HomeMy WebLinkAbout061824-08.1
T ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council June 18, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 44-2024, denying an appeal by Clark Morrison on behalf
of Ido Adler of the Town’s determination that a Major Subdivision –
Vesting Tentative Map application SD 9673 is incomplete. The
application seeks to develop a 30-lot subdivision on a 47-acre parcel
identified as Parcel B of SD 6196. The site is located on the hillside above
and north of the Anderson Ranch subdivision.
BACKGROUND
The subject of this hearing is to determine whether the Town properly determined the
subject application to be incomplete consistent with the provisions of the Permit
Streamlining Act and State housing law.
The subject 47-acre parcel was created as a remainder open space parcel in 1986 as part
of the approval of the Anderson Ranch subdivision. The Anderson Ranch was developed
under the Town’s Planned Unit Development approach, clustering the site’s residential
development toward the valley floor, while preserving the hillsides and ridgelines as
permanent open space. This approach was also consistent with the Town’s Sycamore
Valley Specific Plan. The Town’s General Plan land use designation for the 47-acre parcel
is General Open Space, which allows for no development.
As part of the approval, this open space parcel was offered as a dedication to the East Bay
Regional Park District (EBRPD). The EBRPD never accepted the dedication and, through
a series of events, ended up being bought by private individuals. The current owners are
Ido and Einat Adler, who purchased the property in 2021.
On July 11, 2023, CBG Engineering, on behalf of Mr. Adler, submitted a Preliminary
Application under provisions of SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act) (Attachment C). In a
cover letter submitted by Mr. Adler’s then attorneys , they indicated that the application
was being submitted as a so-called “builder’s remedy” application under provisions of
the Housing Accountability Act (subd. (d)(5) of Government Code Section 65589.5).
The Builder’s Remedy provision prevents jurisdictions who have not adopted a Housing
Element that is substantially compliant with State law from denying certain housing
projects on the basis that the project does not comply with the site’s zoning or General
Plan land use designation. The Danville Town Council adopted the Housing Element on
SD 9673 2 June 18, 2024
Sycamore Hills Appeal
January 6, 2024. The Town received notification from the State of a substantially
compliant Housing Element on April 9, 2024.
The submission of a complete preliminary application for a housing development project
entitles the applicant to proceed under the applicable development standards in effect at
the time of the submittal, unless the preliminary application expires or the pr oject
changes beyond a specified threshold. After submitting a preliminary application, an
applicant has 180 days to submit a formal application. On December 22, 2023, the
applicant submitted the formal application, within the 180 days allowed.
On January 19, 2024, the Town provided Mr. Adler with a letter indicating that the Town
had completed its review of the formal application pursuant to provisions of the Permit
Streamlining Act (specifically, Government Code Section 65943(a)) and that the
application was incomplete. The letter identified eight specific areas in which the
application was incomplete. The letter also notified Mr. Adler that pursuant to
Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2), he had 90 days to resubmit a complete
application or else his preliminary application would expire “and have no further force
or effect” (see Attachment D).
The applicant re-submitted the application on April 18, 2024, within 90 days after the
Town’s first incomplete determination. The resubmittal addressed five of the original
eight incomplete issues. One of the three items that remained incomplete was the
requirement for the application to provide copies of easements applicable to the property,
including any access rights to the public right-of-way associated with the property that
would be necessary to serve the project. As part of the April 18, 2024 resubmittal, that
applicant wrote that “we are aware and accept that the application cannot be complete
until the neighbor access is resolved,” (see Attachment E) but requested that the Town
“continue to process the application assuming the access rights are secured…” Pursuant
to Government Code Section 65943(b), on May 16, 2024, the Town issued a second Notice
of Incomplete Application (see Attachment F).
On May 24, 2024, Clark Morrison of Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, on behalf of Mr. Adler,
submitted an appeal of the Town’s determination that the application is incomplete (see
Attachment G).
EVALUATION
Incomplete Application
The Town found the applicant’s April 18, 2024, resubmittal of the application to be
incomplete on the following bases:
SD 9673 3 June 18, 2024
Sycamore Hills Appeal
Access and Utility Easements
As shown on the project Vesting Tentative Map (SD 9673), access and utilities are
proposed to be provided through a common open space parcel owned by the Anderson
Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA). As detailed in the Town’s incomplete letters of
January 19, 2024, and May 16, 2024, the applicant has failed to provide evidence that the
subject parcel has access and utility rights. In addition, the HOA has provided written
notice to the Town that they are opposed to the development and will not cooperate in
the provision of easements to the developer (see Attachment H).
Slope Maintenance Easements
The tentative map includes proposed maintenance access easements located on the
Anderson Ranch HOA common open space parcel. Again, this proposes access and rights
over property where the applicant has not shown that the rights exist.
Geotechnical Feasibility Report
The Town’s Notice of Incomplete Application required that a detailed landside repair
plan be submitted. No additional geotechnical information was submitted.
Appeal
The May 24, 2024, letter of appeal from Clark Morrison requests that the Town Council
reverse the Town’s determination that the application is incomplete . The appeal states
that nothing in the Town’s submittal checklist requires Mr. Adler to have secured or
provided copies of access or other easements. The appeal also asserts that the Town’s
submittal checklist does not require a detailed landside repair plan. The Town disagrees
with these assertions.
The requirement for easements
The Town’s Submittal Checklist for vesting tentative maps includes three separate items
that apply to the need for a complete application to identify all relevant and necessary
easements:
• “Widths, location, and identity of all existing easements”
• “Location, width, and purpose of all easements”
• “A preliminary title report”
The clear purpose of requiring this information is to determine whether the development
can be carried out as proposed. The approval of lots that don’t have legal access would
be contrary to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Likewise, the creation of lots
SD 9673 4 June 18, 2024
Sycamore Hills Appeal
without access to public utilities such as water and sewer service would be contrary to
the community’s health, safety, and general welfare. Rights of access and utility service
are fundamental in determining whether a property should be entitled for development.
