HomeMy WebLinkAbout022426-05.1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 5.1
TO: Chair and Planning Commission February 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2026-05 approving Development Plan request DP25-0002
and Tree Removal request TR25-0028 to allow the development of a
mixed-use development including the construction of a new 200-unit
four-story 348,112 square foot multifamily residential apartment
building and the retention of an existing 27,700 square foot two-story
commercial building on a 3.89-acre site. The Tree Removal request would
allow for the removal of five Town-protected trees. The site is identified
as the Village Shopping Center, located at 101-119 Town & Country Drive
(APN: 208-060-053).
DESCRIPTION
This application requests to construct a 200-unit apartment building on the site. The
construction would require the demolition of the three existing commercial buildings
along Town & Country Drive, while a fourth existing commercial building abutting the
southern property line would be retained and remodeled. The apartment building would
include two levels of basement parking and an interior courtyard area.
The applicant is requesting a density bonus as well as waivers and concessions pursuant
to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). As part of the density
bonuses a total of 21 units would be required to be rented to very low-income households.
BACKGROUND
The State of California has declared a housing crisis and has enacted a number of laws
aimed at reducing barriers to new housing construction. Many of these laws have the
effect of limiting local agencies review authority over housing development applications.
For the subject application, the Town may not impose non-objective standards on the
project (such as architectural design) and must allow an unlimited number of waivers of
objective development standards such as the proposed number of stories, building
height, floor area ration (FAR), and numerical parking requirements.
Housing Element
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 of
California. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is
Multi M
Village Apartments 2 February 24, 2026
tasked with reviewing housing elements for compliance with State law and is responsible
for certifying local Housing Elements.
For the current eight-year cycle from 2023-2031, HCD mandated that the nine-county
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region plan for at least 441,176 housing
units, with this number broken down into four income categories that cover housing
types for all income levels. In turn, ABAG assigned the Town of Danville 2,241 housing
units to plan for in this eight-year cycle. This housing requirement is known as the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
The Town did not have land zoned for residential use at sufficient densities to meet the
RHNA assignment and was required to find additional sites throughout Danville to
designate for multifamily housing. The subject site was identified as Opportunity Site S
and, along with over 70 other parcels Town-wide, on January 17, 2023, was redesignated
for multifamily housing with a density of 30-35 units per acre and a maximum of three
stories.
State Laws
Other State laws which apply to this application include:
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA): The HAA was first approved in 1982 and
amended in 2017 and 2024. This law, often referred to as “the anti-NIMBY law,” prohibits
local jurisdictions from denying a housing application which meets objective
development standards. A qualifying housing application can only be denied upon
making a finding that the project would cause a “specific, adverse impact” to public
health.
The Housing Crisis Act (HCA): Approved in 2019 and amended in 2021, the HCA
prohibits local jurisdictions from denying a housing application or reducing its density
based on subjective design standards – a project can only be reviewed against objective,
quantifiable standards, conditions and policies. This law also mandates that a qualifying
application must be acted upon within 90 days of it being deemed complete and limits
jurisdictions to a maximum of five public hearings.
State Density Bonus Law (DBL): The DBL was approved in 1979 and amended at least 13
times, most recently in 2023. The DBL allows a developer to increase the density of a
residential development above the maximum allowed density under the site’s General
Plan land use designation in exchange for providing affordable units, or age restricted
senior developments. In addition, developments which qualify under the DBL are
entitled to receive requested incentives, concessions, and waivers to reduce otherwise
required development standards.
Village Apartments 3 February 24, 2026
AB 130: Affective as of July 1, 2025, AB 130 exempts qualified infill housing development
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result,
potential environmental impacts which may be identified within an environmental study
prepared for the project, such as a traffic study, cannot be used as a basis to deny the
application.
AB 130 requires Tribal Consultation similar to the requirements under AB 52. During this
process, the Town received a request for consultation from the Confederated Villages of
the Lisjan Nation. The Lisjan Nation requested that that the Town include several
conditions of approval including that Native American Monitoring be required during
excavation and that standard protocols be implemented should any tribal cultural
resources be encountered.
Town’s Request for Technical Assistance from the State
On May 20, 2025, the Town sent a letter to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) requesting assistance in interpreting the State Density
Bonus Law (DBL) as it pertains to this development proposal (Attachment D). The
Town’s request for guidance related to the method of calculating the proposed density
bonus, which impacts the total allowable number of units.
The applicant’s initial application included a subdivision request to separate the
remaining commercial parcel from the residential parcel and still use the acreage of the
entire 3.89-acre site for calculating the maximum base density at 35 units per acre.
However, if the project density can only be calculated using the 2.34-acre portion of the
site proposed for residential development the total number of units would be much
lower.
HCD responded to the Town’s request for assistance on August 12, 2025 (see Attachment
E). HCD confirmed that, if subdivided, the entire site acreage cannot be used to calculate
the maximum density for the project. However, if not subdivided, the project would meet
the definition of a mixed-use project under State law, and the proposed method of
calculating the density would be consistent with State law. As a result, the applicant
amended the application to eliminate the subdivision request.
Design Review Board
The project architectural and landscape plans were reviewed by the Town’s Design
Review Board (DRB) on September 11 and November 13, 2025. At the November 13
meeting, the DRB recommended the Planning Commission approve the project’s
architecture, landscaping, and color and material board.
Village Apartments 4 February 24, 2026
DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION
Density Bonus
This application includes a request for a 46% density bonus pursuant to the State DBL
(Attachment C). The density bonus would increase the allowable density from 35 to 51
units per acre and increase the allowable number of units from 137 to 200. As per the
DBL, the applicant would be required to restrict 15 percent of the maximum base units
(21 units) as below market rate units available to very low-income households.
Waivers
The applicant also requests waivers to reduce several otherwise applicable development
standards established under the site’s Downtown Business District DBD 13; Multifamily
Residential zoning designation. A waiver is defined as a reduction or modification of a
development standard and/or other regulations which would otherwise physically
preclude construction of the project. There are no limits to the number of waivers an
applicant can request under the DBL.
The DBL also states that, if the applicant requests waivers, and provides some evidence
of physical preclusion, a jurisdiction can deny the request only if:
1. the waiver or reduction would have a “specific, adverse impact upon health or
safety.”
2. the impact is “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete,” and
for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific, adverse impact.
In addition, courts have ruled that features such as increased ceiling heights and other
“amenities” such as courtyards, open areas, etc. can be the basis for the wavier.
The applicant for this development is requesting four waivers:
1. Height – The subject DBD 13 zoning district requires an average maximum height
of 35 feet with a mix of 33-, 35-, and 37-foot heights. The proposed project would
have a maximum height of 53 feet and a maximum average height of 50’-10”.
2. Stories – The Town’s zoning district allows a maximum of three stories. The
proposed building would be four stories.
Village Apartments 5 February 24, 2026
3. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – The maximum allowed FAR is 120%. The proposed
development would have a FAR of 141%, including the existing commercial
building to remain.
4. Parking – For the commercial building to remain, 116 parking spaces are required
under the zoning district. The project offers 95 parking spaces for the commercial
portion of the site. Parking for the residential portion of the site is discussed below.
General Plan
The site’s General Plan land use designation is Downtown Business District DBD 13 –
Multifamily Residential–High Special, which requires a residential density of 30-35 units
per acre. The proposed 200-unit development on the 3.89-acre site results in a density of
51 units per acre as a result of the requested 46% density bonus.
Zoning
The site is zoned DBD 13; Multifamily Residential-High Special. This district allows a
residential density of 35 units per acre and establishes development standards to control
the massing and siting of the development. Except for the requested waivers, the project
is consistent with DBD 13 development standards.
Affordable Units
Based on the requirements of the DBL and the proposed 46% density bonus, the applicant
must restrict 15% (21) of the base units (the maximum number of units possible under the
zoning before the density bonus) to be affordable to very low-income households. Income
levels are set by the State annually and vary based on household size. Currently, the
maximum allowed income for a qualifying very low-income household of two people is
$63,950.00. The units must retain their affordability for a period of 55 years.
Parking
Apartments
Under the Town’s zoning ordinance, for the mix of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom
units, the total parking demand is calculated to be 344 spaces, including guest parking.
The project would provide a total of 337 residential parking spaces. Under the DBL the
applicant could provide as few as 237 parking spaces.
Village Apartments 6 February 24, 2026
Commercial Parking
For the commercial building to remain, based on the mix of uses and sizes of tenant
spaces, the total number of parking spaces that would be required under the Town’s
zoning ordinance is 116 parking spaces. The project proposes a total of 95 parking spaces.
The applicant has requested a waiver under the DBL to allow for this reduction of
commercial parking spaces.
Traffic Impact Analysis
While the project is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA, A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was
prepared by Kimley-Horn (Attachment F). The TIS did not identify any potentially
significant traffic impacts but recommended several measures to optimize vehicle and
pedestrian circulation. These measures, which include traffic signal timing adjustments,
parking restrictions on Town & Country Drive related to site visibility at project
driveways, and striping and directional signage, are included in Resolution No. 2026-05
as recommended conditions of approval.
Again, since the project is exempt from CEQA under State law, the TIS should be
considered informational, and its scope or findings cannot legally be used as a basis for
denial of the project.
Trees
An Arborist Report for the project was prepared by Traverso Tree Service (Attachment
G). Inventoried trees include parking lot landscape trees at the front side of the building,
and clusters of large redwood trees along Town & Country Drive.
A total of 47 trees were inventoried on and near the site. Thirteen of the trees are Town-
protected trees under the Town’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Five Town-protected
trees are proposed to be removed. Four of the Town-protected trees to be removed are
large Heritage coast redwood trees along Town & County Drive. While the Town and the
applicant have strived to save the large redwood trees along Town & Country Drive,
some trees were found to be too close to the proposed new building to be saved. A total
of 12 large redwood trees along Town & Country Drive would be preserved to help
provide screening for the new building.
Other Studies
Additional studies including hydrology, biological resources, geotechnical, air quality
and noise were prepared for the project. These reports did not identify any significant
impacts. Again, as this project has found to be exempt from CEQA under State law,
neither their adequacy or findings can be used as a basis to deny the application. These
Village Apartments 7 February 24, 2026
reports are available on the Danville Town Talks website Danville Town Talks.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONEMNTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUS
The project is Statutorily Exempt From the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Section 21080.66 (AB 130).
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public notice of February 24, 2026, hearing was published in a local newspaper, mailed
to property owners within 750 feet and posted online. A total of 149 notices were mailed
to surrounding property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-05 approving Development Plan request DP25-0002 and Tree
Removal request TR25-0028 to allow the development of a mixed-use development
including the construction of a new 200-unit four-story 348,112 square foot multifamily
residential apartment building and the retention of an existing 27,700 square foot two-
story commercial building on a 3.89-acre site. The Tree Removal request would allow for
the removal of five Town-protected trees. The site is identified as the Village Shopping
Center, located at 101-119 Town & Country Drive (APN: 208-060-053).
Prepared by:
David Crompton
Chief of Planning
Attachments: A – Resolution No. 2026-05
B – Public Notification and Map & Notification List
C – Applicant’s Density Bonus Request Letter
D - Town Letter to HCD
E - HCD’s Response Letter to the Town
F – Transportation Impact Analysis
G – Arborists Report
H – Architectural Plan, Civil, and Landscape Plans
I – Letters received as of February 18, 2026
J – Additional Study Information
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST DP25-0002 AND TREE
REMOVAL REQUEST TR25-0028 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW 200-UNIT FOUR-STORY 348,112 SQUARE FOOT MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING AND THE RETENTION OF AN
EXISTING 27,700 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING
ON A 3.89-ACRE SITE. THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST WOULD ALLOW
FOR THE REMOVAL OF FIVE TOWN-PROTECTED TREES. THE SITE IS
IDENTIFIED AS THE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED
AT 101-119 TOWN & COUNTRY DRIVE (APN: 208-060-053)
WHEREAS, 115 TOWN AND COUNTRY DRIVE INVESTORS, LLC have requested
approval of a Development Plan (DP25-0002) Tree Removal application (TR25-0028) to
construct a mixed-use project including the construction of a new 200-unit four-story
348,112 square foot multifamily residential apartment building and the retention of an
existing 27,700 square foot two-story commercial building; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Removal request (TR25-0028) would allow the removal of five (5)
Town-protected trees; and
WHEREAS, the site is located at 101-119 Town & Country Drive, a 3.89-acre site and
further identified as APN: 208-060-053; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (DBL) the applicant has requested
a 46% density bonus and development waivers related to building height, stories, floor
area ratio (FAR), and parking supply related to the commercial portion of the site; and
WHEREAS, the project is Statutorily Exempt From the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Public Resource Code Section 21080.66 (AB
130) for infill housing projects; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was prepared recommending that the Planning Commission
approve the requests; and
WHEREAS, public notification for the public hearing to consider this proposal was
provided consistent with all requirements of the law; and
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the Town of Danville approves
Development Plan request DP25-0002 and TR25-0028 allowing for the development of a
200-unit apartment building and makes the following findings in support of this action:
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
Development Plan
1. The proposed development is in substantial conformance with the goals and
policies of the Danville 2030 General Plan and the site’s Downtown Business
District DBD 13; Residential Multifamily – High Special land use designation
which allows multiple family residential development in the range of 30-35 units
per acre.
2. The design of the proposed development is substantially in conformance with the
site’s DBD 13; Residential Multifamily - High Special zoning district. The DBD 13
District is listed as a consistent zoning designation under the site’s General Plan
land use designation.
3. The design of the development and the type of associated improvements will not
likely cause adverse public health problems, because water and sanitary facilities
and services will be available to the parcels. The project has been reviewed by the
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, Central Contra Costa County Sanitary
District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the Town’s Building Division and
it was determined that the site is adequately served by public facilities and
services.
4. The design of the proposed development is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or subsequently injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in
part because the project site is an area where development has previously
occurred. Biological resources were reviewed as part of this development, and it
was found that the project will not have a negative impact on biological resources.
5. The design of the proposed development would not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed development site.
6. Except for the density bonus and development standard waivers consistent with
the State Density Bonus Law, the project is consistent with all development
standards established under the Town’s DBD 13; Multifamily Residential – High
Special zoning designation.
7. The proposed development standard waivers as allowed under the State Density
Bonus Law, including height, stories, floor area ratio, and commercial parking
would not result in any identified significant impacts to public health or safety.
PAGE 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
Tree Removal Permit
1. Necessity. The primary reason for removal of five (5) Town-protected trees is that
preservation of those trees would be inconsistent with the proposed residential
development of the property, including the creation of a new roadway system and
grading to accommodate the development and there are no reasonable alternatives
to the development design that would avoid removal of the trees.
2. Erosion/surface water flow. Removal of the Town-protected trees will not cause
significant soil erosion or cause a significant diversion or increase in the flow of
surface water.
3. Visual effects. Removal of five (5) Town-protected trees will not significantly
affect off-site shade or adversely affect privacy between properties due to the site’s
topography, the other trees that would remain and that would be replaced on site,
and the locations of the trees in relation to other properties.
Statutory Exemption
The proposed project is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Under Public Resource Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130) based on the
following findings:
1. The project is not more than 20 acres.
The project is 3.89 acres in size.
2. The project is located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality.
The project is located within the Town of Danville.
3. The site has been previously developed with an urban use.
The site development would be a redevelopment of a portion of a commercial shopping
center.
4. At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed
with urban uses.
The site is surrounded on all sides by existing commercial, office, and residential uses.
5. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance. If
the zoning and general plan are not consistent with one another, a project shall be
deemed consistent with both if the project is consistent with one.
The proposed development is consistent with the Town’s DBD Area 13; Multifamily
Residential – High Special land use and zoning designations as the project would be within
the 30-35 unit per acre density range prior to the density bonus and development standard
waivers as allowed under State Law.
PAGE 4 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
6. (5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable “Mullin density” as
specified in Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
The project density is 46 units per acre and the Mullin density for Danville is 30 units per
acre.
7. The project meets the requirements specified in Government Code section
65913.4(a)(6).
The Project does meet the requirements specified in Government Code Section
65913.4(a)(6), including at least 75% of the square footage being devoted to residential
use.
8. The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed
on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary
application was submitted for the project.
The three commercial buildings to be demolished have no historical significance.
9. For a project that was deemed complete on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of
the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other
transient lodging.
The project consists of new market rate and affordable housing and does not include
transient lodging.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of approval with an asterisk (*) in the left-hand column are standard project
conditions of approval.
Unless otherwise specified, the following conditions shall be complied with prior to the
issuance of building permits for the project. Each item is subject to review and approval
by the Planning Division unless otherwise specified.
A. GENERAL
1. This approval is for Development Plan request DP 25-0002 and Tree
Removal request TR25-0028 to allow the development of a mixed-use
development including the construction of a new 200-unit four-story
348,112 square foot multifamily residential apartment building and the
retention of an existing 27,700 square foot two-story commercial building
on a 3.89-acre site. The Tree Removal request would allow for the removal
of five (5) Town-protect trees. The site is identified as the Village Shopping
Center, located at 101-119 Town & Country Drive (APN: 208-060-053).
a. Site Development Plan and Civil Drawings prepared by Mackay &
Somps, dated December 9, 2025.
PAGE 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
b. Preliminary Architectural Plans prepared by LPAS, Inc. dated
December 9, 2025.
c. Preliminary Landscape Plans prepared by MIC/PGA, dated
December 9, 2025.
d. Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan as prepared by MacKay &
Somps Civil Engineering dated December 4, 2025.
e. Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley-Horn, dated February
2026.
f. Biological Resource Assessment prepared by WRA Environmental
Consultants, dated December 18, 2024.
g. Preliminary Arborist Report prepared by Traverso Tree Service,
dated January 28, 2025.
h. Geotechnical Investigation as prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical,
dated October 18, 2024.
i. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth
& Rodkin, Inc. dated May 1, 2025.
j. Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin,
Inc. dates May 2, 2025.
k. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by GSI
Environmental dated March 8, 2022.
2. This approval includes the granting of waivers of development standards
consistent with State Density Bonus Law. Approved waivers are as follows:
a. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – The zoning district allows a maximum FAR of
120%. The application proposes a FAR of 141%.
b. Stories – The zoning district allows a maximum of three stories. The
application proposes four stories.
c. Height – The zoning district requires an average maximum height of 35
feet. The proposed project has a maximum average height of 50’-10”.
PAGE 6 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
d. Commercial Parking – The Town’s zoning ordinance required a total of
116 parking spaces for the remaining commercial building . The project
proposed to provide a total of 95 parking spaces.
3. The applicant requests one concession consistent with the State Density
Bonus Law. The approved concession is to allow a mixed-use development
as defined by State law, including a 200-unit residential building and
retention of an existing 27,700 square foot commercial building, rather than
a solely multifamily residential development.
4. The following fees for the 200-unit multifamily development due prior to
issuance of building permits (based on 2024/25 Master Fee Schedule which
was in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted):
a. Improvement Plan Check Fee ………… 3% of cost estimate
b. Engineering Inspection Fee ................... 5% of cost estimate
c. Grading Permit, Plan check & Inspection Fee ..............TBD
d. Excavation Mitigation Fee (Flood Control) ...................TBD
e. Storm Water Control Plan Review ................. Fee plus 33%
f. Child Care Facilities Fee ........................................ $ 115/unit
g. Storm water Pollution Program Fee ................... $ 228/bldg
h. Park Land in Lieu Fee ......................................... $ 7,958/unit
i. SCC Regional Fee ................................................ $ 1,877/unit
j. Residential TIP Fee ............................................. $ 1,400/unit
k. Tri-Valley Transportation Fee ........................... $ 4,243/unit
l. Finish Grading Inspection Fee ............................ $ 230/bldg
m. NPES ...................................................................... $ 228/bldg.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall reimburse the
Town for notifying surrounding residents and interested parties of the
public hearings and study sessions for the project. The fee shall be $357.00
($110.00 + 149 notices X $0.83 per notice X 2 notifications).
* 6. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit written documentation that all requirements of the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) and the San Ramon Valley Unified
School District have been, or will be, met to the satisfaction of these
respective agencies.
7. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Phase I environmental assessment is
required. If a “recognized environmental condition” is found, a more
detailed preliminary endangerment assessment shall be required to identify
any hazardous substance release. Any identified release must be remediated
to meet federal and state standards before a certificate of occupancy can be
issued.
PAGE 7 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
8. Native American Monitoring. Prior to ground disturbing activities,
including any archaeological testing involving ground disturbance, a
Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation (CVLN) Tribal monitor(s) shall be
retained. Confederated Villages of Lisjan Tribal monitor(s) will have the
authority to halt and redirect work should any archeological or tribal
cultural resources be identified during monitoring. If archeological or
Tribal cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing
activities, work within 100 feet of the find must halt and the find must be
evaluated for listing in the CRHR and NRHP. Monitoring may be reduced
or halted at the discretion of the CVLN monitor, in consultation with the
lead agency, as warranted by conditions such as encountering bedrock,
sediments being excavated are fill, negative findings during the first 50
percent of the entire area of ground disturbance, etc. If monitoring is
reduced to spot checking, spot checking shall occur when ground
disturbing activities move to a new location within the project site and/or
when ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached
(unless those depths are within bedrock).
9. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If cultural resources
of Native American origin are identified during grading or excavation of
the proposed project, all ground disturbing activities within 100 feet shall
cease until a representative from the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation
shall be consulted by the government agency. If the lead agency in
consultation with the consulting Tribe(s), determines that the resource is a
tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA and/or the Tribe,
the lead agency shall retain a Tribal monitor and, if applicable, a qualified
archeologist, at the project proponent’s expense, to prepare a mitigation
plan, which shall be implemented by the lead agency in accordance with
state guidelines and in consultation with the consulting Tribe. The
mitigation plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of
the resource is not feasible, the plan shall outline appropriate treatment of
the resource in coordination with the consulting Tribe. Examples of
appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not
limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resources,
protecting traditional use of the resources, protecting the confidentiality of
the resources, or heritage recovery. Prior to commencement of ground
disturbing work, the project proponent will arrange a site visit with the
Tribe and agree on an appropriate location for reburial on site in the event
that any tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during
project construction. This location would be accessible to Tribal members
in perpetuity and would not be subject to further disturbance. Any
discovery and reburial is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any
further disturbance.
PAGE 8 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
10. Halt Work/Coroner’s Evaluation/Impact to Previously Undiscovered
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during construction
and/or other ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the
remains should be redirected and the County Coroner notified
immediately. At the same time, an archeologist shall be contacted to assess
the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the
Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify a Native
American Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to inspect the site and provide
recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any
associated funerary objects. There shall be no pictures taken or testing done
on the Native American human remains. All bone, until identified as not
human remains, shall be treated as potential human remains and the
appropriate protocols followed. The archeologist shall record information,
as appropriate and in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD
and/or Tribal representative. Upon completion of the archeologist’s
assessment, a report should be prepared documenting methods and results,
as well as recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains
and any associated archeological materials. The report should be submitted
to the lead agency, the NWIC and the consulting Tribe. Tribal
representatives will rebury the Native American human remains and
associated funerary objects with the appropriate dignity, either; in
accordance with the recommendations of the MLD if available or in the
project vicinity at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the project
proponent, which would be accessible to Tribal members in perpetuity and
would not be subject to further disturbance. The discovery and reburial is
to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance.
11. Ongoing Tribal consultation regarding cultural resource assessment. The
Tribe will have the opportunity to review the cultural resource assessment
and consult on any ground disturbing testing that may be proposed for this
project to make sure the methods are culturally appropriate and sufficient
to identify Native American cultural resources within the project area. As
stated in Condition No. 8, a Tribal monitor will be retained for any ground
disturbing testing carried out as part of the cultural resource assessment.
The Tribe will also have the opportunity for a follow-up consultation with
the lead agency after reviewing the completed cultural resources
assessment to make further recommendations regarding tribal cultural
resources that may be identified during the cultural resources assessment.
* 12. Construction activity shall be restricted to the period between the weekday
hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Monday through Friday), unless otherwise
approved in writing by the City Engineer for general construction activity
and the Chief Building Official for building construction activity.
PAGE 9 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
* 13. At a minimum, all on-site structures shall include the following to achieve
an acceptable interior noise level:
Air conditioning or a mechanical forced–air ventilation system so that
windows and doors may remain closed
Double-paned windows and sliding glass doors mounted in low air
infiltration rate frames (0.5 cubic feet per minute, per ANSI
specifications)
Solid core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold
seals
Roof and attic vents facing away from I-680 freeway
14. Construction activity shall comply with the following requirements:
Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all
internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust
mufflers and engine shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition
and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all equipment,
fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent
with manufacturers’ standards.
Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be
used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any
temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities.
Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far
away from the adjacent multi-family residential development as feasible.
Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left
idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.
Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a
point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction
activity.
Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart
back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in
response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be
disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile
construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction.
PAGE 10 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a disturbance
coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator
shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early,
bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted
to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the
construction site.
Construction Notice. Two weeks prior to the commencement of
construction and grading at the project site, the applicant shall install a
3-foot by 3-foot sign at the project entry that discloses the allowable
construction work days and hours, the planned construction schedule,
and the contact name and phone number for residents to call for
construction noise related complaints. All reasonable concerns shall be
rectified within 24 hours of receipt.
* 15. The applicant shall provide security fencing, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and/or the Chief Building Official, around the site during
construction of the project.
