HomeMy WebLinkAbout112525-06.1 HDF Letter
Nov 25, 2025
Town of Danville
500 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 200 Boone Court
By email: devserv@danville.ca.gov; Randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov;
CC: dcrompton@danville.ca.gov; planning@danville.ca.gov;
Rewing@Danville.ca.gov; Msunseri@danville.ca.gov; dcrompton@danville.ca.gov
Dear Danville Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its
obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 49-unit housing
development project at 200 Boone Court, which includes 2 very low-income units and 2
low-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density
Bonus Law (“DBL”), AB 130, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general
plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding
specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd, (j).) The
HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would
reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a
development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls
within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.
Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.
Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan,
for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore
apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as
outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must
conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the
action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain
protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in
residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers
and concessions with respect to height and front and side property line setback. If the City
wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1)
requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or
safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code
section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in
identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse
impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law.
The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd.
(d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in
addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the
California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more
waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development
standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the
building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers
Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32
CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the
CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation
and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and
regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as
habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result
in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site
can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Furthermore, the
project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, §
21080.66), which was signed into law on June 30, 2025 and effective immediately (Assembly
Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here) Caselaw from the California
Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly
refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is
entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
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: by providing affordable housing, it
will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring
new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by
reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide
2 of 3
housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the
City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF 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 CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3