Relatedly, the Town’s Submittal Checklist for vesting tentative maps includes the
requirement that the plans include the “Name and address of legal owner” of property
affected by the map. The Planning Application must be signed by the property owner
or, if signed by an authorized applicant, the application must include “an authorization
signed by owner.” The reason for these requirements is clear: because land use approvals
run with the land and bind current and future property owners, the Town must know
that the individual affected property owners have consented to include their property as
part of a given application.
As indicated above, the proposed subdivision map shows a 55’ wide access and utility
easement across open space owned by the Anderson Ranch HOA. Moreover, the
applicant has acknowledged that they do not currently have any such easement in the
proposed location or anywhere else. While they indicate that they are attempting to
acquire such an easement from the HOA, the letter submitted by the attorney for the
HOA indicates that other than a complaint filed but not served, no such conversations
have occurred. The Town has been informed that the applicant has initiated litigation
against the HOA in an effort to compel access to the property; however, it is also
undetermined at this time whether litigation by the applicant against the HOA would
result in acquiring an easement allowing for development of the proposed project.
In addition to the lack of any access and utility easements, the proposed subdivision on
its own face would require slope and maintenance easements on open space owned by
the Anderson Ranch HOA. As indicated in the letter submitted by the attorney for the
HOA, the applicant has never approached the HOA to discuss possible acquisition of
such easements and that the HOA has no intent to provide them. As with the access and
utility easements, it would be contrary to sound planning principles and the Subdivision
Map Act to deem an application complete which on its face relies upon the use of
another’s property without any easement or permission to do so. Because the applicant
has not provided this required documentation, the Town determined that the application
is incomplete.
The requirement for geotechnical information
The Town’s submittal checklist also specifies that certain environmental studies,
including a soils report must be submitted along with the tentative map. The checklist
also includes the following requirement:
SD 9673 5 June 18, 2024
Sycamore Hills Appeal
• “If the subdivision lies within a known or suspected geological hazard area, a
preliminary engineering, geology and/or seismic safety report, prepared in
accordance with guidelines established by the Planning and Public Works
Departments.”
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was submitted by the applicant. However no
actual borings related to this project or landslide repair plans were submitted. The report
identifies 12 landslides which are classified as shallow soil creep/earthflows to deep
seated bedrock landslides. The applicant’s e-mail of April 18, 2024, states that “due to
weather, additional field work required by the geotechnical engineer could not be
completed.”
This preliminary report certainly indicates that the property is a “known or suspected
geological hazard area.” Without a more detailed geotechnical analysis the Town cannot
determine the scope or magnitude of the grading and soils repair necessary to safely
develop the property as proposed or whether all the grading can be accomplished on site.
In addition, because the proposed project includes a nearly 300 foot long bridge or
viaduct covering identified wetlands, it is critical at this stage to determine whether that
structure could be constructed given the widespread slides and geotechnical concerns
across the property. It is incumbent on the applicant to provide the information required
by the Town’s application checklist to demonstrate that the project can be developed as
proposed. Without this necessary information, the Town determined that the application
is incomplete.
DISCUSSION
Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2) of the Permit Streamlining Act provides: “If the
public agency determines that the application for the development project is not complete
pursuant to Section 65943, the development proponent shall submit the specific
information needed to complete the application within 90 days of receiving the agency’s
written identification of the necessary information. If the development proponent does
not submit this information within the 90-day period, then the preliminary application
shall expire and have no further force or effect.”
For the reasons set forth above, the Town determined the application to be incomplete
following both the initial 180 day period to submit an application and the second 90 day
period to submit all material necessary to complete that application. Because the Town
has determined that the applicant did not provide all of the necessary information to
complete its application within the 90-day period, once the Town’s determination is final,
the preliminary application submitted on July 11, 2023, would expire. As a result, the
development application for this parcel would be subject to the objective standards,
SD 9673 6 June 18, 2024
Sycamore Hills Appeal
ordinances, guidelines, and General Plan policies and requirements established for this
parcel by the Town.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public notice of the June 18, 2024, Town Council public hearing was mailed to property
owners within 750 feet of the site on June 6, 2024. A total of 200 notices were mailed to
surrounding property owners. Posting of the meeting agenda serves as notice to the
general public.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 44-2024, denying an appeal by Clark Morrison on behalf of Ido
Adler of the Town’s determination that a Major Subdivision – Vesting Tentative Map
application SD 9673 is incomplete. The application seeks to develop a 30-lot subdivision
on a 47-acre parcel identified as Parcel B of SD 6196. The site is located on the hillside
above and north of the Anderson Ranch subdivision.
Prepared by:
David Crompton
Chief of Planning
Reviewed by:
Diane J. Friedmann
Development Services Director
Attachments: A - Resolution No. 44-2024
B - Public Notification, Notification Map and Notification List
C - Applicant’s Preliminary Application Submittal
D - Town Incomplete Letter of January 19, 2024
E - Applicant E-Mail dated April 18, 2024
F - Town’s Incomplete Letter of May 16, 2024
G - Applicant’s Letter of Appeal of May 24, 2024
H - Letter from Allan Moore A.P.C. on behalf of the Anderson Ranch
Homeowners Association
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
“Small Town Atmosphere
Outstanding Quality of Life”
5 0 0 L A G O N D A W A Y , D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6
+
Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation
(925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3410 (925) 314-3400
May 16, 2024
Ido Adler
4099 Castellina Way
Manteca, CA 95337
Lee J. Rosenblatt, P.E.