* 16. A watering program which incorporates the use of a dust suppressant, and
which complies with Regulation 2 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District shall be established and implemented for all on and off-site
construction activities. Equipment and human resources for watering all
exposed or disturbed soil surfaces shall be supplied on weekends and
holidays as well as workdays. Dust-producing activities shall be
discontinued during high wind periods.
17. All physical improvements other than landscaping shall be in place prior to
occupancy of any structure in the project. All landscaping shall be installed
prior to occupancy of the final unit. If occupancy within the project is
requested to occur in phases, all physical improvements shall be required
to be in place prior to occupancy except for items specifically excluded in a
construction-phases occupancy plan approved by the Planning Division.
No structure shall be occupied until construction activity in the adjoining
area is complete and the area is safe, accessible, provided with all
reasonably expected services and amenities, and appropriately separated
from remaining additional construction activity
* 18. The applicant shall submit a written Compliance Report detailing how the
conditions of approval for this project have been complied with as part of
the initial submittal for the final map, plan check, and/or building permit
review process (whichever occurs first). This report shall list each condition
PAGE 11 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
of approval followed by a description of what the applicant has provided
as evidence of compliance with that condition. The applicant must sign the
report. The report is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
and/or Chief of Planning and/or Chief Building Official and may be
rejected by the Town if it is not comprehensive with respect to the
applicable conditions of approval.
19. If demolition or construction activity (e.g., tree removal, grading, road
construction, home construction, etc.) is to commence within the raptor
nesting season (i.e., between February 1 and July 31), a pre-construction
survey of the property for nesting raptors shall be conducted, with such
survey to occur a minimum of 15 days prior to planned commencement of
demolition or construction activity. The nesting survey shall include
examination of all trees located on the property and within 200 feet of the
area proposed for demolition or construction activity. If birds are identified
nesting on or within the zone of proposed demolition or construction
activity, a qualified biologist shall establish a temporary protective nest
buffer around the nest(s). Where protective nest buffering is deemed
necessary, the nest buffer(s) shall be staked with orange construction
fencing or orange lath staking. The buffer shall be of sufficient size to
protect the nesting site from demolition or construction related disturbance
and shall be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with
extensive experience working with nesting birds near construction sites.
Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 50 feet from the nest site or nest tree
dripline for small birds, and up to 250 feet for sensitive nesting birds that
include several raptor species known in the region of the project site. No
demolition, construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the
established buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the
young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project
construction zones. This typically occurs by July 15th of each year. This date
may be earlier or later and shall be determined by the qualified
ornithologist or biologist.
B. SITE PLANNING
* 1. All lighting shall be installed in such a manner that lighting is generally
down directed and glare is directed away from surrounding properties and
rights-of-way.
2. The project plans indicate that required easements will be created through
amended CC&Rs. All easements necessary to serve the project, including
access, utilities, drainage, and stormwater facilities, shall be in place or
legally committed prior to issuance of building permits. Easement
documentation will be reviewed with subsequent submittals as necessary.
PAGE 12 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
3. To facilitate the recordation of all necessary easements, final plans shall
show adjacent property ownerships throughout, particularly along the
south and west boundaries, and clearly indicate any locations where
proposed improvements rely on rights across adjoining parcels.
Documentation of necessary permissions where improvements extend off
site shall be required.
C. LANDSCAPING
* 1. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Division. The plan shall include common names
of all plant materials and shall indicate the size that various plant materials
will achieve within a five-year period of time.
* 2. All plant material shall be served by an automatic irrigation system and
maintained in a healthy growing condition. Landscaping and irrigation
shall comply with all MWELO water conservation requirements.
* 3. All trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon container size. All trees shall be
properly staked. All remaining shrubs used in the project, which are not
used as ground cover, shall be a minimum of five gallons in size.
* 4. All landscaped areas not covered by shrubs and trees shall be planted with
live ground cover or covered with mulch. All proposed ground cover shall
be placed so that it fills in within two years.
5. For development activity which will occurs in the direct vicinity of on-site
and off-site protected trees, a security deposit in the amount of the assessed
value of the tree(s) (calculated pursuant to the Town’s Tree Protection
Ordinance) shall be posted with the Town prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or building permit to maximize the probability that the affected trees
will be retained in good health. The applicant shall be required to secure an
appraisal of the condition and value of all affected trees. The appraisal shall
be done in accordance with the current edition of the “Guide for
Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants,” by the Council of Tree and
Landscape Appraisers under the auspices of the International Society of
Arboriculture. The appraisal shall be performed by a Certified Arborist,
and shall be subject to review and approval by the Chief of Planning. A tree
preservation agreement shall be prepared that outlines the intended and
allowed use of funds posted as a tree preservation security deposit. That
portion of the security deposit still held by the Town two full growing
seasons after project completion shall be returned upon verification that the
trees covered by the deposit are as healthy as can be provided for under the
terms of the tree preservation agreement.
PAGE 13 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
6. The developer shall be required to mitigate the loss of five (5) Town-
protected trees. As a result, the applicant shall be responsible for the
planting on-site of either ninety six (96) 15-gallon oak trees (which are
counted as 2” diameter trees) or forty eight (48) 24-inch box size oak trees
(which are counted as 4” diameter trees). If all of the trees cannot be
accommodated on-site, the applicant may pay the Town’s trees mitigation
fee of $250.00 for each 15-gallon tree or $500.00 for each 24-inch box size
tree.
7. Any additional tree removal shall be subject to the submittal of a separate
Tree Removal application and revised landscape plan and shall be subject
to review by the Planning Division and may be referred to the Town’s
Design Review Board at the discretion of the Chief of Planning.
D. ARCHITECTURE
* 1. All ducts, meters, air conditioning and/or any other mechanical equipment
whether on the structure or on the ground shall be effectively screened from
view with landscaping or materials architecturally compatible with the
main structures.
* 2. The street numbers for each building in the project shall be posted so as to
be easily seen at all times, day and night by emergency service personnel.
3. Final architectural elevations, details and revisions shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of
building permits for the project. In addition, final colors, and all proposed
materials, including building siding, balcony railing, and roof equipment
screening, shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to
issuance of building permits.
E. PARKING
1. All parking spaces shall be striped and provided with wheel stops unless
they are fronted by concrete curbs, in which case sufficient areas shall be
provided beyond the ends of all parking spaces to accommodate the
overhang of automobiles.
* 2. Where authorized, compact car spaces shall be clearly designated with
appropriate pavement marking or signage. Self-park compact spaces shall
be no less than 8 feet by 16 feet in size, including allowable overhang.
* 3. Regulatory signage/curb painting for the non-parking side of the interior
loop roadway shall be provided, if deemed necessary, to the satisfaction of
PAGE 14 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and the City Engineer.
F. GRADING
* 1. Any grading on adjacent properties will require prior written approval of
those property owners affected.
* 2. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall
post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the
exterior boundary of the project site, and to the Town of Danville
Development Services Department, a notice that construction work will
commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title,
phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for
maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all
times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate corrective action
in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for
dust, noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice.
3. The applicant shall conduct a design-level geotechnical investigation. Final
below-grade grading, drainage, excavation support, and groundwater
mitigation measures shall be designed in conformance with the approved
geotechnical report and will be reviewed and approved with subsequent
Building Permit and Improvement Plan submittals.
* 4. Where soils or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the soil report, a revised soils report shall
be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. It shall be
accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of
the site from settlement and seismic activity.
* 5. All development shall comply with Danville Ordinance 2004-06 which
added Chapter 20 to the Danville Municipal Code relating to Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control. All development shall also comply
with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ,
NPDES No. CAS000002) adopted by the State Water Resources Control
Board on September 2, 2009, and effective on July 1, 2010. These regulations
require, among other things, that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer for submission to
the State of California via the on-line Storm Water Multi-Application
Reporting & Tracking (SMARTS) system. No land-disturbing activity shall
occur until a Notice of Intent (NOI) is filed and a Waste Discharger
Identification (WDID) number is issued by the State of California. A copy
of the final NOI, including WDID number and attached SWPPP, shall be
kept at the project site at all times, with a copy provided to the Town. The
PAGE 15 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
requirements of the SWPPP and all other Permit Registration Documents
shall be fully implemented during land-disturbing activities.
* 6. All grading activity shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) concerns. Specific measures to control sediment runoff,
construction pollution and other potential construction contamination shall
be addressed through the Erosion Control Plan (ECP) and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall supplement the
Erosion Control Plan and project improvement plans. These documents
shall also be kept on-site while the project is under construction. A NPDES
construction permit may be required, as determined by the City Engineer.
* 7. If toxic or contaminated soil is encountered during construction, all
construction activity in that area shall cease until the appropriate action is
determined and implemented. The concentrations, extent of the
contamination and mitigation shall be determined by the Contra Costa
County Health Department. Suitable disposal and/or treatment of any
contaminated soil shall meet all federal, state and local regulations. If
deemed appropriate by the Health Department, the applicant shall make
provisions for immediate containment of the materials.
Runoff from any contaminated soil shall not be allowed to enter any
drainage facility, inlet or creek.
8. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the project applicant shall install a silt
fence or fabric fence along the perimeter of the site, adjacent to residential
development, to provide a barrier to movement by rodents and other
wildlife. The fence shall be maintained until all vegetation is remove from
the site. During grading and construction activities, the project applicant
shall maintain a contact person including a phone number, should issues
associated with rodent dispersal occur, and shall monitor these
recommended actions to determine their efficacy.
9. The grading at the bioretention basin near the western driveway creates an
excessively deep condition at the southern end, resulting in tall interior
basin walls and potential concerns with constructability, maintenance,
aesthetics, and pedestrian safety. The grading plan shall be revised to
reduce basin depth at this location; terracing, stepped benches, or similar
re-grading may be appropriate, subject to review and approval by the Town
Engineering Division.
G. STREETS
* 1. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering
Division prior to commencing any construction activities within any public
PAGE 16 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
right-of-way or easement.
* 2. Street signing shall be installed by the applicant as may be required by the
City Engineer. Traffic signs and parking restriction signs, which may be
required to be installed, shall be subject to review and approval by the
Transportation Division and the Police Department.
* 3. All mud or dirt carried off the construction site onto adjacent streets shall
be swept each day. Water flushing of site debris or sediment or concrete
washing is expressly prohibited.
* 4. Any damage to street improvements now existing or done during
construction on or adjacent to the subject property shall be repaired to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, at full expense to the applicant. This shall
include slurry seal, overlay or street reconstruction of the impacted areas if
deemed warranted by the City Engineer.
* 5. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb, gutter,
sidewalks, driveways, paving and utilities, shall be constructed in
accordance with approved standards and/or plans and shall comply with
the standard plans and specifications of the Development Services
Department and Chapters XII and XXXI of the Town Code. At the time
project improvement plans are submitted, the applicant shall supply to the
City Engineer an up-to-date title report for the subject property.
* 6. Handicapped ramps shall be provided and located as required by the City
Engineer.
* 7. The Project shall be required to stripe curbs and install any necessary
parking or circulation signage, as determined by the Transportation
Division.
8. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the developer shall
coordinate with the Transportation Division for the implementation of the
recommended improvements outlined in the project Traffic Impact Study,
including recommended signal timing adjustments at the San Ramon
Valley Boulevard and Sycamore Valley Road intersection and
modifications at the San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Wells Fargo
driveway in coordination with the adjoining property owner.
9. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the developer shall
implement the parking restrictions needed on Town & Country Drive as
outlined in the project Traffic Impact Study to ensure appropriate sight
visibility at all project driveways.
PAGE 17 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
10. The Project shall be required to stripe curbs and install any necessary
parking or circulation signage, as determined by the Transportation
Division and consistent with the approved Signing and Striping Plan and
the approved Fire Access Plan.
11. Appropriate signage shall be placed at subterranean garage entrance to
generally prohibit right-turn movements out of the garage and limiting
other movements as outlined in the project Traffic Impact Study, subject to
approval by the Transportation Division.
12. Designated parking areas for delivery vehicles shall be provided on the
project site plans, including the Signing and Striping Plan, subject to
approval by the Transportation Division.
13. Where authorized, compact car spaces shall be clearly designated with
appropriate pavement marking or signage. Self-park compact spaces shall
be no less than 8 feet by 16 feet in size, including allowable overhang.
14. The project applicant shall develop and submit for approval to the Town of
Danville a Construction Management and Mitigation Plan that includes
designated haul routes and staging areas, traffic control procedures,
emergency access provisions and construction crew parking, to minimize
traffic impacts during construction. The plan shall ensure that haul routes
and construction activity timing shall comply with the Town of Danville’s
requirements. The plan shall also ensure that construction period
employees can either park on-site or at an approved off-site location. In
addition, the plan shall require that temporary signage, alternative
pedestrian passage, and/or protected walkways be provided should
sidewalks be closed during construction.
H. INFRASTRUCTURE
* 1. Domestic water supply shall be from an existing public water system.
Water supply service shall be from the East Bay Municipal Utility District
water system in accordance with the requirements of the District.
* 2. All wastewater shall be disposed into an existing sewer system. Sewer
disposal service shall be from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
sewer system in accordance with the requirements of the District.
* 3. Drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and/or the Chief Engineer of the Contra Costa County Flood
Control & Water Conservation District.
PAGE 18 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
4. Prior to commencement of any site work, the applicant/owner shall submit
evidence to the Town that the requirements for obtaining a State General
Construction Permit have been met. Such evidence may be the copy of a
WDID number issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in
response to an application submitted via their online SMARTS System by a
qualified SWPPP developer. Additionally, the applicant/owner shall
submit evidence that the requirements for obtaining the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers 404 Permit, the State Water Resources Control Board 401
Certification, and the California Department of Fish and Game’s
Streambank Alteration Agreement have been or will be met. Such evidence
might be a copy of the permit(s)/agreement and/or a letter from the
applicant/owner stating that the above permit(s) are not required for the
subject project.
* 5. Roof drainage from structures shall be collected via a closed pipe and
conveyed to an approved storm drainage facility in the street curb. No
concentrated drainage shall be permitted to surface flow across sidewalks.
* 6. Any portion of the drainage system that conveys runoff from public streets
shall be installed within a dedicated drainage easement or public street.
* 7. If a storm drain must cross a lot, or be in an easement between lots, the
easement shall be equal to or at least double the depth of the storm drain.
* 8. The applicant shall furnish proof to the City Engineer of the acquisition of
all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction
of off-site temporary or permanent road and drainage improvements.
* 9. All new utilities required to serve the development shall be installed
underground in accordance with the Town policies and existing
ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility
easements, sited to meet utility company standards or in public streets.
* 10. All utility distribution facilities, including but not limited to electric,
communication and cable television lines, within a residential or
commercial subdivision shall be underground, except as follows:
a. Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities, such as surface
mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter
boxes, and concealed ducts;
b. Metal poles supporting street lights.
* 11. All street, drainage or grading improvement plans shall be prepared by a
PAGE 19 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
licensed civil engineer.
I. MISCELLANEOUS
* 1. The project shall be constructed as approved. Minor modifications in the
design, but not the use, may be approved by staff. Any other change will
require Planning Commission approval through the Development Plan
review process.
* 2. Pursuant to Government Code section 66474.9, the applicant (including the
applicant or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless
the Town of Danville and its agents, officers and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding against the Town or its agents, officers or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Town's approval concerning this
application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
Section 66499.37. The Town will promptly notify the applicant of any such
claim, action or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
* 3. The project shall conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
post-construction C.3 regulations which shall be designed and engineered
to integrate into the project’s overall site, architectural, landscaping and
improvement plans. These requirements are contained in the project’s
Stormwater Control Plan and are to be implemented as follows:
Prior to issuance of permits for building, site improvements, or
landscaping, the permit application shall be consistent with the
applicant’s approved Stormwater Control Plan and shall include
drawings and specifications necessary to implement all measures in the
approved plan. The permit application shall include a completed
Construction Plan C.3 Checklist as described in the Town’s Stormwater
C.3 Guidebook.
As may be required by the City Engineer and the Chief of Planning,
drawings submitted with the permit application (including structural,
mechanical, architectural, grading, drainage, site, landscape, and other
drawings) shall show the details and methods of construction for site
design features, measures to limit directly connected impervious area,
pervious pavements, self-retaining areas, treatment (Best Management
Practices) BMPs, permanent source control BMPs, and other features
that control stormwater flow and potential stormwater pollutants.
Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
the applicant shall execute any agreements identified in the Stormwater
Control Plan which pertain to the transfer of ownership and/or long-
term maintenance of stormwater treatment or hydrograph modification
BMPs.
PAGE 20 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
the applicant shall submit, for the Town’s review and approval, a
Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan in accordance with
the Town of Danville guidelines. Guidelines for the preparation of
Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plans are in Appendix F
of the Town’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall execute an
affordable housing agreement with the Town. The agreement shall identify
21 units within the development to be restricted to very low-income
households for a period of 55 years. Household income data is established
by the State annually and varies depending on household size. The
agreement shall specify maximum rental rates and provide for a utility
subsidy. The agreement is subject to review and approval by the Danville
Town Council.
APPROVED by the Danville Planning Commission at a regular meeting on February 24,
2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
_____________________________
CHAIR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ ______________________________
CITY ATTORNEY CHIEF OF PLANNING
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Danville Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. | Town Meeting Hall, 201 Front Street
Project Name: The Village Apartments
Case File Nos.: DEV25-0002 / TR25-0028
Location: 101-119 Town & Country Drive | APN: 208-060-053
Description: Development Plan and Tree Removal request to allow the development of a mixed-
use project including the construction of a new 200-unit four-story 348,112 square
foot multifamily residential apartment building and the retention of an existing
27,700 square foot two-story commercial building on a 3.89-acre site. The Tree
Removal request would allow for the removal of five Town-protecte d trees.
The applicant is requesting a density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law
(Gov. Code Section 65915) and related development standard waivers including
height, stories, floor area ratio, and parking for the commercial building.
Environmental
Review This project has been found to be Statutorily Exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 21080 (SB 130)
Property
Owner/Applicant: 115 Town and Country Drive Investors, LLC
550 Hartz Ave, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94526
Staff Contact: David Crompton
(925) 314-3349
dcrompton@danville.ca.gov
All interested persons are encouraged to attend and be heard at the scheduled public hearing at 5:00
p.m. on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at the Town Meeting Hall at 201 Front Street, Danville, CA.
NOTE: If you challenge the Town’s decision on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior, to the public hearing.
ATTACHMENT B
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Town of Danville will provide special assistance
for disabled citizens. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk
(925) 314-3401. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]
Vicinity Map and Hearing Notice Boundary
101-119 Town & Country Drive
To view the plans for the proposed project, please visit our Development Activity
Map, which is available on our website or by scanning the QR code above.
PROJECT SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
A B C D E
APN NAME ADDRESS CITY-STATE ZIP
208052008 WEBER LAUREN & THOMAS 10 SHERI CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208051011 KADESH PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC 10 TOWN & COUNTRY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208043012 DUNN MARK TRE 104 ESTHER LN DANVILLE CA 94526
208044010 KAPULICA JOHN V & MELISSA TRE 105 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208043014 SWETE STANLEY A & MADONNA TRE 106 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208043005 TOVEY MORGAN & ELIZABETH 107 SONORA AVE DANVILLE CA 94526
208330007 SCHACK DAVID & BETTE SUE TRE 11 APPIAN CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208540003 WU SHELLEY 112 GERALD DRIVE DANVILLE CA 94526
208044001 MEDEIROS ANDREW & DENISE TRE 1127 KENDAL CT SAN JOSE CA 95120
208043004 REHRMANN STEPHEN T TRE 113 SONORA AVE DANVILLE CA 94526
208044009 COLE SHANDY 115 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208043003 NELSON STEVEN B & STACEY TRE 119 SONORA AVE DANVILLE CA 94526
208330001 HAKET MARK S & HOLLY A TRE 12 APPIAN CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208060062 S R V SCHOOL AGE C C A INC 120 TOWN & COUNTRY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208043002 DAVIS MARGARET G TRE 121 SONORA AVE DANVILLE CA 94526
208044008 SHARTZER STEPHEN A M & STACEY 125 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208540001 COLEMAN JIM 125 GERALD DRIVE DANVILLE CA 94526
208043016 CAREY JOHN E & JESSICA TRE 126 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
216090023 CAL-NORTH PROPERTIES LLC 1280 BOULEVARD WAY STE 109 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595
216080073 MONTAIR ASSOCIATES LLC 12885 ALCOSTA BLVD #A SAN RAMON CA 94583
208044007 BOOTS JAMES R & JANE E TRE 129 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208044006 HUBER JEFFREY M & HEIDI L 133 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208044016 WATT JAMES D JR & KATHRYN TRE 135 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208060054 SHERI LANE ASSOCIATES 135 TOWN & COUNTRY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208043017 BUSICK DAVID & CHERYL TRE 136 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208043018 JEANMINETTE STEPHEN S 146 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208431010 DADDARIO JAMES A TRE 15 CAVALRY CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208330027 GEPPERT JEFFREY DEAN 150 TOWN & COUNTRY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208540006 BERRIATUA JAMES JR & K TRE 151 REMINGTON DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208044003 DUNKLE PETER & ELIZABETH 155 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208434004 ZAMBELIS JOHN & PAMFILIA 155 REMINGTON DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208330026 BRICAUD NICOLAS H & ADRIENNE R 156 TOWN & COUNTRY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208431003 CONNELL JAMES & ANNE K TRE 16 CAVALRY CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208052007 TEMNIKOW SIMEON TRE 16 SHERI CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208434003 BECK S C & KAREN TRE 161 REMINGTON DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208434002 OZTURK UFUK & NEZIHA 167 REMINGTON DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208330006 DONLEY JUDITH A TRE 17 APPIAN CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208434001 WILBRINK JACOB TRE 173 REMINGTON DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208330002 BISHOP RAYMOND V TRE 18 APPIAN CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208433001 BRIDGESPAN HOLDINGS LLC 185 REMINGTON DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208372003 MARICH GEORGE AND SHARON 190 LOCH LOMOND WAY DANVILLE CA 94526
208441032 CEDAR ERAN 191 REMINGTON DR DANVILLE CA 94526
216090003 JAMES E ROBERTS OBAYASHI CORP 20 OAK CT DANVILLE CA 94526
216080014 ZIEDINS INTA TRE 2029 IONE ST SACRAMENTO CA 95864
216080026 HERTZ ASHLEY 205 ASHLEY CIR DANVILLE CA 94526
216080004 GLEN ARMS ESTATES INC 20855 INSPIRATION LN GRASS VALLEY CA 95949
208431009 LIFSET THEODORE & CORINA TRE 21 CAVALRY CT DANVILLE CA 94526
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
A B C D E
208051006 COX CARL A & JAN A TRE 2121 ALAMEDA DIABLO DIABLO CA 94528
216080018 BROWN CORINNE AMELIA TRE 2134 MYRTLE BEACH LN DANVILLE, CA 94526
218411009 BUCKERT BARBARA & LYLE 216 CABOOSE PLACE DANVILLE CA 94526
216090004 DEKKER PETER H 216 PINEWOOD CT DANVILLE CA 94506
208431004 GILLETTE WILLIAM J TRE 22 CAVALRY CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208052006 WAGNER PETER EARL TRE 22 SHERI CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208330005 VUTUKURU MURALIDHAR 23 APPIAN CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208330003 DAVIS VICKI K TRE 24 APPIAN CT DANVILLE CA 94526
216080020 BOUEY KEVIN T & CHRISTINE TRE 242 DEXTER PL SAN RAMON CA 94583
208043025 JOVEN INVESTMENTS DANVILLE LLC 2501 ROUNDHILL DR ALAMO CA 94507
208462004 CARRIGG MICHAEL & ERIN TRE 251 MORRIS RANCH CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208462007 RUST WILLIAM C JR & LEE J 252 MORRIS RANCH CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208462005 MIX GREGORY N & MARY E TRE 255 MORRIS RANCH CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208462006 GEHRKE DAVID L & MICHELE H TRE 256 MORRIS RANCH CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208431008 AGARWAL SAHIL 27 CAVALRY CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208431005 WILKINSON KENNETH & LUANN TRE 28 CAVALRY CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208051001 WALLACE MARK E & REGINA C 29 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208330004 FARHANG ALI & LINDA ANN TRE 30 APPIAN CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208352010 GARDUNO MICHAEL A & BERNA TRE 30 CAMBRA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208441001 MORRIS MICHAEL T & DOROTHY TRE 30 REMINGTON CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208051010 BLOCH CHARLES & BARBARA TRE 30 TOWN & COUNTRY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208352015 HERNANDEZ ERNIE & THERESA TRE 31 CAMBRA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208044018 OFFENHARTZ DOUG TRE 318 STEALTH CT LIVERMORE CA 94551
208352014 CHANG CALVIN & DANIELLE TRE 33 CAMBRA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208431007 Resident 33 CAVALRY CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208442014 MARY ANNE PETERSON 333 REMINGTON LOOP DANVILLE CA 94526
208043024 ELWOOD CARNEGIE LLC 34 ALAMO SQ #200 ALAMO CA 94507
208352011 STEWART ROBERT C & BABETTE TRE 34 CAMBRA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208431006 BALLENTINE FRANK J & LINDA TRE 34 CAVALRY CT DANVILLE CA 94526
216080070 COMMON AREA-TRACT 4227 3478 BUSKIRK AVE #343 PLEASANT HILL CA 94523
216080071 SYED USMAN A 3511 SHADOW CREEK DR DANVILLE CA 94506
208441002 JORDAN ROGER C & CHRISTINE TRE 36 REMINGTON CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208352012 SCANLON MICHAEL J & LINDA TRE 38 CAMBRA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208074011 BERET SAMIL TRE 38 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208352013 BRULAND JON R & CHRISTINE 39 CAMBRA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208051002 DIETZ JAMES A 39 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208052009 WHITE CHRISTOPHER 4 SHERI CT DANVILLE CA 94526
195040074 MAPES STEPHEN 4 SUNRISE TERRACE DANVILLE CA 94526
208051009 GALLAGHER JOHN T & BERTENA TRE 400 CLIFFSIDE DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208441003 CHEN ZHIFENG 42 REMINGTON CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208044015 GAGNON CENTER LLC 43 HIDDEN HILLS PL DANVILLE CA 94506
208043015 PANDYA SUMATI TRE 44 RITTENHOUSE AVE ATHERTON CA 94027
216080022 VANETTEN ROBERT EUGENE & JULIE 4401 CLOVEWOOD LN PLEASANTON CA 94588
208330029 CUMMINGS D KATHLEEN TRE 46 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208330022 MCCAMBRIFGE KEVIN & ANGELA TRE 46 MARIPOSA CT A DANVILLE CA 94526
208330028 CRUEY JOHN & COURTNEY TRE 48 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208441004 SCHRATZ MARK R & JILLIAN V TRE 48 REMINGTON CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208051003 YAROSZ CARL S & GERLINDE A TRE 49 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
A B C D E
208043006 JOMEHRI BAHRAM & GITI TRE 4981 OLIVE DR CONCORD CA 94521
208043020 ACHF KAPLAN LP 532 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526
208053004 YOUNG JOHN G 56 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208052005 RUGGERI MARIO A TRE 58 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208051004 PFEIFFER SUSAN KATHLEEN 59 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
216080023 MEITER PARK A TRE 604 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208053003 KONDO YUJI SHANE 608 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
216080021 BUSHMAN MARY M TRE 612 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208053002 GOLDHAWK GARY A & ROBIN L TRE 614 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
216080019 TAYLOR-ESPOSITO CAROLINE E TRE 620 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208053001 MACK CHARLES III & MARLENE TRE 620 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
208052010 WILEY BRETT L & LISA M 621 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
216080017 VAROSH JAMES & SARAH 628 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
216080016 KRULJAC JUSTIN & LINDSAY 632 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208352016 HOGAN KEVIN F & MARTHA J 632 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
216080015 LEZAMA ELSA M TRE 636 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208352017 EDMONDSON ERIC R 638 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
216080013 TORRES LISA HELEN 644 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208352018 LAZARUS RYAN D & NATALIA M TRE 644 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
216080012 LEE DARLENE Y TRE 648 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208432001 HUDSON STEPHEN L TRE 650 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
208431013 MONTGOMERY ERICK JAMES TRE 651 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
216080011 YILDIRIMER AKIN & OZLEM B 652 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
216080010 OFLAHERTY JOHN F & MARGARET E 656 HARTLEY DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208432002 ROBERTSON JOHN & PATRICIA TRE 656 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
208431012 ANDERSON MARK R & LEANN J 657 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
216080025 KAASHOEK GARTH & LYNETTE 66 LEAWOOD ST APTOS CA 95003
208432003 BENGTSON DAVID & MARY TRE 662 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
208472001 DONFRO NICHOLAS & REBEKAH 675 SHERI LN DANVILLE CA 94526
208052004 PARSONS DONALD & CHRISTINE TRE 68 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208051005 BREMER PARKER LADD 69 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208330019 DIMICELI JACOB TRE 7 APPIAN CT DANVILLE CA 94526
218221025 ANTONIO BISTRAIN 74 SAINT PATRICK'S CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208052003 MAXWELL THOMAS M & NANCIE 78 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208060055 DANVILLE TOWN & COUNTRY L P 7855 IVANHOE AVE STE 333 LA JOLLA CA 92037
208540010 DANVILLE LIVERY OFFICES LLC 7855 IVANHOE AVE STE 333 LA JOLLA CA 92037
208541003 DANVILLE LIVERY & MERCANTILE 7855 IVANHOE AVE STE 333 LA JOLLA CA 92037
208541008 DANVILLE L & M LTD 7855 IVANHOE AVE STE 333 LA JOLLA CA 92037
216070011 SYCAMORE SQUARE 7855 IVANHOE AVE STE 333 LA JOLLA CA 92037
208044017 HILL ROBERT L TRE 79915 BERMUDA DUNES DR BERMUDA DUNES CA 92203
208052002 ROBINSON CHRISTINA 88 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208051007 DORWIN HELEN C 89 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208044002 DALY VIRGINIA MARIE 9 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208044011 BLATTER JASON & KRISTINA TRE 95 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208043013 KREKEL VINCENT & ERIN M TRE 96 ESTATES DR DANVILLE CA 94526
208052001 PAGNINI LOUIS A & POLLY J TRE 98 MARIPOSA CT DANVILLE CA 94526
208060063 RUSSELLO PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1038 ALAMO CA 94507
216080024 GREEN DIANA PO BOX 1310 DANVILLE CA 94526
145
146
147
148
149
150
A B C D E
208060053 115 TWN & COUNTRY DR INVST LLC PO BOX 1368 CARLSBAD CA 92018
216070007 LONGS DRUG STORES INC PO BOX 1610 COCKEYSVILLE MD 21030
208060029 TURRE FAMILY LLC PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD CA 92018
216080074 VSA INVESTMENTS N BAY LLC PO BOX 32547 CHARLOTTE NC 28232
216090017 JOHNSON-HIMSL LLC PO BOX 332 SUNOL CA 94586
208431011 888 FOSTER CITY INVESTMENT LP PO BOX 63 ALAMO CA 94507
August 13, 2025
1
Danville Apartments – 101 – 119 Town & Country Drive
The proposed multifamily residential development project at 101 – 119 Town & Country Drive
(“Project”) will provide 200 new units on an infill parcel, consistent with the high-density housing
uses allowed under the Town of Danville’s General Plan and zoning policies, and will retain an
existing approximately 29,296 square foot retail/commercial building. The Project will provide
21 units that are affordable to below-market-rate households, which entitles the Project to a
density bonus and certain waivers or concessions under the State Density Bonus Law and the
Town’s corresponding ordinance.
