees and mitigation
impact fees are considered.
(2) As a related actions - adopted TC Resolution No. 32-2020 accepting the Development Impact Fees AB 1600 Report for
Fiscal Year 2018/19, adopted TC Resolution No. 13-2021 accepting the Development Impact Fees AB 1600 Report for Fiscal
Year 2019/20, and Adopted Resolution No. 33-2022, accepting the Development Impact Fees AB 1600 Report for Fiscal
Year 2020/21 - with each review reporting on the accounting, spending and reporting status of each mitigation impact fee
fund imposed on new development.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 5.3 and Program 5.3.1 should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current
draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive is covered in draft Policy 1.2 (Funding) and Programs 1.2.a (Nexus Study),
6.1.a Waive Processin Fees for Multifamil Lot Consolidations) and Pro ram 6.3.c ADU Fee Reductions).
• . 1
• • • • • ' • I • I ' ' • • •
Notes:
Fair housing is defined as a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have a like range of
choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, or
any other arbitrary factor. The County allocates CDBG funds to local non-profit organizations for fair housing counseling and legal
services. Services offered typically include advocacy and collaboration in support of fair housing for all; public outreach and
education regarding fair housing rights; specialized property owner, management, and lender training; rental home seeking and
relocation services; and discrimination complaint processing and investigation. The Contra Costa Consortium (which Danville is a
participant) has adopted the HUD -mandated Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice. The AI includes: a
comprehensive review of the County's laws, regulations, and administrative policies; an assessment of how those laws affect the
location, availability, and accessibility of housing; and an assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing
choice.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
6.1.1. On a minimum basis of every two years, evaluate the effectiveness of existing outreach and community education efforts and
develop a comprehensive outreach strategy, with the effort to include consideration of the various methods of delivery, including
print media, mailers, web -based information and other methods.
Actions Taken: Program action was taken in the form of Town and County referrals to local non-profit organizations for fair
housing counseling and legal services that were supported by allocation of CDBG funds and, for the short period that similar
services were being provided by Tri -Valley Housing Opportunity Center (TVHOC) by the TVHOC.
6.1.2. Continue to support local non-profit organizations for fair housing counseling and legal services.
Actions Taken: Program action was taken in the form of Town and County referrals to local non-profit organizations for fair
housing counseling and legal services that were supported by allocation of CDBG funds and, for the short period that similar
services were being provided by Tri -Valley Housing Opportunity Center (TVHOC) by the TVHOC
6.1.3. Provide referral to appropriate agencies for services.
Actions Taken: Program action was taken in the form of Town and County referrals to local non-profit organizations for fair
housing counseling and legal services that were supported by allocation of CDBG funds and, for the short period that similar
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-28
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-29
services were being provided by Tri -Valley Housing Opportunity Center (TVHOC) by the TVHOC
6.1.4. Actively enforce building regulation accessibility requirements for new multifamily housing and for housing that requires
extensive renovation.
Actions Taken: Building regulation accessibility requirements for multifamily housing were consistently enforced during the
Planning Period.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 6.0 and Programs 6.1.1., 6.1.2., and 6.1.3 should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing
Element. In the current draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Goals 4 and 5,
Policies 4.1 and 4.2 and as Programs 4.1.a and 4.1.c. Program tasks contained in Program 6.1.4. should also be pull forward into
the current draft of the updated 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current draft of the 2022-2030 Housing Element. The policy
directive appears as Goal 5 (Affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation
and foster inclusive communities) - with no corresponding policies or programs set forth in the current draft document.
MMIE
Notes:
Ongoing public education on housing issues would facilitate the housing element implementation process. Use of the annual
progress report meetings presents an opportunity to highlight successes in housing development and to educate the public about
local land -use and development issues.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
6.2.1. Organize housing tours of successful affordable housing developments (e.g., the annual Tri -Valley Affordable Housing
Committee tour) with invitations extended to community leaders and the public.
Actions Taken: Organized tours occurred with Councilmembers, Commissioners and staff representatives of the member cities
of the Tri -Valley Affordable Housing Committee.
6.2.2. Expand the scope of the annual progress report on the goals, policies and implementation measures of the Housing Element
to communicate the needs and the benefits of providing affordable housing in the community.
Actions Taken: Following the preparation and Town Council review of Annual Progress Reports (APRs) covering the first couple
of calendar years for the 2015-2022 Planning Period, the Town Council has regularly reviewed APRs for the Danville 2015-2022
Housing Element with those reviews being followed by submittal of the APRs to HCD in the requisite format.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Policy 6.2. and Program 6.2.1. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current
draft of the u.dated Housin• Element the .olic directive and work .ro• ams a. sear as Polic 10.5.
*AL 7
PRESERVE THE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK IN DANVILLE
Notes:
As of the start of 2014, a total of 74 housing units in Danville that utilized public funding for project development. All 74 units are
located in the Bridge Housing/Town of Danville senior housing apartment project. Because they are in a project owned by a non-
profit affordable housing developer, they are not at risk of conversion.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
7.1.1. Continue to work with sellers of the below market rate units established through the inclusionary housing program to reset
the twenty year resale restriction upon sale of the units.
Actions Taken:
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-29
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-30
(1) Approximately eight for -sale below market rate units (BMR) have had their term of affordability extended as a result of
staff actions with the sellers of the BMRs.
(2) As a related action - adopted TC Resolution No 92-2014 authorizing execution of an addendum to the Resale Restriction
Agreement associated with 438 Antelope Ridge Way to allow the owner of this below market rate unit to temporarily not
reside in the unit and allowing the owner to temporarily make the unit available as a rental unit to a qualifying moderate
income household policies.
(3) As a related action - adopted TC Resolution No. 83-2017 approving the release from the 20 -year term restriction imposed
as part of the Resale Restriction Agreement for the below market rate unit located at 438 Antelope Ridge Way to allow
the sale of the unit at a market rate price in recognition of demonstrated financial need and the property owner's ongoing
health issues.
(4) As a related action - Approved TC Ordinance No. 2016-02 for Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 15-02, prohibiting Short Term
Residential Rentals in the Town of Danville to, in part, retain the availability of second dwelling units or multifamily
dwellings for long term tenants to meet the Town's affordable housing needs.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Evaluation and
Recommendation:
Direction contained in Goal 7.0, Policy 7.1 and Program 7.1.1. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In
the current draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 6.2 and as Program
6.2.b.
Policy 7.2
: intain a condominium conversion ordinance mitigating the impacts to displaced tenants and ensuring quality of the units sol
Notes:
By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the current Condominium Conversion
Ordinance (adopted in 2014) relative its effectiveness in protecting existing affordable housing and relative to its conformity to state
legislation pertaining to the residential condominium conversion process.
Programs and
Actions Taken:
7.2.1. By the end of 2017 review, and approve where deemed appropriate, amendments to the current Condominium Conversion
Ordinance relative its effectiveness in protecting existing affordable housing and relative to its conformity to state legislation
pertaining to the residential conversion process.
Actions Taken:
(1) The Town amended the municipal code to create a new Condominium Conversion Ordinance in September 2014.
(2) No residential condominium conversions occurred during the 2015-2022 Planning Period. (One commercial condominium
conversion was processed by the Town during that time.)
(3) As reported to HCD in the 2019 APR for the 2015-2022 Housing Element - "Changes in state legislation that went into
effect in both January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2020, will be reviewed to determine if revisions to Danville's Condominium
Conversion regulations need to be made to assure the regulations remain consistent with the intent and requirements state
housing law." That review had not occurred as of the end of the 2015-2022 Planning Period and should occur early in the
2022-2030 Planning Period.
Housing Unit
Production:
Projected Unit Production: Not quantified.
Actual Unit Production: Not applicable.
Direction contained in Policy 7.2 and Program 7.2.1. should be pulled forward into the 2022-2030 Housing Element. In the current
draft of the updated Housing Element the policy directive and work programs appear as Policy 6.2 and as Program 6.2.c.
APPENDIX E 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -E-30
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX F
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE A: PUBLIC OUTREACH OVERVIEW
Row Labels
2021 2022 Sep Nov Dec Grand
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Jun Jul Total
Earned Media 1 2 4 1 1 9
Danville Patch 1 1 2
Danville/San Ramon 1 2 1 4
The Patch 1 1
The Valley Sentinal 2 2
E -News 1 1 1 32
Danville Town Talks 1 1
Draft Housing Element 1 1
Public Hearings 1 1
Open House 1 1
Housing Element - Engagement 1 1
Presentation 2 3 1 3 1 3 4 2 1 1 6 1 3 31
American Legion Mt Diablo Post 1 1
Chamber of Commerce 1 1
Danville/Sycamore Valley Rotary Club 1 1
Exchange Club 1 1
Housing Element 101 2 1 2 1 6
Housing Element 201 3 3
Housing Element 301 3 3
Kiwanis Club 1 1
Planning Commission 1 1 1 1 4
Realtors Marketing Association 1 1 2
Senior Center: Buzz Session 1 1
TC/HRC Joint SS 1 1
TC/Parks Commission/Arts Advisory Board Joint SS 1 1
TC/Planning/DRB Joint SS 1 1
Town Council SS 1 1
Town Council/HRC Study Session 1 1
Town Talks with the Mayor 1 1 2
Press Release 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 14
Danville Town Talks 1 1 2
Introduce Housing Element and Legislation 1 1
RHNA Appeal 1 1 2
SB 9 1 1
Town Talks 1 1 2
Workshops 2 1 1 1 5
Draft Housing Element 1 1
Print 1 2 1 1 5
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-F-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Row Labels
2021
2022 Sep
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Jun Jul
Nov Dec Grand
Total
Danville Quarterly Newsletter -
Danville Quarterly Newsletter -
Danville Quarterly Newsletter -
Danville Recreation Guide - Fall
Kiosk Flyer
Social Media
Facebook
Instagram
NextDoor
Twitter
Website
Danville Town Talk)
Town Wcbsite
Draft EIR
Public Hearings
Documents
Draft HE HCD Comments
Final EIR
Site Map
Meeting
Spring 2022
Summer 2021
Winter 2022
2021
East Bay for Everyone
1
1
1
1 14 9 7 5
4 4 3 2
4
1 2 1
1 6 4 2 2
3
4
2
3
1
1
8 3 2 2
3 2 1
1 1
2
2 2 1
1
1
1 2 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
51
19
6
6
20
39
2
1
4
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PageH-F-2
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY
Updates as of 04/02/22
DarMae town Talks Website (as of 04/02/22)
314 registrants
11Ssubscribers tothe HI page
2,800 loin Vats
1,#01 Aware Visitors (visited at least one pate)
746Intormod VisitorsIVeator that has taken the next step and tacked on something 1
129 Engaged Visitors (participated ri an action dens --forum. story. question. pol)
Workshop Series Hankie Element 1011lune • October 2021)
Date R/A YT Views
06/12 39/26 12
06/29
07/0*
08/19
08/31
09/1g
10/07
49/31 44
25/17 11
56/24 40
17/12 20
49/23 30
23/31 32
What it RHNA T>ideo . 38 views en YT
Worksop Series_ Housing Element 2011March 2022)
Date R/A
03/09 9/15
03/17 4/1
03/28 22/24
YT Views
10
7
6
Housing Sites Suggestion Map • Tool (March 7 - Apr118)
259 visitors
26 contributors
125 piss
Publications on anvil. Town Talks Webs to
dons. -g Element fact Sleet - 197 dpwnksads
Home% Eleerlent FAQs • 57 downloads
Priorities Survey • 113 submissions (closed 09/18/21)
Rent 3 3%
Own 98 86%
Ho re-,ponse 12 11%
Ma ltd in 90
Dorene 23
8O%
20%
Top Identified flans to Preserve:
Oran Space • 40 responses or 38%
'Small Town' feel • 32 responses or 281E
Parke • 25 responses or 22%
Sinf1e If amity Housing 24 responses of 21%
Safrh/Polce • 16 responses or 14%
Downtown • 14 responses ce 12%
8rjv/1Va1k Ways • 13 cosponsors a 12%
Top Identified Concerns:
Traffic {rscl cinsg parking) • 20 responses or 19%
Overcrowding • 16 responses or 13%
leifilstructure fr cb. a water, whack) • 8 rmoorhes or 7%
Safety 'including crime. homelessness) • 7 responses or 7%
Updates as of 02/01/22
Damsrte Town Talks Website tag of 2/1/22)
245 website registrants
96 subscribers to the HE page
978 Waif Visitors Instead at least ono pagcl
400 informed Visitors )Vertot that has taken the next step
and clicked on som.tMig.)
*5 Imitated Vetoes (participated ri an action item -forum
story, question. polo
Workshop Series: Housing Element 101
Date R/A YT Views
06/12 39/26 12
06/29
07/0*
08/19
08/31
09/18
49/31
25/17
56/24
17/12
49/23
44
8
40
IS
S8
Whot h RHNA 7 video 86 strias on YT
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Updates as of 12/20/21
Sod& Meda Outreach Stets (September 1 - December 12)
These stats aro past for our Housing Element posts:
Twitter artrase mach 620 people per post 12)
facebook average reads 1.7k people per post 12)
Nerttdoor evtrge mach 1.9k people per post (1)
Ytstagrawr no posts
Town Webilte Housing Element Page Sipe 2 • lett 12
319 unique page visits (Il a plgr *so steered multiple Imes in one visit
t : ala counted once)
Danville Tower Talks Website (as of 12/20/21)
227 registrants
89 subscribers to the HI page
906 Aware Visitors (visited at least one pip)
376 informed Visitors (Visitor that has token the neat step end <licked
on something.)