Principal
CBG
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 350
San Ramon, CA 94583
BOTH SENT VIA EMAIL
SUBJECT: SD 9673– Parcel “B” of SD 6196
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Adler:
The Town has completed the review of the resubmittal of your Major Subdivision
Application – SD 9673, submitted by Lee Rosenblatt of CBG Engineering, dated April 17,
2024 and received by the Town on April 18, 2024.
Your application seeks to develop 30 single-family homes on 46.7 acres of undeveloped
land also known as Parcel “B” of SD 6196.
After reviewing your second application submittal, the Town has determined that your
application is incomplete under Government Code Section 65943, a portion of the Permit
Streamlining Act.
The Town first received your Major Subdivision Application – SD 9673 on December 22,
2023. The Town deemed this application as incomplete and provided you with written
notice identifying a list of items that were incomplete on January 19, 2024, pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65943(a) and 65941.1(d)(2)1. Pursuant to Government Code
1 Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2) provides: “If the public agency determines that the application
for the development project is not complete pursuant to Section 65943, the development proponent shall
ATTACHMENT F
SD 9673 – Parcel “B” of SD 6196
May 16, 2024
Page 2
Section 65943(b), the Town has completed its review of your re-submittal. The
application re-submittal still fails to address the following issues, as outlined in the
Town’s January 19, 2024, letter:
1.While the note on the plan stating “Proposed 55’ PRAE, SSE, SDE, EBMUD, PUE
& EVAE” has been removed, your title report does not show any easements to
the property for any purpose. In addition, you have not provided the requested
copy of an existing easement executed by the owner of record of the subservient
estate.
2.The tentative map proposes slope and maintenance easements on lands which are
not part of this application. The applicant must submit proof of acquisition of these
easements to complete this application.
No proof of acquisition of these easements has been submitted.
3. The Geologic Feasibility Report states the site is located within the Mount Diablo
Thrust Fault. The conclusion in the report states that the development of the
property is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint but requires extensive
landslide repairs and expansive soil mitigation. The report further explains the
necessity to repair six landslides. As part of your tentative map submittal, a
detailed landside repair plan is required. In addition, the extent to which grading
related to slide repair and development would impact jurisdictional wetland areas
must be determined. This will require the preparation of a more comprehensive
and detailed soils and geotechnical report.
No additional soils/geotechnical information was submitted.
As this was your second application submittal, and the Town has determined that the
submitted materials are not complete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(b),
under Government Code Section 65943(c), you have the right to appeal the Town’s
decision that this application is incomplete to the Danville Town Council. If you wish to
appeal this decision, you must submit an appeal letter to the Town outlining the basis for
the appeal and pay the $300.00 appeal fee within 10 days of the date of this letter.
(Danville Municipal Code Section 32-4.7(a)). If you choose to appeal, the appeal will be
submit the specific information needed to complete the application within 90 days of receiving the
agency’s written identification of the necessary information. If the development proponent does not
submit this information within the 90-day period, then the preliminary application shall expire and
have no further force or effect.” (Emphasis added.)
SD 9673 – Parcel “B” of SD 6196
May 16, 2024
Page 3
scheduled for consideration by the Danville Town Council at the next available meeting.
Otherwise, the Town’s determination will become final upon the expiration of the appeal
period.
The Town’s review of your application resubmittal focused on whether the application
was complete pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. Should you elect to resubmit
your application, once the Town has deemed the project application complete, the Town
will provide written analysis regarding the project’s compliance with all objective
standards, ordinances, guidelines, and General Plan policies and requirements within 30
days of the completeness determination pursuant to Government Code Section
65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i).
Please note that because you did not submit all of the information needed to complete
your application described in the Town’s January 19, 2024 letter within 90 days after
receipt, once the Town’s determination is final, your preliminary application submitted
on July 11, 2023 shall expire and have no further force or effect pursuant to Government
Code Section 65941.1(d))(2), regardless of whether you resubmit your application. If your
preliminary application expires, it may affect which development standards and Town
policies apply to your application.
Should you have any questions concerning any of these items, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 925-314-3349 or dcrompton@danville.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF DANVILLE
David Crompton
Chief of Planning File No. SD 9673
099999\17645988v1
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Clark Morrison
415.262.5113
cmorrison@coxcastle.com
File No. 099999
May 24, 2024
VIA HAND DELIVERY & E-MAIL
Town Council
Town of Danville
500 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Appeal of May 16, 2024 “Notice of Incomplete Application” for Major
Subdivision Application – SD 9673 (aka Parcel B of SD 6196)
Dear Honorable Members of the Town Council:
This firm represents Ido Adler with respect to the above-referenced Major Subdivision
Application, first filed with the Planning Division on December 22, 2023. On behalf of Mr.
Adler, we are hereby appealing the Planning Division’s May 16, 20241 “Notice of Incomplete
Application,” a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 (the “Incomplete Notice”). We request
that the Town Council: (i) reverse staff’s incompleteness determination and find the application
to be complete, as required under the California Government Code; and (ii) reverse as erroneous
staff’s determination that Mr. Adler’s July 11, 2023 “Preliminary Application” has expired.
Under Government Code Sections 65940(a) and 65940.1, the Town must “compile one or
more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a
development project” and must make that information available online. Where the Town finds a
development application to be incomplete, it must provide an “exhaustive list” of items that were
incomplete. That list of incomplete items “shall be limited to those items actually required on the
[Town’s] submittal requirement checklist.” The Town is legally prohibited from requesting
additional information as a prerequisite to a complete application. (Gov. Code, § 65943(a).)