General Plan/Zoning Consistency
The Project site’s General Plan land use designation is Downtown Master Plan, which includes
13 unique districts or sub-categories. These districts “recognize the eclectic nature of Downtown
Danville, and the multiple activities that take place within its boundaries”, and they collectively
“allow for a synergy between different land uses that make the area more vibrant and
memorable.”
In 2023, the Town adopted General Plan Amendments that introduced a new land use
designation, DBD 13 – Multifamily Residential – High Density Special. At the same time, a new
Zoning Ordinance Amendment was adopted for the Downtown Business District Area 13 (DBD
13), outlining the development standards for this district.
These Amendments were designed to help the Town meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation under State housing laws, as outlined in the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element. The DBD
13 General Plan designation and zoning apply to all opportunity sites within the Downtown area
and permit a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 35 dwelling units per
acre, excluding any density bonuses.
General Plan Policies.
The proposed Project is a high-density, residential project that is close to community amenities
and commercial areas, which will be developed on an existing infill, low-density commercial site.
The Project is consistent with General Plan policies to concentrate development in walkable
areas with easy access to public transportation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
utilizing underused sites for housing. This includes the following policies:
•Policy 1.04: Generally guide higher density residential development to locations within
walking distance of shopping centers and public transportation.
•Policy 3.08: Encourage the reuse of vacant and underutilized commercial buildings for
more economically productive purposes, including new businesses, housing, and mixed
use development.
The Project is also consistent with Housing Element goals and policies to create a vibrant
downtown and expand housing options, including affordable housing. It will provide 200 new
units, with 180 market-rate and 20 for "very low income" households, in line with the following
goals:
•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.
ATTACHMENT C
August 13, 2025
2
…
o Policy H-2.2 Support mixed-use development.
• 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.
Located on an Opportunity Site identified in the Housing Element, the Project will help the Town
meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 2,241 new housing units, which includes 652
units for very low-income households.
Zoning Standards.
The Project complies with the development standards in the DBD 13 zoning district, except for
certain deviations that are permitted under the State Density Bonus Law, as explained in more
detail below. The Project complies with minimum density requirements in the DBD 13 district
(30 units/acre). The proposed average unit size is 879 square feet which is below the maximum
average of 1,500 square feet. The front setback is 12 feet, which complies with the average of
10 feet from the public right-of-way. The side and rear setbacks will be established through a
site-specific development plan approval. There are no minimum lot size, minimum lot width and
depth, or maximum lot coverage requirements in the Town’s development standards.
Role of Development Plan.
The Town has authority to grant deviations from standard zoning requirements in the Downtown
Business District, even without looking to the State Density Bonus Law. This is because “All
land within the Downtown Business District is designated a P-1 Planned Unit District” (Muni.
Code sec. 32-45.40), which allows the Town to modify standards that would typically apply to
individual lot development, where the modifications allow for a cohesive large-scale
development that furthers the policies of the General Plan. (Sec. 32-63.1, 32-63.7(b)).
Any development on the site requires approval of an overall Development Plan, which allows
the Town to ensure the overall development substantially conforms to planning policies, “without
unduly inhibiting the advantages of a large-scale site or special area planning.”
(Sec. 32-63.1(b)). The Town can modify a variety of development standards through a
Development Plan.
Architecture and Design.
From a design standpoint, the Project incorporates colors, materials, and modulations that
provide variation while respecting the existing character and scale of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The proposed design balances Danville's historic architectural heritage with a contemporary
style that fits seamlessly into the Downtown Business District. It draws on historic styles like
Craftsman and California Bungalow, using traditional materials such as stucco, board-and-
batten siding, exposed roof rafters, and thin brick. These elements align with the area's
established aesthetic while giving the building a modern identity. Consistent detailing on all
sides ensures visual interest and avoids blank walls. Features like terraced balconies, bay
windows, and thoughtful building proportions create pedestrian-friendly façades that blend well
with neighboring structures.
A prominent front porch theme runs throughout the design, a characteristic element of Danville’s
identity, promoting a hospitable and community-focused environment. The main entry includes a
August 13, 2025
3
wrap-around covered porch, offering warmth and accessibility to residents and visitors. Smaller
porches along Town and Country further enhance the streetscape and landscaped areas,
encouraging pedestrian activity and engagement. Outdoor spaces, framed by the building,
provide gathering areas for social interaction and contribute to the district's vibrancy.
The design respects Danville’s historic context while adding a timeless, distinctive presence to
the downtown area. By blending modern elements with traditional materials and forms, the
project complements the streetscape and supports Danville’s vision of a pedestrian-friendly,
architecturally cohesive downtown.
Tree Protection, Removal, and Replacement.
Development of the Project will require removal of approximately 25 trees, five of which are
classified as protected. As construction drawings are developed, it may become necessary to
reevaluate and potentially remove up to 13 additional trees (six protected) if it is determined that
the placement of utilities, foundations, or grading compromises their stability or long-term health.
The arborist will determine the feasibility of protecting the trees due to utilities, on site grading,
and extensive root system. The trees will require on-site monitoring of the demolition, to prevent
further root damage, which may be unavoidable in many cases. Grading would also need to be
adjusted to retain the trees, along with regular watering and mulching during construction. In
addition, there are nine existing trees (two protected) that will remain on the project site. These
trees will be inspected by a certified arborist before construction begins.
The Project will provide replacement trees on site, as shown on the proposed landscape plans.
Density Bonus
Project Density.
The DBD 13 zoning district establishes a minimum density of 30 units/acre and a maximum
density of 35 units/acre, exclusive of any density bonus. The Project site is 3.89 acres, so the
minimum base density is 117 units and the maximum base density is 136 units. The Project will
include 21 units, 15% of the base maximum density, to be restricted for very low income (VLI)
households earning no more than 50% of area median income adjusted for family size. The
developer will enter into an agreement to ensure the continued affordability of the units, as
required by the Town’s Density Bonus Ordinance.
This entitles the Project to a 50% density bonus, or up to 206 units, per Government Code
section 65915(f)(2). The Project proposes a total of 200 units, which is within the number
allowed with the 50% density bonus.
The density bonus calculation is summarized on the table below (rounding up in the case of any
fractional unit).
Density Metric Project Calculation
Base Density:
3.89 acres @ 35 du/ac
137 units
VLI Units:
15% of Base
21 units
Total Units Allowed:
Base + 50% Density Bonus
206 units
Units Proposed by Project 200 units
August 13, 2025
4
Reduction in Required Residential Parking.
Because it qualifies for a density bonus, the Project also qualifies for a reduction in parking
ratios as described in Government Code section 65915(p)(1). The Project is not required to
provide more than one onsite space for each unit with zero or one bedroom, or more than 1.5
spaces for each unit with two or three bedrooms. (Units with four or more bedrooms would be
required to have 2.5 parking spaces, but there are no units of this size in the Project.) The
Project complies with and exceeds the parking standards, as shown on the table below.
Number of
Units in
Project
Required
Parking
Ratio/Unit
Number of
Spaces
Required
Project
Complies?
(337 Spaces)
Town Requirement
Studio 24 1.0 24
No (- 7)
1 Bedroom 102 1.5 153
2/3 Bedroom 74 2.0
+ .25 guest
167
TOTAL 200 344
Government Code Requirement
Studio 24 1.0 24
Yes (+ 100)
1 Bedroom 102 1.0 102
2/3 Bedroom 74 1.5 111
TOTAL 200 237
The Project includes 337 residential parking spaces, which will exceed the minimum
requirements set by the Density Bonus Law, by 100 spaces (42%). The Project will provide
98% of the 344 total spaces that would otherwise by required by the Municipal Code for the
residential units (a difference of 7 spaces).
The request for a parking reduction under the Density Bonus Law does not affect the number of
incentives or concessions to which the Project is entitled (Government Code section
65915(p)(8)).
Incentives/Concessions and Waivers.
By including 15% of units for VLI households, the Project is entitled to three incentives or
concessions. As provided by Government Code section 65915(d)(2)(C) and Municipal Code
section 32-74.5, these concessions may reduce site development standards, modify zoning
code requirements or architectural design requirements, allow for mixed-use zoning, reduce
parking requirements, or otherwise provide identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for
affordable housing costs. The Project is also entitled to any number of waivers of development
standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of the Project at the
proposed densities or with the proposed concessions or incentives, pursuant to Government
Code section 65915(e)(1).
As described above, the Town has discretion to modify development standards in the
Downtown Business District through approval of a Development Plan. If the Town prefers to
look to the State Density Bonus Law instead of (or in addition to) granting deviations through a
Development Plan, the developer has identified certain Project features that would qualify for
August 13, 2025
5
waivers and/or concessions from the Town, as described below, and may supplement this list
as necessary.
Waiver Analysis.
The Project qualifies for waivers from the following development standards set forth in Danville
Municipal Code section 32-45.21.2 and 32-45.34.
Standard Code Requirement
(Sec. 32-45-21.2)
Proposed
(See Project Data Sheet)
Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) 1.20 max 1.41
Story Height 3 stories max 4 stories
Building Height 35’ average max* 53’ max
Commercial Parking 116 spaces** 95 spaces
* Detailed massing requirements apply
** See Attachment A, Commercial Parking Analysis
Strict application of each of these development standards would physically preclude
construction of the Project, as designed, at the proposed density.
• Strict adherence to the FAR limit would not allow the Project to be constructed on the
site, either with or without consideration of the existing commercial building that would
be retained (known as “Building D”). FAR is approximately 1.27 for the new residential
building only, and total FAR is approximately 1.41 including the existing Building D.
• Strict adherence to the building height and 3-story limitations would require eliminating
an entire floor of residential units (approximately 51 units total), and therefore would
preclude construction of the new building at the height that is necessary to
accommodate the proposed density. Additionally, the existing buildings on site have a
height up to approximately 42 feet, which already exceeds the current development
standards; the maximum height of the new building would only be approximately 11 feet
higher.
• Strict adherence to the commercial parking requirements would require either eliminating
residential units, which would preclude constructing the Project at the proposed density,
eliminating space in the Project dedicated to tenant amenities, or exceeding the building
height limitations by a greater degree (i.e. by providing an additional floor of parking). It
is not feasible to accommodate additional off-street surface parking spaces on the lot
while retaining Building D and circulation elements.1
Concession Analysis. The developer has identified one concession that may be required for
the Project due to its retention of commercial Building D on the southern portion of the site.
According to the Town, retention of the commercial building would require a concession to allow
for mixed uses on the site.
1 As described in the Commercial Parking Analysis included as Attachment A, the parking provided on site for the
existing commercial uses does not meet current Municipal Code requirements, and when the Project is completed,
parking will be available for commercial uses at virtually the same ratio that exists. No concession or waiver is
required for the Town to authorize a continuation of this nonconforming condition for existing Building D. However, a
waiver and concession analysis is provided here to demonstrate that the Town could also look to the State Density
Bonus Law as an additional or alternative means of authorizing the continuation of that parking ratio.
August 13, 2025
6
While we believe that no concession should be necessary to retain the existing commercial
building under applicable General Plan and zoning policies, for purposes of this application, we
are requesting a concession to allow for “mixed use” development on the site. This will provide
actual cost reductions for the Project to provide for affordable housing costs, because several
commercial tenants on the site have long-term leases and allowing the commercial building to
stay in place will avoid the cost of terminating those leases.
Additionally, it should be noted that each of the items described above as qualifying for a waiver
could also be addressed through a concession on the basis that each would each result in
actual cost savings for the Project.
• Exceeding the FAR limit accommodates the residential density that is needed for the
Project to be economical, and allowing Building D to remain on site will maintain a
source of revenue during and after Project construction.
• Allowing greater building height and a greater number of stories allows for efficient use
of the site and efficient construction practices.
• Allowing fewer commercial parking spaces than required by Code directly reduces
construction costs and the opportunity costs of tying up additional area for vehicular use,
while retaining the same commercial parking ratio that exists on the site today.
Relationship to Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Because the Project will be developed consistent with the Town’s Density Bonus Ordinance, it is
considered to have satisfied all requirements of the Town’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
pursuant to Municipal Code section 32-73.5.
Conclusion
By providing high density housing on an infill site identified for redevelopment in the Town’s
Housing Element, the Project conforms to and helps to fulfill the policies and standards set forth
in the recently adopted Housing Element, the remainder of the General Plan, and the DBD 13
district zoning. By providing 15% of base units for very-low income households, the Project is
entitled to a 50% bonus in density, as well as waivers to make the project physically feasible
and/or concessions to provide cost savings in support of making housing available to very low
income residents. These 20 below-market rate units and 180 market-rate units will help
Danville make meaningful progress toward its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals, as
mandated by the State’s Housing Element process.
August 13, 2025
A-1
ATTACHMENT A
COMMERCIAL PARKING ANALYSIS
The Project will retain one of the four existing commercial buildings on site, known as “Building
D,” and will maintain virtually the same parking ratio for non-residential tenants and invitees that
exists today. The commercial development on the Project site will be reduced from
approximately 69,494 gross square feet and 229 parking spaces, to approximately 29,296 gross
square feet and 95 parking spaces. The future uses of Building D are anticipated to include a
mix of service commercial/fitness, personal service, retail, and limited restaurant uses, similar to
those that exist today and are allowed by zoning for the DBD 13 district.
Table 1: Commercial Parking Summary – Existing vs. Future Conditions
Current
(All Bldgs.)
Future
(Bldg. D Only)
Commercial Square Footage 69,494 29,296
Commercial Parking Spaces 229 95
Commercial Parking Ratio
(per 1,000 sf) 3.29 3.24
Required Spaces Based on
Uses* 376 116
Percentage of Required
Spaces Provided 60.9% 81.9%
* See detailed calculations in Tables 2 through 4 below
Use-Based Parking Requirements
The Danville Municipal Code provides detailed parking ratio requirements which vary by specific
use type. The permitted commercial uses at the Project site include retail, restaurant (full
service, limited service, and to-go), personal service, service commercial and others. The
applicable ratios for these uses generally range from 1 space per 100 square feet to 1 space
per 250 square feet, with personal service uses requiring a calculation per station. The Code
allows for shopping centers to utilize a blended parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet, but
only where at least 75% of the use is retail, which is not applicable to the current or anticipated
uses of the Project site.
As shown in Table 2 below, calculating the required parking for all existing tenants based on
their use classifications, and assuming all vacant tenant spaces to be retail, the current number
of parking spaces required for the shopping center is 376. As shown in Table 3, the current
uses of Building D would require 133 of those 376 spaces.
August 13, 2025
A-2
Table 2: Current Parking Requirements for Village Shopping Center
* All calculations are based on per-use requirements in Municipal Code section 32-45.34
Table 3: Parking Requirements for Building D (Current Tenants)
August 13, 2025
A-3
Table 4: Parking Requirements for Building D (Proposed Tenants)
Continuation of Nonconforming Parking Ratio
The Project site was developed prior to the adoption of the Town’s current parking
requirements. As a result, existing land uses are not subject to the current parking ratios “until
there is a change of use/business or expansion of the structure, provided that on-site parking
facilities now required or serving such land uses are not reduced below these requirements in
the future.” (Section 32-45.30(a); see also general nonconforming use provisions in Section
32-1.6). No expansion or change of use is proposed for Building D.
The Project also does not propose to reduce the proportion of parking serving Building D
relative to the use mix. The site currently provides 229 spaces, or 60.9%of the use-based
requirement; this percentage would be lower if a portion of vacant spaces were assumed to be
higher-intensity uses. The anticipated future uses of Building D, by contrast, would require 116
spaces, as shown in Table 4. The site will provide 95 spaces, or 81.9%of the requirement.
Accordingly, the anticipated future use of Building D would conform more closely to the Town’s
parking requirements than the current use of either Building D alone or the site as a whole.
Retaining this building as part of the Project therefore does not trigger current parking
requirements for DBD 13.
Additional Methods for Authorizing Reduced Parking Ratio
Based on the Project applicant’s observations, the current parking ratio on the site is sufficient
to serve the needs of tenants, including their customers and guests. Following redevelopment,
given that existing restaurants including El Nido and Santorini will no longer be located on the
site, and that the site will provide a higher proportion of parking spaces relative to the remaining
commercial uses, it would not be appropriate for the Town to require a higher parking ratio for
Building D than currently exists. Even if the existing commercial parking ratio were not
permitted to continue as a lawful nonconforming use of the site, the Town has other options to
authorize a variation from the strict application of use-based parking ratios:
• Relief through an Administrative Permit “if strict application of the requirements of this
Division [Parking Standards] are found to be inappropriate and measures approved by
the Chief of Planning are incorporated into the project which preserve the intent of this
Division” (Section 32-45.35).
August 13, 2025
A-4
• Approval of a Development Plan, which may include site-specific regulations relating to
parking ratios (Section 32-63.7(b)(3); 32-45.40).
• Granting a State Density Bonus Law waiver or concession, as described above.
August 13, 2025
B-1
ATTACHMENT B
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS AND
INCENTIVES/CONCESSIONS
For projects providing specified percentages of below-market rate housing units, the State
Density Bonus Law provides for corresponding concessions or incentives, which may reduce
site development standards, modify zoning code requirements or architectural design
requirements, allow for mixed-use zoning, reduce parking requirements, or otherwise provide
identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs. (Government
Code section 65915(d)). Additionally, qualifying projects are entitled to any number of waivers
of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of the
Project at the proposed densities or with the proposed concessions or incentives (Government
Code section 65915(e)(1)). The criteria to qualify for concessions/incentives and waivers have
been clarified in case law, as briefly summarized below.
Incentives/Concessions
As the Court of Appeal explained in Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal. App. 5th 549,
555-56 (2021), the applicant “is not required to establish that cost reductions will result. Instead,
‘[t]he city ... shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or
incentive.’” Id., citing Government Code section 65915(d)(4). To meet that burden, the city must
find, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the concession does not result in cost reductions,
has specific adverse impacts on health and safety, the environment, or certain historic
resources, or is contrary to state or federal law. In the Schreiber case, considering concessions
for increased floor area and maximum height, the court concluded that the developer “was not
required to show, and the city was not required to affirmatively find, that the incentives would
actually result in cost reductions.” Id. Moreover, where a local ordinance required a developer
to provide a pro forma analysis demonstrating that a modification was needed to make the
project “economically feasible,” this requirement was preempted by state law and could not be
enforced. Id. at 558.
Waivers
Unless a statutory exception applies, such as a waiver that would have an adverse impact on a
listed historical resource, “so long as a proposed housing development Project meets the
criteria of the Density Bonus Law by including the necessary affordable units, a 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, 74 Cal. App. 5th 755, 775 (2022).
In Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329 (2011), the petitioner objected to the
city’s waivers of standards for height, number of stories, and setbacks, which accommodated
certain Project amenities, including an interior courtyard, community plaza, and greater ceiling
heights than required. The Court of Appeal concluded that:
nothing in the statute requires the applicant to strip the Project of amenities, such
as an interior courtyard, that would require a waiver of development standards.
Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing
development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period. (§ 65915,
subd. (e)(1).) The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a Project
August 13, 2025
B-2
with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed.
Wollmer's argument goes nowhere. Had the City failed to grant the waiver and
variances, such action would have had "the effect of physically precluding the
construction of a development" meeting the criteria of the density bonus law. If the
Project were not built, it goes without saying that housing units for lower income
households would not be built and the purpose of the density bonus law to
encourage such development would not be achieved.