79 Engaged Visitors lairtc'psted in on action Rem -locum. story.
q.xstion, till
Workshop Series: Housing Element 101
Date R/A YT Views
06/12 39/26 11
06/29 49/31 44
07/08 25/17 8
08/19 56/24 38
08131 17/12 17
09/18 54
Whoa is RHNAl video 7$ v cv : ;n
Updates as of 04/30/21
Social Media Outreach Stats
MOW state aro.r:t tot our Housing Fremont posts:
Twitter average reach 940 people per post
Facebookaverrage reach 930people on post
Hextdoar arerage reach 1 3K people per post
Instagram s.rrage reach 1.7K pe+opre per post
Town W ebsrt a Housing Element Pose May 1- August 31
880 unique page vlstes lit a obit was stewed rriJtiple tired ill ossa visit
R n onir counted once)
Danville Town Talks Website (as of 09/07/21)
189 registrants
75 subscribers to the HE pap
931 Total Visits
530 Aware V+stors limited at least one page)
2891i -stormed Vis ion (Visitor that has taken the nest step and clicked on
%omens ns. )
63 Engaged Visitors feuel cpated in an action item -forum story.
quee on, pato
Workshop Series
Date R/A
06/12 39/26
06/29 49/31
07/08 25/17
08/ 19 56/24
08/31 17/12
YT Views
9
43
7
29
N/A
What is RHIVAl video - 33 views on YT
Priorities Savory • 107 std tats of 09/06/21)
stmt 3 3%
Own 92 86%
Noresponsa 12 11%
Milford In 85 79%
On'inc 22 21%
Top identified items to Preserve
°parr Spate . 37%
'Snell Tarn' feel - 27%
Pants • 21%
Saltie Ferrety Mousing - 21%
Safety/Poke • 1S%
Downtown - 13%
8ike/Wa'k Ways • 12%
Top identified Concerns:
Treat 14%
Overcrowding - 11%
Psrkry • 5%
Water Shortage - 4%
Page H -F-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
TABLE B: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITY
Date
Medium
Details
Council/
Commission
Meetings
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 22,
2021
RHNA
Appeal
Town Talks
Website
(Launched
May 25)
Housing
Element
Workshop
Series
Priorities
Survey
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 1,
2022
Housing
Site
Suggestion
Map Tool
Balancing
Act
Draft
Housing
Element
for Public
Review
Other
3/10/2021
Presentation
TC/ Parks
Commission/Arts
Advisory Board Joint SS
X
3/23/2021
Presentation
TC/Planning/DRB Joint
SS
X
3/23/2021
Press Release
Town Talks
X
4/2/2021
Press Release
Introduce Housing
Element and Legislation
X
4/4/2021
Presentation
Danville/ Sycamore
Valley Rotary Club
X
4/6/2021
Presentation
Realtors Marketing
Association
X
4/12/2021
Presentation
TC/HRC Joint SS
X
5/25/2021
Presentation
Town Talks with the
Mayor
X
5/25/2021
Press Release
Danville Town Talks
X
5/26/2021
Earned Media
Danville/San Ramon
X
5/26/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
6/2/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
6/3/2021
Press Release
Workshops
X
6/4/2021
E -News
Danville Town Talks
X
6/5/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
6/7/2021
Earned Media
Danville/San Ramon
X
X
6/ 7/ 2021
Press Release
Town Talks
X
X
6/7/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
6/8/2021
Social Media
Instagram
X
6/8/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Date
Medium
Details
Council/
Commission
Meetings
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 22,
2021
RHNA
Appeal
Town Talks
Website
(Launched
May 25)
Housing
Element
Workshop
Series
Priorities
Survey
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 1,
2022
Housing
Site
Suggestion
Map Tool
Balancing
Act
Draft
Housing
Element
for Public
Review
Other
6/8/2021
Presentation
Planning Commission
X
6/9/2021
Social Media
Instagram
X
6/9/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
6/11/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
6/11/2021
Social Media
Instagram
X
6/12/2021
Presentation
Housing Element 101
X
6/21/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
6/21/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
6/22/2021
Earned Media
Danville/San Ramon
6/22/2021
Press Release
Workshops
X
6/28/2021
Print
Kiosk Flyer
X
X
6/28/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
6/29/2021
Social Media
Instagram
X
6/29/2021
Presentation
Housing Element 101
X
6/30/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
7/1/2021
Earned Media
The Valley Sentinal
7/1/2021
Earned Media
The Valley Sentinal
7/2/2021
Press Release
Workshops
X
X
7/2/2021
Press Release
Danville Town Talks
X
7/6/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
7/7/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
X
7/7/2021
Social Media
NextDoor
X
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Date
Medium
Details
Council/
Commission
Meetings
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 22,
2021
RHNA
Appeal
Town Talks
Website
(Launched
May 25)
Housing
Element
Workshop
Series
Priorities
Survey
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 1,
2022
Housing
Site
Suggestion
Map Tool
Balancing
Act
Draft
Housing
Element
for Public
Review
Other
7/8/2021
Print
Danville Quarterly
Newsletter - Summer
2021
X
X
7/8/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
7/8/2021
Presentation
Housing Element 101
X
7/9/2021
Website
Town Website
X
7/12/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
7/12/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
7/12/2021
Website
Town Website
X
X
X
7/12/2021
Website
Danville Town Talks
X
7/14/2021
Earned Media
Danville/San Ramon
X
7/14/2021
Press Release
RHNA Appeal
X
7/14/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
7/15/2021
Earned Media
The Patch
7/16/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
X
X
7/16/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
7/24/2021
Print
Danville Recreation
Guide - Fall 2021
X
8/10/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
X
8/11/2021
Press Release
Workshops
X
8/12/2021
Presentation
Kiwanis Club
X
8/16/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
X
8/17/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
X
8/19/2021
Presentation
Housing Element 101
X
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Date
Medium
Details
Council/
Commission
Meetings
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 22,
2021
RHNA
Appeal
Town Talks
Website
(Launched
May 25)
Housing
Element
Workshop
Series
Priorities
Survey
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 1,
2022
Housing
Site
Suggestion
Map Tool
Balancing
Act
Draft
Housing
Element
for Public
Review
Other
8/24/2021
Social Media
NextDoor
X
8/25/2021
Social Media
NextDoor
X
8/27/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
8/31/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
8/31/2021
Presentation
Housing Element 101
X
9/8/2021
Presentation
Exchange Club
X
9/14/2021
Press Release
Workshops
X
9/15/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
9/15/2021
Presentation
Town Council SS
X
9/17/2021
Social Media
Facebook
X
9/17/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
9/17/2021
Social Media
Twitter
X
9/17/2021
Press Release
SB 9
X
9/18/2021
Presentation
Housing Element 101
X
9/20/2021
Social Media
NextDoor
X
9/28/2021
Press Release
RHNA Appeal
X
9/28/2021
Presentation
Planning Commission
X
10/7/2021
Presentation
Chamber of Commerce
X
10/26/2021
Presentation
Planning Commission
X
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Date
Medium
Details
Council/
Commission
Meetings
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 22,
2021
RHNA
Appeal
Town Talks
Website
(Launched
May 25)
Housing
Element
Workshop
Series
Priorities
Survey
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 1,
2022
Housing
Site
Suggestion
Map Tool
Balancing
Act
Draft
Housing
Element
for Public
Review
Other
12/5/2021
Presentation
American Legion Mt
Diablo Post
X
1/5/2022
Print
Danville Quarterly
Newsletter - Winter 2022
X
X
2/22/2022
Presentation
Planning Commission
X
2/23/2022
Earned Media
Danville Patch
X
3/7/2022
Social Media
NextDoor
X
3/7/2022
Social Media
Facebook
X
3/7/2022
Social Media
Twitter
X
3/9/2022
Social Media
Twitter
X
3/9/2022
Presentation
Housing Element 201
X
3/10/2022
Social Media
Facebook
X
X
3/10/2022
Social Media
Instagram
X
3/14/2022
Presentation
Town Council/HRC
Study Session
X
3/17/2022
Presentation
Realtors Marketing
Association
X
3/17/2022
Presentation
Housing Element 201
X
3/25/2022
Social Media
NextDoor
X
3/25/2022
Social Media
Facebook
X
3/26/2022
Open House
Housing Element -
Engagement
X
3/28/2022
Presentation
Housing Element 201
X
3/29/2022
Presentation
Senior Center: Buzz
Session
X
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Date
Medium
Details
Council/
Commission
Meetings
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 22,
2021
RHNA
Appeal
Town Talks
Website
(Launched
May 25)
Housing
Element
Workshop
Series
Priorities
Survey
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 1,
2022
Housing
Site
Suggestion
Map Tool
Balancing
Act
Draft
Housing
Element
for Public
Review
Other
4/1/2022
Print
Danville Quarterly
Newsletter - Spring 2022
X
4/1/2022
Presentation
Town Talks with the
Mayor
X
4/5/2022
Earned Media
Danville Patch
X
4/5/2022
Social Media
Facebook
X
4/7/2022
Social Media
Instagram
X
4/29/2022
Social Media
Facebook
X
6/24/2022
Social Media
Twitter
X
6/27/2022
Social Media
Twitter
X
7/1/2022
Press Release
Draft Housing Element
X
7/1/2022
E -News
Draft Housing Element
X
7/7/2022
Presentation
Housing Element 301
X
7/11/2022
Social Media
Facebook
X
7/12/2022
Meeting
East Bay for Everyone
X
7/13/2022
Presentation
Housing Element 301
X
7/13/2022
Social Media
Twitter
X
7/20/2022
Presentation
Housing Element 301
X
9/13/22
Press Release
Draft EIR
X
9113/22
Website
Draft EIR
X
11/16/22
Website
Draft HE EIR Comments
X
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Date
Medium
Details
Council/
Commission
Meetings
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 22,
2021
RHNA
Appeal
Town Talks
Website
(Launched
May 25)
Housing
Element
Workshop
Series
Priorities
Survey
Town
Talks
with the
Mayor -
April 1,
2022
Housing
Site
Suggestion
Map Tool
Balancing
Act
Draft
Housing
Element
for Public
Review
Other
11/28/22
Website
Final EIR
X
12/2/22
Website
Public Hearing
X
12/2/22
E -News
Public Hearing
X
12/2/22
Website
Site Map
X
12/2/22
Print
Public Hearings
X
TABLE C: EARNED MEDIA
Date
Title
Source
Link
5/26/2021 Danville launches new online platform to receive
public feedback
Danville/San
Ramon
Danville launches new online platform to receive public feedback 1 News 1 DanvilleSanRamon.com
6/7/2021 As Danville ramps up Housing Element process,
Planning Commission to hear update on public
outreach website
Danville/San
Ramon
As Danville ramps up Housing Element process, Planning Commission to hear update on public outreach
website 1 News 1 DanvilleSanRamon.com 1
6/22/2021 Danville sets next workshop for residents to provide Danville/San
input on state -mandated housing increase
Ramon
Danville sets next workshop for residents to provide input on state -mandated housing increase 1 News 1
DanvilleSanRamon.com 1
7/1/2021 Danville provides workshop to inform residents about The Valley Sentinel
2023-2031 Housing Element
July 2021 Issue - pg 9
7/1/2021 Town continues to provide ways for the community to
participate in the mandated Housing Element Update
The Valley Sentinel July 2021 Issue - pg 10
7/14/2021 Danville files RHNA appeal seeking to lower number
of state -mandated housing units
7/15/2021 Danville appeals state -mandated housing requirements
2/23/2022 Danville Residents Asked to Identify Potential Housing
Spots
4/5/2022 Danville Housing Site Suggestion Tool Closes Friday
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Danville/San
Ramon
Danville Patch
Danville Patch
Danville Patch
Danville files RHNA appeal seeking to lower number of state -mandated housing units 1 News 1
DanvilleSanRamon.com 1
Danville Appeals State -Mandated Housing Requirements 1 Danville, CA Patch
Danville Residents Asked To Identify Potential Housing Spots 1 Danville, CA Patch
Danville Housing Site Suggestion Tool Closes Friday 1 Danville, CA Patch
Page H -F-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
NLE
APPENDD7XLG
HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation Plan 1 Goals, Policies, and Programs
Goal 1: Develop infrastructure through funding
mechanisms that support the demands of current and future residents, housing, commercial, and retail development.
Policy
1.1
Capital Improvements: Ensure that capital improvement needs of existing neighborhoods and mixed use commercial/residential are identified and addressed.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
1.1.a
Capital Improvement Program
Given added impacts of new residential development on existing infrastructure, the Town must
regularly identify where additional capital improvements are needed. On an annual basis, the Town
Council will review the Town's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to determine what special
priorities are needed for capital improvement projects required to support existing and new
residential and commercial development consistent with the General Plan, and in particular the
Mobility Element. Review of the CIP shall also include verification that areas needing improvement
are scheduled for funding to address these needs at a specific time in the future. This work will be
Development Services
Department
Town
Annually. Staff r-p-rprepares the
Draft CIP between March and
June, and the Town Council
adopts it each June.
completed with an AFFH lens to ensure that areas that are disproportionately impacted by a variety
of housing needs are included in recommended improvements.
Policy
1.2
Funding: Evaluate and establish funding mechanisms to provide new infrastructure to support residential and commercial development.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
1.2.a
Nexus Studies
Nexus studies are required to set the fees the Town charges for new development to offset impacts
to infrastructure the Town maintains, such as roadways, parks and storm drains. Many of the
Town's existing nexus studies are outdated and warrant updating to establish fees commensurate
with present-day costs for labor and materials. Under a new state law, AB 602, jurisdictions are
now required to update their development fees every 8 years. The Town will complete a
comprehensive update of development impact fee nexus studies to ensure fees align with current
costs for infrastructure maintenance.