The City’s published checklist for a Major Subdivision Application is attached to this
appeal as Exhibit 2. None of the information identified in the Incomplete Notice as being needed
for a complete application is required by this submittal checklist, as follows:
➢ Nothing in the Town’s submittal checklist requires Mr. Adler to have secured or
provided copies of access or other easements.
1 Under Section 32-4.7(a) of the Town Municipal Code, an appeal must be filed within 10 calendar days
of the date of the decision being appealed. Accordingly, this appeal has timely been filed.
ATTACHMENT G
099999\17645988v1
Town Council
May 24, 2024
Page 2
➢ Nothing in the Town’s submittal checklist requires Mr. Adler to submit a
“comprehensive and detailed soils and geotechnical report,” including but not
limited to preparation of a “detailed landslide repair plan” and provision for
“expansive soil mitigation.” The checklist requires only a “preliminary” soils and
geotechnical report, the purpose of which is to identify potential safety concerns.
The Geologic Feasibility Report included in Mr. Adler’s submissions satisfies this
requirement. The Town’s checklist is clear that, where such a preliminary report
indicates the presence of potential hazards, detailed reports are required only
upon submission of a final subdivision map.
Given that staff’s incompleteness determination is in error, Mr. Adler’s Preliminary
Application remains valid. Under the California Government Code, an applicant must submit a
complete development application within 180 days after submitting a complete Preliminary
Application. (Gov. Code, § 65941.1(d)(1).) If a local agency in turn finds that development
application to be incomplete (under the Permit Streamlining Act procedures), the applicant must
submit information needed to complete the application within 90 days of receiving the agency’s
written identification of the necessary information. (Id. § 65941.1(d)(2).) If it fails to do so, the
Preliminary Application expires and has no further force or effect. (Id.)
Consistent with these requirements, Mr. Adler timely submitted his Major Subdivision
application materials on December 22, 2023 (i.e., within 180 days of a July 11, 2023 Preliminary
Application). Following receipt of staff’s January 19, 2024 incompleteness letter, Mr. Adler then
timely submitted the required information to complete the application on April 17, 2022 (i.e.,
within 90 days of that incompleteness determination). No information remained incomplete after
April 17, and thus Mr. Adler’s Preliminary Application remains valid and in effect.
* * *
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this appeal.
Sincerely,
Clark Morrison
Copies: Ido Adler
David Crompton, Chief of Planning
Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
“Small Town Atmosphere
Outstanding Quality of Life”
5 0 0 L A G O N D A W A Y , D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6
+
Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation
(925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3410 (925) 314-3400
May 16, 2024
Ido Adler
4099 Castellina Way
Manteca, CA 95337
Lee J. Rosenblatt, P.E.
Principal
CBG
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 350
San Ramon, CA 94583
BOTH SENT VIA EMAIL
SUBJECT: SD 9673– Parcel “B” of SD 6196
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Adler:
The Town has completed the review of the resubmittal of your Major Subdivision
Application – SD 9673, submitted by Lee Rosenblatt of CBG Engineering, dated April 17,
2024 and received by the Town on April 18, 2024.
Your application seeks to develop 30 single-family homes on 46.7 acres of undeveloped
land also known as Parcel “B” of SD 6196.
After reviewing your second application submittal, the Town has determined that your
application is incomplete under Government Code Section 65943, a portion of the Permit
Streamlining Act.
The Town first received your Major Subdivision Application – SD 9673 on December 22,
2023. The Town deemed this application as incomplete and provided you with written
notice identifying a list of items that were incomplete on January 19, 2024, pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65943(a) and 65941.1(d)(2)1. Pursuant to Government Code
1 Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2) provides: “If the public agency determines that the application
for the development project is not complete pursuant to Section 65943, the development proponent shall
SD 9673 – Parcel “B” of SD 6196
May 16, 2024
Page 2
Section 65943(b), the Town has completed its review of your re-submittal. The
application re-submittal still fails to address the following issues, as outlined in the
Town’s January 19, 2024, letter:
1.While the note on the plan stating “Proposed 55’ PRAE, SSE, SDE, EBMUD, PUE
& EVAE” has been removed, your title report does not show any easements to
the property for any purpose. In addition, you have not provided the requested
copy of an existing easement executed by the owner of record of the subservient
estate.
2.The tentative map proposes slope and maintenance easements on lands which are
not part of this application. The applicant must submit proof of acquisition of these
easements to complete this application.
No proof of acquisition of these easements has been submitted.
3. The Geologic Feasibility Report states the site is located within the Mount Diablo
Thrust Fault. The conclusion in the report states that the development of the
property is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint but requires extensive
landslide repairs and expansive soil mitigation. The report further explains the
necessity to repair six landslides. As part of your tentative map submittal, a
detailed landside repair plan is required. In addition, the extent to which grading
related to slide repair and development would impact jurisdictional wetland areas
must be determined. This will require the preparation of a more comprehensive
and detailed soils and geotechnical report.
No additional soils/geotechnical information was submitted.
As this was your second application submittal, and the Town has determined that the
submitted materials are not complete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(b),
under Government Code Section 65943(c), you have the right to appeal the Town’s
decision that this application is incomplete to the Danville Town Council. If you wish to
appeal this decision, you must submit an appeal letter to the Town outlining the basis for
the appeal and pay the $300.00 appeal fee within 10 days of the date of this letter.
(Danville Municipal Code Section 32-4.7(a)). If you choose to appeal, the appeal will be
submit the specific information needed to complete the application within 90 days of receiving the
agency’s written identification of the necessary information. If the development proponent does not
submit this information within the 90-day period, then the preliminary application shall expire and
have no further force or effect.” (Emphasis added.)
