HomeMy WebLinkAbout061824-08.1 CAL HDF Letter-11DF
Jun 18, 2024
Town of Danville
Town Council
500 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project on Parcel B of SD 6196 (Anderson Ranch)
By email: kstepper@danville.ca.gov; dfong@danville.ca.gov;
narnerich@danville.ca.gov; rmorgan@danville.ca.gov; rstorer@danville.ca.gov
CC: planning@danville.ca.gov; Rewing@Danville.ca.gov;
Jcalabrigo@danville.ca.gov; Msunseri@danville.ca.gov
Dear Danville Town Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund ("CaIHDF") submits this letter to remind the Council of
its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed
38 -unit housing development project, including nine affordable JADUs, at Parcel B of SD
6196 of the Anderson Ranch property.
Specifically, CaIHDF would like to remind the Council that the Housing Accountability Act
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the "HAA") prohibits a non-compliant local agency (such as the Town)
from denying a qualifying application to build a mixed -or low-income project on the basis of
an inconsistency with the agency's zoning or general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5).)
Given that the Town's Housing Element was not in compliance as of the date that the
preliminary application was submitted, the Town may not deny the application or require
that the applicant submit a rezoning and/or general plan amendment application. (Id. at
subd. (o).)
State law requires the Town to create checklists for development applications and then
make those lists publicly available. (Gov. Code, §§ 65940, subd. (a) and 65940.1.) The Town
must then base incompleteness determinations on "those items actually required on the
lead agency's submittal requirement checklist." (Gov. Code, § 65943, subd. (a).) Given this, the
Town may not create additional requirements out of thin air in order to deny a project or
deem an application incomplete.
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
Easements and Title
The staff report notes that the application was deemed incomplete for the following reasons
related to easements and title:
• "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."
• "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)."
• "A preliminary title report" was not provided for the proposed easements.
However, the Town's application checklist for a subdivision map only lists the following
requirements with respect to title and easements:
• "Widths, location, and identity of all existing easements."
• "Location, width, and purpose of all easements."
• "A preliminary title report"
The applicant submitted all such information and therefore the Town cannot deny the
application on these grounds. Notably, the subdivision checklist does not require that
proposed easements be already executed, nor does it require that an easement be executed
regarding public access to the property prior to the approval of the subdivision. These
requirements, moreover, on the most natural reading, concern only easements and title
reports for the property proposed to be developed - not adjacent properties over which the
applicant proposes to seek access easements.
The staff report also asserts that "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." This is incorrect. While the checklist includes the
requirement that the plans include the name address of the legal owner of the property to be
subdivided, it does not include the requirement that it include the name and address of the
owner of all property affected by the map.
2 of 4
Geotechnical Requirements
The staff report notes that the application was deemed incomplete because "The Town's
Notice of Incomplete Application required that a detailed landside repair plan be submitted"
and "A preliminary geotechnical investigation was submitted by the applicant. However no
actual borings related to this project or landslide repair plans were submitted."
However, the Town's application checklist for a subdivision map only lists the following
geotechnical requirements:
• "Soils Report: A preliminary soils report prepared in accordance with the Town's
Subdivision and Grading Ordinance."
• "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."
Nothing in the checklist requires a detailed landscape repair plan, nor does it require
borings. The staff report acknowledges that the applicant submitted a preliminary
geotechnical investigation, which satisfies the checklist's requirement that the applicant
submit "a preliminary engineering, geology and/or seismic safety report, prepared in
accordance with guidelines established by the Planning and Public Works Departments."
(Emphasis added.)
If the Council denies this appeal, then it risks litigation, as its denial is contrary to state law.
(Gov. Code, § 65943, subd. (a).). Furthermore, the HAA allows nonprofit organizations, such
as Ca1HDF, to bring suit to enforce the act. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k).) If the Town loses
such a lawsuit, then it is liable for attorney's fees and cost of suit. (Ibid.) Of course, the
applicant is also entitled to judicial remedies.
•••
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis -level housing
shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue,
new customers to local businesses, it will reduce displacement of existing residents into
homelessness, and it will provide badly needed affordable housing. While no one project will
solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction.
Ca1HDF urges the Council to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
3 of 4
Ca1HDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about Ca1HDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
Ca1HDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
Ca1HDF Director of Planning and Investigations
4of4