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to occur between
February and June of 2024,
Study to be adopted by the by
the Council in June as part of
the annual budget.
1.2.b
Special Tax Districts
Tax districts can be an effective tool to generate local revenue dedicated to infrastructural
improvements and maintenance. Because there are several kinds of special tax districts with a
range of applicability, a study is needed to understand what tax districts would work best in the
context of Danville and what would be needed to implement this kind of financing program. The
Town will conduct a study to assess the efficacy of special tax districts to fund public services and
infrastructure to support new development. The study will identify and analyze options appropriate
for Danville and, if applicable, develop an implementation plan.
Town
Study to begin in February
2030, and final study approval
and implementation by
December, 2030
Policy
1.3
Capital Needs: Ensure that capital improvement needs are regularly identified and addressed through coordination across Town Departments.
Goal 2: Promote
oning.
Policy
2.1
a vibrant commercial and cultural downtown area that meets the needs of residents and visitors and encourages a mix of retail, commercial, and residential
Downtown Development: Provide clear direction to property owners, the public, and developers on expectations and requirements surrounding land use and design in the downtown.
building through
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
2.1.a
Downtown Specific Plan
SB 35 requires cities review new multifamily residential developments against objective design
standards to streamline project review and reduce overall development costs. The Town has
adopted resolutions listing objective development standards and consolidating all applicable
existing objective development standards from different ordinances within the Municipal Code. The
Town is also working to complete a new Downtown Master Plan which will build off of the Town's
1986 Downtown Master Plan. Any new standards will also be codified within the Town's Downtown
Business District Ordinance.
Development Services and
Economic Development
Departments
Town
Review underway, to be
completed by July, 2024
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-2
In addition, the Town will develop written procedures for complying with SB 35 Streamlined
Ministerial Approval Process to ensure compliance with State law.
2.1.b
New Mixed Use Developments
The Town has seen several mixed use commercial/residential development in the downtown area
in the last five years. While there are a number of underutilized properties in the downtown area, in
order to preserve the pedestrian character of the downtown area, the Town desires to maintain a
ground floor commercial presence along the street, with residential units above and behind. The
Town will conduct a study of the economical feasibility of mixed use commercial and residential
development to determine the economic feasibility and determine the most appropriate
development standards and other policies to encourage this type of development where
appropriate.
Development Services and
Economic Development
Departments
Town
Study to start 1/26 and be
completed and implemented
though revision to the Town
Code (if necessary) by
September, 2026
Policy
2.2
New Mixed Use Developments: Support, as appropriate, projects that include a mix of both residential and commercial development in the Downtown by providing incentives such as scheduling joint study sessions
of the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board to gather early input, considering reductions in parking requirements if studies demonstrate different peak periods between land uses and
facilitating interagency coordination during the development review process.
Policy
2.3
Housing Rehabilitation in Non -Residential Areas: Encourage housing rehabilitation in commercial zoning districts.
Goal 3: Promote environmental responsibility, long-term sustainability, and adaptability in residential development and related infrastructure to minimize impacts to global climate change.
Policy
3.1
Energy Conservation, Sustainability and Climate Change: Promote available energy conservation programs, and develop new programs to address sustainability and climate change issues.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
3.1.a
CEQA Process
Project -level review of environmental impacts of new housing developments is required under the
Development Services
Town
Ongoing
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Town shall follow CEQA procedures to
expedite permit processing for all development, including encouraging preliminary project review by
staff and considering the use of mitigated negative declarations, focused EIR's and other
procedures to adequately assess environmental impacts, suitable mitigations, and reduce project
delays where appropriate.
Department
3.1.b
Electrification for New
Residential Construction
Efforts towards promoting energy conservation in housing is a requirement under State Housing
Element Law. The Town will review and consider efforts within other Contra Costa County
communities that have or plan to institute energy efficiency standards beyond those of the
California building and residential codes by requiring electrification of new residential developments
in lieu of natural gas or oil. The Town will review these efforts and consider implementation of
similar requirements for development in Danville.
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to Begin 1/24 and be
completed and implemented
though revision to the Town
Code (if necessary) by
September 2024
3.1.c
Green Building Incentives
Offer incentives to property owners whose buildings exceed minimum CalGreen requirement, such
as obtain a U.S Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Certification, Build Green Point Rated Certification
Development Services
Department
Town
Annually, ongoing
-It -Green (GPR), or a self -certification equivalent.
Incentives may include granting Environmental Awards of Excellence and posting details of the
building on the Town's website, inclusion of the project on a tour highlighting outstanding
environmental stewardship or technology, and providing plaques certifying that the building
exceeds the Town's minimum green building standards.
Policy
3.2
Energy Conservation: Provide information to the public on programs for energy conservation improvements and other actions.
Policy
3.3
Annual Earth Day: Sponsor an annual Earth Day event, providing info to citizens on environmental sustainability.
Policy
3.4
Home Energy Retrofit Program: Work with the County to publicize Home Energy and Improvement Programs.
moo.. ,.. ,_ .�,_' _.,,.:::. ,�.._, ._, -.. -,. . .c° , •• -, : : al orient • o , ` arital status, ability, or national origin.
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-3
Policy
4.1
Equal Housing Opportunity: Continue to facilitate non-discrimination in housing in Danville.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
4.1.a
"Housing Impact Statement"
for Discretionary Land Use and
Planning Decisions
In compliance with SB 166 to ensure No Net Loss of sites available to meet the RHNA, to support
the required findings when development of any parcel with fewer units by income category than
identified in the housing element for that parcel and to demonstrate progress towards the RHNA, a
"Housing Impact Statement" will be included in all staff reports for discretionary land use and
planning decisions. This statement will expressly state how proposed actions meet the Town's
housing goals and affirmatively furthers fair housing to encourage integrated and balanced living
patterns. The statement will also describe any potential impacts that proposed actions may have on
the Town's housing supply and the provision or loss of affordable housing.
Planning Division
Town
Ongoing
4.1.b
Fair Housing Resources
Create a webpage specific to fair housing including resources for residents who feel they have
experienced discrimination, information about filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD, and
information about protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. Ensure that lower income groups
Development Services
Department
Town
To be completed by 12,2023
and special needs groups and their advocates are advised of this information.
Policy
4.2
Nondiscrimination Clauses: Provide nondiscrimination clauses in rental agreements and deed restrictions for housing constructed with Town assistance.
Goal 5: Affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.
See Fair Housing Action Plan
Goal 6: Promote the expansion of the housing throughout the Town to accommodate a variety of housing types that are attractive and affordable to potential renters and home buyers at a wide
ange of income
Policy
levels.
Production of New Lower -Income Units: Facilitate and support the of new affordable housing units to meet the needs of a range of income levels.
6.1
production
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
6.1.a
Conditions of Approval for
Multifamily Housing
Develop Conditions of Approval for new multi -family residential development to include conditions
that include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.) An ongoing condition to require all developers creating affordable housing with deed restrictions
to include language in agreements with the Town permitting persons and households eligible for
HUD Section 8 rental assistance or Housing Voucher Folders to apply for below -market -rate units
consistent with Federal Fair Housing regulations; 2.) Deferral of development fees to certificate of
occupancy for projects including 15% or more affordable units to reduce overall development costs;
3.) The owner/applicant will provide documentation the tenant was offered first right of refusal
pursuant to SB 330 provisions prior to issuance of a building permit.
Development Services
Department
Town
Study will begin in June, 2026,
and be completed and
implemented through code
amendments (if necessary) by
December 2026. 202/1
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
6.1.b
Funding Sources to Support
Affordable Housing
Development
Due to the high land and construction costs in Danville, development of deeply affordable housing
(extremely low-income, low-income) is generally financially infeasible without significant
subsidization. Since the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the Town no longer has access
to millions of dollars from the state to contribute towards development. The Town has an existing
Housing Trust Fund with limited funds and needs to find ongoing sources of revenue to provide
meaningful financial support towards the production of affordable housing to meet its RHNA goals
and affirmatively further fair housing through increased access to housing and high resource areas.
Use and allocation of existing and future funds will be determined as part of this program, which
may include supporting the rehabilitation of existing multifamily residential properties among other
activities.
The Town will create a plan to utilize existing funds in the Town's Housing Trust Fund and review
potential additional sources for ongoing revenues, such as commercial development linkage fees or
real estate transfer tax, to subsidize and support access to affordable housing opportunities. The
Town Manager and
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to begin in June, 2025,
and be completed and
implemented through code
amendments (if necessary,
December, 2025
plan will take into consideration the needs of lower-income groups, including those with special
needs.
6.1.c
Update Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
The Town's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires projects with 8 or more units to provide a
minimum of 10% or 15% (for developments greater than 20 units per acre) moderate income
affordable units. The Town will conduct a study with the intent on amending the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance to require that affordable units be required to be low: -income units.
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to begin in June 2024,
and to be completed and
implemented by January 2025
2024
6.1.d
Parking Standards for Different
Housing Types
Land costs and basic construction costs for residential developments have rapidly increased, which
has in turn increased the cost of housing. Costs associated with the provision of parking may result
in fewer total units or prevent the financial feasibility of development. Additionally, how people travel
continues to change as more focus is being placed on alternative modes of transportation such as
bikes and rideshares and remote work. The Town's parking standards are the same town wide,
regardless of location.
The Town will review development and potentially reduce parking requirements for multifamily
housing based on density. In addition, multifamily housing located near 1680 and/or bus lines may
be appropriate for lower parking requirements. Finally, senior housing developments will be
considered for lower parking requirements.
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to begin March 2025,
and be completed and
implemented by November,
20252024
6.1.e
Waive Processing Fees for
Multifamily Lot Consolidations
The Town incentivizes the consolidation of lots for the development of housing, primarily through
reviewing lot mergers through a ministerial process. This process reduces the time and effort
required to combine lots for the development review process. Given that many of the largest
parcels in the downtown area have already been redeveloped, most new development will require
the consolidation of multiple lots, which the Town aims to streamline to promote the production of
housing. To further incentivize the consolidation of Tots, the Town will review the Master Fee
Schedule and consider reducing or waiving processing fees for muti-family housing developments.
In addition, the Town will initiate a development feasibility study relate to the North Hartz area of
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to begin in July, 2024
and be complete by the end of
2024
Danville, where many of the smaller lot housing sites are located. The study will review land costs,
development costs, loan costs, and rental income related to consolidation and development in the
area. The study will document the possible investment return for redevelopment in the area. The
Town will meet with property owners in the area and share this data in an effort to facilitate
consolidation and redevelopment.
6.1.f
Zoning Fees and Transparency
The Town will ensure ongoing compliance with transparency laws by listing all fees, as well
as all zoning and development standards, and other requirements for each parcel on the
Town's website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).
Development Services
Department
Town
To be completed by the end
of 2023
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Policy
6.2
Retention of Existing Lower -Income Units: Seek to retain existing subsidized very low-, low- and moderate -income housing units, especially those that will be available for conversion to market rate housing.
Retention of such units should have high priority for available funds.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
6.2.a
Data Collection and
Compliance with SB 330
Housing Replacement
Requirements
SB 330 requires developers demolishing housing to replace any restricted affordable or rent-
controlled units and comply with specified requirements, including the provision of relocation
assistance and a right of first refusal in the new housing to displaced occupants. This program will
track compliance with SB 330 regulations for every project proposing unit demolition.
As permits are requested for the demolition of housing, the Town will obtain information related to
the following and require one-for-one replacement when required: 1.) The number of existing
residential units proposed to be demolished or converted; and 2.) The number of these residential
units by bedroom count occupied within the last five years by persons and families of low or
moderate income, which would be required for replacement.
Development Services
Department
Town
Ongoing
6.2.b
Retention of Affordable Rental
Units
Danville has approved a number of rental and for -sale multifamily developments, including
affordable units. While affordable condominium and townhouse units are required to sell at below-
market prices, the costs to purchase a condominium or townhouse remains a high barrier to entry
for many low. -income households. Affordable rental housing options within Danville can
affirmatively further fair housing by providing lower-cost options that help address disparities in
access to opportunity. See also the AFFH Fair Housing Plan.
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to begin in June, 2027
and be complete by January,
2028.
The Town will identify programs to encourage development and maintenance of affordable rental
units by providing incentives for developing and preserving existing affordable units through the
extension of affordability provisions once they expire or other avenues.
6.2.c
Condo Conversions
The Town will research best practices and consider amendments to the condominium conversion
regulations within the context of the current regulatory environment to retain existing affordable
housing units through condominium conversions.
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to begin in January, 2029
and be complete and
implemented as appropriate by
July, 2029.
Policy
6.3
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Continue to support the construction of accessory dwelling units, pursuant to the Town's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
6.3.a
Permit -Ready ADUs
In accordance with AB 671, local governments must include in their General Plan housing elements
plans to incentivize and promote the creation of affordable accessory dwelling units (ADUs). In
2020, the Town hired architects and developed Permit -ready plans, removing the need for
households to hire architects and engineers to create a custom designs and reduce the time
needed for project approvals, thus reducing the overall costs to create new housing units. The
Town will continue to make this program available. In addition, the Town will create an enhanced
marketing strategy to better promote the program with the purpose of continually increasing
participation in the program.
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to begin in January,
2024 and be complete and
implemented as appropriate by
July, 2024_
6.3.b
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Regulations
The Town is committed to ongoing compliance with State Law regulating accessory dwelling units
(ADUs). As needed, the Town will review and update the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit
Ordinance for conformance with regulatory updates and revise to bring into compliance
with State law in 2023 and every two years thereafter.