193 Cal. App. 4th at 1346-47 (emphasis added, some internal citations omitted). Similarly, the
Bankers Hill court specifically rejected arguments that the Project could have been redesigned
and “built more horizontally” to avoid waivers for height and setbacks. Rather, the Density
Bonus Law precluded the city from applying standards that would prevent construction of the
Project as designed, even though some other design may be possible: “If the City had denied
the requested incentives or failed to waive any inconsistent design standards, it would have
physically precluded construction of the Project, including the affordable units, and defeated the
Density Bonus Law's goal of increasing affordable housing.” 74 Cal. App. 5th at 774.
May 20, 2025
California Department of
Housing and Community Development
Re: Town of Danville Request for Technical Assistance – State Density Bonus Law
The Town of Danville (“Town”) requests technical assistance from the Department
of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) with respect to the interpretation
and application of the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code section 65915.
Specifically, we request guidance on the method for determining the base density
applicable to a housing project as defined under Government Code Section 65915(o)(6)
when an applicant proposes to develop only a portion of a given project site. Here, an
existing parcel of 3.89 acres is proposed to be subdivided into two parcels: a 2.34-acre
parcel that will be redeveloped with housing and a 1.55-acre parcel that will remain in its
current state (developed with an existing commercial project and no housing). Is the
housing project’s base density calculated using 3.89 acres or 2.34 acres?
We also request guidance on a related issue, assuming that the answer to the first
question is that the base density should be calculated using the 2.34-acre site proposed
for the housing project. If this were the case, would the applicant be entitled to an
incentive or concession under Government Code Section 65915(d) that would allow the
applicant to transfer base density from the 1.55-acre remainder parcel to the 2.34-acre
development parcel? In other words, could the applicant use an incentive or concession
to effectively increase the project’s unit count without a corresponding increase in
affordable housing contributions?
Additional context for the Town’s questions is provided below.
I.Background.
Blake Griggs Properties (“Applicant”) has submitted a housing development
application to redevelop a portion of existing 3.89-acre shopping center located at 101 –
119 Town & Country Drive (“Shopping Center Site”) in the Town of Danville. The
Applicant proposes to subdivide the Shopping Center Site into two parcels: (1) a 2.34-
acre parcel on which all of the existing commercial buildings will be demolished and
replaced with residential units (the “Housing Parcel”); and (2) a 1.55-acre parcel that will
ATTACHMENT D
Page 2
contain one of the existing commercial buildings and remain otherwise unmodified (the
“Remainder Parcel”).
The entire Shopping Center Site was included in the Town’s Housing Element,
which analyzed development scenarios assuming development of a minimum density of
30 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum of 35 dwelling units per gross acre,
along with an illustrative example of how a project could use the State Density Bonus
Law to redevelop the entire Shopping Center Site. For purposes of accommodating the
Town’s RHNA, the Housing Element assumed between 116 and 136 units would develop
on the entire Shopping Center Site, despite acknowledging that the site has a higher
development potential under the provisions of the State Density Bonus Law.
The Shopping Center Site is currently zoned to allow multifamily housing at a
density of 35 du/gross acre. If the entire Shopping Center Site were to develop, the base
density would equal 137 units (3.89 ac. * 35 du/ac = 136.2, rounded up to 137 units). The
Housing Parcel’s base density equals 82 units (2.34 ac * 35 du/ac = 81.9, rounded up to
82 units).
Applicant proposes to develop 200 units on the Housing Parcel, 21 of which would
be reserved for very low income households. If the base density of 137 units from the
entire Shopping Center Site applies, the 21 units would represent 15% of the base density,
and the project would receive a 50% density bonus under Gov. Code Section 65915(f)(2),
allowing a total of 206 units. However, if the base density of 82 units applies, the 21 units
would represent 25% of the base density. This would entitle the project to an 88.75%
density bonus under Gov. Code Sections 65915(f)(2) and (v)(2), allowing a total of 155
units.
II. Question 1: What constitutes the project site for the purpose of calculating the
base density of the project?
State Density Bonus Law at Government Code section 65915(o)(6) defines “base
density” as “the greatest number of units allowed [. . .] by the specific zoning range,
specific plan, or land use element of the general plan applicable to the project.” However,
the State Density Bonus Law does not specify how to determine a project site’s size in
acres for the purpose of calculating the greatest number of units allowed on the project
site based on the permissible density.
The Town’s Municipal Code defines “lot” to mean “an area of land occupied by,
or to be occupied by, a building or buildings and structures accessory thereto, together
with such open and yard spaces as are required by this chapter” but excluding “those
portions lying within the boundaries of an existing or proposed public or private road,
Page 3
street, State highway, right-of-way, or easement owned, dedicated or used for purposes
of vehicular access to the lot shall not be included in order to satisfy minimum area, yard
or dimensional requirements.” (Danville Municipal Code Section 32-2.3.)
The Town and Applicant agree that all 3.89 acres of the Shopping Center Site are
currently one lot and could be developed at a base density of 35 du/gross acre. However,
as part of its application, Applicant intends to subdivide the Shopping Center Site into
two lots: the Housing Parcel and the Remainder Parcel. Because only the Housing Parcel
is proposed to include new development, the Town Code would require the Town to
calculate the project’s base density using the Housing Parcel’s lot area of 2.34 gross acres.
Note that the developable portion of the lot may be smaller than 2.34 acres after netting
out easements, rights of way, and other dedications, but this would not reduce the
Housing Parcel’s development potential. The 1.55-acre Remainder Parcel could be
developed in the future, or, at Applicant’s election, proposed to be redeveloped with
residential uses now as part of the project. However, because the Applicant has proposed
to carve out the Remainder Parcel from the Shopping Center Site, the Town believes the
Remainder Parcel should not be used to calculate the project’s base density.
Does HCD agree with the Town’s interpretation that the base density of the
proposed project is properly calculated using the Hosing Parcel’s size of 2.34 gross acres?
III. Question 2: If HCD agrees that the base density is based on a 2.34-acre site, can
Applicant use an incentive or concession to require the Town to calculate base
density using the entire Shopping Center Site’s area of 3.89 acres?
State Density Bonus Law defines incentives and concessions to include (1)
reductions in site development standards or modifications of zoning code requirements
or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards; (2)
approval of mixed-use zoning if certain conditions are met, and (3) “other regulatory
incentives or concessions proposed by the developer [. . .] that result in identifiable and
actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs.” (Gov. Code § 65915(k)(3).)
Applicant asserts that even if the Town could calculate the base density of the
proposed project using the Housing Site’s gross area of 2.34 acres, Applicant could use a
concession “to avoid strict application of rules that would otherwise require density,
FAR, or other factors to be calculated on a lot-by-lot basis.” Applicant states that using a
project size of 3.89 acres rather than 2.34 acres “would result in actual cost savings by
making it easier to finance construction of the residential building.”
However, in the Town’s view, this incentive or concession would serve to increase
the project’s density bonus rather than modifying a development standard. Using 2.34
Page 4
acres and base density of 82 units, the project would need to provide 13 very low income
units for an initial 50% density bonus under Gov. Code Section 65915(f)(2) plus 13
moderate income units for a second 50% density bonus under Gov. Code Section
65915(v)(2). This would result in 26 affordable units (more than the 21 affordable units
proposed by the Applicant), and 164 total units (fewer than the 200 total units proposed
by the Applicant). Therefore, Applicant’s proposed incentive or concession appears to
be a work-around from the State Density Bonus Law’s affordability requirements and the
bonus density it provides in exchange.
Gov. Code Section 65915(b)(1) requires the Town to “grant one density bonus, the amount
of which shall be as specified in subdivision (f),” along with an additional bonus as
specified in subdivision (v). However, the Applicant seeks an additional density bonus
that exceeds these figures, framed as a request for an incentive or a concession. The Town
believes this exceeds the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law.
Does HCD agree with the Town’s interpretation that the Applicant cannot use an
incentive or concession to require the Town to calculate the project’s base density using
a project size of 3.89 gross acres when development is proposed on 2.34 gross acres?
Danville is committed to creating housing opportunities for all segments of the
population, and it takes its obligations to review and act on housing development
applications seriously. Accordingly, the Town requests HCD’s interpretation of the State
Density Bonus Law provisions summarized above to help the Town proceed in a manner
that is consistent with state law requirements and the Town’s housing goals.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Town of Danville
David Crompton
Chief of Planning
C: Blake Griggs Properties, Applicant
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916)263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 12, 2025
David Crompton, Chief of Planning
Town of Danville
500 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
Dear David Crompton:
RE: Town of Danville – 101-119 Town & Country Drive – Letter of Technical
Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a
request for technical assistance from the Town of Danville (Town) regarding a proposed
housing development project to be located at 101-119 Town & Country Drive. The
purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance to the Town regarding the State
Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and the calculation of base density and use of incentives
and concessions to permit mixed use in a multifamily zone.
Background
HCD understands that Blake Grigg Properties (Applicant) is seeking approval of a
200-unit multifamily development that includes 21 very low-income (VLI) units
(Project) on a parcel that is identified as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Town’s 6th
Cycle General Plan Housing Element. The Project contains a multifamily development
on the north side of the site and retains the existing retail commercial building and
associated surface parking on the south side of the site.
The existing parcel is 3.89 acres and zoned DBD 13 (Downtown Business District Area
13: Multifamily Residential-High Special), and the General Plan Land Use Designation
is DBD 13 (Multifamily Residential – High Density Special, Downtown Master Plan). In
addition, the entire downtown area has a base P-1 (Planned Unit District) zoning, which
includes some district-wide procedural and application submittal requirements but does
not include specific development standards. According to the Town, the DBD 13
zoning—which contains the specific land use and development standards—applies to
the site.
On February 7, 2023, the Town amended its 2030 General Plan Land Use Element and
Downtown Business District Zoning to comply with State Housing Element Law and
accommodate the Town’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for the 6th Cycle
planning period. The land use designation and zoning allow for multifamily residential
ATTACHMENT E
David Crompton, Chief of Planning
Page 2
land use at a housing density range of 30 to 35 units per acre. Mixed-use residential
and commercial uses are not permitted on the 3.89-acre site.1
It is HCD’s understanding that the Applicant is considering whether to subdivide the
parcel.
• If subdividing. The 3.89-acre parcel would be subdivided into a 2.34-acre parcel and
a 1.55-acre parcel. The Project is proposed on the 2.34-acre parcel, and no
residential development would be proposed on the 1.55-acre parcel containing
commercial use, which would be legal but nonconforming. The Town does not have
a local Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) policy or other administrative
procedure in place that would explicitly allow the Applicant to transfer the residential
density from the 1.55-acre parcel to the 2.34-acre parcel.
• If not subdividing. The 3.89-acre parcel would remain intact, and the proposed
multifamily units, in conjunction with the existing commercial use, would be a
horizontal mixed-use development application.
Can the Applicant request a concession to allow for mixed-use residential where
the underlying zoning does not permit such use?
Yes, the SDBL specifically defines a concession or incentive to include “[a]pproval of
mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project” if the commercial or other
non-residential use will reduce the cost of the housing development and is “compatible
with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the
proposed housing project will be located.”2 A concession can be used to allow for
mixed-use where the underlying zoning would otherwise not allow such use, unless the
Town can make one of the three statutory findings of denial.3 In other words, a
concession could allow the existing commercial buildings and use to remain in
conjunction with the proposed multifamily development as one housing development
project application.
How is the base density calculated for the purposes of the SDBL if the parcel is
subdivided versus if the parcel is not subdivided?
The SDBL defines a “housing development” to mean “a development project for five or
more residential units, including mixed-use developments…and consists of residential
units or unimproved residential lots…. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus,
the residential units shall be on contiguous sites that are the subject of one
development application, but do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps
or parcels.”4 (Emphasis added.)
1 DMC § 32-45.21.2(b) Area 13: Multifamily Residential-High Special, Permitted Uses.
Available at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/danvilleca/latest/danville_ca/0-0-0-
20033
2 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (k)(2).
3 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(1).
4 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (i).
David Crompton, Chief of Planning
Page 3
Therefore, for purposes of applying the SDBL, the base density for the Project is
calculated based on the site (or contiguous sites) that contains the residential use
proposed as part of one development application.
Base Density if Subdividing
If the Applicant subdivides the parcel, the project application would contain a housing
development on a 2.34-acre parcel and therefore the base density for the Project would
be 89 units, or 35 units per acre density multiplied by 2.34 acres.
• Example A: If the Project includes 21 VLI units, the Applicant can apply a 50-percent
density bonus under Government Code section 65915, subdivision (f), as well as an
additional 27.5-percent density bonus under subdivision (v) to achieve an overall
yield of 158 units.
• Example B: If the Applicant wishes to apply only one 50-percent density bonus, the
number of VLI units may be reduced to 14 to achieve an overall yield of 134 units.
See Table 1 below for calculation details.
Notably, a separate development application may propose additional multifamily units
on the 1.55-acre commercial parcel, with a base density of 55 units, or 35 units per acre
multiplied by 1.55 acres.
Table 1 Example Density Bonus Overall Yield
Example A Example B Note
Base Density 89 du 89 du 35 du/ac x 2.54 ac
Affordable (VLI) 21 du 14 du
Density Bonus %5 50% 50% 14 VLI du ÷ 89 base du
Additional Density Bonus %6 27.5% -- 7 VLI du ÷ 89 base du
Total Density Bonus 69 du 45 du Density Bonus %
x 89 base du
Overall Yield 158 du 134 du 89 base du + total
density bonus du
ac = acres
du = dwelling units
Base Density if Not Subdividing
If the Applicant does not subdivide the parcel, the project application would contain a
housing development on a 3.89-acre parcel. The base density would therefore be 137
units, or 35 units per acre density multiplied by 3.89 acres. The project application
would include existing commercial use and be considered mixed-use.
5 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (f)(2).
6 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (v)(2).
David Crompton, Chief of Planning
Page 4
If the Project includes 21 VLI units, the Applicant can apply one 50-percent density
bonus under Government Code section 65915, subdivision (f) to achieve an overall
yield of 206 units, or 137 base units plus 69 density bonus units.
If the Project maximizes its allowable density, either under the SDBL or specific
provisions of the Town’s density bonus ordinance, the Town is not required to approve
additional residential density on the 3.89-acre parcel at a later date. If a future housing
development application results in the 3.89-acre site exceeding the maximum allowable
density, a general plan and zoning amendment would be required, initiated by either the
Town or an applicant.
Conclusion
For the purposes of the SDBL, the applicable base density for a project depends on the
site area that contains the residential use proposed as part of one development project
application. Therefore, the base density for the Project would be 89 units if the parcel is
subdivided, or 137 units if the parcel is not subdivided. In addition, the SDBL places the
burden of proof on the Town to deny a concession to allow for mixed-use zoning.7
If you have any questions or need additional information, please Contact Grace Wu at
grace.wu@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
7 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).
The following document is an excerpt of the Traffic Impact Study.
To view the complete document, please visit the Danville Town Talks webpage,
or use the QR code below.
ATTACHMENT F
https://danvilletowntalks.org/private-land-development/
news_feed/danville-village-apartments
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
Danville Village Apartments
PREPARED FOR:
TOWN OF DANVILLE
FEBRUARY 2026 | FINAL
Prepared By:
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final
WARNING!
The electronic data files ("Files") furnished by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to the intended receiver of the Files ("Receiving
Party") are provided only for the convenience of Receiving Party and only for its sole use.
In the case of any defects in the Files or any discrepancies between the electronic Files and the hardcopy of the Files prepared by
Kimley-Horn, the hardcopy shall govern. Only printed copies of documents conveyed by Kimley-Horn may be relied upon. Any
use of the information obtained or derived from these electronic files will be at the Receiving Party's sole risk. Because dat a stored
in electronic media format can deteriorate or be modified inadvertently or otherwise without authorization of the data's c reator, the
Receiving Party agrees that it has 60 days to perform acceptance tests, after which it shall be deemed to have accepted the d ata
transferred. Receiving Party accepts the Files on an "as is" basis with all faults. There are no express warranti es made by Kimley-
Horn with respect to the Files, and any implied warranties are excluded.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final
CONTENTS
Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i
Project Trip Estimates .............................................................................................. i
Project Impact and Adverse Effects ........................................................................... i
Vehicular Site Access ............................................................................................. iii
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Access ................................................................... iii
Parking Analysis ..................................................................................................... iv
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
Report Organization ................................................................................................ 1
2. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis ............................................................................................ 3
3. Traffic Operational Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 4
Study Area ............................................................................................................. 4
Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................... 4
Level of Service Standards ...................................................................................... 5
Roadway Operations ............................................................................................... 6
Signal Warrants ...................................................................................................... 7
4. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 8
Existing Roadway Network ...................................................................................... 8
Existing Transit Facilities ......................................................................................... 8
Existing Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................... 9
Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................ 9
Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ........................................................ 12
Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ....................................................... 12
Existing Intersection Level of Service ...................................................................... 12
Existing Roadway Operational Analysis ................................................................... 14
Existing Signal Warrant Evaluation .......................................................................... 14
5. Future Conditions ................................................................................................................ 18
Proposed Site Use ................................................................................................. 18
Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 18
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ............................................... 19
Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ................................................................... 25
Cumulative Traffic Conditions ................................................................................. 29
Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................... 35
6. Site Access and Circulation ................................................................................................. 40
Vehicular Site Access ............................................................................................ 40
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Access .................................................................. 44
7. Parking Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 47
Parking Requirements ............................................................................................ 48
Parking Demand .................................................................................................... 48
8. Summary of Project Impacts and Adverse Effects ............................................................... 50
VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................ 50
Adverse Effects ..................................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................ 52
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final
TABLES
Table 1 - Intersection Level of Service Definitions .......................................................................6
Table 2 - Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary .........................................................13
Table 3 - Existing Roadway Segment Analysis .........................................................................14
Table 4 - Project Trip Generation ..............................................................................................21
Table 5 - Trip Generation Rate Comparison ..............................................................................21
Table 6 - Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary .....................................28
Table 7 – Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Analysis .....................................................29
Table 8 – Annual Growth Rates ...............................................................................................30
Table 9 - Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Summary ....................................................31
Table 10 – Cumulative Roadway Segment Analysis .................................................................34
Table 11 – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary ....38
Table 12 – Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Analysis..............................................39
Table 13 – Intersection Sight Distance ......................................................................................41
Table 14 – Proposed Parking Demand .....................................................................................49
Table 14 – Project Adverse Effect and Recommended Improvements ......................................50
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Project Location and Study Intersections....................................................................2
Figure 2 – Existing Transit Facilities ..........................................................................................10
Figure 3 – Existing Bicycle Facilities .........................................................................................11
Figure 4 – Existing Condition Lane Geometry and Traffic Control .............................................15
Figure 5 – Existing Condition AM/PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes .........................16
Figure 6 - Existing Condition Midday Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ..........................17
Figure 7 – Site Plan...................................................................................................................20
Figure 8 – Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................22
Figure 9 – Net New Project AM/PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ............................23
Figure 10 – Net New Project Midday Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ..........................24
Figure 11 – Existing Plus Project AM/PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volume .....................26
Figure 12 - Existing Plus Project Midday Peak Hour Turning Movement Volume ......................27
Figure 13 - Cumulative Condition AM/PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ...................32
Figure 14 - Cumulative Condition Midday Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ...................33
Figure 15 - Cumulative Plus Project AM/PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ...............36
Figure 16 - Cumulative Plus Project Midday Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ...............37
Figure 17 – Northwest Driveway Sight Distance ........................................................................41
Figure 18 – Northeast Driveway Sight Distance ........................................................................42
Figure 19 – Garage Entrance Sight Distance ............................................................................43
Figure 20 – Garage Inbound Vehicle Turning ............................................................................45
Figure 21 – Garage Outbound Vehicle Turning .........................................................................46
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the transportation impact study (TIS) for the proposed Danville Village
Apartments located in Danville, California. The project proposes to replace a portion of the existing retail
buildings located within the Danville Town and Country Village Shopping Center with a 348,112 square foot
multi-family residential apartment building on a 3.89 acre site. The retail buildings proposed to be
demolished are located on the northwestern portion of the shopping center. The residential development
proposes to construct 200 dwelling units with 24 studio units, 102 one-bedroom units, 59 two-bedroom
units, and 15 three-bedroom units.
This TIS was prepared to determine potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts, intersection level of
service (LOS) deficiencies, and roadway capacity deficiencies from the proposed project on the adjacent
roadway network. This study addresses daily VMT analysis and an intersection LOS analysis during the
weekday AM, mid-day, and PM peak hour traffic conditions for eleven (11) existing intersections/driveways.
The study also includes a roadway capacity analysis for daily traffic conditions at eight (8) study roadways.
Site access, on-site circulation, and parking conditions were also reviewed to determine the effects of the
proposed project. The following discusses the methodology, analysis, and results of the transportation
analysis.
PROJECT TRIP ESTIMATES
Trips generated by existing land uses were calculated based on ITE Trip Generation average rates for each
individual land use and tenants. These land uses included ITE Land Use Code 492 (Health/Fitness Club),
712 (Small Office Building), 720 Medical-Dental Office Building, 822 (Strip Retail Plaza), 918 (Hair Salon),
and 932 (High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant). Trips generated by the proposed project are based on an
average rate or fitted equation for ITE Land Use 221 (Multifamily Housing – Mid Rise). Note ITE Trip
Generation does not provide specific rate data for midday peak trips, therefore as a conservative approach,
the PM fitted equations were assumed. This approach is more conservative, as the ITE Trip Generation
Hourly Distribution for ITE Land Use Code 822 (Strip Retail Plaza) shows the midday peak hour (between
2:00 PM and 4:00 PM) to be 6.1-7.4% daily traffic, while PM peak hour (between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)
accounts for 8.0% of daily traffic.
With the construction of the proposed multi-family housing development and demolition of the existing retail
buildings, the project will generate a net new -442 daily trips, +62 trips in the AM peak hour, -94 trips in the
midday peak hour, and -57 trips in the PM peak hour. The decrease in trips is attributed to residential uses
generating fewer trips per square footage compared to existing retail uses for daily, midday and PM peak
periods.
PROJECT IMPACT AND ADVERSE EFFECTS
The following summarizes the transportation impacts and adverse effects related to the proposed project
and the study area.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
The Town recently updated its Housing Element (HE) which included a programmatic environmental impact
report (EIR) with a VMT analysis to evaluate the potential transportation impacts associated with anticipated
residential development through the planning horizon year. The Project site was included within Sub-Area
2 of the Town’s Housing Element VMT assessment.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final ii
The Housing Element VMT analysis concluded that Sub-Area 2 VMT to be 18.8 VMT per capita, which
does not exceed the VMT significance thresholds of 19.0 VMT per capita and would therefore result in a
less-than significant impact.
The proposed project is consistent with the land use type, density, and geographic assumptions included
in the Housing Element Update. It does not introduce development intensity or characteristics beyond what
was already analyzed in the HE. The proposed project will also implement project-scale VMT reduction
strategies identified for Sub-Area 2 such as unbundling parking and providing amenities to reduce commute
trips, as well as additional strategies such as increasing land use diversity (adding residential use adjacent
to commercial area) and providing infrastructure to allow for telework for residents. Based on these factors,
the VMT analysis and findings from the Housing Element remain applicable, and no additional project-
specific VMT analysis is warranted and there is a less-than significant impact.
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFICIENCIES
Table E1 summarizes the project’s adverse effects and recommended mitigation improvements.
San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Sycamore Valley Road (Intersection #4)
The intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Sycamore Valley Road (Intersection #4) operates
unacceptable LOS F without the Project and Project traffic increase delay for a regional transportation
object (RTO) monitor intersection, which results in an adverse effect. It is recommended that the signal time
be adjusted to increase the cycle length to 150 seconds to allow for more green time for phases 1 (SBL), 6
(SBT), and 8 (WB approach). This would result in the intersection operating at LOS E.
San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Wells Fargo Driveway (Intersection #9)
At the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Wells Fargo Driveway (Intersection #9), the worst
movement operates at unacceptable LOS F without the Project, and the Project increases the v/c by 5% in
the AM peak and 47% in the Midday peak period which results in an adverse effect. For both peak periods,
the worst movement is the shared westbound left/through/right which has a total of less than 10 vehicles
per peak hour. It is recommended that left-turn movements are restricted. This would result in the
westbound approach operating at LOS B.
The recommended improvement may not be feasible, as the east leg is a private driveway not controlled
by the developer. Other potential improvements, such as signalizing the intersection, is unfeasible due its
proximity, approximately 160 feet south of the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Town and
Country Drive (#3), and because volumes do not satisfy peak hour signal warrants. Note that for this
intersection, the minor westbound approach (private driveway) operates at LOS E or F, while the overall
intersection operates at LOS A. It is common for minor approaches at an unsignalized intersection to
experience higher delays during peak periods due to insufficient gaps on the major roadway (San Ramon
Valley Boulevard).
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final iii
Table E1 – Project Adverse Effect and Recommended Improvements
Location Scenario Recommended Improvements
San Ramon Valley Boulevard /
Sycamore Valley Road (#4) Cumulative Plus Project AM Optimize signal timing
San Ramon Valley Boulevard /
Wells Fargo Driveway (#9)
Cumulative Plus Project AM
Cumulative Plus Project Midday
Restrict left-turn movement out of
east leg1
1 May not feasible since east leg is a private driveway not controlled by the developer
VEHICULAR SITE ACCESS
The proposed development will be directly accessible through both existing unsignalized and full-access
driveways along the Town and Country Drive project frontage. The development will also be fully accessible
from the remaining retail use parking lots. All Town and Country Drive driveways will remain accessible via
the San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Town and Country Drive signalized intersection. To minimize
potential cut-through traffic through Danville Town and Country Village Shopping Center, residents and
retail patrons will be informed and encouraged to only utilize the Town and Country driveways.