SD 9673 – Parcel “B” of SD 6196
May 16, 2024
Page 3
scheduled for consideration by the Danville Town Council at the next available meeting.
Otherwise, the Town’s determination will become final upon the expiration of the appeal
period.
The Town’s review of your application resubmittal focused on whether the application
was complete pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. Should you elect to resubmit
your application, once the Town has deemed the project application complete, the Town
will provide written analysis regarding the project’s compliance with all objective
standards, ordinances, guidelines, and General Plan policies and requirements within 30
days of the completeness determination pursuant to Government Code Section
65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i).
Please note that because you did not submit all of the information needed to complete
your application described in the Town’s January 19, 2024 letter within 90 days after
receipt, once the Town’s determination is final, your preliminary application submitted
on July 11, 2023 shall expire and have no further force or effect pursuant to Government
Code Section 65941.1(d))(2), regardless of whether you resubmit your application. If your
preliminary application expires, it may affect which development standards and Town
policies apply to your application.
Should you have any questions concerning any of these items, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 925-314-3349 or dcrompton@danville.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF DANVILLE
David Crompton
Chief of Planning File No. SD 9673
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
T OWN OF D ANVILLE 510 L A G ONDA W AY D ANVILLE , CA 94526 -1740
925.314.3 310 PHONE 925.838 .0360 FAX WWW.DANVILLE .CA.GOV
620-F010-0617
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR:
SUBDIVISION MAP (5+ LOTS)
PLANNING
PURPOSE
State law authorizes local governmental agencies to regulate and control the design and improvement
of subdivisions. A subdivision is defined as the division of any improved or unimproved land for the
purpose of sale, lease, or financing. The State Subdivision Map Act provides general regulations and
procedures that local governments must follow in the regulation of subdivisions. The Town also has a
subdivision ordinance which provides specific Town guidelines and standards for the regulation and
control of subdivisions. Subdivisions of five or more lots require tentative parcel map review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
EVALUATION
The Planning Division reviews the application with the following criteria:
Consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and/or Specific Plan
Compatibility with surrounding development
Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
PROCESS
Applications cannot proceed through the review process until all the application requirements are
met. The application is assigned to a Project Planner, who is your main contact throughout the review
process, leads the evaluation of the application, and advised you of any items r equired to complete
the application. Once deemed complete, the application is placed on the first available Danville
Planning Commission agenda at a publically noticed hearing. The Planning Commission meets on the
second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m., at the Town Meeting Hall at 201 Front Street.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
1.Application form: Available at the Town’s Permit Counter or online at
http://www.danville.ca.gov
2.Fee: Payment of fee in effect at the time of application submittal, payable to the Town of
Danville.
3.Site photographs: Showing topography, vegetation and landscaping, existing and adjacent
structures, and views of and from site.
4.Tentative Map: Must be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Ten (10) copies of full-sized
plans, no larger than 24”x36”, folded to approximately 9”x12”, and an electronic PDF copy. The
plans must contain the following information:
Title block containing the subdivision number, subdivision name, and type of
subdivision.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR: Page 2
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (5+ LOTS)
Name and address of legal owner, subdivider, and person preparing the map, including
registration number.
Legal description which defines the boundary of the proposed subdivision.
Date, north arrow, scale including graphic scale, and contour interval.
Existing and proposed land use.
A vicinity map showing roads, adjoining subdivisions, cities, creeks, railroads, and other
data sufficient to locate the proposed subdivision and show its relation to the
community.
Existing topography of the proposed site and at least 100 feet beyond its boundary
including existing contours at 2-foot intervals if the existing ground slope is less than
10 percent but not less than 4-foot intervals for existing ground slopes greater than or
equal to 10 percent. Contour intervals should not be spread more than 10 feet.
Species, location, and dripline of existing trees that are greater than or e qual than 6” in
diameter. Any trees proposed to be removed should be so indicated. See the Town’s
Tree Preservation Ordinance to identify the species and size of protected trees.
Location and outline of existing structures identified by type, and any building s to be
removed.
Location of all areas, subject to inundation of storm water overflow and the location,
width, and direction of flow of each water course.
Location, pavement, and right-of-way width, grade, and name of existing streets or
highways.
All existing impervious areas.
Widths, location, and identity of all existing easements.
Location, size and approximate slope of existing sanitary sewers, water mains, and
storm drains.
Location, grade, center line radius, and arc length of curves, pavement and right -of-way
width, and typical sections of all streets.
Location and radius of all curb returns and cul-de-sacs.
Location, width, and purpose of all easements.
Angle of intersecting streets if such angle deviates from a right angle by more than four
degrees.
Dimensions of each lot and of each building site. Engineering data must show the
approximate finished grading of each lot, the preliminary design of all grading, the
elevation of proposed building pads, the top and toe of cut and fill slopes to scale, and
the number of each lot.
Proposed contours at 2-foot intervals must be shown if existing ground slope is less
than 10 percent and at not less than 4-foot intervals for existing ground slopes greater
than or equal to 10 percent. A separate grading plan may be submitted. Various cross
sections may be required.
Proposed recreation sites, trails, and parks for private or public use.
Proposed common areas and areas to be dedicated to public open space.
Proposed retaining wall locations and height.
All proposed impervious areas and all structural controls addressing C.3 requirements
to mitigate stormwater pollution as required by the Stormwater Control Plan including,
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR: Page 3
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (5+ LOTS)
the location of all overland drainage releases (see below).
5.Accompanying Data and Reports: The Tentative Map must be accompanied by the following
data or reports:
Soils Report: A preliminary soils report prepared in accordance with the Town’s
Subdivision and Grading Ordinance.
Title Report: A preliminary title report.