In addition, the Town will monitor permitted ADU's and affordability every other year and
take appropriate action, including adjusting assumptions or rezoning within one year if the
Development Services
Department
Town
Ongoing Study to begin in
January, 20234 and be
complete and implemented as
appropriate by July, 20234.
2023 and then bi-annually
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-6
sites inventory is negatively impacted to ensure ongoing compliance with no net loss
provisions.
6.3.c
ADU Fee Reductions
To promote the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and reduce the overall costs
associated with this housing product, the Town will conduct an analysis to discern the impacts
of consider reducing development impact fees for all ADUs, bringing forward
recommendations for adoption to the Town Council. ADUs can be a wealth -building asset for
low-income households and information on building or converting ADUs will be targeted towards
low-income populations within the Town.
Development Services
Department
Town
2-028 Study to begin in January,
2028 and be complete and
implemented as appropriate by
July, 2028.
6.3.d
ADU Occupancy Survey
The Town currently lacks detailed information on the occupancy and tenure of ADUs. The Town will
develop a survey for applicants seeking approvals for ADUs to provide basic information about the
project, including, but not limited to, the number of anticipated occupants, whether the unit will be
rented or provided to family, and if it is to be rented, what the anticipated rent will be. This data will
be used to more accurately track the Town's progress towards its RHNA goals and understand
Development Services
Department
Town
202'1 Study to begin in January,
2024 and be complete and
implemented as appropriate by
July, 2024.
development trends within the Town.
Policy
6.4
Available Funding Sources: Utilize County, State, and federal programs and funding sources that provide housing opportunities for lower-income households.
Policy
6.5
Ongoing Monitoring of Conversion Risks: Monitor affordable projects at risk of conversion to market rate. Maintain regular communication with the owners of any subsidized projects in Danville to keep up -to -
date on plans to maintain affordability. Assist in outreach and education to tenants as needed.
Policy
6.6
Ongoing Monitoring of Federal Preservation Activities: Monitor Federal actions and appropriations regarding extension of Section 8 contracts, and actively support additional appropriations. Work with the owners
to determine expected actions and assist with any negotiations that would result in the preservation of these units.
Policy
6.7
Respond to Notices of Intent to Prepay: Support efforts to retain existing FHA and HUD subsidized low-income units through use of local, regional and national resources, CDBG funds, Redevelopment Housing
Set -Aside funds, and other solutions.
Policy
6.8
Support Ongoing Rental Subsidies in Danville: Continue to support the County Housing Authority housing rental subsidies to lease units in Danville for very -low and low-income households. The Town will
continue to promote the program by providing information to the community on the value of this program and the need for participant landlords through the Housing Choice Voucher program.
Policy
6.9
Available Funding: Support efforts to obtain available State and federal assistance to develop affordable housing, including housing for seniors, large households, households with children and those with special
needs, by providing Town Council resolutions of support to developers of affordable housing projects.
Policy
6.10
Tax Increment Financing Activities: Support State and regional efforts to reinstate redevelopment -like tools to require the provision of and fund the development of affordable housing.
Policy
6.11
Manufactured Housing: As required under State law, allow placement of manufactured housing units on permanent foundations where single family residential uses are permitted.
Policy
6.12
Diversity of Housing Types: Promote development of a range of housing types, like fourplexes, to address the "missing middle" of housing affordability.
Goal 7: Promote
income households.
access to affordable housing opportunities for persons with special housing needs such as seniors, developmentally disabled, large households, and very low to moderate
Policy
7.1
Special Population Housing Needs: Collaborate with leaders of special population services to understand housing needs and priorities to inform Town's decision making.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
7.1.a
Special Population Housing
Identify, contact and collaborate special population service providers to identify specific housing
Development Services
Town
Ongoing
Needs - Collaborative Efforts
needs and provide ongoing guidance for effective and targeted Town policies.
Department
7.1.b
Special Population Housing
The Town will review, and amend where necessary, existing procedures regulating inclusionary
Development Services
Town
Study to begin in March 2026
Needs - Provide Priority Access
housing, density bonuses, and those controlling allowed and conditionally allowed uses in single
Department
and be completed and
to Housing Programs
family and multiple family areas with the goal of creating a housing priority access system that
implemented as necessary by
identifies households best served with priority access to the Town's housing programs. During this
February 2027.
review, focused consideration shall be given to the special housing needs of such populations as
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-7
seniors, persons with disabilities, Targe households, and female headed households for priority
access.
7.1.c
Developer Encouragement to
The Town will review, and amend where necessary, existing procedures regulating inclusionary
Development Services
Town
Study to begin in March 2026
Provide Amenities for a Diversity
housing, density bonuses, and those controlling allowed and conditionally allowed uses in single
Department
and be completed and
of Households
family and multiple family areas with the goal of encouraging developers through the development
implemented as necessary by
review process to provide amenities for a diversity of households. During this review, focused
February 2027.
consideration shall be given to the special housing needs of such populations as seniors, persons
with disabilities, large households, and female headed households for priority access.
7.1.d
Encourage Development of One-
Take appropriate steps to heighten the existing provision and encouragement for the development
Development Services
Town
Study to begin in March 2026
Story Accessible Units
of accessible housing units such as single -story dwelling units, renovation of existing housing stock,
Department
and be completed and
and the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to existing residential properties to support
implemented as necessary by
seniors and persons with disabilities.
February 2027.
7.1.e
Assistance for Persons with
Meet with the Regional Center of the East Bay, an advocate for children and adults with
Development Services
Town
Ongoing; coordinate with
Developmental Disabilities
developmental disabilities, to secure a better understanding of housing needs for populations with
Department
regional offices and developers
developmental disabilities.
at least annually to pursue
Coordinate with the Regional Center of the East Bay to inform families of the resources available to
housing opportunities.
them and to explore incentives so that a larger number of future housing units include features that
meet the needs of persons with developmental disabilities and other special needs.
Support the development of small group homes that serve developmentally disabled adults and will
work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of units for persons with
developmental disabilities in future affordable housing developments.
Coordinate housing activities and outreach with the Regional Center for the East Bay and
encourage housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments for
persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, to increase housing
mobility opportunities and pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and
disabilities.
7.1.3
Senior Housing
Collaborate with the Danville Senior Commission to develop an outreach program to build
Development Services
Town
Study to begin in March 2029
awareness of age-
Department and Parks and
and be complete and
friendly housing options and services, which may include Accessory Dwelling Units, home -sharing,
Leisure Services Department
implemented as necessary by
downsizing, Universal Design standards, and more.
9, 2029.
7.1.b
Developmentally Disabled
Meet with local advocates for children and adults with developmental disabilities, such as the
Development Services
Town
Study to begin in March 2025
Regional Center of the East Bay and others to more specifically understand housing needs for
Department
and be completed and
populations with developmental disabilities and how to inform housing providers to provide a
implemented as necessary by
portion of new affordable housing units for persons with disabilities. Discuss a plan to pursue
September 2025.
funding sources designated for persons with special needs and disabilities to aid the development
of housing units for this population.
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
7.1.c
Larger Units Resources for Large
Large households defined by HUD having five more members have different housing
Development Services
Department
Town
Study to begin in March 2027
7.1.f
as or often
than households. If Town's does include larger
Households
and be complete completed
needs smaller a rental -housing stock not
Targe households living in These lower
and implemented as necessary
apartments, who rent could end up overcrowded conditions.
- - - - ' - - - - - - - - - •
by $September 2027.
_ _ _ _ _ e _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Town will analyze the impacts of requiring a certain of be 3 bedroom on for
percentage units
rent
feasibility. As of this analysis determine what of the total units should be
project part percentage
three
bedroom and what size of development should trigger this requirement.
units,
Finding rental housing with more than two bedrooms is a typical problem for large families,
particularly renters with lower income levels. While more than 85% of the housing units in Danville
have three or more bedrooms (2021 ACS 5 -Year - and compared to a countywide level of around
65%), only 8.8% - or 1,218 units - were occupied by renters. While the Housing Choice Voucher is
a program that can assist very lower income large renter -households in accessing adequately sized
housing, the Town will analyze the feasibility and manner of requiring a certain percentage of units
in future for rent projects to have three bedrooms. As part of this analysis determine what
percentage of the total units should be three-bedroom units, and what size of development should
trigger this requirement.
7.1.d
Transitional and Supportive
Housing
Continue to support the creation and operation of transitional and supportive housing programs
operated by Contra Costa County and/or non-profit housing groups.
Development Services
Department
Town
Ongoing
7.1.q
7.1.e
Transitional and Supportive
Housing Regulations
The Town will review, and amend where necessary, the current regulations for transitional housing
and for supportive housing relative the intent and requirements of Government Code Section
65583.2.
pecifically, the Town will amend the zoning regulations to ensure that transitional and supportive
Development Services
Town
Study to begin in March, 2024
7.1.h
Department
and be completed as
necessary by August 2024
housing is allowed in all zones allowing residential, including mixed use. As the capacity limit for
such housing is identified as a constraint, the Town will additionally amend the zoning regulations
to remove the capacity limit.
7.1.f
Homeless Population
Establish and maintain an active relationship with agencies serving the Tri Valley's homeless
(e.g., Shelter, Inc.) to secure up to date information about the number, type, and needs
population
of the homeless in the Tri Valley Area.
population
7.1.i
Partnerships Special Population -
As a member of the Contra Costa Consortium (i.e., the Contra Costa Urban County along with four
Ongoing
Homeless
of the largest cities in the county), strengthen the capacity of the affordable housing development
community to locate, construct, and manage housing facilities for the homeless and to partner with
local and regional agencies to provide an adequate supply of short-term and permanent housing in
addition to supportive services that are appropriate for and meet the specific needs of all persons
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
7.1.j
Outreach Special Population -
Provide a high level of outreach targeted to chronically homeless people to inform them of their
Homeless
rights and opportunities to move into safe, permanent housing with appropriate support services.
7.1.g
Homeless Shelter Regulations
The Town will review, and amend where necessary, the current regulations providing for the
placement of emergency shelters relative information generated by Program 7.1.f and relative the
intent and requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2
Currently, shelters are allowed in the DBD zone. Specifically, the Town will make needed
amendments to current provisions to allow by right development without discretionary action,
formalizing the amount of acreage available for shelters, proximity to transportation and services
and areas/sites are not in areas unfit for human habitation. Development standards will
concurrently be reviewed for compliance and if not, the Town will revise the standards to be in
Development Services
Department
Town
2025Study to begin in March
7.1.k
2026
and be completo completed
and implemented as necessary
by 9 September 2026.
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-9
compliance. Lastly, the Town will modify zoning standards to ensure parking requirements comply
with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A).
7.1.I
Group Homes for Persons with
Disabilities with Seven or more
residents
Revise the current code provisions to remove that require a special or conditional use permit for
Planning Division
Town
2024Study to begin in March
7.1.1
group homes, transitional housing, supportive housing and similar uses with seven or more people
to the served are those disabilities, including developmental
2026
and be complete completed
remove use permit when residents with
and intellectual disabilities.
The Town will revise zoning requirements to allow such group homes to be located in any district
and implemented as necessary
by 9 September 2026.
that allows residential or mixed-use development.
7.1.u4
Update Permanent Supportive
Housing Opportunities
Update zoning to be consistent with AB 2162 to allow by right 100% affordable housing that has
25% or 12 units of permanent supportive housing, where multifamily or mixed-use housing is
permitted.
Planning Division
Town
2024Study begin in March
7.1.m
to
2026
and be -complete completed
and implemented as necessary
y 9 September 2026.
7.1.n
Universal Design Special
Require universal design in all new housing to ensure equal access to new housing for persons
Development Services
Town
Ongoing.
Population - Persons with
with disabilities and advocate for changes to State Density Bonus law to prohibit waivers from local
Department
Disabilities
universal design requirements.
Policy 7.2
Information and Resources: Ensure information on housing options and choice is accessible, current, and useful to special populations.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timefram
7.2.a
Resources for Housing for
Special Populations
The Town will review and update its current website with the goal of improving navigation of the site
and making more information available on the Town's website. The update will create and publicize
a list of federal, state, regional, and local community assistance programs that may be available to
residents, dependent on certain qualification criteria. The Town will periodically update this list to
ensure information is up-to-date and promote access to housing and community assistance
programs, particularly to the Town's elderly and other special needs populations
(disabled/developmentally disabled, large households, female -headed households, homeless, and
students).
Such programs may include:
- Financial Assistance for low-income homeowners to construct ADUs
- Information on private programs for shared living.
- Available funding programs for low-income first time homebuyers.
Development Services
Department
Town
2025Study to begin in
September 2027 and be
completed and implemented as
necessary by February 2028.
7.2.b
Promote the use of Housing
Continue to provide referrals to households and homeowners interested in participating in the
Planning Department
Town
Pull information together in
Choice Vouchers
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) program, promote the use of HCV by distributing information
2023 and update on an
pertaining to the State's source of income protections (SB 329 and SB 222) on the Town website,
ongoing basis.
annually working with fair housing service providers to educate the community on fair housing
resources and rights and responsibilities, and include a fair housing factsheet in ADU and SB 9
applications.
7.2.c
Regional Partnership for
Recognizing the regional nature of issues relating to affordable housing and homelessness,
Development Services
Town
Ongoing
Affordable Housing
Danville will continue to participate in regional efforts and coordinate with neighboring cities and
Department
non-profit agencies and will continue to actively participate in the Tri -Valley Affordable Housing
Committee to coordinate the provision of social services and housing assistance to meet the needs
of lower and moderate income households in the region.
7.2.d
Senior Housing
Collaborate with the Danville Senior Commission to develop an outreach program to build
Development Services
Town
Study to begin in March 2029
awareness of age-
Department and Parks and
and be -completed and
friendly housing options and services, which may include Accessory Dwelling Units, home -sharing,
Leisure Services Department
implemented as necessary by
downsizing, and more.