Sight distance analysis was performed at the two driveways on Town and Country Drive and at the
residential garage entrance to determine if vehicles exiting at these locations would have adequate sight
distance to observe conflicting vehicles and pedestrian traffic along Town and Country Drive or internal
drive aisle adjacent to the garage entrance. The analysis found that there is adequate sight distance at
each of these locations. The developer needs to ensures sight areas are clear of obstacles that would
obstruct drivers’ sight, which includes converting yellow loading curb near the northwest driveway to red
curbing and removing approximately 260 feet (12 spaces) of existing on-street parking on Town and
Country Drive.
Vehicle turning evaluation was conducted to determine if there are any issues with the angle of the garage
entrance. Evaluation found that a SU-30 truck can enter the garage from the north or south, however the
truck may cross over into the exiting lane. For outbound movements, a SU-30 can make a left out while
only a passenger car can make a right turn in one movement. To minimize conflicts, delivery trucks,
residents and guests be informed and reminded through multiple channels (apartment website, welcome
packet, newsletter, etc.) on how to access the garage and that no right turn signage is placed at the garage
exit. In addition, building management should coordinate and communicate with delivery trucks and
residential on prefer loading area located at the surfaced level south of the building and west of the parking
stalls.
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT ACCESS
There are currently no existing bicycle facilities along the project frontage on Town and Country Drive. The
nearest bicycle facility to the site is located east of the project along San Ramon Valley Boulevard with a
Class II bicycle lane. The nearest retail use to the site, the Danville Town and Country Shopping Center, is
located directly east of the project site. Bicycles traveling to Downtown Danville can utilize the Class I
bicycle route along Iron Horse Regional, the existing Class II bicycle lanes along San Ramon Valley
Boulevard or the Class III bicycle route along Camino Ramon.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final iv
Residents or staff taking transit can walk along Town and Country Drive to access the nearest transit stop
located to the east of the project site, at the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Town and
Country Drive. This stop serves County Connection Routes 21, 321, and 623 which provide weekday and
weekend services between the Walnut Creek BART station and the San Ramon Transit Center.
PARKING ANALYSIS
A parking analysis was conducted for the site to determine whether the project provides sufficient parking
to meet the minimum parking requirements based on the Danville Municipal Code and the peak parking
demand based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition. The project provides a total of 337
parking spaces for the residential units
Based on the Danville Municipal Code’s parking requirements for multifamily residential units, and the
number of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units the project is providing, the project is
required to provide 344 parking spaces. The State Density Bonus Law allows developers to reduce the
number of required parking spaces when the project includes affordable housing or meets certain
sustainable design criteria. With consideration of the State Density Bonus Law, the Project is required to
provide 237 parking spaces. The Project is providing 337 parking spaces, which satisfies minimum parking
requirements.
The peak parking demand for a multifamily housing facility was determined using the ITE Parking
Generation Manual, 6th Edition for ITE Land Use Code 221 ((Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise). Based on the
85th percentile peak parking demand rate, the peak parking demand for the project is 290 parking spaces
and does not exceed the proposed parking supply of 337 parking spaces. Therefore, the project is providing
sufficient parking spaces to meet the peak parking demand.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the transportation impact study (TIS) for the proposed Danville Village
Apartments located in Danville, California. The project proposes to replace a portion of the existing retail
buildings located within the Danville Town and Country Village Shopping Center a with a 348,112 square
foot multifamily residential apartment building on a 3.89 acre site. The retail buildings proposed to be
demolished are located on the northwestern portion of the shopping center. The residential development
proposes to construct 200 dwelling units with 24 studio units, 102 one-bedroom units, 59 two-bedroom
units, and 15 three-bedroom units.
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project site in relation to the adjacent roadway network. The site
would be accessed by the existing unsignalized and full access driveways along Town and Country Drive
via the signalized intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Town and Country Drive.
This TIS was prepared to determine potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts, intersection level of
service (LOS) deficiencies, and roadway capacity deficiencies of the proposed project on the adjacent
roadway network. This study includes a daily VMT analysis and an intersection LOS analysis during the
weekday AM, mid-day, and PM peak hour traffic conditions for eleven (11) existing intersections/driveways.
VMT analysis determined whether the results from the Housing Element Update are still applicable for the
Project. The study also includes a roadway capacity analysis for daily traffic conditions at eight (8) study
roadways. Site access, on-site circulation, and parking evaluations were also reviewed to determine the
effects of the proposed project. The following discusses the methodology, analysis, and results of the
transportation analysis.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of the report is divided into the following chapters for the traffic operations analysis:
• Chapter 2: Vehicles Miles Traveled Analysis – describes vehicle miles traveled evaluation for the
Project.
• Chapter 3: Traffic Operational Analysis Methodology - describes the project area, study
intersections, and study roadways for the traffic operational analysis. Also includes a description
of the intersection level of service and roadway capacity.
• Chapter 4: Existing Conditions – describes existing conditions on the roadway network, transit
system, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities.
• Chapter 5: Future Conditions – describes the proposed project, trip generation, trip distribution,
and trip assignment on the street network. Estimated deficiencies on the transportation system are
also evaluated under Existing Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
• Chapter 6: Site Access and Circulation – describes the site access and circulation for the project
as it relates to vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access and describes any potential effects on these
facilities.
• Chapter 7: Parking Evaluation – describes the parking requirement and parking demand for the
proposed project based on Town requirements and the ITE Parking Generation Manual. Parking
requirements and parking demand are then compared to the proposed parking supply to determine
if the project provides sufficient parking.
• Chapter 8: Summary of Adverse Effects and Recommended Improvements – summarizes
potential Project adverse effects on the roadway system and recommended improvements, if
necessary.
Tow
n
a
n
d
Cou
n
t
r
y
D
r
.
Sh
e
r
i
L
n
.
Remingto
n
D
r
.
Ca
m
i
n
o
R
a
m
o
n
Sycamore
Valley Rd.
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
INTERSTATEINTERSTATE
680680
),*8R( 1
3R2-(CT L2C$T,21 $1D ST8D< ,1T(RS(CT,21S
Danville Village Apartments, Danville, CA TIA
1
2
3
FEBRUARY 2026197845001
7
8
4 5 6
L(*(1D
X
3R2-(CT S,T(
ST8D< ,1T(RS(CT,21S
NOT TO SCALE
N
9
10
11
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 3
2. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
The Town of Danville recently adopted an updated Housing Element (HE) as part of its General Plan,
consistent with the requirements of State law. As part of the programmatic environmental impact report
(EIR) for the Housing Element Update, the Town conducted a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis to
evaluate the potential transportation impacts associated with anticipated residential development through
the planning horizon year. The HE programmatic EIR provides a comprehensive analysis intended to serve
as a foundational basis facilitating a simpler approval process for subsequent project consistent with the
program. The VMT analysis conducted for the Housing Element update was performed at the sub-area
level, utilizing travel demand modeling consistent with regional and State guidance, including CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3 and technical recommendations from the California Office of Planning and
Research (OPR). The Project site is located within Sub-Area 2 of the Town’s Housing Element VMT
assessment.
The HE VMT analysis utilized Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) threshold of significance,
where a project is considered to generate a significant impact if project-generated home-based VMT per
capita is higher than 85% (or 15% below) the existing town-wide baseline for residential home-based VMT
per capita average. The Town’s baseline average is 22.3 VMT per capita, which sets the VMT threshold at
19.0 VMT per capita.
The Housing Element VMT analysis concluded that Sub-Area 2 VMT to be 18.8 VMT per capita, which
does not exceed the VMT significance thresholds of 19.0 VMT per capita and would therefore result in a
less-than significant impact. This conclusion was based on regional modeling outputs, baseline and
cumulative scenario comparisons, and consideration of the Town’s land use pattern, transportation
network, and proximity to regional job centers and services.
The proposed project is consistent with the land use type, density, and geographic assumptions included
in the Housing Element Update. It does not introduce development intensity or characteristics beyond what
was already analyzed in the HE. The proposed project will also implement project-scale VMT reduction
strategies identified for Sub-Area 2 such as unbundling parking and providing amenities to reduce commute
trips, as well as additional strategies such as increasing land use diversity (adding residential use adjacent
to commercial area) and providing infrastructure to allow for telework for residents. Based on these factors,
the VMT analysis and findings from the Housing Element remain applicable, no additional project-specific
VMT analysis is warranted and there is a less-than significant impact.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 4
3. TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the project area as well as the study intersections and study roadways for the traffic
operational analysis. Also included is a description of the intersection level of service and roadway capacity
standards and methodology used to analyze the study locations.
STUDY AREA
The proposed project would generate new vehicular trips that would increase traffic volumes for certain
movements on the nearby street network. To assess changes in traffic conditions associated with the
proposed project, the following intersections and roadways listed below were evaluated and are shown in
Figure 1. The study intersections and roadways were selected based on the estimated vehicle trips
generated by the project, the distribution and assignment of the trips to the roadway network, and in
consultation with the Town.
Study Intersections
1. Town and Country Drive & NW Project Driveway
2. Town and Country Drive & NE Project Driveway
3. San Ramon Valley Boulevard & Town and Country Drive
4. San Ramon Valley Boulevard & Sycamore Valley Road
5. SB I-680 Ramps & Sycamore Valley Road
6. NB I-680 Ramps & Sycamore Valley Road
7. Sheri Lane & Town and Country Drive
8. Sheri Lane & Remington Drive / Sycamore Valley Road
9. San Ramon Valley Boulevard & Wells Fargo Driveway
10. San Ramon Valley Boulevard & Walgreens Driveway
11. Town and Country Shopping Center Access & Fitness 19 Driveway
Study Roadways
12. Town and Country Drive, 100 ft west of (WO) San Ramon Valley Boulevard
13. Town and Country Drive, 100 ft east of (EO) Sheri Lane
14. Sheri Lane, 200 ft north of (NO) Remington Drive
15. Remington Drive, 100 ft EO Sheri Lane
16. San Ramon Valley Boulevard, 100 ft NO Town and Country Drive
17. San Ramon Valley Boulevard, 100 ft south of (SO) Town and Country Drive
18. Sycamore Valley Road, 100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard
19. Sycamore Valley Road, 100 ft EO San Ramon Valley Boulevard
T RAFFIC CONDITIONS
This study evaluates the following four (4) scenarios:
▪ Existing Conditions – Based on traffic counts collected in 2024 and 2025. Existing roadway
geometry and traffic control were assumed for this scenario.
▪ Existing Plus Project Conditions – Based on traffic generated by the proposed project added to
existing traffic volumes. Trip credits are assumed for the existing retail uses on the site that will be
removed once demolished. This scenario assumes existing roadway geometry and traffic control.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 5
▪ Cumulative (2040) – Based on future year (2040). Growth rates were determined based on traffic
growth from the Town’s General Plan and applied to existing counts to develop future 2040
volumes.
▪ Cumulative (2040) Plus Project – Based on future (2040) traffic conditions plus traffic generated by
the Project. Trip credits are assumed for existing retail use on the site.
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Analysis of intersection deficiencies are based on the concept of level of service (LOS). The LOS of an
intersection is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best),
which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating
at or near its functional capacity. Levels of service for this study were determined using methods defined in
the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (HCM) within Synchro 12 analysis software for signalized and
unsignalized intersections. However, due to the constraints of HCM 7th Edition to analyze specific geometry
and signal timing settings, HCM 2000 Edition was used to analyze the Sycamore Valley Road / I-680
interchange (Intersections #5, #6) and Danville Town and Country Shopping Center Access / Fitness 19
Driveway (Intersection #11).
HCM includes procedures for analyzing side street stop controlled (SSSC), all-way stop controlled (AWSC),
and signalized intersections. The SSSC procedure defines LOS as a function of average control delay for
the worst minor street movement or major left-turn. For this analysis, the delays for the worst movement
and the overall intersection are reported. Conversely, the AWSC and signalized intersection procedures
define LOS as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole. Table 1 relates the
operational characteristics associated with each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
Town of Danville
As outlined in the Town of Danville’s 2030 General Plan1, the LOS standard is LOS D on local roads with
the exception of locations where the Town has determined that LOS D cannot be maintained as a result of
additional traffic from outside of Danville, CA. The Town’s General Plan does not have a criteria to
determine deficiencies due to additional traffic generated by developments. Therefore, consistent with the
LOS criteria outlined in the Magee Preserve Traffic Impact Study2 and 425 El Pintado Road Transportation
Impact Study3, a deficiency would occur if the proposed project caused the following:
• For intersections operating at an acceptable LOS D or better without the project, a deficiency would
occur if the project degrades the intersection to an unacceptable LOS E or worse, or;
• For intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS E or worse without the project, a deficiency
would occur if the project increases the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio by more than 5 percent.
1 The Town of Danville 2030 General Plan, Town of Danville, March 19, 2013.
2 Traffic Impact Study for Magee Ranch in the Town of Danville, Stantec, June 25, 2018.
3 425 El Pintado Road Transportation Impact Study, Kimley-Horn, December 2024
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 6
Table 1 - Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service Description
Signalized
(Avg. control delay
per vehicle sec/veh.)
Unsignalized
(Avg. control delay
per vehicle
sec/veh.)
A Free flow with no delays. Users are virtually
unaffected by others in the traffic stream ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B Stable traffic. Traffic flows smoothly with few
delays. > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15
C
Stable flow but the operation of individual users
becomes affected by other vehicles. Modest
delays.
> 20 – 35 > 15 – 25
D
Approaching unstable flow. Operation of individual
users becomes significantly affected by other
vehicles. Delays may be more than one cycle
during peak hours.
> 35 – 55 > 25 – 35
E
Unstable flow with operating conditions at or near
the capacity level. Long delays and vehicle
queuing.
> 55 – 80 > 35 – 50
F
Forced or breakdown flow that causes reduced
capacity. Stop and go traffic conditions. Excessive
long delays and vehicle queuing.
> 80 > 50
Sources: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition, National Research Council, 2022.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Based on CCTA’s Tri-Valley Action Plan 4 , the Roadway Regional Transportation Objective (RTO) for
intersection LOS has established a LOS E standard at RTO monitoring locations, such as select
intersections and freeway ramps. Intersections #4, #5, and #6 have been established as RTO monitoring
locations and therefore have a LOS standard of LOS E. Consistent with the CCTA Transportation Analysis
Guidelines5, a deficiency would occur if the proposed project caused the following:
• For intersections operating at an acceptable LOS E or better without the project, a deficiency would
occur if the project degrades the intersection to an unacceptable LOS F, or;
• For intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS F without the project, a deficiency would occur
if the project increases the average intersection control delay for signalized intersections or the
worst movement delay for SSSC intersections by five (5) seconds or more.
ROADWAY OPERATIONS
Roadway operations were evaluated at the study roadway segments using the methodology consistent with
the 2030 Town of Danville General Plan roadway capacity thresholds. Daily roadway volumes were
analyzed rather than peak hour volumes since roadway capacities provided in the general plan are based
on vehicles per day rather than vehicles per hour. Roadway segments are assumed to be deficient when
daily volumes exceed the capacity defined for its roadway classification.
4 Tri-Valley Action Plan, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, March 2023.
5 Contra Costa Transportation Analysis Guidelines, Contra Costa County, June 23, 2020.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 7
SIGNAL WARRANTS
Traffic signals may be justified when traffic operations fall below acceptable LOS standards and when one
or more signal warrants are satisfied. Traffic volumes at all seven (7) unsignalized study intersections listed
below were compared against the peak hour warrant in the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Traffic Signal Warrant #3 – Peak Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied when
traffic volumes on the major and minor approaches exceed thresholds for one hour of the day. The Peak
Hour Warrant is generally the first warrant to be satisfied. Other warrants such as those for minimum vehicle
volumes, interruption of continuous traffic, and traffic progression were not evaluated because they
generally require higher traffic volumes to be satisfied.
• #1 - Town and Country Dr & NW Project Driveway
• #2 - Town and Country Dr & NE Project Driveway
• #7 - Sheri Lane & Town and Country Drive
• #8 - Sheri Lane & Remington Drive / Sycamore Valley Road
• #9 - San Ramon Valley Boulevard & Wells Fargo Driveway
• #10 - San Ramon Valley Boulevard & Walgreens Driveway
• #11 - Town and Country Shopping Center Access & Fitness 19 Driveway
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 8
4. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter describes the existing conditions of the roadway network, transit service, pedestrian facilities,
and bicycle facilities within the vicinity of the project site. The chapter also presents the results of the existing
conditions intersection level of service analysis.
EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
Interstate 680 (I-680) is part of the interstate freeway system and is located directly to the east of the
project site. I-680 extends north-south connecting the project to the City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton, and
cities within the south bay to the south and to Contra Costa County to the north. I-680 also connects to I-
580 to the south and to SR 24 to the north. Within the project area, I-680 consists of three general purpose
lanes and one express lane in each direction. The I-680 express lanes are in operation Monday through
Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM. I-680 is a designated route of regional significance in the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. The posted speed limit on I-680
is 65 miles per hour (mph) in the project area.
Sycamore Valley Road is an east-west roadway within the study area and is classified as a major arterial
within the Town of Danville’s General Plan. The roadway begins at Sheri Lane to the west and transitions
into Camino Tassajara to the east, providing access to I-680, schools, and residential uses along its route.
Sycamore Valley Road connects traffic from the nearby residential uses to I-680. The posted speed limit
on Sycamore Valley Road is 45 mph.
San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a north-south roadway within the study area and is classified as a major
arterial roadway within the Town of Danville’s General Plan. The roadway connects Alcosta Boulevard to
the south and transitions to Hartz Avenue to the north, providing access to retail and residential uses. The
posted speed limit on San Ramon Valley Boulevard is 40 mph.
Town and Country Drive is an east-west roadway within the study area and is classified as a minor
collector. The roadway begins at Loch Lomod Way to the west and ends at San Ramon Valley Boulevard
to the east, providing access to retail and residential uses. The speed limit on Town and Country Drive is
25 mph.
Sheri Lane is a north-south roadway within the study area and is classified as neighborhood access. The
roadway begins at Mariposa Court to the north and ends at Gerald Drive to the south, providing access to
residential uses. The posted speed limit on Sheri Lane is 25 mph.
EXISTING TRANSIT FA CIL I TIES
The County Connection has multiple transit routes throughout the Town and to multiple cities within Contra
Costa County. Existing transit services within the study area are shown in Figure 2 and described in this
section. Schedules for each route are current as of June 2025 but may change as transit agencies adjust
schedules.
Route 21 is a local bus route that operates between the Walnut Creek BART station and the San Ramon
Transit Center and provides access to the Danville Park N Ride along its route. Route 21 operates along
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sycamore Valley Road, to the east of the project site. On weekdays,
Route 21 operates between 5:43 AM to 9:28 PM with 30- to 60-minute headways. Route 21 does not
operate on weekends. The closest bus stop to the project is located at the intersection of San Ramon Valley
Boulevard and Town and County Drive, approximately 500 feet from the project site.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 9
Route 321 is a weekend route that operates between the Walnut Creek BART station and the San Ramon
Transit Center. This route provides weekend services for the same stops as Route 21, which provides
services on weekdays only. Route 321 operates along San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sycamore Valley
Road, to the east of the project site. On weekends, Route 321 operates between 7:31 AM to 8:20 PM with
60-minute headways. The closest bus stop to the project is located at the intersection of San Ramon Valley
Boulevard and Town and County Drive, approximately 500 feet from the project site.
Route 623 is a local school bus route that operates in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District
between Danville Boulevard at Alamo Plaza in Alamo and Annabel Lane in San Ramon and is dedicated
to Monte Vista High School along its route. Route 623 operates along San Ramon Valley Boulevard and
Sycamore Valley Road, to the east of the project site. On school days without service in the summer, Route
623 operates between 3:30 PM to 4:56 PM with no headways for unidirectional service. The closest bus
stop to the project is located at the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sonora Avenue,
approximately ¼ mile from the project site.
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Existing pedestrian facilities in the project area include sidewalks on both sides of Town and Country Drive
and San Ramon Valley Boulevard. There is a lack of crosswalks along the residential units on Sheri Road.
It is anticipated that residents of the project will not frequently travel towards residential areas to the west
of the project site, but instead, travel to Downtown Danville, located to the north of the project site.
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicycle facilities are divided into four classes. Class I shared-used paths are physically separated from
motor vehicle lanes. Class II bike lanes on roadways are lanes designated for bicycles only and are marked
by signage and pavement striping. Painted buffers may separate the vehicle travel lanes from the bike lane
and green bike lane pavement coloring are used to highlight potential conflict zones between vehicles and
cyclists. Class III bike routes share the travel lane with motor vehicles and have signs and sharrow striping
to guide bicyclists on paved routes. Class IV bike facilities are protected cycle tracks that provide a physical
barrier between motor vehicles and cyclists. Figure 3 illustrates the bicycle facilities in the project area.
The following lists the types of bicycle facilities near the project site:
• Class I Bicycle Shared-Use Path
o Iron Horse Regional Trail west of San Ramon Valley Boulevard extending north-south from
Martinez to Dublin
• Class II Bicycle Lane
o San Ramon Valley Boulevard south of Hartz Avenue to the Town limits with the City of San
Ramon
o Sycamore Valley Road between San Ramon Valley Boulevard and east of Camino Ramon
• Class III Bicycle Route
o Hartz Way from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Laurel Drive, Laurel Drive form Hartz Way
to Brookside Drive, and Brookside Drive from Laurel Drive to south of Sycamore Valley
Road.
o Camino Ramon from Sycamore Valley Road south to the Town limits at Fostoria Way
Tow
n
a
n
d
Cou
n
t
r
y
D
r
.
Sh
e
r
i
L
n
.
Remingto
n
D
r
.
Ca
m
i
n
o
R
a
m
o
n
Sycamore
Valley Rd.
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
INTERSTATEINTERSTATE
680680
),*8R( 2
(X,ST,1* TR$1S,T )$C,L,T,(S
Danville Village Apartments, Danville, CA TIA
1
2
3
FEBRUARY 2026197845001
7
8
4 5 6
X
L(*(1D
3R2-(CT S,T(
C281T< (X3R(SS R28T(S 92X 95X
C281T< C211(CT,21 R28T( 321
C281T< C211(CT,21 R28T( 21
ST8D< ,1T(RS(CT,21S
$L$02 CR((. S+8TTL(
C281T< C211(CT,21 SC+22L R28T(
NOT TO SCALE
N
D$1V,LL( 3$R. 1 R,D(
9
10
11
Tow
n
a
n
d
Cou
n
t
r
y
D
r
.
Sh
e
r
i
L
n
.
Remingto
n
D
r
.
Ca
m
i
n
o
R
a
m
o
n
Sycamore
Valley Rd.
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
INTERSTATEINTERSTATE
680680
),*8R( 3
(X,ST,1* B,C<CL( )$C,L,T,(S
Danville Village Apartments, Danville, CA TIA
1
2
3
FEBRUARY 2026197845001
7
8
4 5 6
X
3R2-(CT S,T(
ST8D< ,1T(RS(CT,21S
(X,ST,1* CL$SS , S+$R(D8S( 3$T+
(X,ST,1* CL$SS ,, B,C<CL( L$1(
L(*(1D
(X,ST,1* CL$SS ,,, B,C<CL( R28T(
NOT TO SCALE
N
9
10
11
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 12
EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
Existing intersection lane configuration and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 4.
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
Intersection turning movement volumes were collected on Tuesday, October 1, 2024 and Tuesday, January
28, 2025 during the AM (7:00 – 9:00 AM), Midday (2:00 – 4:00 PM), and PM (4:00 – 6:00 PM) peak periods
when local schools were in session. These counts avoided holidays and school breaks.
Weekday annual daily traffic (ADT) volumes were collected along the study roadways for 48-hours from
Tuesday, October 1, 2024 to Wednesday, October 2, 2024. ADT volumes were collected during the same
week as the majority of intersection turning movement volumes were collected to ensure consistency in the
traffic data. Intersection volume data sheets are provided in Appendix A. Peak hour turning movement
volumes are shown in Figure 5. ADT volumes at the study roadways are summarized in the roadway
operation section.
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections under Existing traffic conditions. The Synchro
models were fine-tuned to calibrate to the intersection operations to reflect field observation conditions such
as queuing and delay. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 2 and locations operating
unacceptably are bolded. All study intersections function within acceptable LOS standards under this
analysis scenario, except for the intersection shown below. Synchro analysis sheets are provided in
Appendix B.