Stormwater Control Plan: Check with staff to determine if your project requires a
Stormwater Control Plan. This report shall address all C.3 requirements as outlined in
the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook which is available to view at the permit counter or
online at www.cccleanwater.org
Engineering, Geology, and/or Seismic Safety Report: If the subdivision lies within a
known or suspected geological hazard area, a preliminary engineering, geology and/or
seismic safety report, prepared in accordance with guidelines established by the
Planning and Public Works Departments. If the preliminary engineering, geology,
and/or seismic safety report indicates the presence of geologic hazards of seismic
hazards, which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects, an engineering,
geology, and/or seismic safety report must accompany the final map and shall contain
an investigation of each lot within the subdivision.
Other Reports: Any other data or reports deemed necessary by the Planning Director or
any additional information as required by the Planning Commission or Town Council at
the time of public hearing.
June 7, 2024
Via Email
Danville Town Council
c/o David Crompton, Chief of Planning
Danville Town Office
500 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
dcrompton@danville.ca.gov
Re: Anderson Ranch Single Family Owners Association
Adler Application Dated December 22, 2023
Subdivision Application SD 9673 (Parcel B of SD 6196
Opposition to Adler Appeal/Council Hearing June 18, 2024
Dear Mayor Stepper, Vice Mayor Fong and Danville Town Council:
My office (Law Office of Allan Moore) represents the Anderson Ranch Single Family Owners
Association, a California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation (“Anderson Ranch HOA” or
“HOA”), with regard to the HOA’s open space property in the Town of Danville (“Town”),
Contra Costa County, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) 202-100-025 (“HOA
Property”).
The members of the HOA include all property owners within Danville’s Anderson Ranch
development (“Subdivision 6196” or “Anderson Ranch”).
Ido Adler (“Adler”) has purchased the property adjacent to the HOA Property (Parcel B of SD
6196, or “Parcel B”). Adler purchased Parcel B with full knowledge that Parcel B is designated
for “General Open Space” under the Town’s General Plan – however, Adler and Adler’s
attorneys are now attempting to force upon the Town a residential development of 30
residential units on unstable hillside lands.
Such proposed development is of course inconsistent with the Town’s General Plan and
zoning ordinance, and unsafe for the HOA residences and the general public given the
extensive history of landslides on Parcel B and in the area. Further, Adler has not submitted
any access to Parcel B over the HOA Property – much less legal access for a 30-lot
subdivision.
Adler’s attorneys have submitted a letter dated May 24, 2024, incorrectly claiming that Adler’s
Major Subdivision Application is “complete” under provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act –
and further incorrectly claiming that the Town is therefore required to process the 30-lot
subdivision on Open Space lands without access over the HOA Property.
ATTACHMENT H
Letter to Town of Danville
June 7, 2024
Page 2
The Town’s Planning Division (Planning Staff), with advice from Town Counsel, has confirmed
by correspondence to Adler that Adler’s position is incorrect under state law.
The Planning Staff has confirmed as follows:
(i) Further identified information is clearly needed to make the Adler
Application “complete” under state law;
(ii) Such identified information, including proof of access, was required
no later than April 19, 2024 under state law; and
(iii) Pursuant to Gov’t Code Sect. 65941.1(d)(2), the failure by Adler to
submit the identified information by April 19, 2024 resulted in
expiration of Adler’s Preliminary Application under state law. (See
Planning Staff letters dated January 19, 2024 and May 16, 2024.)
For reasons set forth herein, the Anderson Ranch HOA believes that Adler has failed to submit
the identified information as required by state law; Adler’s Major Subdivision Application
remains “incomplete” under state law; and Adler’s Preliminary Application has expired under
state law.
Set forth below is (i) a Summary Background; (ii) a brief response to the Adler/CBG letter of
April 17, 2024; and (ii) a brief legal response to the Adler/Attorney Letter of May 24, 2024.
I. Summary Background1
1.On July 11, 2023, Adler submitted a “Preliminary Application” for a residential housing
development project on Parcel B,2 with 20% deed restricted low-income housing (“affordable
housing)” pursuant to the “builder’s remedy” provisions of the Housing Accountability Act at
Gov’t. Code Sect. 65589.5 (“HAA”), and SB 330 (see Gov’t Code Sect. 65941.1(a)).
2.The Town’s General Plan and zoning designations for Parcel B are for General Open
Space and P-1, limiting use of Parcel B to open space uses.
3.The Preliminary Application, citing the HAA at Sect. 65589.5(d)(5), states that the
affordable housing project cannot be denied on the basis that the project is inconsistent with
1 My office submitted a letter to the Town dated January 25, 2024, setting forth a lengthy background and legal analysis of
many of these issues. We request that such letter be made part of the Administrative Record in this matter. This Summary
Background is intended to be a Summary only – and not intended to state all facts on which our opinion is based. Further,
this letter is submitted prior to issuance of a Staff Report for the Council’s June 18, 202 4 hearing. If new issues or facts are
raised in the Staff Report, this letter may be corrected/supplemented prior to or at such hearing.
2 We note that the later-filed Major Subdivision Application referenced below appears to differ from the Preliminary
Application with regard to the number of lots and other specifics.
Letter to Town of Danville
June 7, 2024
Page 3
the Town’s General Plan and zoning designations – given the applicant’s claim the Town had
not adopted a revised housing element in compliance with state law.
4.The Preliminary Application, citing Gov’t Code Sect. 65589.5(o), claims that a housing
development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted
and in effect when a Preliminary Application was submitted.
5.On December 22, 2023, Adler submitted a Major Sub division Application (SD 9673, or
“Major Subdivision Application”) to develop 30 single family homes on Adler’s Parcel B.