September 2029.
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Goal 8: Facilitate a mix of housing types with density and height limitations appropriate for the subject neighborhood.
Policy
8.1
Infill Housing: Encourage private housing development on existing infill sites to utilize existing infrastructure.
•
Program
ID
Program
Revised/New Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
8.1.a
Downtown Densities
Conduct an analysis of Land Use densities in the Town. The highest current land use designation is
25-30 The Town land designation in the 30-35
Development Services
Department
Town
2023 To be completed as part
of the Housing Element
units per acre. will add addition use ranges of and
35 40 units acre.
approval by 1/31/23.
per
8.1.b
Lot Consolidation and
Redevelopment of Non -Vacant
Sites
Many lots in the downtown most likely to be redeveloped are smaller or non -vacant properties, both
of which serve as barriers to development. Affordable housing requires a minimum lot area and
density to reach financial feasibility. Consolidation of small lots can increase opportunities for new
affordable housing throughout the downtown.
The Town will establish an outreach program and conduct engagement with owners of small lots to
assess the level of interest in lot consolidation and understand what Town support would
encourage lot consolidation, such as elimination of application fees. Based on this feedback, the
Town will explore developing other incentives and ways to support conversion of these sites to
residential or mixed uses.
Development Services
Department
Town
2027 Study to begin in January
2025 and be complete and
implemented by August, 2025.
8.1.c
Establish By -Right Designation
for Prior Housing Sites
Amend the Zoning Code to By Right designation for housing reused from
Planning Division
Town
2023Study will begin in April
establish a sites prior
Housing Elements for housing that a minimum of 20% affordable
2025 and be complete and
projects propose units.
The Town will amend the Zoning Code to establish a By -Right designation for housing sites
reused from prior Housing Element for housing projects that propose a minimum of 20%
affordable units. The program will be implemented within the first three years of the
planning period, with minimum zoning of at least 30 units per acre. (Gov. Code, §65583.2,
subd. (c).)
implemented by October 2025.
2025
8.1.d
Calculate Unit Density based
The Town will amend the Municipal Code and General Plan Text to allow all new RHNA housing
Planning Division
Town
2023 To be completed as part
on Gross Acreage Rather than
site density to be based on gross acreage instead of net acreage. This will eliminate a
of the Housing Element
Net
governmental constrained at property owners will be able to transfer density from un -buildable
approval by 1/31/23.
portions of a site, such as a creek area or steep slopes, onto the developable portion of the site,
increasing unit numbers.
Policy
8.2
Building Height: Establish development standards for residential building heights that are sensitive to neighborhood context.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
8.2.a
Building Height
Height and density requirements can be barriers to development and the Town needs more
information from real estate economics consultants to better understand the impacts of these two
variables on development feasibility to best design zoning standards to remove barriers to project
feasibility and increase housing production.
The Town will conduct interviews and roundtables with local developers, real estate economics
consultants, and other professionals to understand the impacts of height restrictions on
development feasibility and consider revisions to development standards, including updating the
Town's definition of building height, to remove such barriers relating to building height, and
community members to understand neighborhood -specific considerations.
Development Services
Department
Town
202/1 Study will begin in April
2024 and be complete and
implemented by October 2024.
Policy
8.3
Density Bonus: Provide a density bonus to projects that provide a required percentage of total units affordable to very -low and low-income households and for units meeting the special housing needs identified in
this Element.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
8.3.a
Density Bonus Regulations
Under California Government Code Section 65915 ("State Density Bonus Law"), jurisdictions must
adopt a local Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with state law. Recent updates to State Density
Bonus law, AB 1763 and AB 2345, provide incentives for 100 percent affordable housing and those
that are close to transit. The Town will update the Town's Density Bonus Ordinance for consistency
with State Density Bonus Law.
Development Services
Department
Town
2025 Study will begin in May,
2025 and be completed and
implemented by December
2025.
' oal 9: Promote a wide variety of housing types that balance valued aspects of the existing community character, including quality design, scale, and preservation of natural features.
Policy
9.1
Design and Aesthetics: Encourage quality design in new residential development.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
9.1.a
Goal 10: Adopt
Objective Design Standards
and implement a Housing Element
Further develop objective standards to ensure that new residential development is in keeping with
the design and aesthetics of the neighborhood and community character.
that complies with State Law.
Development Services
Department
Town
2026Study will begin in January
2026 and be complete and
implemented by September
2026.
Policy
10.1
Housing Rehabilitation: Pursue available funding for the preservation, rehabilitation and weatherization of viable older housing to preserve neighborhood character and retain a supply of housing units for all income
categories.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
10.1.a
Code Enforcement
Continue the code enforcement program to encourage the rehabilitation and/or elimination of
physically obsolete and substandard housing.
Development Services
Department
Town
Ongoing
Policy
10.2
Regional Housing Needs: Provide for additional housing by encouraging the construction of multifamily housing.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
10.2.a
RHNA Monitoring Program
The Town will maintain the residential sites inventory that can accommodate the Town's regional
housing needs allocation of 2,241 units. Update the inventory annually to monitor the consumption
of residential and mixed use properties. If sites in the inventory are developed for non -housing
income levels not in the inventory, if be
Development Services
Department
Town
Annually, as part of the HE
Annual Progress Report
purposes, or at specified necessary, new sites will
added to the inventory to ensure the Town's ongoing compliance with the "no net loss" provisions of
Housing Element Law. The Housing Element sites inventory will be posted on the Town's website
as a tool for developers, and provide as a handout at the public counter.
Policy
10.3
Town Leadership: Provide active leadership in implementing the policies and programs contained in the Housing Element.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
10.3.a
Zoning to Accommodate RHNA
The Town shall make available through land use planning and zoning an adequate inventory of
vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the Town's Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). The Town will approve all necessary General Plan Land Use Amendments, Rezonings,
Development Services
Department
Town
2026 To be completed
concurrently with the adoption
of the Housing Element by
and Zoning Text Amendments concurrently with the Adoption of the Housing Element Within three
1/31/23.
Housing Element land to for least 2,241
years of adoption, rezone provide adequate capacity at
units on suitable sites. The rezoning program would rezone all the effected parcels towith a
minimum density of 30 du/ac, Danville's default density for low and very low income units. The
Town's General Plan density range of 30-35 units per acre is a minimum/maximum, so
development would not be allowed to have a density less than wo units per acre. for lower income
sites. For housing site in the downtown area, most sites will limit development to residential only.
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-12
Some site which front onto major commercial streets will be required to provide commercial
development along the street. Commercial development will be limited to 8% of the total floor area.
10.3.c
Farmworker Housing
The Town will amend the its Municipal Code to treat farmworker housing that serves six or fewer
persons as a single-family structure and permit it in the same manner as other single-family
structures of the same type within the same zone across all zones that allow single-family
residential uses. The amendment will also treat employee/farmworker housing consisting of no
more than 12 units or 36 beds as an agricultural use and permit it in the same manner as other
agricultural uses in the same zone, in compliance with the California Employee Housing Act (Health
and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6).
Development Services
Department
Town
2026 Study to begin in July
2026 and be completed and
implemented by January 2027.
10.3.d
Low Barrier Navigation
Centers
The Town shall amend its Zoning Ordinances to ensure compliance with State law to allow low
barrier navigation centers by right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting
multifamily uses.
Development Services
Department
Town
2026 Study to begin in July
2026 and be completed and
implemented by January 2027.
Policy
10.4
Annual Review of Housing Element Implementation: Provide for annual review by the Planning Commission and Town Council of progress in implementing the Housing Element.
Program
ID
Program
Objective
Responsibility
Financing
Completion Timeframe
10.4.a
Annual Report
Prepare an annual report to the Town Council that describes the amount and type of housing
activity correlated with an updated summary of the Town's housing needs.
Development Services
Department
Town
Annually
Policy
10.5
Public Participation: Encourage and support public participation in the formulation and review of the Town's housing and development policies.
Policy
10.6
Housing Rehabilitation and Preservation: Support the Contra Costa County Housing Authority (CCCHA), which provides low interest loans for the rehabilitation of homes owned or occupied by low- to moderate -
income households.
Policy
10.7
Employee Housing: The Town will continue to comply with provisions of State law regarding employee housing, including but not limited to allowing any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer
employees to be treated as a single-family structure with a residential land use designation.
APPENDIX F 1 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H -F-12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
PARCELS SUBJECT TO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENTS
General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002, for properties that are not contained within
the Downtown Danville Land Use Districts, amending the Town's General Plan Land
Use Map for the property Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) listed below from various
General Plan Land Use Designations to the Residential - Multifamily - High Density
Special (30-35 units per acre) Land Use Designation:
200131005
200052004
200152008
200040012
200020010
200140016
207012001
207012007
207012008
207012009
207012010
196270029
218040043
216220008
510 La Gonda Way
520 La Gonda Way
455 La Gonda Way
425 El Pintado
939 El Pintado
400 El Cerro Blvd
744 San Ramon Valley Blvd
760 San Ramon Valley Blvd
770 San Ramon Valley Blvd
780 San Ramon Valley Blvd
790 San Ramon Valley Blvd
828 Diablo Road
3420 Fostoria Way
699 Old Orchard Dr
Map Key Site
A
A
B
C
D
E
U
U
U
U
U
W
Y
Z
General Plan Amendment GPA22-0002, for properties that are contained within the
Downtown Danville Land Use Districts, amending the Town's General Plan Land Use
Map for the property Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) listed below from various
General Plan Land Use Designations to the Downtown Business District Area 13:
Multifamily - Residential - High Density Special (30-35 units per acre) Land Use
Designation:
199330067
199330035
199330064
199330055
199330056
199330058
199330063
199330065
199330009
111 Hartz Ave
115 Hartz
127 Hartz
Railroad Ave
70 Railroad Ave
145 Hartz
171 Hartz
179 Hartz
80 Railroad
Map Key Site
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
199330010
199330027
200190024
200190023
200190028
200190018
200190010
200190017
200190021
200200017
208010023
216120028
216120029
216120042
216120043
216120012
216120015
200211005
200211007
200211016
200211017
200211018
200211027
200211025
208022036
216101001
216101002
208043020
208043021
208043022
208043024
208043025
216080074
216090019
216090023
208044015
208044017
208044018
208051009
208051011
208051010
208060029
208060055
195 Hartz
112 W. Linda Mesa
100 Hartz
110 Hartz
120 Hartz
130 Hartz
Hartz Ave
150 Hartz
180 Hartz
344 Rose
155 Diablo
307 Diablo Rd
Front St
315 Diablo Rd
319 Diablo Road
363 Diablo Road
Diablo Road
268 Rose St
199 E. Linda Mesa
254 Rose Ave
67 Front St
77 Front St
85 Front St
290 Rose Ave
185 Front Street
486 San Ramon Valley Blvd
480 San Ramon Valley Blvd
535 San Ramon Valley Blvd
San Ramon Valley Blvd
509 San Ramon Valley Blvd
515 San Ramon Valley Blvd
519 San Ramon Valley Blvd
620 San Ramon Valley Blvd
554 San Ramon Valley Blvd
588 San Ramon Valley Blvd
571 San Ramon Valley Blvd
551 San Ramon Valley Blvd
555 San Ramon Valley Blvd
577 San Ramon Valley Blvd
10 Town & Country
30 Town & Country
585 San Ramon Valley Blvd
609 San Ramon Valley Blvd
G
G
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
I
J
K-1
K-1
K-1
K-1
K-2
K-2
L-1
L-1
L-1
L-1
L-1
L-1
L-1
M
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
P-2
P-1
P-1
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
R-1
R-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
208060056
208060057
208060058
208060059
208060053
216080004
216080072
615 San Ramon Valley Blvd
607 San Ramon Valley Blvd
589 San Ramon Valley Blvd
San Ramon Valley Blvd
107 Town & Country
Boone Ct
200 Boone Ct
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
S
T
T
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MAP OF PARCELS SUBJECT TO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
General Plan Text Amendment GPA22-0002
Text to be added to Chapter 3, Planning and Development, Page 3.39, after the Residential
- Multifamily - High Density section of the Danville 2030 General Plan:
Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special
Density: 30 to 35 dwelling units per gross acre. Development below the minimum density
is not permitted.
Zoning: The Town's M-35; Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special and P-1;
Planned Unit Development District is consistent with the Residential - Multifamily -
High Density Special land use designation.
Description: All initial sites with this designation received this designation as part of the
Town's 2023-2031 Housing Element adoption and are intended to provide sufficient
residential development density to meet the Town's Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
All these sites have received an M-35; Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special
zoning designation, which establishes land use and development standards.
Any future General Plan land use amendments creating additional lands with this land
use designation, will require rezoning to the M-35 District.
This designation permits the development of condominiums, apartments, and senior
housing combined with varying amounts of open space and landscaping. Central
recreational and open space amenities should be an integral part of higher density
projects. The development of affordable rental housing should be encouraged within
these areas. Market -rate multifamily housing is also permitted. Conversion of these areas
to other residential land uses or to non-residential land uses is strongly discouraged.
General Plan Text Amendment GPA22-0002
Text to be added to Chapter 3, Planning and Development, Page 3.55 within the Special
Concern Area language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for Fostoria East:
The remainder of Fostoria East, comprising approximately 2.6 acres, retained its
Commercial - Controlled Manufacturing designation in the initial adoption of the 2030
General Plan. The site was redesignated to Residential - Multifamily - High Density
Special (30-35 gross units per acre) as part of the Town adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing
Element of the General Plan. This site was one of the sites re -designated to allow for
multiple family housing to help the meet its Regional Housing Need Assignment
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
(RHNA). The designation allows existing uses to continue. Looking out over the next 20
y ars, the ar a also represents an opportunity for livcwork type uses, incubator office
space, and other technology oriented or "creative economy" uses.