• Intersection #9 - San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Wells Fargo Driveway (AM and Midday Peak
Hours)
For Intersection #9, the minor westbound approach (private driveway) operates at LOS E for both AM peak
and Midday peak hours. It is common for minor approaches at an unsignalized intersection to experience
higher delays during peak periods due to insufficient gaps on the major roadway (San Ramon Valley
Boulevard). However, it should be noted that the eastbound left turn movement has the option of turning
right onto San Ramon Valley Boulevard and making a U-turn at the median break at Boone Court to proceed
northbound. Left turns out of the driveway could be prohibited as a condition of approval, either during peak
periods or permanently.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 13
Table 2 - Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary
# Intersection LOS
Criteria Jurisdiction Control
Existing
AM Peak MID Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C
1 Town and Country Drive / NW Project Driveway D Danville SSSC A 0.8 0.005 A 1.2 0.014 A 1.2 0.009 Worst Movement A 8.6 A 8.9 A 8.8
2 Town and Country Drive / NE Project Driveway D Danville SSSC A 2.9 0.021 A 3.7 0.061 A 3.5 0.061 Worst Movement A 8.6 A 8.9 A 8.9
3 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Town and Country
Drive D Danville Signal C 21.5 0.340 C 22.5 0.440 C 21.4 0.420
4 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Sycamore Valley
Road E Danville Signal E 72.0 0.580 C 22.7 0.700 C 25.9 0.690
5 SB I-680 Ramps / Sycamore Valley Road E Caltrans Signal A 8.2 0.540 B 10.6 0.510 B 10.4 0.530
6 NB I-680 Ramps / Sycamore Valley Road E Caltrans Signal C 24.1 0.650 C 25.3 0.640 C 24.8 0.590
7 Sheri Lane / Town and Country Drive D Danville AWSC A 7.3 0.103 A 7.5 0.122 A 7.2 0.061
8 Sheri Lane & Remington Drive / Sycamore Valley
Road D Danville AWSC A 7.3 0.083 A 7.5 0.136 A 7.2 0.055
9 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Wells Fargo Driveway D Danville SSSC A 0.7 0.011 A 1.5 0.079 A 1.8 0.050 Worst Movement E 41.1 E 40.6 D 30.0
10 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Walgreens Driveway D Danville SSSC A 0.2 0.041 A 0.6 0.193 A 0.7 0.186 Worst Movement B 10.4 B 13.9 B 12.4
11 Shopping Center Driveway / Fitness 19 Driveway D Danville Yield A 7.0 0.025 A 7.0 0.040 A 7.1 0.042
Worst Movement B 7.1 0.000 A 7.2 0.000 A 7.2 0.000
Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in bold.
1. The average control delay is reported for signalized intersections. The delay for the worst movement is reported for side-street stop-controlled (SSSC) and yield intersections.
2. HCM 7th Edition methodology is used to analyze Intersections #1 through #4 and Intersections #7 through #10. HCM 2000 Edition methodology used to analyze Intersections #5, #6, and #11.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartment
February 2026 │ Final 14
EXISTING ROADWAY OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Roadway operations were evaluated at each of the eight (8) study roadway segments under Existing traffic
conditions and compared to the capacity thresholds established in the 2030 Town of Danville General Plan.
Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3. ADT volumes for all study roadways are below the
respective roadway capacities and therefore operate within acceptable standards.
Table 3 - Existing Roadway Segment Analysis
# Roadway Segment Roadway
Classification
Capacity
(veh per day)
Existing ADT
(veh per day)
1 Town and Country Drive
100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Minor Collector 14,999 1,900
2 Town and Country Drive
100 ft EO Sheri Lane
Neighborhood
Access 3,499 700
3 Sheri Lane
200 ft NO Remington Drive
Neighborhood
Access 3,499 1,200
4 Remington Drive
100 ft EO Sheri Lane Minor Collector 14,999 1,300
5 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
100 ft NO Town and Country Drive Major Arterial >15,000 19,000
6 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
100 ft SO Town and Country Drive Major Arterial >15,000 18,500
7 Sycamore Valley Road
100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Minor Collector 14,999 4,700
8 Sycamore Valley Road
100 ft EO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Major Arterial >15,000 24,900
NO = north of, SO = south of, EO = east of, WO = west of
EXISTING SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
Based on the results of the signal warrant evaluation for Existing Conditions, the seven (7) unsignalized
study intersections did not meet the peak hour signal warrant. Analysis sheets are provided in Appendix
C.
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
6
8
0
6
8
0
F
I
*
8
R
E
4
1
2
3
6
5
4
7
8
5
0
'
1
7
0
'
2
2
0
'
4
2
0
'
7
5
'
255'
1
3
0
'
D
R
O
P
FEBRUARY 2026197845001
I-680 SB Ramps
NW Project Dwy
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
1 2 37845
6
LE*ENDPRO-ECT SITE XEXISTIN* ST8D< AREAINTERSECTIONSDROP LANEDROP
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
*
L
A
N
E
*
E
O
0
E
T
R
<
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
TRAFFIC SI*NALSTOP SI*NSTORA*E LEN*T+STOP
S
T
O
P
NE Project Dwy
S
T
O
P
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
1
7
0
'
280'
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
95'
D
R
O
P
I-680 NB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
4
5
0
'
S
T
O
P
STOP
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
S
T
O
P
STOP
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NOT TO SCALE NXX'
6
1
5
'
D
R
O
P
91011
9
STOP
S
T
O
P
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
1
0
1
1
S
T
O
P
STOP
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
YI
E
L
D
Y
I
E
L
D
Y
I
E
L
D
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680
F
I
*
8
R
E
5
FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
*
C
2
N
D
I
T
I
2
N
A
0
P
0
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NSA0 P0 PEA. +28R V2L80EXX << NOT TO SCALE N 91011
1
(
8
)
2
7
(
3
5
)
3
(
2
)
1
8
(
4
6
)
3(5)
1(2)
1
7
(
5
)
2
9
(
3
3
)
4
(
7
)
1
7
(
5
0
)
15(47)
5(8)
2
1
1
(
3
7
)
3
3
(
7
8
)
618(674)
18(36)
790(890)
21(25)
3
3
0
1
(
1
8
6
)
1
7
1
(
1
3
1
)
7
0
4
(
6
8
2
)
1
3
(
4
0
)
7
6
(
1
5
2
)
1
0
(
2
6
)
432(609)
247(290)
16(16)
195(288)
313(450)
20(39)
4
3
5
9
(
2
4
2
)
8
2
3
(
7
3
0
)
2
3
7
(
3
4
2
)
5
0
6
(
7
3
8
)
364(283)
564(673)
5
8
3
4
(
5
5
8
)
1
1
0
7
(
4
7
1
)
9
0
6
(
1
1
4
7
)
1
9
7
(
2
7
7
)
217(365)
1(22)
309(392)
6
5
(
1
5
)
8
(
1
3
)
1
(
8
)
1
9
(
1
5
)
6
(
8
)
5
(
5
)
7(9)
35(23)
2(3)
21(14)
52(24)
9(10)
7
4
(
9
)
4
(
1
0
)
4
3
(
3
5
)
1
2
(
8
)
9
(
7
)
42(28)
16(7)
3(7)
10(9)
29(9)
1(0)
8
1
(
2
)
0
(
5
)
1
0
(
4
5
)
5
(
1
4
)
10(8)
548(672)
20(48)
8(1)
778(887)
73(117)
9
2
6
(
1
0
3
)
564(733)
859(1005)
1
0
0
(
1
)
0
(
2
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
1
)
5(19)
1(9)
1(2)
11(37)
8(6)
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680
F
I
*
8
R
E
6
FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
*
C
2
N
D
I
T
I
2
N
0
I
D
D
A
<
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NS 0ID PEA. +28R V2L80EXX NOT TO SCALE N 91011
3
3
8
6
4
2
6
5
1
1
2
3
9
6
4
4
51
5
2
1
1
3
3
949
39
856
24
3
2
4
4
1
2
8
6
8
0
2
9
1
5
1
2
4
640
421
23
228
332
28
4
2
3
1
7
6
5
3
3
3
7
2
1
319
631
5
5
9
8
6
5
0
1
1
0
4
2
5
6
278
71
395
6
1
2
9
6
1
6
6
7
10
76
8
10
15
14
7
9
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
63
32
7
11
13
2
8
4
4
4
3
9
15
895
68
12
784
76
9
8
9
940
13
872
1
0
2
5
2
12
2
25
7
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartment
February 2026 │ Final 18
5. FUTURE CONDITIONS
This chapter presents a description of the proposed site use, trip generation, trip distribution, and trip
assignment, as well as potential adverse effects of the proposed project on the transportation system.
PROPOSED SITE USE
The project is proposing to replace a portion of the existing retail buildings located within the Danville Town
and Country Shopping Center in Danville, CA with a multifamily apartment building. The retail buildings
proposed to be demolished are located on the northwestern portion of the shopping center. The residential
development proposes to construct 200 dwelling units with 24 studio units, 102 one-bedroom units, 59 two-
bedroom units, and 15 three-bedroom units. Access to the project site would be provided by the existing
unsignalized driveway along Town and Country Road (Intersection #1 & #2) as well as existing driveways
located along San Ramon Valley Boulevard (#9) that connect to the retail parking. Figure 7 illustrates the
site plan for the proposed project.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation for projects is typically calculated based on information contained in the Institute of
Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) publication, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The manual is a
standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country for the estimation of trip generation potential
of proposed projects. A trip is defined in the Trip Generation Manual as a single or one-directional vehicle
movement with either the origin or destination at the project site. In other words, a trip can be either “to” or
“from” the site and therefore, a single visitor to a site is counted as two trips.
For purposes of determining the worst-case impacts of traffic on the surrounding street network, the trips
generated by a proposed project are estimated for the AM peak hour (between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM),
Midday peak hour (between 2:00PM and 4:00PM), and for the PM peak hour (between 4:00 PM and 6:00
PM) on a typical weekday.
Trips generated by existing use were calculated based on ITE Trip Generation average rates for each
individual land use and tenants. These land uses included ITE Land Use Code 492 (Health/Fitness Club),
712 (Small Office Building), 720 Medical-Dental Office Building, 822 (Strip Retail Plaza), 918 (Hair Salon),
and 932 (High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant). In addition, trips were adjusted to reflect the hours of
operation of existing tenants. For example, AM peak hour trips were reduced to zero if tenants open after
9:00 AM. Detailed existing trip generation calculations area included in Appendix D.
Trips generated by the proposed project are based on an average rate or fitted equation for ITE Land Use
221 (Multifamily Housing – Mid Rise). Note that ITE Trip Generation does not provide specific rate data for
midday peak trips, therefore, the PM fitted equations were assumed. This approach is more conservative,
as the ITE Trip Generation Hourly Distribution for ITE Land Use Code 822 (Strip Retail Plaza) shows the
midday peak hour to be 6.1-7.4% daily traffic, while the PM peak hour accounts for 8.0% of daily traffic.
Table 4 presents the trip generation for the existing and proposed project. The project will generate a net
new -442 daily trips, +62 trips in the AM peak hour, -94 trips in the midday peak hour, and -57 trips in the
PM peak hour.
This methodology employed a conservative approach in estimating trips. As shown in Table 5, the
blended rate of the existing retail is roughly half of the average rate for ITE Land Use Code 821
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartment
February 2026 │ Final 19
(Shopping Plaza, 40-150k). In addition, no trip reduction for pass-by trips for the existing retail or internal
capture to account of the new interaction between the proposed residential and existing retail were
assumed.
Table 5 also provides additional context illustrating that the proposed project results in net decrease in
daily, midday peak hour, and PM peak hour trips. In 2023 the average apartment unit was 916 square
feet6, making the average rate per dwelling unit comparable to average rates per 1,000 square feet for
retail space. As shown in Table 5, retail uses generate more daily and PM peak hour per square footage
compared to residential units.
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Figure 8 presents the trip distribution assumed for the existing and proposed project. Trip distributions for
each use were determined based on existing traffic count information, the general orientation of population
sources to the site, and location of complimentary uses to the existing and proposed land uses. Based on
the trip distributions, the existing retail trips to be removed and the new vehicle trips generated by the project
were assigned to the street network. Figure 9 (AM/PM Peak Hours) and Figure 10 (Midday Peak Hour)
present the net new trip assignments as a result of the project.
6 U.S. Apartment Size Increasing, National Apartment Association, https://naahq.org/us-apartment-size-
increasing, Accessed May 8, 2025
FIGURE 7
FEBRUARY 2026197845001
SITE PLAN
Danville Village Apartments, Danville, CA TIA
NOT TO SCALE
N
S2UR&E LPAS AR&+ITE&TURE 'ESIGN
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 21
Table 4 - Project Trip Generation
Land Uses Size Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out
Existing Various Use4 - - -2,250 - -56 -38 -18 - -299 -147 -152 - -225 -108 -117
Proposed
Multifamily Housing 200 DU 908 0.37 76 17 59 0.39 78 48 30 0.39 78 48 30
Existing Uses to Remain - - 900 - 42 28 14 - 127 63 64 - 90 43 47
Total Proposed4 1,808 - 45 73 118 - 45 73 45 - 168 91 77
Total Net Trips -442 - 62 7 55 - -94 -36 -58 - -57 -17 -40
Notes
DU = Dwelling Units
1. Trip generation developed based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
2. Existing trips were based on the ITE Trip Generation average rates for each individual land use and tenant. To determine the MID peak hour trips, the PM peak hour of generator or
the time-of -day values were used. For the daily volumes, these were estimated as 10 times the PM peak hour trips.
3. ITE Trip Generation average rates used for daily, and equation used for AM and PM peak hours for ITE Land Use Code 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise), Not Close to Rail Transit.
ITE Trip Generation does not provide data for midday, therefore PM equations were assumed.
4. Trip Generation rates for various land uses and existing uses to remain are available in Attachment D
Table 5 - Trip Generation Rate Comparison
ITE Land Use
Code Land Use Average Rate (trip per ~1,000 SF)
Daily AM Peak PM Peak
- Existing Retail 33.49 0.83 3.35
821 Shopping Plaza (40-150k),
No Supermarket 67.52 1.73 5.19
221 Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise), Not Close to Rail Transit 4.54 0.37 0.39
Notes
Existing Retail reflects blended rate of existing tenants as shown in Table 4
Average rates for Multifamily Housing are for per dwelling units. In 2023 the average size of an apartment in the U.S. is 913 square feet.
Tow
n
a
n
d
Cou
n
t
r
y
D
r
.
Sh
e
r
i
L
n
.
Remingto
n
D
r
.
Ca
m
i
n
o
R
a
m
o
n
Sycamore
Valley Rd.
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
INTERSTATEINTERSTATE
680680
),*8R( 8
3R2-(CT TR,3 D,STR,B8T,21
Danville Village Apartments, Danville, CA TIA
1
2
3
FEBRUARY 2026197845001
7
8
4 5 6
L(*(1D
X
3R2-(CT S,T(
(X,ST,1* 3R2-(CT
TR,3 D,STR,B8T,21
ST8D< ,1T(RS(CT,21S
NOT TO SCALE
N
9
10
11
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NS NOT TO SCALE N
F
I
*
8
R
E
9
T
2
T
A
L
N
E
T
N
E
W
P
R
2
-
E
C
T
*
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
D
A
0
P
0
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
91011
4
(
1
0
)
6
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
1
(
2
)
16(5)
4(2)
1
9
(
2
3
)
4
(
1
0
)
1
(
2
)
1
6
(
5
)
31(-9)
6(0)
2
3
9
(
-
1
)
8
(
-
3
)
-2(-14)
2(6)
-1(-9)
11(28)
3
1
(
1
)
5
(
-
6
)
4
(
0
)
35(-20)
2(-10)
-1(-8)
4
2
(
-
1
0
)
1
4
(
-
4
)
2
5
(
-
1
6
)
4(5)
5
-
1
(
-
1
1
)
5
(
-
1
4
)
2
0
(
-
2
)
3(1)
6
4
(
0
)
6
(
3
)
2(5)
1(1)
7
1
(
1
)
4(0)
8
-
2
(
-
2
9
)
-
1
(
-
9
)
39(-1)
-2(-14)
11(28)
-6(-42)
9
37(-30)
5(0)
1
0
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
A0 P0 PEA. +28R V2L80EXX <<
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NS NOT TO SCALE N
F
I
*
8
R
E
1
0
N
E
T
N
E
W
P
R
2
-
E
C
T
*
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
D
0
I
D
D
A
<
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
91011
9
4
2
4
2
1
2
2
9
2
4
-15
2
-
6
-
5
-18
5
-12
26
3
1
-
1
6
-
1
-30
-12
-11
4
-
1
7
-
7
-
2
3
2
5
-
1
5
-
1
8
-
5
-2
6
-
1
3
5
7
-1
8
-
3
6
-
9
-6
-18
26
-53
9
-42
-27
1
0
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
0ID PEA. +28R V2L80EXX
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 25
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Existing Plus Project traffic conditions were evaluated at the study intersections and volumes are shown in
Figure 11 and Figure 12. Results are presented in Table 6 and intersections operating unacceptably are
bolded. As shown in the table, all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS under Existing Plus
Project conditions with the exception of the following intersection:
• Intersection #9 – San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Wells Fargo Driveway (AM peak)
o Not an adverse effect since the worst movement operates at LOS E without Project and
Project traffic increases the v/c ratio for the worst movement by less than 5 percent.
Note that there were intersections where there was a decrease in delay. This can be attributed to the
negative net project trips at some intersections.
For Intersection #9, the minor westbound approach (private driveway) operates at LOS E for both AM and
midday peak hours. It is common for minor approaches at an unsignalized intersection to experience higher
delays during peak periods due to insufficient gaps on the major roadway (San Ramon Valley Boulevard).
However, it should be noted that the eastbound left turn movement has the option of turning right onto San
Ramon Valley Boulevard and making a U-turn at the median break at Boone Court to proceed northbound.
Left turns out of the driveway could be prohibited as a condition of approval, either during peak periods or
permanently.
Synchro analysis sheets are provided in Appendix B.
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NS NOT TO SCALE N
F
I
*
8
R
E
1
1
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
*
P
L
8
S
P
R
2
-
E
C
T
C
2
N
D
I
T
I
2
N
A
0
P
0
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
91011
5
(
1
8
)
3
3
(
3
5
)
4
(
6
)
1
9
(
4
8
)
19(10)
5(4)
1
1
6
(
2
8
)
3
3
(
4
3
)
5
(
9
)
3
3
(
5
5
)
46(38)
11(8)
2
5
0
(
3
6
)
4
1
(
7
5
)
616(660)
20(42)
789(881)
32(53)
3
3
0
1
(
1
8
6
)
1
7
2
(
1
3
2
)
7
0
9
(
6
7
6
)
1
3
(
4
0
)
8
0
(
1
5
2
)
1
0
(
2
6
)
467(589)
249(280)
16(16)
195(288)
312(442)
20(39)
4
3
5
9
(
2
4
2
)
8
2
5
(
7
2
0
)
2
5
1
(
3
3
8
)
5
3
1
(
7
2
2
)
368(288)
564(673)
5
8
3
3
(
5
4
7
)
1
1
0
7
(
4
7
1
)
9
1
1
(
1
1
3
3
)
2
1
7
(
2
7
5
)
217(365)
1(22)
312(393)
6
9
(
1
5
)
8
(
1
3
)
7
(
1
1
)
1
9
(
1
5
)
6
(
8
)
5
(
5
)
9(14)
35(23)
2(3)
22(15)
52(24)
9(10)
7
4
(
9
)
4
(
1
0
)
4
4
(
3
6
)
1
2
(
8
)
9
(
7
)
46(28)
16(7)
3(7)
10(9)
29(9)
1(0)
8
1
(
2
)
0
(
5
)
8
(
1
6
)
4
(
5
)
10(8)
587(671)
18(34)
8(1)
789(915)
67(75)
9
2
6
(
1
0
3
)
601(703)
864(991)
1
0
0
(
1
)
0
(
2
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
1
)
5(19)
1(9)
1(2)
11(37)
8(6)
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
A0 P0 PEA. +28R V2L80EXX <<
Tow
n
a
n
d
Cou
n
t
r
y
D
r
.
Sh
e
r
i
L
n
.
Remingto
n
D
r
.
Ca
m
i
n
o
R
a
m
o
n
Sycamore
Valley Rd.
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
INTERSTATEINTERSTATE
680680
FEBRUARY 2026197845001
1
2
3
7
8
4 5 6
LE*END
PR2-ECT SITE
X ST8D< AREA
INTERSECTI2NS
NOT TO SCALE
N
FI*8RE 12
EXISTIN* PL8S PR2-ECT C2NDITI2N 0IDDA< PEA. +28R T8RNIN* 02VE0ENT V2L80ES
Danville Village Apartments, Danville, CA TIA
9
10
11
3
38
6
42
65
1
12
39
6
44
515
2
11
33
94
9
39
85
624
3
244
128
680
29
151
24
64
0
42
1
23
22
8
33
228
4
231
765
333
721
31
9
63
1
5
598
650
1104
256
27
871
39
5
6
12
9
6
16
6
7
10768
101514
7
9
11
22
2
11
2
63327
11132
8
4
4
43
9
1589
5
68
12
78
476
9
89
89
8
13
84
5
10
2
5
2
122
257
11
NW
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
w
y
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
Town and
County Dr.
NE
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
w
y
Town and
County Dr.
Town and
County Dr.
Sycamore
Valley Rd.
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
I-
6
8
0
S
B
R
a
m
p
s
Sycamore
Valley Rd.
I-
6
8
0
N
B
R
a
m
p
s
Sycamore
Valley Rd.
Sh
e
r
i
L
n
.
Town and
County Dr.
Remington Dr.
Sh
e
r
i
L
n
.
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
Wells Fargo
Dwy.
Sa
n
R
a
m
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
.
Walgreens
Dwy.
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ac
c
e
s
s
D
w
y
.
Fitness 19
Dwy.
0ID PEA. +28R V2L80EXX
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 28
Table 6 - Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
# Intersection LOS
Criteria Jurisdiction Control
Existing Existing + Project
AM Peak MID Peak PM Peak AM Peak MID Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C LOS Delay1
(sec)
Delay
Var
(sec)
V/C V/C %
Change LOS Delay1
(sec)
Delay
Var
(sec)
V/C V/C %
Change LOS Delay1
(sec)
Delay
Var
(sec)
V/C V/C %
Change
1
Town and Country
Drive / NW Project
Driveway D Danville SSSC
A 0.8
0.005
A 1.2
0.014
A 1.2
0.009
A 2.9 2.1
0.028 460%
A 2.0 0.8
0.021 50%
A 2.1 0.9
0.017 89%
Worst Movement A 8.6 A 8.9 A 8.8 A 8.7 0.1 A 9.0 0.1 A 8.9 0.1
2
Town and Country
Drive / NE Project
Driveway D Danville SSSC
A 2.9
0.021
A 3.7
0.061
A 3.5
0.061
A 4.3 1.4
0.062 195%
A 3.4 -0.3
0.046 -25%
A 3.4 -0.1
0.053 -13%
Worst Movement A 8.6 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 0.3 A 8.9 0.0 A 9.0 0.1
3
San Ramon Valley
Boulevard / Town and
Country Drive
D Danville Signal C 21.5 0.340 C 22.5 0.440 C 21.4 0.420 C 21.3 -0.2 0.360 6% C 23.2 0.7 0.450 2% C 21.8 0.4 0.420 0%
4
San Ramon Valley
Boulevard / Sycamore
Valley Road
E Danville Signal E 72.0 0.580 C 22.7 0.700 C 25.9 0.690 E 73.5 1.5 0.590 2% C 21.8 -0.9 0.690 -1% C 25.2 -0.7 0.680 -1%
5 SB I-680 Ramps /
Sycamore Valley Road E Caltrans Signal A 8.2 0.540 B 10.6 0.510 B 10.4 0.530 A 8.1 -0.1 0.540 0% B 10.7 0.1 0.510 0% B 10.5 0.1 0.530 0%
6 NB I-680 Ramps /
Sycamore Valley Road E Caltrans Signal C 24.1 0.650 C 25.3 0.640 C 24.8 0.590 C 25.0 0.9 0.660 2% C 25.1 -0.2 0.630 -2% C 24.9 0.1 0.590 0%
7 Sheri Lane / Town and
Country Drive D Danville AWSC A 7.3 0.103 A 7.5 0.122 A 7.2 0.061 A 7.4 0.1 0.105 2% A 7.5 0.0 0.130 7% A 7.3 0.1 0.053 -13%
8
Sheri Lane &
Remington Drive /
Sycamore Valley Road
D Danville AWSC A 7.3 0.083 A 7.5 0.136 A 7.2 0.055 A 7.4 0.1 0.089 7% A 7.5 0.0 0.135 -1% A 7.2 0.0 0.055 0%
9
San Ramon Valley
Boulevard / Wells
Fargo Driveway D Danville SSSC
A 0.7
0.011
A 1.5
0.079
A 1.8
0.050
A 0.7 0.0
0.011 0%
A 0.4 -1.1 0.059
-25%
A 0.8 -1.0 0.042
-16%
Worst Movement E 41.1 E 40.6 D 30.0 E 42.2 1.1 D 31.0 -9.6 0.000 D 25.9 -4.1 0.000
10
San Ramon Valley
Boulevard / Walgreens
Driveway D Danville SSSC
A 0.2
0.041
A 0.6
0.193
A 0.7
0.186
A 0.2 0.0
0.042 2%
A 0.7 0.1 0.186
-4%
A 0.7 0.0 0.182
-2%
Worst Movement B 10.4 B 13.9 B 12.4 B 10.6 0.2 B 13.5 -0.4 0.000 B 12.1 -0.3 0.000
11
Shopping Center
Driveway / Fitness 19
Driveway D Danville Yield
A 7.0 0.025 A 7.0 0.040 A 7.1 0.042 A 7.0 0.0
0.025 0%
A 7.0 0.0
0.040 0%
A 7.1 0.0
0.055 32%
Worst Movement B 7.1 0.000 A 7.2 0.000 A 7.2 0.000 A 7.1 0.0 A 7.2 0.0 A 7.2 0.0
Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in bold.