6.By letter dated January 19, 2024, the Town responded as follows:
*The Town’s review has determined the application is incomplete,
pursuant to Gov’t Code Sect. 65943.
*Adler’s submitted title report for Parcel B does not show
access/easements to Parcel B for any purpose; and in order to
complete the application, Adler must provide a copy of an existing
easement executed by the owners of the subservient estate.
(Comment #1)
*The tentative map shows slope and maintenance easements on
lands which are not part of the application. (Comment #2)
*The Town requires certain biological studies, a detailed landslide
repair plan, and related studies and information as set forth in
Comments #3 through #8.
7.The Town’s January 19, 2024 response letter further confirmed as follows with regard to
the need for a “complete” application:
Please note that Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2) requires
[Adler] to submit the specific information needed to complete this
application within 90 days of receiving this written identification of
the necessary information. If the necessary information is not
submitted within this 90-day period, i.e., on or before April 19,
2024, your preliminary application, which was submitted on
July 11, 2023, shall expire, and have no further force and
effect. (Emphasis added.)
8.By letter dated April 17, 2024, Adler through civil engineer CBG submitted a response
letter and attachments (“Adler/CBG Letter”). The Adler/CBG Letter states in part as follows:
Letter to Town of Danville
June 7, 2024
Page 4
The applicant is working with the adjacent property owner through
negotiation and legal requirements to obtain the required
[easement] rights. The applicant requests a condition of approval
stating something to the effect, “applicant shall obtain from the
adjacent property owners all rights required for access,
construction, and public dedications, prior to the approval of the
Final Map, Grading Plans, Improvement Plans or any building
permit.” Applicant recognizes that the application cannot be
deemed complete until the easements are secured and verified
by the Town. (Emphasis added.)
9.The Adler/CBG letter attaches a Lotting Plan, dated December 2023, which appears to
show (i) a “roadway” leading from the Anderson Ranch HOA lands to Parcel B, and (ii) certain
proposed Maintenance Access Easements (MAEs) and Slope Easements (SLEs) over the
Anderson Ranch HOA lands adjacent to Parcel B. Those easements have not been granted –
however they continue to be shown on Adler’s Major Subdivision Application.
10.We understand the Town has received state approval of its Housing Element and that
the Town’s Housing Element is compliant under state law.
11.By letter dated May 16, 2024, the Town Staff confirmed that the
application remains incomplete under Gov’t Code Section 65943. The letter
confirms that the following three issues have not been addressed:
*[The Adler] title report does not show any easements to the
property for any purpose. In addition, you [the Applicant] have
not provided the requested copy of an existing easement
executed by the owner of record of the subservient estate [the
Anderson Ranch HOA].
*The tentative map proposes slope and maintenance easements on
lands which are not part of this application [owned by Anderson
HOA]. The applicant must submit proof of acquisition of these
easements to complete this application. No proof of these
easements has been submitted.
*The Geologic Feasibility Report states the site is located within the
Mount Diablo Thrust Fault. The conclusion in the report states that
the development of the property is feasible from a technical
standpoint but requires extensive landslide repairs and expansive
soil mitigation. As part of your tentative map submitted, a detailed
landslide repair plan is required. In addition, the extent to which
grading related to slide repair and development would impact
jurisdictional wetland areas must be determined. This will require
Letter to Town of Danville
June 7, 2024
Page 5
the preparation of a more comprehensive and detailed soils and
geotechnical report. No additional soils/geotechnical
information was submitted. (Bold type in original.)
12.The Town letter of May 16, 2024 further confirmed as follows, consistent with the
requirements of state law:
Please note that because you did not submit all of the information
needed to complete your application described in the Town’s
January 19, 2024 letter within 90 days after receipt, once the
Town’s determination is final, your preliminary application submitted
on July 11, 2023 shall expire and have not further force or effect
pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2), regardless of
whether you resubmit your application.
II.HOA Response to Adler/CBG Application Letter dated April 17, 2024
As shown herein, we agree with the determination that the Adler/CBG letter of April 17, 2024
and attachments did not submit the required information for the application to be determined
“complete” as required by state law.
The HOA has asked my office to further confirm that the Adler/CBG letter contains significant
inaccuracies regarding Adler’s dealings with the HOA and the lack of access easements,
maintenance access easements and slope easements. Given that the Adler/CBG letter is the
letter on which Adler’s legal claim of a “complete” application is based, the HOA has requested
that these inaccuracies be specifically called out.
As shown in Section I above, the Adler/CBG letter claims as follows:
“The applicant [Adler] is working with the adjacent property owner
through negotiation and legal requirements to obtain the required
rights . . . “ (Adler/CBG Letter at p. 1.)
This statement is false. Adler has not been “working” or “negotiating” with the HOA as claimed
in the Adler/CBG letter. Instead, Adler has filed (but not served) a lawsuit against the HOA
claiming access easement rights through a quiet title and declaratory relief action. (The suit
does not appear to reference maintenance access easement/slope easements.)
Please note that Adler’s filed lawsuit asserts easement rights inconsistent with the access as
shown on Adler’s development applications with the Town.
Adler was aware when Adler purchased Parcel B that such property is (i) designated by the
Town General Plan as open space; and (ii) restricted by the CC&Rs restricting Parcel B to
open space uses. My office, by letter dated October 31, 2023 confirmed to Adler as follows:
Letter to Town of Danville
June 7, 2024
Page 6
*Adler has no easement rights over the HOA Property, either
express or implied;
*The HOA will not grant such rights to Adler;
*Adler acquired Parcel B with full knowledge of its restrictions to
open space and lack of access;
*Adler’s acquisition of Parcel B remains legally subject to the
CC&Rs binding Parcel B - only open space uses are allowed on
Parcel B.