Given thc location of this site at the terminus of Fostoria Way, uses which generate
large traffic volumes (such as shopping centers or big box retail stores) should be
discouraged. Any Future development of this site is subject to the development standards
contained within the site's M-35; Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special
District zoning. In addition, development of the site or intensification of the Controlled
Manufacturing sites would need to be designed to minimize impacts on surrounding
residential properties. Buffering and screening to adjacent development on the north will
be critical., with building heights of no more than two stories along thc northern property
lifie,Ingress and egress should be limited to Fostoria Way.
General Plan Text Amendment GPA22-0002
Text to be added to Chapter 3, Planning and Development, Page 3.49 within the Special
Concern Area language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for the Diablo/Green
Valley/Stone Valley Corridor:
The north -south segment of Diablo Road between its intersections with Camino Tassajara
and El Cerro Blvd includes a number of parcels with development potential, particularly
near the El Cerro Blvd intersection. The General Plan designateds this entire segment for
Residential - Single Family - Low Density (1-3 units per acre) uses with the initial
adoption of the 2030 General Plan. The 2.72 acre nursery site at 828 Diablo Road was
redesignated to Residential - Multifamily - High Density Special (30-35 units per gross
acre) as part of the Town adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan.
This site was one of the sites re -designated to allow for multiple family housing to help
the meet its Regional Housing Need Assignment (RHNA). Future development of this
site is subject to the development standards contained within the site's M-35; Residential
-Multi Family - High Density Special District zoning. In addition, development of the site
would need to be designed to minimize impacts on surrounding residential properties.
If development is proposed on other vacant or underutilized parcels in this area, it must
occur in a manner that is compatible with nearby residential uses. To the extent feasible,
development on such parcels should not increase the number of ingress and egress points
to Diablo Road. New commercial or institutional uses are not considered appropriate in
this area, nor arc medium or high density residential uses.
General Plan Text Amendment GPA22-0002
Text to be added to Chapter 3, Planning and Development, Page 3.56 within the Special
Concern Area language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for the Special Concern Area
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for Downtown Danville and North Hartz
Avenue:
Additional Downtown zoning subareas (i.e., DBD Areas 2A, 10, and 11) were
subsequently added to accommodate higher density development and encourage mixed
land uses. With the adoption of the 2030 Plan, another subarea (i.e., DBD Area 12) wasis
created for the property designated for multifamily residential use in the 25-30 units per
acre density range. With the adoption of the Town's 2023-2031 General Plan Housing
Element, an additional DBD Area 13 was added. DBD Area 13 allows 30-35 units per
gross acre and was added to allow for additional multifamily housing to help the Town
meet its Regional Housing Needs Assignment (RHNA).
As part of the adoption of the Town's 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element, many
parcels within the North Hartz Avenue area were redesignated to DBD Area 13, allowing
30-35 residential units per gross acre. Land use and development standards contained
within the Town Downtown Business District Ordinance have been established and
should be strictly followed. The standards include a requirement for mixed use, with
ground floor retail adjacent to the major commercial corridors. In addition, wWhere
larger projects occur in the North Hartz area, buildings should be articulated into smaller
components, creating a scale and rhythm that effectively extends Old Town Danville. The
eclectic, finely detailed, and architecturally diverse character of Old Town should be
carried forward to the blocks north of Linda Mesa Avenue. Building heights should not
exceed existing zoning limits. Ground floor retail and restaurant uses are strongly
encouraged to create a lively street environment and enhance thc image of thc arcs as an
integral part of Downtown Danville.
General Plan Text Amendment GPA22-0003
Text to be added to Chapter 3, Planning and Development, beginning on Page 3.50 within
the Special Concern Area language of the Danville 2030 General Plan for Historic Wood
Family Ranch Headquarters:
The remainder of the site may be developed with a variety of low profile mixed uses,
including housing, offices, and a limited range of specialty commercial uses, such as bed
and breakfast lodging, or an event center and associated uses.
If housing is included, opportunities to meet some of thc special needs identified in the
Town's Housing Element should be explored. The density of housing constructed on
most of the site should be in the general range of 20-30 units per net acre. As part of the
Town's adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, an eight acre portion of the site is
allowed a density range of 30-35 gross units per acre. In order to accommodate other uses
of the remainder of the site, and to provide flexibility to facilitate preservation of the
historic structures on the site, the exact location and configuration of the eight -acre 30-35
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
units per acre portion of the site is not defined and shall be determined based on future
development applications. While the eight -acre area is undefined, any future
development on the site not related to development of the eight acres designated for
multifamily housing should demonstrate the continued availability of a minimum of
eight gross acres for the multifamily (30-35 units per gross acre) housing. The Town
encourages the planned unit development approach in this area.
General Plan Text Amendment GPA22-0002
Text to be added to Chapter 3, Planning and Development, Page 3.32 under Residential
Development:
Densities on the Land Use Map range from Rural Residential to Multifamily High.
Densities are expressed as the number of dwelling units per "net" acre of land (this is
referred to as "net density"). Net acr age excludes street rights of3 32 3.32 way, utility
casements, drainage channels, and similar ar as that cannot be developed. Net acreage
afse excludes areas which are undevelopable due to environmental constraints. For any
individual parcel of land, the maximum allowable development density shall be
determined after accounting for land which is undevelopable due to geologic,
topographic, and natural factors (e.g., creeks, floodplains, etc.), along with perimeter and
interior streets. However, for the sites with the Residential - Multifamily - High Density
Special or Downtown Business District (DBD) Area 13; Multifamily Residential High
Special Land Use Designation, densities are expressed as the number of units per "gross"
acre of land. Gross acreage includes all portions of the site.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 4 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
December 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
PREFACE
Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.
The Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update concluded that the implementation of the project
could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project or are required as a condition of
project approval. This MMRP addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.
This document does not discuss those subjects for which the PEIR concluded that the impacts from implementation of the project would be less than
significant.
Page 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MITIGATIONS
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance
Oversight Responsibility
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Mitigation for Impact GHG-1.1 will be provided through
implementation of MM TRN-2.1 (Refer to Transportation
discussion below.
Future residential development in Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6
would be required to implement mitigation measures MM
TRN-2.1, which would require project -scale and
community -scale measures to reduce residential VMT.
These measures are expected to reduce VMT in these Sub
Areas by 4.7 to 5.2 percent (refer to Table 3.17-5 of the
PEIR).
Refer to MM TRN-2.1 below.
Refer to MM TRN-2.1 below.
Refer to MM TRN-2.1 below.
MM GHG-2.1: The Town proposes to adopt the following
development standard to prohibit new residential buildings
from including infrastructure to provide natural gas.
Development Standard:
Prohibit natural gas
infrastructure in new
residential development.
Prior to issuance of
development permits.
Town of Danville Chief of
Planning
New residential development shall not include natural gas
infrastructure for use in appliances and building heating.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM GHG-2.1,
future development under the Housing Element Update
would be consistent with GHG reduction efforts by 2030
and BAAQMD's fair share design elements for achieving
carbon neutrality by 2045.
MM GHG-2.2: The Town proposes to adopt the following
development standard to require compliance with off-street
Require future development
to incorporate off-street
Prior to issuance of
development permits.
Town of Danville Chief of
Planning
Page 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MITIGATIONS
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance
Oversight Responsibility
electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted
version of CALGreen Tier 2 requirements.
Development Standard:
electric vehicle requirements
in the most recently adopted
version of the CALGreen
Tier 2 requirements.
New housing developments shall comply with off-street
electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted
version of CALGreen Tier 2 requirements.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM GHG-2.2,
future development under the Housing Element Update
would be consistent with GHG reduction efforts by 2030 and
BAAQMD's fair share design elements for achieving carbon
neutrality by 2045.
NOISE
Implementation of General Plan Policy 27.13, which
requires that noise reduction measures be implemented
during all phases of construction, would minimize the
exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise levels.
The Town's following standard noise reduction measures
would be required for all future development under the
Housing Element Update.
• Prior to any grading or other construction activities,
the applicant shall develop a construction mitigation
plan in close coordination with the Town of
Danville to minimize noise disturbance. The
following conditions shall be incorporated into the
building contractor specifications:
Require future development
to develop a construction
mitigation plan to minimize
noise disturbance and
implement the Town's
standard noise reduction
measures.
Prior to any grading or
construction activities.
During construction.
Town of Danville Chief of
Planning
Page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MITIGATIONS
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance
Oversight Responsibility
o Muffle and maintain all equipment used on
site. All internal combustion engine driven
equipment shall be fitted with mufflers,
which are in good condition. Good mufflers
shall result in non -impact tools generating a
maximum noise level of 80 dB when
measured at a distance of 50 feet.
o Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors
and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
o Locate stationary noise -generating
equipment as far as possible from sensitive
receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or
are near a construction project area.
o Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines.
o Prohibit audible construction workers'
radios on adjoining properties.
o Restrict noise -generating activities at the
construction site or in areas adjacent to the
construction site to the hours between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
o Do not allow machinery to be cleaned or
serviced past 6:00 p.m. or prior to 7:00 a.m.
Monday through Friday.
o Limit the allowable hours for the delivery of
materials or equipment to the site and truck
traffic coming to and from the site for any
Page 14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
Page 15
MITIGATIONS
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance
Oversight Responsibility
o
o
o
o
purpose to Monday through Friday between
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
The allowable hours for delivery of
materials and equipment to the site and
truck traffic coming to and from the site for
any purpose shall be further limited to avoid
the area's peak morning and afternoon
weekday school commute hours of 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Do not allow any outdoor construction or
construction -related activities at the project
site on weekends and holidays. Indoor
construction activities may be allowed
based on review/approval of the Town.
Allowable construction hours shall be
posted clearly on a sign at each construction
site.
Designate a Disturbance Coordinator for
each of the clustered development sites for
the duration of the Phase 1 (site work) and
for each home site during the Phase 2 (home
building) construction. Because each home
would be constructed individually and
would have its own building permit, a
Disturbance Coordinator should be
designated during the construction of each
home. The requirement for a Disturbance
Coordinator for each home site should be
incorporated in the CCRs of the
development, such that responsibility of the
Page 15
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MITIGATIONS
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance
Oversight Responsibility
Property Owners' Association and/or home
builder to designate this Disturbance
Coordinator for each lot for the duration of
construction until full site buildout. The
Disturbance Coordinator shall conduct the
following: receive and act on complaints
about construction disturbances during
infrastructure installation, landslide repair,
road building, residential construction, and
other construction activities; determine the
cause(s) and implement remedial measures
as necessary to alleviate significant
problems; clearly post his/her name and
phone number(s) on a sign at each clustered
development and home building site; and,
notify area residents of construction
activities, schedules, and impacts.
TRANSPORTATION
The CCTA's Growth Management Program Implementation
Guide outlined various VMT mitigation measures, as well as
their potential effectiveness. PEIR Table 3.17-4 summarizes
the potential project- and community -scale measures that
could be implemented to reduce VMT and the associated
VMT reduction.
As shown in PEIR Table 3.17-3, Sub Areas 2, 3, 7 and 8
would generate VMT below the Town -wide residential
VMT threshold and VMT impacts would be less than
significant. Therefore, future residential development in
Require future development
in Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6 to
implement project- and
community -scale measures
consistent with CCTA's
Growth Management
Program Implementation
Guide (refer to Table 3.17-4
of the PEIR) as part of a
TDM program to reduce
Prior to building or grading
permits (whichever comes
first).
Town of Danville Chief of
Planning; CCTA
Page 16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MITIGATIONS
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance
Oversight Responsibility
these areas would not need to implement VMT mitigation.
Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6 would generate residential VMT at
4 to 18 percent above the Town -wide residential VMT
threshold and would need to implement VMT mitigation
measures to reduce the impact to less than significant. The
mitigation measures presented in PEIR Table 3.17-4 were
applied to Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6 and the range of
effectiveness of these VMT reduction strategies is presented
in PEIR Table 3.17-5.
MM TRN-2.1: The Town proposes to adopt the following
development standard to require future
development on Housing Element Update
sites in Sub Areas 1, 4, 5, and 6 incorporate
project -scale and community -scale measures
to reduce residential VMT to the maximum
extent possible.
Development Standard:
residential VMT to the
maximum extent possible.
Implement a comprehensive TDM program that includes
the following elements:
• Ride -sharing program
• Subsidize or discount transit passes
• Price and manage parking
Applicants shall coordinate with the Town and CCTA to
implement the following community -scale strategies:
Page 7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
MITIGATIONS
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance
Oversight Responsibility
• Improve the pedestrian network
• Increase transit service frequent
• Implement neighborhood or community -wide car -
sharing programs
Source: Town of Danville. Final EIR. 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. November 2022.
Page 18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
Section 65583
The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and
projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives,
financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and
development of housing.
See below for specific references
The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing,
factory -built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate
provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the
community.
The element shall contain all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints
relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of
the following:
Needs: See Appendix A
Resources: Appendix C
Constraints: Appendix B
(a)(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of
projections
Appendix A, H -A-5 et seq.
(a)(1) A quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all
income levels, including extremely low income households, as defined in subdivision (b)
of Section 50105 and Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. These existing and
projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need in
accordance with Section 65584. Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low
income households allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as extremely low income
households. The local agency may either use available census data to calculate the
percentage of very low income households that qualify as extremely low income
households or presume that 50 percent of the very low income households qualify as
extremely low income households. The number of extremely low income households and
very low income households shall equal the jurisdiction's allocation of very low income
households pursuant to Section 65584.