1. The average control delay is reported for signalized intersections. The delay for the worst movement is reported for side -street stop-controlled (SSSC) and yield intersections.
2. HCM 7th Edition methodology used to analyze Intersections #1 through #4 and Intersections #7 through #10. HCM 2000 Edition methodolog y used to analyze Intersections #5, #6, and #11.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 29
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Roadway operations were evaluated at each of the eight (8) study roadway segments under Existing Plus
Project traffic conditions and compared to the capacity thresholds established in the 2030 Town of Danville
General Plan. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 7. ADT volumes for each study roadway are
below the respective capacities under Existing Plus Project conditions and therefore operate within
acceptable standards.
Table 7 – Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Analysis
# Roadway Segment Roadway
Classification
Capacity
(veh per day)
ADT (veh per day)
Existing Existing +
Project
1 Town and Country Drive
100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Minor Collector 14,999 1,900 2,400
2 Town and Country Drive
100 ft EO Sheri Lane
Neighborhood
Access 3,499 700 800
3 Sheri Lane
200 ft NO Remington Drive
Neighborhood
Access 3,499 1,200 1,300
4 Remington Drive
100 ft EO Sheri Lane Minor Collector 14,999 1,300 1,300
5 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
100 ft NO Town and Country Drive Major Arterial >15,000 19,000 18,900
6 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
100 ft SO Town and Country Drive Major Arterial >15,000 18,500 18,600
7 Sycamore Valley Road
100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Minor Collector 14,999 4,700 4,700
8 Sycamore Valley Road
100 ft EO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Major Arterial >15,000 24,900 24,800
NO = north of, SO = south of, EO = east of, WO = west of
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
Based on the results of the signal warrant evaluation for Existing Plus Project Conditions, the seven (7)
unsignalized study intersections did not meet the peak hour signal warrant. Analysis sheets are provided
in Appendix C.
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
CUMULATIVE LANE GEOMETRY
Under Cumulative conditions, no roadway improvements were assumed, therefore existing lane geometry
was assumed as shown in Figure 4.
CUMU LATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) travel demand model was initially used to develop
annual growth rates. The travel demand model has base year volumes from 2020 and future year volumes
from 2050. The model volumes were used to determine the incremental growth between the base year
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 30
and the future year. When comparing 2020 base and 2050 future link volumes shown in Appendix E,
several roadway links within the study area had negative growth.
Therefore, to achieve Cumulative traffic volumes, an annual growth rate shown in Table 8 were applied to
existing traffic volumes. These growth rates were calculated by comparing existing traffic volume data with
projected traffic volumes 2035 from the Town’s General Plan.
Table 8 – Annual Growth Rates
Roadway Annual
Growth %
Interstate 680 1.3%
San Ramon Valley Boulevard 1.5%
Sycamore Valley Road 1%
Sheri Lane
Town and Country Drive 0.5%
C UMULATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections under Cumulative traffic conditions and the
turning movements are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. Results of the analysis are presented in Table
9. All study intersections function within acceptable LOS standards under this analysis scenario, except for
the intersections shown below. Synchro analysis sheets are provided in Appendix B.
• Intersection #4 – San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Sycamore Valley Road (AM peak hour)
• Intersection #9 - San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Wells Fargo Driveway (AM, Midday, and PM peak
hours)
For Intersection #9, the minor westbound approach (private driveway) operates at LOS E or worse for all
the peak hours. In the PM peak both minor approaches operate at LOS F. It is common for minor
approaches at an unsignalized intersection to experience higher delays during peak periods due to
insufficient gaps on the major roadway (San Ramon Valley Boulevard). However, it should be noted that
the eastbound left turn movement has the option of turning right onto San Ramon Valley Boulevard and
making a U-turn at the median break at Boone Court to proceed northbound. Left turns out of the driveway
could be prohibited as a condition of approval, either during peak periods or permanently.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 31
Table 9 - Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Summary
# Intersection LOS
Criteria Jurisdiction Control
Cumulative
AM Peak MID Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay
(sec) V/C LOS Delay2
(sec) V/C LOS Delay2
(sec) V/C
1 Town and Country Drive / NW Project Driveway D Danville SSSC A 0.7 0.005 A 1.2 0.014 A 1.2 0.009 Worst Movement A 8.6 A 8.9 A 8.9
2 Town and Country Drive / NE Project Driveway D Danville SSSC A 2.9 0.021 A 3.7 0.061 A 3.3 0.061 Worst Movement A 8.6 A 8.9 A 8.9
3 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Town and Country
Drive D Danville Signal C 22.2 0.410 C 22.5 0.440 C 23.1 0.510
4 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Sycamore Valley
Road E Danville Signal F 97.0 0.700 C 22.7 0.700 D 40.9 0.840
5 SB I-680 Ramps / Sycamore Valley Road E Caltrans Signal A 8.8 0.630 B 10.6 0.510 B 10.7 0.620
6 NB I-680 Ramps / Sycamore Valley Road E Caltrans Signal C 28.7 0.760 C 25.3 0.640 C 28.9 0.690
7 Sheri Lane / Town and Country Drive D Danville AWSC A 7.4 0.112 A 7.5 0.122 A 7.3 0.051
8 Sheri Lane & Remington Drive / Sycamore Valley
Road D Danville AWSC A 7.4 0.089 A 7.5 0.136 A 7.2 0.061
9 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Wells Fargo Driveway D Danville SSSC A 0.8 0.020 A 1.5 0.079 A 5.2 0.814 Worst Movement F 73.0 E 40.6 F 144.9
10 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Walgreens Driveway D Danville SSSC A 0.2 0.046 A 0.6 0.193 A 0.6 0.217 Worst Movement B 11.1 B 13.9 B 13.9
11 Shopping Center Driveway / Fitness 19 Driveway D Danville Yield A 7.0 0.025 A 7.0 0.040 A 7.1 0.055 Worst Movement A 7.1 A 7.2 A 7.2
Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in bold.
1. The average control delay is reported for signalized intersections. The delay for the worst movement is reported for side -street stop-controlled (SSSC) and yield intersections.
2. HCM 7th Edition methodology is used to analyze Intersections #1 through #4 and Intersections #7 through #10. HCM 2000 Edition methodo logy used to analyze Intersections #5, #6, and #11.
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NS NOT TO SCALE N
F
I
*
8
R
E
1
3
C
8
0
8
L
A
T
I
V
E
C
2
N
D
I
T
I
2
N
A
0
P
0
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
91011
1
(
9
)
2
9
(
3
8
)
3
(
2
)
1
9
(
5
0
)
3(5)
1(2)
1
8
(
5
)
3
1
(
3
6
)
4
(
8
)
1
8
(
5
4
)
15(47)
5(8)
2
1
2
(
4
0
)
3
6
(
8
4
)
773(843)
23(45)
988(1113)
26(31)
3
3
4
9
(
2
1
6
)
1
9
9
(
1
5
2
)
8
1
7
(
7
9
2
)
1
5
(
4
6
)
8
8
(
1
7
6
)
1
2
(
3
0
)
540(761)
309(363)
20(20)
244(360)
391(563)
25(49)
4
4
1
7
(
2
8
1
)
9
5
5
(
8
4
7
)
2
7
5
(
3
9
7
)
5
8
7
(
8
5
7
)
439(341)
680(811)
5
9
6
8
(
6
4
8
)
1
2
8
5
(
5
4
7
)
1
0
5
2
(
1
3
3
2
)
2
2
9
(
3
2
2
)
261(440)
1(27)
372(472)
6
5
(
1
6
)
9
(
1
4
)
1
(
9
)
2
0
(
1
6
)
6
(
9
)
5
(
5
)
8(10)
38(25)
2(3)
23(15)
56(26)
10(11)
7
4
(
1
0
)
4
(
1
1
)
4
6
(
3
8
)
1
3
(
9
)
1
0
(
8
)
45(30)
17(8)
3(8)
11(10)
31(10)
1(0)
8
1
(
2
)
0
(
5
)
1
0
(
4
5
)
5
(
1
4
)
13(82)
685(840)
25(60)
10(1)
973(1109)
91(146)
9
2
6
(
1
0
3
)
705(916)
0(4)
1074(1256)
1
0
0
(
1
)
0
(
2
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
1
)
0(9)
5(19)
1(9)
1(2)
11(37)
8(6)
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
A0 P0 PEA. +28R V2L80EXX <<
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NS NOT TO SCALE N
F
I
*
8
R
E
1
4
C
8
0
8
L
A
T
I
V
E
C
2
N
D
I
T
I
2
N
0
I
D
D
A
<
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
91011
3
4
1
6
4
5
6
5
1
1
3
4
2
6
4
7
51
5
2
1
2
3
6
1186
49
1070
30
3
2
8
3
1
4
9
7
8
9
3
4
1
7
5
2
8
800
526
29
285
415
35
4
2
6
8
8
8
8
3
8
7
8
3
7
384
760
5
6
9
4
7
5
5
1
2
8
2
2
9
7
335
86
476
6
1
3
1
0
6
1
7
6
8
11
82
9
11
16
15
7
1
0
1
2
2
4
2
1
2
2
68
34
8
12
14
2
8
4
4
4
3
9
15
895
68
12
784
76
9
8
9
940
13
872
1
0
2
5
2
12
2
25
7
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
0ID PEA. +28R V2L80EXX
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 34
CUMULATIVE ROADWAY OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Roadway operations were evaluated at each of the eight (8) study roadway segments under Cumulative
traffic conditions and compared to the capacity thresholds established in the 2030 Town of Danville General
Plan. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 10. ADT volumes for each study roadway are below
the respective capacities under Cumulative conditions and therefore operate within acceptable standards.
Table 10 – Cumulative Roadway Segment Analysis
# Roadway Segment Roadway
Classification
Capacity
(veh per day)
Cumulative
ADT
(veh per day)
1 Town and Country Drive
100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Minor Collector 14,999 2,100
2 Town and Country Drive
100 ft EO Sheri Lane
Neighborhood
Access 3,499 800
3 Sheri Lane
200 ft NO Remington Drive
Neighborhood
Access 3,499 1,300
4 Remington Drive
100 ft EO Sheri Lane Minor Collector 14,999 1,500
5 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
100 ft NO Town and Country Drive Major Arterial >15,000 23,800
6 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
100 ft SO Town and Country Drive Major Arterial >15,000 23,100
7 Sycamore Valley Road
100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Minor Collector 14,999 5,500
8 Sycamore Valley Road
100 ft EO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Major Arterial >15,000 28,900
NO = north of, SO = south of, EO = east of, WO = west of
CUMULATIVE SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
Based on the results of the signal warrant evaluation for Cumulative Conditions, the seven (7) unsignalized
study intersections did not meet the peak hour signal warrant. Analysis sheets are provided in Appendix
C.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 35
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions were evaluated at the study intersections and volumes are shown
in Figure 15 and Figure 16. Results are presented in Table 11 and intersections operating unacceptably
are bolded. As shown in the table, all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions with the exception of the following intersections:
• Intersection #4 – San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Sycamore Valley Road (AM peak)
o Adverse effects since the intersection operates at LOS F without Project and increases by
4.6 seconds with the addition of project traffic.
• Intersection #9 – San Ramon Valley Boulevard / Wells Fargo Driveway (AM, Midday, and PM peak
hours)
o AM and Midday Peak: Adverse effect since the worst movement operates at LOS F without
Project and Project traffic increases the v/c ratio for the worst movement more than 5
percent.
o PM Peak: Not an adverse effect since the worst movement operates at LOS F without
Project and Project traffic increases the v/c ratio for the worst movement by less than 5
percent.
Note there were intersections where there was a decrease in delay. This can be attributed to the negative
net project trips at some intersections.
For Intersection #9, the minor westbound approach (private driveway) operates at LOS E or F for both AM
peak hour. In the PM peak both minor approaches operate at LOS F. It is common for minor approaches
at an unsignalized intersection to experience higher delays during peak periods due to insufficient gaps on
the major roadway (San Ramon Valley Boulevard). However, it should be noted that the eastbound left turn
movement has the option of turning right onto San Ramon Valley Boulevard and making a U-turn at the
median break at Boone Court to proceed northbound. Left turns out of the driveway could be prohibited as
a condition of approval, either during peak periods or permanently.
Synchro analysis sheets are provided in Appendix B.
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NS NOT TO SCALE N
F
I
*
8
R
E
1
5
C8
0
8
L
A
T
I
V
E
P
L
8
S
P
R
2
-
E
C
T
C
2
N
D
I
T
I
2
N
A
0
P
0
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
91011
5
(
1
9
)
3
5
(
3
8
)
4
(
6
)
2
0
(
5
2
)
19(10)
5(4)
1
1
7
(
2
8
)
3
5
(
4
6
)
5
(
1
0
)
3
4
(
5
9
)
46(38)
11(8)
2
5
1
(
3
9
)
4
4
(
8
1
)
771(829)
25(51)
987(1104)
37(59)
3
3
4
9
(
2
1
6
)
2
0
0
(
1
5
3
)
8
2
2
(
7
8
6
)
1
5
(
4
6
)
9
2
(
1
7
6
)
1
2
(
3
0
)
575(741)
311(353)
20(20)
244(360)
390(555)
25(49)
4
4
1
7
(
2
8
1
)
9
5
7
(
8
3
7
)
2
8
9
(
3
9
3
)
6
1
2
(
8
4
1
)
443(346)
680(811)
5
9
6
7
(
6
3
7
)
1
2
8
5
(
5
4
7
)
1
0
5
7
(
1
3
1
8
)
2
4
9
(
3
2
0
)
261(440)
1(27)
375(473)
6
9
(
1
6
)
9
(
1
4
)
7
(
1
2
)
2
0
(
1
6
)
6
(
9
)
5
(
5
)
10(15)
38(25)
2(3)
24(16)
56(26)
10(11)
7
4
(
1
0
)
4
(
1
1
)
4
7
(
3
9
)
1
3
(
9
)
1
0
(
8
)
49(30)
17(8)
3(8)
11(10)
31(10)
1(0)
8
1
(
2
)
0
(
5
)
8
(
1
6
)
4
(
5
)
13(82)
724(839)
23(46)
10(1)
984(1137)
85(104)
9
2
6
(
1
0
3
)
742(886)
0(4)
1079(1242)
1
0
0
(
1
)
0
(
2
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
1
)
0(9)
5(19)
1(9)
1(2)
11(37)
8(6)
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
A0 P0 PEA. +28R V2L80EXX <<
Town andCountry Dr.Sheri Ln.Remington Dr.
Camino Ramon
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San RamonValley Blvd.INTERSTATEINTERSTATE680680FEBRUARY 2026197845001 1 2 37845 6LE*ENDPR2-ECT SITE XST8D< AREAINTERSECTI2NS NOT TO SCALE N
F
I
*
8
R
E
1
6
C80
8
L
A
T
I
V
E
P
L
8
S
P
R
2
-
E
C
T
C
2
N
D
I
T
I
2
N
0
I
D
D
A
<
P
E
A
.
+
2
8
R
T
8
R
N
I
N
*
0
2
V
E
0
E
N
T
V
2
L
8
0
E
S
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
91011
1
2
4
1
1
0
4
7
10
7
1
3
5
5
1
8
5
1
36
5
2
6
3
1
1168
54
1058
56
3
2
8
3
1
5
0
7
7
3
3
3
1
7
5
2
8
770
514
29
285
404
35
4
2
6
8
8
7
1
3
8
0
8
1
4
386
760
5
6
7
9
7
5
5
1
2
6
4
2
9
2
335
86
474
6
1
2
1
0
9
1
7
6
8
16
82
9
11
16
15
7
1
0
1
2
2
4
2
1
2
2
67
34
8
12
14
2
8
4
4
7
19
1113
67
15
1006
42
9
8
9
1133
16
1063
1
0
2
5
2
12
2
25
7
1
1
NW Project Dwy
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
NE Project Dwy
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
I-680 SB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
I-680 NB Ramps
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
Sheri Ln.
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
.
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
.
Sheri Ln.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
e
l
l
s
F
a
r
g
o
D
w
y
.
San Ramon
Valley Blvd.
W
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
s
D
w
y
.
Shopping Center
Access Dwy.
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
1
9
D
w
y
.
0ID PEA. +28R V2L80EXX
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 38
Table 11 – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
# Intersection LOS
Criteria Jurisdiction Control
Cumulative Cumulative + Project
AM Peak MID Peak PM Peak AM Peak MID Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C LOS Delay1
(sec) V/C LOS Delay1
(sec)
Delay
Var
(sec)
V/C V/C %
Change LOS Delay1
(sec)
Delay
Var
(sec)
V/C V/C %
Change LOS Delay1
(sec)
Delay
Var
(sec)
V/C V/C %
Change
1
Town and Country Drive / NW
Project Driveway D Danville SSSC
A 0.7
0.005
A 1.2
0.014
A 1.2
0.009
A 2.8 2.1
0.028 460%
A 1.9 0.7
0.022 57%
A 2.1 0.9
0.018 100%
Worst Movement A 8.6 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.7 0.1 A 9.0 0.1 A 9.0 0.1
2
Town and Country Drive / NE
Project Driveway D Danville SSSC
A 2.9
0.021
A 3.7
0.061
A 3.3
0.061
A 4.3 1.4
0.063 200%
A 3.4 -0.3
0.046 -25%
A 3.3 0.0
0.053 -13%
Worst Movement A 8.6 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 0.3 A 8.9 0.0 A 9.0 0.1
3 San Ramon Valley Boulevard /
Town and Country Drive D Danville Signal C 22.2 0.410 C 22.5 0.440 C 23.1 0.510 C 22.1 -0.1 0.430 5% C 29.2 6.7 0.550 25% C 23.4 0.3 0.500 -2%
4 San Ramon Valley Boulevard /
Sycamore Valley Road E Danville Signal F 97.0 0.700 C 22.7 0.700 D 40.9 0.840 F 101.6 4.6 0.720 3% C 31.9 9.2 0.830 19% D 39.5 -1.4 0.830 -1%
5 SB I-680 Ramps / Sycamore
Valley Road E Caltrans Signal A 8.8 0.630 B 10.6 0.510 B 10.7 0.620 A 9.1 0.3 0.630 0% B 11.3 0.7 0.590 16% B 10.7 0.0 0.620 0%
6 NB I-680 Ramps / Sycamore
Valley Road E Caltrans Signal C 28.7 0.760 C 25.3 0.640 C 28.9 0.690 C 30.1 1.4 0.770 1% C 28.9 3.6 0.740 16% C 28.7 -0.2 0.690 0%
7 Sheri Lane / Town and
Country Drive D Danville AWSC A 7.4 0.112 A 7.5 0.122 A 7.3 0.051 A 7.4 0.0 0.114 2% A 7.6 0.1 0.140 15% A 7.3 0.0 0.057 12%
8 Sheri Lane & Remington Drive
/ Sycamore Valley Road D Danville AWSC A 7.4 0.089 A 7.5 0.136 A 7.2 0.061 A 7.4 0.0 0.094 6% A 7.6 0.1 0.146 7% A 7.2 0.0 0.061 0%
9
San Ramon Valley Boulevard /
Wells Fargo Driveway D Danville SSSC
A 0.8
0.020
A 1.5
0.079
A 5.2
0.814
A 0.8 0.0
0.021 5%
A 0.6 -0.9
0.116 47%
A 1.7 -3.5
0.119 -85%
Worst Movement F 73.0 E 40.6 F 144.9 F 74.9 1.9 F 59.3 18.7 F 68.9 -76.0
10
San Ramon Valley Boulevard /
Walgreens Driveway D Danville SSSC
A 0.2
0.046
A 0.6
0.193
A 0.6
0.217
A 0.2 0.0
0.047 2%
A 0.6 0.0
0.226 17%
A 0.6 0.0
0.212 -2%
Worst Movement B 11.1 B 13.9 B 13.9 B 11.3 0.2 C 15.9 2.0 B 13.6 -0.3
11
Shopping Center Driveway /
Fitness 19 Driveway D Danville Yield
A 7.0
0.025
A 7.0
0.040
A 7.1
0.055
A 7.0 0.0
0.025 0%
A 7.0 0.0
0.040 0%
A 7.1 0.0
0.054 -2%
Worst Movement A 7.1 A 7.2 A 7.2 A 7.1 0.0 A 7.2 0.0 A 7.2 0.0
Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in bold. Adverse effects are highlighted.
1. The average control delay is reported for signalized intersections. The delay for the worst movement is reported for side -street stop-controlled (SSSC) intersections.
2. HCM 7th Edition methodology used to analyze Intersections #1 through #4 and Intersections #7 through #10. HCM 2000 Edition methodolog y used to analyze Intersections #5, #6, and #11.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 39
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Roadway operations were evaluated at each of the eight (8) study roadway segments under Cumulative
Plus Project traffic conditions and compared to the capacity thresholds established in the 2030 Town of
Danville General Plan. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 12. ADT volumes for each study
roadway are below the respective capacities under Cumulative Plus Project conditions and therefore
operate within acceptable standards.
Table 12 – Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Analysis
# Roadway Segment Roadway
Classification
Capacity
(veh per day)
ADT (veh per day)
Cumulative
Volume
Cumulative
+ Project
1 Town and Country Drive
100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Minor Collector 14,999 2,100 2,800
2 Town and Country Drive
100 ft EO Sheri Lane
Neighborhood
Access 3,499 800 1,200
3 Sheri Lane
200 ft NO Remington Drive
Neighborhood
Access 3,499 1,300 1,700
4 Remington Drive
100 ft EO Sheri Lane Minor Collector 14,999 1,500 1,700
5 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
100 ft NO Town and Country Drive Major Arterial >15,000 23,800 19,300
6 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
100 ft SO Town and Country Drive Major Arterial >15,000 23,100 19,000
7 Sycamore Valley Road
100 ft WO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Minor Collector 14,999 5,500 5,100
8 Sycamore Valley Road
100 ft EO San Ramon Valley Boulevard Major Arterial >15,000 28,900 25,200
NO = north of, SO = south of, EO = east of, WO = west of
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
Based on the results of the signal warrant evaluation for Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, the seven
unsignalized study intersections did not meet the peak hour signal warrant. Analysis sheets are provided
in Appendix C.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 40
6.SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
This chapter discusses the site access and circulation for the proposed project site.
VEHICULAR SITE ACCESS
As shown in the parking layout in Figure 7, the proposed development will be accessible through both
existing unsignalized driveways along the Town and Country Road frontage. The development will also be
fully accessible from the remaining retail use parking lots. All Town and Country Drive driveways will remain
accessible via the San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Town and Country Drive signalized intersections. To
minimize potential cut-through traffic through Danville Town and Country Village Shopping Center,
residents and retail patrons will be informed and encouraged to only utilize the Town and Country
driveways.
SIGHT DISTANCE
Sight distance analysis was performed at the two driveways on Town and Country Drive and at the
residential garage entrance to determine if vehicles exiting at these locations would have adequate sight
distance to observe conflicting vehicles and pedestrian traffic along Town and Country Drive or internal
drive aisle adjacent to the garage entrance.
For vehicle traffic, intersection sight distance for the project driveway was evaluated following methodology
from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highway and Street, 7th Edition7. Sight distance for each project driveway was
determined based on the proposed project site plan and the following AASHTO intersection sight distance
criteria formula:
Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) = 1.47 x Vmajor x tg
Where Vmajor is the design speed of the major road and tg is the time gap for the vehicle to exit the project
driveway and enter the major road. A design speed of 30 mph and 15 mph were used for Town and Country
Drive or internal drive aisle, respectively.
The ISD at each location is summarized in Figure 17 through Figure 19 illustrates the clear sight areas
for a passenger car exiting the driveway to observe oncoming vehicles. The developer needs to ensure
these sight areas are clear of obstacles that would obstruct drivers’ sight. This necessitate the removal on-
street parking on Town and Country Drive as shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18. For the northwest driveway
sight area (Figure 17), there will be minimal impact as there is an existing no parking restriction with a 1-
hour commercial loading curb marking and signage. The curb marking and signage should be updated to
be no parking as the Project is removing the adjacent commercial space.
7 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Street, 7th Edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2018.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
6
3
6
2
6
4
6
5
6
6
6
7
6
8
6
9
7
0
7
1
7
2
7
3
7
4
7
5
7
6
7
8
7
9
8
0
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
6
3
6
2
6
4
6
5
6
6
6
7
6
8
6
9
7
0
7
1
7
2
7
3
7
4
7
5
7
6
7
8
7
9
8
0
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
7
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
S
I
G
H
T
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
FEBRUARY 2026197718001
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
D
R
I
V
E
R
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
T
1
4
.
5
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
F
R
O
M
E
D
G
E
O
F
T
R
A
V
E
L
W
A
Y
N
L
E
G
E
N
D
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
R
I
G
H
T
-
T
U
R
N
(
A
A
S
H
T
O
G
R
E
E
N
B
O
O
K
9
-
3
8
)
P
O
S
T
E
D
S
P
E
E
D
=
2
5
M
P
H
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
P
E
E
D
=
3
0
M
P
H
T
I
M
E
G
A
P
=
6
.
5
S
E
C
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
I
S
D
=
2
9
0
F
T
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
E
F
T
-
T
U
R
N
(
A
A
S
H
T
O
G
R
E
E
N
B
O
O
K
9
-
3
8
)
P
O
S
T
E
D
S
P
E
E
D
=
2
5
M
P
H
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
P
E
E
D
=
3
0
M
P
H
T
I
M
E
G
A
P
=
7
.