The Adler/CBG letter implies Adler is currently working/negotiating access rights with the HOA,
in an attempt to have the Town believe such access is forthcoming. That is not the case.
III.HOA/Legal Response to Adler/Attorney Letter of May 24, 2024
The Adler/Attorney letter of May 24, 2024 claims that, despite state law to the contrary, (i) the
Adler/CBG letter of April 17, 2024 submits a “complete application,” and (ii) the original July 11,
2023 “Preliminary Application” has therefore not expired.
Respectfully, the Adler/Attorney letter does not accurately set forth the state law and the
specific facts of this matter as set forth herein.
The Adler/Attorney letter states that under Gov’t Code Sections 65940(a) and 65940.1, the
Town must “compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required
from any applicant for a development project” and must make that information available online.
Further, the letter states that where the Town finds a development application to be
incomplete, it must provide an “exhaustive list” of items that were incomplete – and such items
shall be limited to those items required on the [Town’s] submittal requirement checklist.” (See
Gov’t Code Sect. 65943.)
The Adler/Attorney letter then states that (i) the requirement of an easement for access or
slope maintenance is not on the Town’s list; and (ii) the requirement for specific geologic
information is not on the Town’s list. Both assertions are incorrect.
The Town’s Application Requirements for Subdivision Maps attached as Exhibit 2 to the
Adler/Attorney letter include the following required information:
*A Tentative Map prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, with full-
size plans.
*The name and address of the legal owner and subdivider.
Letter to Town of Danville
June 7, 2024
Page 7
*Widths, location, and identity of all existing easements.
*Location, width and purpose of all easements.
*A soils report prepared in accordance with the Town’s Subdivision
and Grading Ordinance
*If the subdivision lies within a known or suspected geologic hazard
area, a preliminary engineer, geology and/or seismic safety report,
prepared in accordance with the guidelines established by the
Planning and Public works department.
*Any other data or reports deemed necessary by the Planning
Director.
*A Preliminary Title Report
With regard to easements, the Adler/Attorney letter claims that “nothing in the submittal
checklist requires Mr. Adler to have secured or provided copies of access or other
easements.” This is incorrect. The purpose of requiring a Title Report and showing all
easements is so that the Town, prior to processing the application, can confirm that the
applicant owns the necessary rights to the subject property and has access to the site. The
Title Report sets forth the ownership of the property, and all associated easement rights of
record. If the Title Report does not show necessary rights – cities and counties request proof
of such rights from the applicant.
The Town’s checklist requires a title report, and reference to width, location, and purpose of
all easements, including the access easement, and the referenced maintenance and slope
easements shown on Adler’s proposed plans (but not granted). Cities and counties require
evidence of such property, easement, and development rights prior to determining the
application is complete. If the law were otherwise, cities and counties would be required to
process tentative maps for hundreds of units, taking months and years of staff time, without
any evidence that the subject property can ever be developed.
In this case, the Town’s list properly requires the Title Report and evidence/extent of all
easements.
The Town’s January 19, 2024 letter alerts Adler to this issue – and states that the title report
does not show any easements to the property for any purpose (including maintenance
access easements and slope easements).
Please note that in the April 17, 2024 Adler/CBG letter, on which “completeness” is based,
Adler does not object to the Town’s requirement for easements over the Anderson Ranch
Letter to Town of Danville
June 7, 2024
Page 8
HOA Property. Instead, Adler confirms that the Major Subdivision Application cannot be
determined to be complete unless/until the easements are secured and verified by the Town:
Applicant requests a condition of approval stating something to the
effect, “applicant shall obtain from the adjacent property [the
Anderson Ranch HOA] all rights required for access, construction
and public dedications prior the approval of the Final Map.”
Applicant recognizes that the application cannot be deemed
complete until the easements are secured and verified by the
Town. (Emphasis added.)
As set forth above, Adler has confirmed in his April 17, 2024 application letter that the Major
Subdivision Application cannot be determined to be complete under the law unless/until
Adler secures the easements from the Anderson Ranch HOA. Adler’s statements are wholly
inconsistent with Adler’s attorney claims to the effect that the application was/is already
complete.
In closing, we note that Adler, in the Adler/CBG letter, appears to request that the Town
Council approve the Tentative Map, with a “condition of approval” that requires Adler to gain
the easement rights prior to later consideration and approval of a Final Map, or a building
permit.
Such request would be inconsistent with the Subdivision Map Act (see Gov’t Code Sect.
66410 et seq.). The Subdivision Map Act requires specific findings to be made at the time of
approval or denial of the tentative map (see Gov’t Code Sect. 66474). These findings
include a review of the “design” of the subdivision; and a determination of whether the
subdivision is suitable for the type of development proposed, and the proposed density of
development. (See Gov’t Code Sect. 66474(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)). It would seem very
difficult for the Town to make any such determinations if the Town is not certain of the
location and extent of access and related easement rights for the site and the environmental
impacts of any such easements/locations.
If such a condition were imposed on the tentative map, the Town would be at risk of Adler or
any applicant claiming that the Town must thereafter condemn the Anderson Ranch HOA
property to allow access/maintenance and slope easements.
The Town, in approving Tentative Map without fundamental easements and access as
required for the project, would further risk 30 or more new buyers later complaining that they
do not have legal access to their property.
Stated another way, Adler’s request to defer the questions of access and slope easements to
the final map and building permit stage would be inconsistent with the requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act, and inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (which
requires review of the environmental impacts of the project at the time of approval).
Letter to Town of Danville
June 7, 2024
Page 9
Very truly yours,
Law Office of Allan Moore, A.P.C.
Allan C. Moore
cc: Clients
Robert Ewing, Esq. City Attorney