H -A-17 et seq.
(a)(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of
payment compared to ability to pay,
H -A-41 et seq.
(a)(2) housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and
H -A-47 et seq.
1
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(a)(2) housing stock condition.
H -A-27 et seq.
(a)(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including
vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment
during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income
level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to
these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory
to the jurisdiction's duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Note: Please see Section
65583.2 regarding the land inventory.
Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq., as well as
spreadsheet inventory
[Note that AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022) amended Section 65583(a)(4). It
does not apply to ABAG-area housing elements unless the first draft of the housing
element is submitted to ABAG after January 31, 2023 or a draft is submitted after
April 1, 2023. Therefore the sections below include the statutory provisions of
Section 65583(a)(4) effective in 2022. Jurisdictions adopting their housing element
after January 1, 2023 should describe why AB 2339 is not applicable to them.]
(a)(4)(A) The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as
a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified
zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency
shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local government shall identify a
zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.
Appendix B, H -B-26 et seq., and
Appendix G, program 7.1.k
(a)(4)(A) If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient
capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to
meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing
element. The local government may identify additional zones where emergency shelters
are permitted with a conditional use permit.
Appendix B, H -B-26 et seq., and
Appendix G, program 7.1.k
(a)(4)(A) The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit
processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and
facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.
Appendix B, H -B-26 et seq., and
Appendix G, program 7.1.k
(a)(4)(A) Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and
management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the
same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that
include all of the following:
Appendix B, H -B-26 et seq., and
Appendix G, program 7.1.k
2
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the
facility.
(ii) Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter,
provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than
other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
(iii) The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas.
(iv) The provision of onsite management.
(v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not
required to be more than 300 feet apart.
(vi) The length of stay.
(vii) Lighting.
(viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
(a)(4)(B) The permit processing, development, and management standards applied under
this paragraph shall not be deemed to be discretionary acts within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of
the Public Resources Code).
Appendix B, H -B-26 et seq., and
Appendix G, program 7.1.k
(a)(4)(C) A local government that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department
the existence of one or more emergency shelters either within its jurisdiction or pursuant
to a multijurisdictional agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction's need for
emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with the zoning requirements
of subparagraph (A) by identifying a zone or zones where new emergency shelters are
allowed with a conditional use permit.
Appendix B, H -B-26 et seq., and
Appendix G, program 7.1.k
(a)(4)(D) A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances that comply with
this paragraph shall not be required to take additional action to identify zones for
emergency shelters. The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances,
policies, and standards are consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.
Appendix B, H -B-26 et seq., and
Appendix G, program 7.1.k
(a)(5) An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including
the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and [Note: The types
of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1) include multifamily rental housing,
factory -built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive
See entirety of Appendix B
3
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
housing, single -room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional
housing.]
(a)(5) for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7),
Appendix B, H -B-27 et seq.
(a)(5) including land use controls,
H -B-10 et seq.
(a)(5) building codes and their enforcement,
H -B-22
(a)(5) site improvements,
H -B-16
(a)(5) fees and other exactions required of developers,
H -B-20 et seq.
(a)(5) local processing and permit procedures,
H -B-22 et seq.
(a)(5) and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of
residential development.
H -B-15 et seq.
(a)(5) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental
constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in
accordance with Section 65584
H -B-28; see also programs 2.1.a, 6.1.b,
6.1.d, 6.1.e,. 6.1.f and others
(a)(5) and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive
housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph
(7).
See programs 4.1.b, 6.1.b, 7.1.a, 7.1.b,
7.1.c, 7.1.d, 7.1.e, 7.1.g, 7.1.h, 7.1.i,
7.1.j, 7.1.k, 7.1.1, 7.1.m, 7.1.n, 7.2.a,
7.2.b, 7.2.c, 7.2.d, 10.3.d, and all
programs in the AFFH's fair housing
action plan, Appendix D.
(a)(6) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including
the availability of financing,
H -B-2
(a)(6) the price of land,
H -B-2
(a)(6) the cost of construction,
H -B-3 et seq.
(a)(6) the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis
required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2,
H -B-9
(a)(6) and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and
submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder
the construction of a locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with
Section 65584.
H -B-9
4
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(a)(6) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental
constraints that create a gap between the locality's planning for the development of
housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.
H -B-9
(a)(7) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the
See Appendix A
(a)(7) elderly;
H -A-54 et seq.
(a)(7) persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in
Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code;
H -A-55 et seq.
(a)(7) large families;
H -A-50 et seq.
(a)(7) farmworkers;
H -A-65 et seq.
(a)(7) families with female heads of households;
H -A-52 et seq.
(a)(7) and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.
H -A-59 et seq.
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary
to accommodate the most recent homeless point -in -time count conducted before the start
of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available
on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an
average monthly basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in
emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions.
H -A-59 et seq. And see discussion in
constraints Appendix, H -B-26 et seq
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter may be reduced by the number of supportive
housing units that are identified in an adopted 10 -year plan to end chronic homelessness
and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified to allow construction
during the planning period.
H -A-59 et seq. And see discussion in
constraints Appendix, H -B-26 et seq
(a)(7) An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis
of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services.
H -A-59 et seq. And see discussion in
constraints Appendix, H -B-26 et seq
(a)(8) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential
development. Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy
efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects.
This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its
heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system.
Base document, H-3
(a)(9) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change
from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy
contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. "Assisted housing
H -A-31 et seq.
5
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
developments," for the purpose of this section, shall mean multifamily rental housing
that receives governmental assistance under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of
Section 65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local
redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or
local in -lieu fees. "Assisted housing developments" shall also include multifamily rental
units that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to
qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915.
(a)(9)(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by project name and
address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of
change from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that
could be lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year during the 10 -
year period. For purposes of state and federally funded projects, the analysis required by
this subparagraph need only contain information available on a statewide basis.
H -A-31 et seq.
(a)(9)(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new rental housing that
is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from low-
income use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This
cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for each five-year period
and does not have to contain a project -by -project cost estimate.
H -A-31 et seq.
(a)(9)(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to
the local government that have legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage
these housing developments.
H -A-31 et seq.
(a)(9)(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all federal, state, and local
financing and subsidy programs that can be used to preserve, for lower income
households, the assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including,
but not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program funds, tax
increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of the community, and
administrative fees received by a housing authority operating within the community. In
considering the use of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify
the amounts of funds under each available program that have not been legally obligated
for other purposes and that could be available for use in preserving assisted housing
developments.
H -A-31 et seq.
6
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(b) (1) A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative
to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation,
improvement, and development of housing.
Base document, H-33 et seq.,
(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may
exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy this need within the
content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section
65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the
total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of
housing units by income category, including extremely low income, that can be
constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period.
Base document, H-33 et seq.,
(c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with
a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing,
such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that
the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies
and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element
See entirety of Appendix G
(c) through the administration of land use and development controls,
Programs 2.1.a, 6.1.d, 6.1.e, 6.3.b, 8.1.a,
8.1.b, 8.1.c, 8.2.a, 8.3.a, 9.1.a and others
(c) the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives,
Programs 2.1.a, 6.1.d, 6.1.e, 6.3.b, 8.1.a,
8.1.b, 8.1.c, 8.2.a, 8.3.a, 9.1.a and others
(c) the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when
available,
Programs 1.1.a, 1.2.a, 1.2.b, 6.1.b and
others; see also AFFH's FHAP
(c) and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate -income housing fund of an
agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the
Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the
Health and Safety Code).
N/A
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of
the community, the program shall do all of the following:
(c)(1) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning
period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and
facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's or county's share of the regional
housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in
See items above, as well as program
10.3.a
7
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning,
and to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09.
(c)(1) Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing
See Appendix D, Attachment 3 — AFFH
Inventory of Sites Supplement
(c)(1) and to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing
for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing,
See items above, as well as program
10.3.a; see also Appendix D,
Attachment 3 — AFFH Inventory of
Sites Supplement and FHAP
(c)(1) factory -built housing,
See Appendix B, H -B-16
(c)(1) mobilehomes,
See Appendix B, H -B-16
(c)(1) housing for agricultural employees,
See program 10.3.c
(c)(1) supportive housing,
See programs 7.1.m
(c)(1) single -room occupancy units,
See Appendix B, H -B-16
(c)(1) emergency shelters,
See programs 10.3.d and 7.1.k
(c)(1) and transitional housing.
See programs 7.1.g and 7.1.h
(c)(1)(A) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does
not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income
levels pursuant to Section 65584, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum
density and development standards, for jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element
planning period pursuant to Section 65588, shall be completed no later than three years
after either the date the housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section
65585 or the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from the department pursuant
to subdivision (b) of Section 65585, whichever is earlier, unless the deadline is extended
pursuant to subdivision (f). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that
fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial
compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588
for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of
minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year
from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.
See items above, as well as program
10.3.a
8
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(c)(1)(B) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does
not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income
levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be developed
for housing within the planning period pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2.
The identification of sites shall include all components specified in Section 65583.2.
Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory and conformance with
subdivision (h).
See program 10.3.a
(c)(1)(C) Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) does
not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for farmworker housing, the
program shall provide for sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits
farmworker housing use by right, including density and development standards that
could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of the development of farmworker
housing for low- and very low income households.
See program 10.3.c
(c)(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low,
very low, low-, and moderate -income households.
(c)(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing, including housing for all income levels
H -B-28; see also programs 2.1.a, 6.1.b,
6.1.d, 6.1.e,. 6.1.f and others
See also H -B-9
(c)(3) and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to,
and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for
occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.
H -B-27 et seq., and programs under
policy 7.1; see also Fair Housing Action
Plan of the AFFH
(c)(3) Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use
of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential
dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
See programs 7.1.g, 7.1.h and 7.1.m
(c)(3)Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones
where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing
with Section 65650).
See programs 7.1.g, 7.1.h and 7.1.m
(c)(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock,
which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by
public or private action.
See programs 6.2.a, 6.2.b as well as
AFFH
9
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(c)(5) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion,
sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other
characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
(commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any
other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
See programs 6.2.a, 6.2.b as well as
AFFH Actions 1.1 through 4.2
(c)(6) Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments
identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a).
Policy 6.5, as well as programs 6.2.a,
6.2.b, and 6.2.c
(c)(6) The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to
the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy
programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has
other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available.
Policy 6.5, as well as programs 6.2.a,
6.2.b, and 6.2.c
(c)(6) The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical
assistance.
Policy 6.5, as well as programs 6.2.a,
6.2.b, and 6.2.c
(c)(7) Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling
units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and
Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate -income households. For purposes of this
paragraph, "accessory dwelling units" has the same meaning as "accessory dwelling
unit" as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2.\
See policy 6.3, and its four programs
(c)(8) Include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the
implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be
achieved with other general plan elements and community goals.
See base document, H-24
(c)(9) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of
all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and
the program shall describe this effort.
See base document, H-25 et seq., as well
as Appendix in its entirety
(c)(10)(A) Affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15
(commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include
an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following
components:
See Appendix D in its entirety
(c)(10)(A)(i) A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction
See H -D-1 et seq.; see also H -D-5 et
seq.
10
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(c)(10)(A)(i) and an assessment of the jurisdiction's fair housing enforcement and fair
housing outreach capacity.
H -D-8 et seq.
(c)(10)(A)(ii) An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to
identify integration and segregation patterns and trends,
H -D-21 et seq., as well as Attachment 3
— AFFH Inventory of Sites Supplement
(c)(10)(A)(ii)racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence,
H -D-45, and Attachment 3 — AFFH
Inventory of Sites Supplement
(c)(10)(A)(ii) disparities in access to opportunity,
H -D-54 and Attachment 3 — AFFH
Inventory of Sites Supplement
(c)(10)(A)(ii) and disproportionate housing needs,
H -D-5 et seq., Attachment 3 — AFFH
Inventory of Sites Supplement
(c)(10)(A)(ii) including displacement risk.
H -D-87 as well as Attachment 3 —
AFFH Inventory of Sites Supplement
(c)(10)(A)(ii) The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas,
disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction.
Throughout Appendix D, as well as
Attachment 4, AFFH Regional Analysis
(c)(10)(A)(ii) and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on
race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) and Section
65008.
Throughout Appendix D, as well as
Attachment 4, AFFH Regional Analysis
(c)(10)(A)(iii) An assessment of the contributing factors, including the local and regional
historical origins
H -D-7 et seq.
(c)(10)(A)(iii) and current policies and practices, for the fair housing issues identified
under clauses (i) and (ii).
H -D-8 et seq.
(c)(10)(A)(iv) An identification of the jurisdiction's fair housing priorities and goals,
giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair
housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights
compliance,
H -D-7 et seq., as well as Appendix D
Attachment 1, Fair Housing Action Plan
(c)(10)(A)(iv) and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair
housing results will be achieved.
Appendix D Attachment 1, Fair
Housing Action Plan
(c)(10)(A)(v) Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may
include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies
Appendix D Attachment 1, Fair
Housing Action Plan
11
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(c)(10)(A)(v) and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of
opportunity,
Appendix D Attachment 1, Fair
Housing Action Plan
(c)(10)(A)(v) as well as place -based strategies to encourage community revitalization,
including preservation of existing affordable housing,
Appendix D Attachment 1, Fair
Housing Action Plan
(c)(10)(A)(v) and protecting existing residents from displacement.
Appendix D Attachment 1, Fair
Housing Action Plan
(c)(10)(B) A jurisdiction that completes or revises an assessment of fair housing pursuant
to Subpart A (commencing with Section 5.150) of Part 5 of Subtitle A of Title 24 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as published in Volume 80 of the Federal Register,
Number 136, page 42272, dated July 16, 2015, or an analysis of impediments to fair
housing choice in accordance with the requirements of Section 91.225 of Title 24 of the
Code of Federal Regulations in effect before August 17, 2015, may incorporate relevant
portions of that assessment or revised assessment of fair housing or analysis or revised
analysis of impediments to fair housing into its housing element.
N/A
(c)(10)(C) The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to housing elements due to be
revised pursuant to Section 65588 on or after January 1, 2021.
N/A
(d)(1) A local government may satisfy all or part of its requirement to identify a zone or
zones suitable for the development of emergency shelters pursuant to paragraph (4) of
subdivision (a) by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, with a
maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires the participating jurisdictions
to develop at least one year-round emergency shelter within two years of the beginning
of the planning period.
N/A
(d)(2) The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter capacity to each
jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall
describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element.
N/A
(d)(3) Each member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement shall describe in its
housing element all of the following:
N/A
12
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(d)(3)(A) How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction's emergency shelter need.
(d)(3)(B) The jurisdiction's contribution to the facility for both the development and
ongoing operation and management of the facility.
(d)(3)(C) The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction contributes to the
facility.
N/A
(d)(4) The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating jurisdictions in their housing
elements shall not exceed the actual capacity of the shelter.
N/A
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to this article that alter the
required content of a housing element shall apply to both of the following: [Note that
this provision is applicable to AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022), which
amended Section 65583(a)(4). Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after
January 1, 2023 should describe why this amendment is not applicable to them.]
N/A
(1) A housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision
(e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when a city, county, or city and county
submits a draft to the department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90
days after the effective date of the amendment to this section.
N/A
(2) Any housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to
subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and
county fails to submit the first draft to the department before the due date specified in
Section 65588 or 65584.02.
N/A
(f) — (j): Not applicable
Section 65583.1(a)
(a) The Department of Housing and Community Development, in evaluating a proposed
or adopted housing element for substantial compliance with this article, ... may also
allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units based on the number
of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period
whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community,
the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant
factors, as determined by the department.
Base document, H-20 et seq.
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a military base undergoing
closure or conversion as a result of action pursuant to the Defense Authorization
N/A
13
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526), the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), or any subsequent act
requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be identified as an adequate
site if the housing element demonstrates that the housing units will be available for
occupancy by households within the planning period of the element. No sites containing
housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or conversion to nonresidential uses
shall qualify as an adequate site.
Note: If communities are using the provisions of Section 65583.1(c), which allow
RHNA credit for conversion of non -affordable to affordable housing and for
preservation of existing affordable housing at risk of loss, the applicable provisions
need to be added to this table.
N/A
Section 65583.2
(a) A city's or county's inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 shall be used to identify sites
throughout the community, consistent with paragraph (10) of subdivision (c) of Section
65583,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(a) that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to
provide for the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for all income levels
pursuant to Section 65584. As used in this section, "land suitable for residential
development" includes all of the following sites that meet the standards set forth in
subdivisions (c) and (g):
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(a)(1) Vacant sites zoned for residential use.
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(a)(2) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development.
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
14
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(a)(3) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density,
including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(a)(4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and
for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary,
rezoned for, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county,
or city and county.
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(b) The inventory of land shall include all of the following:
(b)(1) A listing of properties by assessor parcel number.
See electronic version (in Excel)
(b)(2) The size of each property listed pursuant to paragraph (1), and the general plan
designation and zoning of each property.
See electronic version (in Excel); see
also Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq.; see also
major sites' analyses beginning on H -C-
28
(b)(3) For nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property.
See electronic version (in Excel); see
also Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq.; see also
major sites' analyses beginning on H -C-
28
(b)(3) If a site subject to this paragraph is owned by the city or county, the description
shall also include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the
planning period and how the city or county will comply with Article 8 (commencing
with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
See electronic version (in Excel); see
also Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq.; see also
major sites' analyses beginning on H -C -
28
15
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(b)(4) A general description of any environmental constraints to the development of
housing within the jurisdiction, the documentation for which has been made available to
the jurisdiction. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.
See electronic version (in Excel); see
also Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq.; see also
major sites' analyses beginning on H -C-
28
(b)(5)(A) A description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities
supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities.
See electronic version (in Excel); see
also Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq.; see also
major sites' analyses beginning on H -C-
28
(b)(5)(B) Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry
utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included
in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a
program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or sewer service, to secure
sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development. This
paragraph does not impose any additional duty on the city or county to construct,
finance, or otherwise provide water, sewer, or dry utilities to parcels included in the
inventory.
See electronic version (in Excel); see
also Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq.; see also
major sites' analyses beginning on H -C -
28
(b)(6) Sites identified as available for housing for above moderate -income households in
areas not served by public sewer systems. This information need not be identified on a
site-specific basis.
N/A
(b)(7) A map that shows the location of the sites included in the inventory, such as the
land use map from the jurisdiction's general plan, for reference purposes only.
See electronic version (in Excel); see
also Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq.; see also
major sites' analyses beginning on H -C-
28
(c) Based on the information provided in subdivision (b), a city or county shall determine
whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of
its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period, as
determined pursuant to Section 65584. The inventory shall specify for each site the
number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site
See electronic version (in Excel); see
also Appendix C, H -C-9 et seq.; see also
major sites' analyses beginning on H -C -
28
16
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate -income housing, or above
moderate -income housing.
(c) A nonvacant site identified pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) in a
prior housing element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more
consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality's
housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing
need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current housing
element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with
paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in the housing
element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to
allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of
the units are affordable to lower income households. An unincorporated area in a
nonmetropolitan county pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) shall
not be subject to the requirements of this subdivision to allow residential use by right.
See program 8.1.c
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing
element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with state law
within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing
element, rezoning pursuant to this subdivision shall be completed no later than one year
from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.
N/A
(c) The analysis shall determine whether the inventory can provide for a variety of types
of housing, including multifamily rental housing,
(c) factory -built housing, mobilehomes,
See Appendix B, H -B-16
(c) housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing,
See program 10.3.c and 7.1.m
(c) single -room occupancy units,
See Appendix B, H -B-16
(c) emergency shelters, and
Seeprograms 10.3.d and 7.1.k
(c) transitional housing
See programs 7.1.g and 7.1.h
(c) and whether the inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing .
See Appendix D Attachment 3 — AFFH
Inventory of Sites Supplement
(c) The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be
accommodated on each site as follows:
(c)(1) If local law or regulations require the development of a site at a minimum density,
the department shall accept the planning agency's calculation of the total housing unit
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
17
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
capacity on that site based on the established minimum density. If the city or county does
not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density,
then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this
subdivision will be accommodated.
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(c)(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as
necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified
in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(c)(2) the realistic development capacity for the site,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(c)(2) typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar
affordability level in that jurisdiction,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(c)(2) and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water,
sewer, and dry utilities.
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(c)(2)(A) A site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate
lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent
size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent
number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
18
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower
income housing.
methodology, 1-1-15 et seq.; no site less
than 0.5 acre has been identified as a
potential affordable housing site
(c)(2)(B) A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower
income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size
were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number
of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides
other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.
(c)(2)(B) For purposes of this subparagraph, "site" means that portion of a parcel or
parcels designated to accommodate lower income housing needs pursuant to this
subdivision.
(c)(2)(C) A site may be presumed to be realistic for development to accommodate lower
income housing need if, at the time of the adoption of the housing element, a
development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for
development on the site.
(c)(3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional
housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph (2), a city or county
shall do either of the following:
(c)(3)(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this
need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand,
financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a
zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.
(c)(3)(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing
for lower income households:
(i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan
county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre.
(ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i):
sites allowing at least 10 units per acre.
(iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre.
(iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.
19
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(4)(A) For a metropolitan jurisdiction:
(4)(A)(i) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for
moderate -income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4
units of housing, but not more than 100 units per acre of housing.
(4)(A)(ii) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for
above moderate -income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at
least 4 units of housing.
(B) The allocation of moderate -income and above moderate -income housing to sites
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be a basis for the jurisdiction to do either of the
following:
(i) Deny a project that does not comply with the allocation.
(ii) Impose a price minimum, price maximum, price control, or any other exaction or
condition of approval in lieu thereof. This clause does not prohibit a jurisdiction from
imposing any price minimum, price maximum, price control, exaction, or condition in
lieu thereof, pursuant to any other law.
(iii) The provisions of this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are
declaratory of, existing law with regard to the allocation of sites pursuant to this section.
(C) This paragraph does not apply to an unincorporated area.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph:
(i) "Housing development project" has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
(ii) "Unit of housing" does not include an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory
dwelling unit that could be approved pursuant to Section 65852.2 or Section 65852.22 or
through a local ordinance or other provision implementing either of those sections. This
paragraph shall not limit the ability of a local government to count the actual production
of accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units in an annual progress
report submitted pursuant to Section 65400 or other progress report as determined by the
department.
(E) Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude the subdivision of a parcel, provided that
the subdivision is subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with
Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land.
20
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(d) For purposes of this section, a metropolitan county, nonmetropolitan county, and
nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area shall be as determined by the United
States Census Bureau. A nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area includes the
following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada, Tehama, and
Tuolumne and other counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau
to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future.
(e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if
the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B)
of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction's population is
greater than 100,000, in which case it shall be considered metropolitan. A county, not
including the City and County of San Francisco, shall be considered suburban unless the
county is in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case the county shall
be considered metropolitan.
(2)(A)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a county that is in the San Francisco -
Oakland -Fremont California MSA has a population of less than 400,000, that county
shall be considered suburban. If this county includes an incorporated city that has a
population of less than 100,000, this city shall also be considered suburban. This
paragraph shall apply to a housing element revision cycle, as described in subparagraph
(A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 65588, that is in effect from July 1,
2014, to December 31, 2028, inclusive.
(2)(A)(ii) A county subject to this subparagraph shall utilize the sum existing in the
county's housing trust fund as of June 30, 2013, for the development and preservation of
housing affordable to low- and very low income households.
(2)(B) A jurisdiction that is classified as suburban pursuant to this paragraph shall report
to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, the Senate
Committee on Housing, and the Department of Housing and Community Development
regarding its progress in developing low- and very low income housing consistent with
the requirements of Section 65400. The report shall be provided three times: once, on or
before December 31, 2019, which report shall address the initial four years of the
housing element cycle, a second time, on or before December 31, 2023, which report
shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle, and a third time, on
21
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
or before December 31, 2027, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the
housing element cycle and the cycle as a whole. The reports shall be provided consistent
with the requirements of Section 9795.
(f) A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if the jurisdiction does not meet the
requirements for "suburban area" above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater
in population, unless that jurisdiction's population is less than 25,000 in which case it
shall be considered suburban.
(g)(1) For sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) [non -vacant sites], the city
or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the
planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine
the development potential.
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also 14-
C-7
(g)(1) The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses
may constitute an impediment to additional residential development,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also H-
C -7
(g)(1) the city's or county's past experience with converting existing uses to higher
density residential development,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also H-
C -7
(g)(1) the current market demand for the existing use,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
22
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also H-
C -7
(g)(1) an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the
existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also H-
C -7
(g)(1) development trends,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also H-
C -7
(g)(1) market conditions,
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also H-
C -7
(g)(1) and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential
development on these sites.
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also H-
C -7
23
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(g)(2) In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is
relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate
50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology
used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing
use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an
impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the
housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential
development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be
discontinued during the planning period.
See Housing Resources Appendix C,
especially beginning H -C-5 et seq.; see
also electronic version (in Excel); see
also base document's discussion of
methodology, H-15 et seq.; see also H -
C-7; the Town will adopt findings when
it adopts the Housing Element
(g)(3) Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the requirements in paragraphs
(1) and (2), sites that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have
had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a
recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons
and families of low or very low income, subject to any other form of rent or price control
through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power, or occupied by low or very
low income households, shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those
units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on
the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in paragraph
(3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915.
See program 6.2.a
(h) The program required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of
Section 65583 shall accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for very low and
low-income households allocated pursuant to Section 65584 for which site capacity has
not been identified in the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a)
on sites that shall be zoned to permit owner -occupied and rental multifamily residential
use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to
lower income households during the planning period.
See program 6.2.a and 10.3.a
(h) These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that
permit at least
See program 6.2.a and 10.3.a
(h) 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in
clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c),
See program 6.2.a and 10.3.a
24
990052\01\3407083.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB825F23-7837-4C6F-9477-4C6445327FEF
ATTACHMENT 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 4-2023
Government Code Provision
Housing Element Compliance
(h) shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c)
See program 6.2.a and 10.3.a
(h) and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of
subdivision (b).
See program 6.2.a and 10.3.a
(h) At least 50 percent of the very low and low-income housing need shall be
accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses
or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the
very low and low-income housing need on sites designated for mixed uses if those sites
allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the
total floor area of a mixed-use project.
See program 6.2.a and 10.3.a
(i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583, the phrase "use by right" shall mean
that the local government's review of the owner -occupied or multifamily residential use
may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other
discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a "project" for
purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources
Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited
to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act.
See program 6.2.a and 10.3.a
(i) A local ordinance may provide that "use by right" does not exempt the use from
design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a "project" for purposes
of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(i) Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in
accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.
(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, within one-half mile of a
Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit station, housing density requirements in place on June
30, 2014, shall apply.
N/A
25
990052\01\3407083.1