5
S
E
C
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
I
S
D
=
3
3
5
F
T
14.5'
C
O
N
V
E
R
T
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
Y
E
L
L
O
W
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
Z
O
N
E
T
O
R
E
D
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
5
9
6
0
6
1
5
5
5
6
5
7
5
8
6
3
6
2
6
4
656667686970712
5
9
6
0
6
1
5
5
5
6
5
7
5
8
6
3
6
2
6
4
656667686970712
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
8
N
O
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
S
I
G
H
T
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
FEBRUARY 2026197718001
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
D
R
I
V
E
R
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
T
1
4
.
5
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
F
R
O
M
E
D
G
E
O
F
T
R
A
V
E
L
W
A
Y
N
L
E
G
E
N
D
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
R
I
G
H
T
-
T
U
R
N
(
A
A
S
H
T
O
G
R
E
E
N
B
O
O
K
9
-
3
8
)
P
O
S
T
E
D
S
P
E
E
D
=
2
5
M
P
H
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
P
E
E
D
=
3
0
M
P
H
T
I
M
E
G
A
P
=
6
.
5
S
E
C
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
I
S
D
=
2
9
0
F
T
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
E
F
T
-
T
U
R
N
(
A
A
S
H
T
O
G
R
E
E
N
B
O
O
K
9
-
3
8
)
P
O
S
T
E
D
S
P
E
E
D
=
2
5
M
P
H
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
P
E
E
D
=
3
0
M
P
H
T
I
M
E
G
A
P
=
7
.
5
S
E
C
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
I
S
D
=
3
3
5
F
T
14.5'
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
D
C
U
R
B
(
2
0
F
E
E
T
)
F
O
R
F
I
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
±
2
0
'
±
3
0
'
±
2
0
'
±
1
9
0
'
R
E
M
O
V
E
O
N
-
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
O
T
A
L
5
0
F
E
E
T
(
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
REMOVE O
N
-
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
TOTAL 21
0
F
E
E
T
(
1
0
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
59
60
61
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
55
56
57
58
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
9
G
A
R
A
G
E
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
S
I
G
H
T
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
FEBRUARY 2026197718001
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
D
R
I
V
E
R
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
T
1
4
.
5
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
F
R
O
M
E
D
G
E
O
F
T
R
A
V
E
L
W
A
Y
N
L
E
G
E
N
D
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
R
I
G
H
T
-
T
U
R
N
(
A
A
S
H
T
O
G
R
E
E
N
B
O
O
K
9
-
3
8
)
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
P
E
E
D
=
1
5
M
P
H
T
I
M
E
G
A
P
=
6
.
5
S
E
C
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
I
S
D
=
1
4
5
F
T
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
E
F
T
-
T
U
R
N
(
A
A
S
H
T
O
G
R
E
E
N
B
O
O
K
9
-
3
8
)
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
P
E
E
D
=
1
5
M
P
H
T
I
M
E
G
A
P
=
7
.
5
S
E
C
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
I
S
D
=
1
7
0
F
T
6.5'
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 44
Table 13 – Intersection Sight Distance
Northwest
Driveway
Northeast
Driveway
Garage
Entrance
Movement Right Left Right Left Right Left
Design speed, Vmajor (mph) 30 30 30 30 15 15
Time gap, tg (s) 6.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 7.5
Intersection Sight Distance (feet) 290 335 290 335 145 170
For the northeast driveway (Figure 18), there is on-street parking allowed on both sides of the driveway.
While there is no marked crosswalk at the driveway, the anticipated increase in pedestrian activity
necessitates adherence to AB 413 (Daylighting Law) and that no parking within 20-feet of either side of the
driveway be required. To the east there is a hydrant approximately 60 feet away, which would result in the
Project recommending removing 20 feet (1 vehicle) of on-street parking. To the west, there is approxmatly
180 feet, or 9 vehicles, of on-street parking that would need to be removed.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS
The Preliminary Fire Access Plan, Appendix F, was evaluated to determine if drive aisles and turning
radius were adequate for fire and emergency vehicles. The plan shows 21-30 feet widths for drive aisles
and 20-25 feet inner turning radii. The plan also identifies several locations for red curb for fire lane - no
parking areas on the east side of the building and mostly on the south side of the drive aisle on the south
of the building.
GARAGE ENTRANCE
The Project is proposing constructing the garage entrance at an angle to discourage cut-through traffic
through the Danville Town and Country Village Shopping Center. In addition to the sight distance, vehicle
turning evaluation was conducted to determine if there are any issues with the angle of the garage entrance.
As discussed in the Sight Distance section, there is adequate sight distance for vehicles leaving the garage
to observe conflicting vehicles and pedestrian traffic along the internal drive aisle adjacent to the garage
entrance. It is critical that the developer ensures sight areas shown in Figure 19 are clear of obstacles that
would obstruct drivers’ sight.
Inbound and outbound vehicle turning movements are illustrated in Figure 20 and Figure 21, respectively.
The evaluation utilized SU-30, as this would be the largest vehicle that would potentially utilize the garage.
Note that, although entering and existing the garage from/to the south is discouraged, these movements
were evaluated for situations where vehicles are unable to utilize the northeast project driveway. Figure 20
shows that a SU-30 truck can enter the garage from the north or south, however the truck may cross over
into the exiting lane. For outbound movements, Figure 21 illustrates SU-30 can make a left out while only
a passenger car can make a right turn in one movement.
To minimize conflicts, delivery trucks, residents and guests be informed and reminded through multiple
channels (apartment website, welcome packet, newsletter, etc.) on how to access the garage and that no
right turn signage is placed at the garage exit. In addition, building management should coordinate and
communicate with delivery trucks and residential on prefer loading area located at the surfaced level south
of the building and west of the parking stalls, as shown in Figure 22.
59
60
61
55
56
5758
59
60
61
55
56
5758
F
I
G
U
R
E
2
0
G
A
R
A
G
E
I
N
B
O
U
N
D
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
FEBRUARY 2026197718001
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
N
SU-30
S
U
-
3
0
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
59
60
61
55
56
5758
59
60
61
55
56
5758
F
I
G
U
R
E
2
1
G
A
R
A
G
E
O
U
T
B
O
U
N
D
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
FEBRUARY 2026197718001
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
T
I
A
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
N
SU-30
P
A
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
C
A
R
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 47
Figure 22 – Designated Loading Area
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT ACCESS
There are currently no existing bicycle facilities along the project frontage on Town and Country Drive. The
nearest bicycle facility to the site is located east of the project along San Ramon Valley Boulevard with a
Class II bicycle lane. The nearest retail use to the site, the Danville Town and Country Shopping Center, is
located directly east of the project site. Bicycles traveling to Downtown Danville can utilize the Class I
bicycle route along Iron Horse Regional, the existing Class II bicycle lanes along San Ramon Valley
Boulevard or the Class III bicycle route along Camino Ramon.
Residents or staff taking transit can walk along Town and Country Drive to access the nearest transit stop
located to the east of the project site, at the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Town and
Country Drive. This stop serves County Connection Routes 21, 321, and 623 which provide weekday and
weekend services between the Walnut Creek BART station and the San Ramon Transit Center.
Loading Area
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 48
7. PARKING EVALUATION
A parking analysis was conducted for the site to determine whether the project is providing sufficient parking
to meet the parking requirements and the peak parking demand. The following describes the Town’s
parking requirements, and the proposed parking demand based on ITE in comparison to the proposed
parking provided.
P ARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking requirements based on the Town of Danville’s Municipal Code, for multifamily dwelling units, were
reviewed to determine whether the proposed parking supply of 337 parking spaces met the Town’s
requirements. Based on the Municipal Code’s Ordinance No. (Ord. 2005-07, §2) 32-45.34 (Parking
Requirements), multifamily residential units are required to provide the following parking spaces for the new
residential building:
• Municipal Code 32-45.34
o Studio dwellings – One (1) per dwelling unit
o One (1) bedroom dwellings – One and one-half (1.5) per dwelling unit
o Two (2) or more bedroom units - two (2) spaces, plus one-quarter (1/4) space per each
dwelling unit for guest parking
The State Density Bonus allows developers to reduce the number of required parking spaces in residential
or mixed-use projects when the project includes affordable housing or meets certain sustainable design
criteria. The State Density Bonus Law reduces parking requirements for the following:
• State Density Bonus
o Studio dwellings – One (1) per dwelling unit
o One (1) bedroom dwellings – One (1) per dwelling unit
o Two (2) or more bedroom units – One and one-half (1.5) spaces
The project is required by the Town of Danville to provide a total of 344 parking spaces. With consideration
of the State Density Bonus Law, the Project is required to provide 237 parking spaces. The project provides
a total of 337 parking spaces, which satisfies minimum parking requirements.
PARKING DEMAND
A summary of the peak parking demand is provided in Table 14. Parking demand for the proposed project
was determined based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition8. Parking demand was reviewed
to determine the parking demand for multifamily housing use. Based on the 85th percentile parking demand
rate for ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing – (Midrise)), the parking demand rate is 1.23 parking
spaces per dwelling unit. This results in a parking demand of 290 parking spaces for the proposed 200-unit
housing facility. Since the proposed parking supply is 337 total parking spaces, there is sufficient parking
provided to meet the peak parking demand of 290 parking spaces.
8 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2024.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 49
Table 14 – Proposed Parking Demand
Land Use Project Size 85th Percentile
Rate (per DU)
85th Percentile
Parking
Demand
Parking Spaces
Supplied
ITE Land Use 221
Multifamily Housing (Midrise)
200 Dwelling
Units 1.23 290 337
Notes: Parking demand based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 50
8. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND ADVERSE EFFECTS
This chapter summaries the results of the VMT analysis and traffic operational analysis and presents
recommended improvements for project adverse effects.
VMT A NALYSIS
The Town recently updated its Housing Element which included a programmatic environmental impact
report (EIR) with a VMT analysis to evaluate the potential transportation impacts associated with anticipated
residential development through the planning horizon year. The Project site was included within Sub-Area
2 of the Town’s Housing Element VMT assessment. The Housing Element VMT analysis concluded that
Sub-Area 2 VMT to be 18.8 VMT per capital, which does not exceed the VMT significance thresholds of
19.0 VMT per capita and would therefore result in a less-than significant impact.
The proposed project is consistent with the land use type, density, and geographic assumptions included
in the Housing Element Update. It does not introduce development intensity or characteristics beyond what
was already analyzed in the HE. The proposed project will also implement project-scale VMT reduction
strategies identified for Sub-Area 2 such as unbundling parking and providing amenities to reduce commute
trips, as well as additional strategies such as increasing land use diversity (adding residential use adjacent
to commercial area) and providing infrastructure to allow for telework for residents. Based on these factors,
the VMT analysis and findings from the Housing Element remain applicable, and no additional project-
specific VMT analysis is warranted and there is a less-than significant impact.
ADV E R S E EFFECTS
Project adverse effects were determined based on criteria discussed in Chapter 1. Table 15 summarizes
the project’s adverse effects and recommended improvements.
Table 15 – Project Adverse Effect and Recommended Improvements
Location Scenario Recommended Improvements
San Ramon Valley Boulevard /
Sycamore Valley Road (#4) Cumulative Plus Project AM Optimize signal timing
San Ramon Valley Boulevard /
Wells Fargo Driveway (#9)
Cumulative Plus Project AM
Cumulative Plus Project Midday
Restrict left-turn movement out of
east leg1
1 May not feasible since east leg is a private driveway not controlled by the developer .
SAN R A MON VALLEY BOULEVARD / SYCAMORE VALLEY ROAD (INTERSECTION
#4)
In the Cumulative Plus AM, the intersection operates at LOS F with 101.6 seconds of delay. Without the
Project, the intersection operates at LOS F with 97.0. The Project increase delay for an RTO monitor
intersection, which results in an adverse effect.
Transportation Impact Study │ Danville Village Apartments
February 2026 │ Final 51
It is recommended that the signal time be adjusted to increase the cycle length to 150 seconds to allow for
more green time for phases 1 (SBL), 6 (SBT), and 8 (WB approach). This would result in the intersection
operating at LOS E with 61.4 seconds of delay.
SAN R A MON VALLEY BOULEVARD / WE L LS FARGO DRIVEWAY (INTERSCTION #9)
In the Cumulative Plus AM, the worst movement operates at LOS F with 74.9 seconds of delay and v/c of
0.021. Without the Project, the worst movement operates at LOS F with 73.0 and v/c of 0.021. The Project
increase v/c by 5%, which results in an adverse effect.
In addition, in the Cumulative Plus Midday, the worst movement operates at LOS F with 9.3 seconds of
delay and v/c of 0.116. Without the Project, the worst movement operates at LOS E with 40.6 and v/c of
0.079. The Project increase v/c by 47%, which results in an adverse effect.
Other improvements were considered but found to be infeasible. For example, signalizing the intersection,
is unfeasible due its proximity, approximately 160 feet south of the intersection of San Ramon Valley
Boulevard / Town and Country Drive (#3), and because volumes do not satisfy peak hour signal warrants.
For both peak periods, the worst movement is the shared westbound left/through/right which has a total of
less than 10 vehicles per peak hour. It is recommended that left-turn movements are restricted. This would
result in the westbound approach operating at LOS B. Note this improvement may not be feasible due to
the both the eastbound and westbound approaches being a private driveway outside the control of the
developer.
As previously discussed, the minor westbound approach (private driveway) operates at LOS E or F, while
the overall intersection operates at LOS A. It is common for minor approaches at an unsignalized
intersection to experience higher delays during peak periods due to insufficient gaps on the major roadway
(San Ramon Valley Boulevard). In addition, the eastbound left turn movement has the option of turning
right onto San Ramon Valley Boulevard and making a U-turn at the median break at Boone Court to proceed
northbound. Left turns out of the driveway could be prohibited as a condition of approval, either during peak
periods or permanently.
Traverso Tree Service
Phone: 925-930-7901 • 4080 Cabrilho Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 • Fax: 925-723-2442
January 28, 2025
Attn: Ryan McNamara
Blake | Griggs Properties
550 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200
Danville, CA
(925) 766-1350 | rmcnamara@blakegriggs.com
Re: Preliminary Arborist Report for 101-117 Town and Country Drive, Danville
Dear Ryan,
This preliminary arborist report addresses the proposed project at 101-117 Town and Country
Drive. Per our conversation and the Town of Danville’s Tree Preservation Ordinance Chapter
32-79, the scope of work includes the following:
•Tag, identify and measure all trees with existing tags (#46-92) noted on the topographic survey by
MacKay & Somps dated 2/29/24. Note whether a tree is considered protected, defined as:
o Any of the following native trees with a trunk 10” or greater in diameter measured at 4.5’
above grade, or for a multi-trunked tree, a combination of trunks totaling 20” or greater in
diameter: Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Blue Oak (Q. douglasii), California
Black Oak (Q. kelloggi), Interior Live Oak (Q. wislizenii), White Alder (Alnus rhombifolia),
California Bay (Umbellularia californica), Coast Live Oak (Q. agrifolia), Valley Oak (Q.
lobata), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), California Sycamore (Platanus
racemosa), Madrone (Arbutus menziesii), London Plane Tree (Platanus acerifolia)
o Any Heritage (> 36” diameter) or Memorial tree.
o A tree shown to be preserved on an approved Development Plan or specially required by
the Planning Commission to be retained as a condition of approval.
o A tree required to be planted as mitigation for the removal of a protected tree.
•Assess proposed improvements for potential encroachment.
•Based on proposed encroachment, tree health, structure, and species susceptibility, make
recommendations for preservation.
•Provide above information on a Tree Protection Plan, to include: tag #s, approximate dripline,
whether a tree is removed or preserved, tree protection fencing locations, and tree protection
recommendations.
•Provide appraised values for all protected trees whose driplines will be encroached.
Project Summary
The subject commercial property is south of downtown Danville, just east of San Ramon Valley
Boulevard. The strip mall comprises numerous restaurants, health, wellness & beauty
establishments, and a few shops. The existing buildings sit on the northwest and south sides of
the site with a large parking lot in the center of the property.
Trees are distributed along Town and Country Road and parking lot landscape planters. I
inventoried 47 trees, 13 of which are protected by the town ordinance. Of the 13 protected trees,
nine are Heritage coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and four are London plane trees
(Platanus x hispanica). Trees reviewed in this report are generally healthy, though some have
structural issues that make them less suitable for preservation. Tree species and distribution is
provided in the table on the following page.
ATTACHMENT G
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 2
Species # Trees % of Trees
Inventoried
Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 18 38%
Evergreen Pear (Pyrus kawakamii) 11 23%
Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) 6 13%
American Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 5 11%
London Plane Tree (Platanus x hispanica) 4 9%
Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) 2 4%
Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) 1 2%
The proposed project involves demolishing the existing structures and hardscape, followed by
the construction of a multi-story apartment complex with an interior courtyard and underground
parking. The new building and associated infrastructure will occupy nearly the entire site.
Landscaping and bioretention basins are planned along the perimeter of the property, with
larger areas along Town and Country Drive.
The design team has requested that large
redwoods lining Town and Country Drive
be retained (figure 1), as they provide
many benefits to the site and surrounding
community, including screening between
neighboring properties. That being said,
the proposed work is so close to the
redwoods that tree health and/or stability
could be compromised. Exploratory digging
to locate roots is typically recommended in
these situations. However, due to the
public nature of the site and existing
hardscape, it’s not an option at this time.
There is a possibility that some of the trees
may not have significant roots within the
proposed areas of grading and excavation,
that design plans can accommodate large
roots, or that the required root loss can be
tolerated by the trees. Therefore,
recommending their removal would be
premature. Moreover, because the project
is still in its preliminary phase, there are
many unknowns. Plan changes may also
arise that could affect preservation
feasibility. For instance, several redwoods
are located in the Central San easement
and there is a possibility that the agency
may request their removal.
It is my opinion that a total of 25 trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed
project, five of which are protected by the town ordinance. Thirteen trees may be able to be
preserved, depending on the final design plans and actual root encroachment; six of these trees
are protected. The remaining nine trees, two of which are protected, are off-site and clear of
construction.
Figure 1. Redwoods #55-58 are located on the northeast
corner of the property. The new foundation overlaps with the
existing asphalt.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 3
Assumptions & Limitations
This report is based on my site visits on 3/28/24 & 4/2/24 and the following plans:
• Topographic Survey by MacKay & Somps dated 2/29/24
• Site Development Plan by MacKay & Somps dated February 2024
• Preliminary Utility Plan by MacKay & Somps dated November 2024
• Preliminary Grading Plan by MacKay & Somps dated February 2024
• Landscape Site Plan by PGAdesign dated 12/12/24
It was assumed that the trees and the proposed improvements were accurately surveyed. The
recommendations in this report are preliminary and may need to be revised once more detailed
and updated plans are available. These preliminary recommendations are not intended to be
used during construction, rather they offer initial impressions on tree preservation.
The health and structure of the trees were assessed visually from ground level. No drilling, root
excavation, or aerial inspections were performed. Internal or non-detectable defects may exist
and could lead to part or whole tree failures. Due to the dynamic nature of trees and their
environment, it is not possible for arborists to guarantee that trees will not fail in the future.
Tree Inventory & Assessment Table
#s: Each tree was previously given an oblong metal tag with numbers ranging from #46-92.
Their locations are given in the tree protection plan.
DBH (Diameter at Breast Height): Trunk diameters in inches were measured at 4.5’ above
average grade with a diameter tape. Height of measurement may deviate from the standard on
atypical trunks; deviations are noted under the “Comments” section.
Health Rating
Dead: Dead or declining past chance of recovery.
Poor (P): Stunted or declining canopy, sparsely foliated with poor foliar color. Possible disease
or insect issues. Unreliable specimen for preservation. Would require significant maintenance,
and a protection zone well beyond the dripline in order to retain. Acceptable to leave for nature if
not a threat to property.
Fair (F): Fair to moderate vigor, typical for the species. Will require an adequate protection
zone, and supplemental maintenance such as: crown cleaning of mistletoe, dead, broken, or
diseased branches. Additional maintenance such as fertilizing, soil aeration, and mulching may
be recommended to improve vigor.
Good (G): Good vigor and color, with no obvious problems or defects. Generally more resilient
to impacts. Minor maintenance may be recommended.
Very Good (VG): Exceptional specimen with excellent vigor and structure. Unusually nice.
Structure Rating
Poor (P): Exhibiting defects such as weak attachments, extensive decay, large deadwood, root
defects, leans, cracks or cavities that may threaten existing or future targets. May or may not be
correctable with pruning, cabling or bracing.
Fair (F): Minor correctable defects, may or may not have a target. Should receive maintenance
as recommended.
Good (G): Well structured with no significant or obvious defects.
Dripline: Canopy radius (in feet) was visually estimated in each cardinal direction.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 4
Age
Young (Y): Within the first 20% of expected life span. High resiliency to encroachment.
Mature (M): Between 20% - 80% of expected life span. Moderate resiliency to encroachment.
Overmature (OM): In >80% of expected life span. Low resiliency to encroachment.
DE: Dripline Encroachment (X indicates encroachment)
CI: Anticipated Construction Impact (L = Low, M = Moderate, H = High)
P: Protected tree per the town ordinance (X indicates protected)
PA: Project Arborist - Certified Arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture or
Registered Consulting Arborist familiar with Best Management Practices for preserving trees
during construction.
Figure 2. Pears # 69-70 have structural issues and are
unsuitable for preservation.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 5
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
46
London Plane
Tree
(Platanus x
hispanica)
17.5 G G-F 20 15 20 15 M X L
Off-site tree. No tag. Codominant stems at
15’ & 20’. Growing in lawn area.
Clear of construction.
None.
47
Incense
Cedar
(Calocedrus
decurrens)
23 G F 15 all M L
Off-site tree. No tag. Topped at 20'.
Multiple crowded stems below cut. Surface
roots. Root on E side of trunk beginning to
grow over walkway.
Clear of construction.
None.
48 London Plane
Tree 15.5 G G-F 20 10 15 15 Y-M X L
Off-site tree. No tag. Codominant stems at
15’. Slight sweep to N, has corrected.
Clear of construction.
None.
49
American
Sweetgum
(Liquidambar
styraciflua)
18 G-F F-P 10 all M L
Off-site tree. tag. Codominant stems at
10’. Topped at 20’, upright regrowth. Very
large surface roots/basal root mass. Some
decay on large surface roots.
Clear of construction.
None.
50 American
Sweetgum 17 G-F F-P 10 all M L
Off-site tree. No tag. Topped at 20’, upright
regrowth. Large surface roots, some roots
on N side have extensive decay.
Clear of construction.
None.
51 American
Sweetgum 18.5 G-F F-P 15 15 10 10 M L
Off-site tree. No tag. Topped at 20’,
upright, crowded regrowth. Trunk 2' from
sidewalk. Large surface roots. Codominant
stems at 17’.
Clear of construction.
None.
52
Southern
Magnolia
(Magnolia
grandiflora)
12 G-F F 10 all M L
Off-site tree. No tag. Slightly buried trunk.
Topped at 20’. Few surface roots, some
wounding & decay. Kink in stem at 7’,
codominant stems at 15’.
Clear of construction.
None.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 6
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
53 American
Sweetgum 22 G-F F-P 15 10 10 5 M L
Off-site tree. No tag. Topped at 20’, upright
regrowth. Trunk 1' from sidewalk. Large
surface root mass on SE side of trunk - up
to 28" wide. Large ripped/cut root 7' SE of
trunk. Topped at 20’. Next to recent/active
PG&E work.
Clear of construction.
None.
54 American
Sweetgum 13 G-F F-P/P 10 5 10 10 M L
Off-site tree. No tag. Topped at 20’, upright
regrowth. Large surface roots, some with
decay. Two roots pruned 2’ from W side of
trunk - 6" (wood discoloration) & ~5" (wood
discoloration, some decay).
Clear of construction.
None.
55
Coast
Redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
49 G-F G-F/F 25 25 10 10 M X X M-
H
Heritage tree. Trunk slight sweep to NE,
corrects. Pale foliage & slightly sparse
canopy. Depression on E side of lower
trunk. Basal sprouts.
17’ from proposed storm drain & 22’ from
proposed foundation.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 35’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone.
Install temporary protection fencing.
56 Coast
Redwood 39.5 G-F G-F 10 15 15 10 M X X H
Heritage tree. Slight depression on E side
lower trunk. Pale foliage & slightly sparse
canopy. Basal sprouts.
3’ from proposed catch basin & 8’ from
proposed foundation.
Remove.
57 Coast
Redwood 34 G-F G-F 10 10 20 15 M X M-
H
Slightly buried root crown. Pale foliage &
slightly sparse canopy.
10’ from proposed patio & 11’ from
proposed foundation.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 25’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone.
Install temporary protection fencing.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 7
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
58 Coast
Redwood 48 G-F/F G-F 25 10 15 20 M X X M-
H
Heritage tree. Buried root crown. Pale
foliage, slightly sparse canopy, under-sized
leaves.
14’ from proposed patio & 20’ from
proposed foundation.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 35’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone.
Install temporary protection fencing.
59
Evergreen
Pear (Pyrus
kawakamii)
8 G G-F/F 10 15 10 5 Y X M-
H
Asymmetrical canopy to SE. Stem doglegs
at 10’.
In proposed grading, adjacent to proposed
asphalt demolition & 10’ from proposed
foundation.
Remove.
60 Evergreen
Pear 11 G G-F/F 15 10 10 15 M X M-
H
6" stem removed at 6'. Discoloration.
In proposed grading, adjacent to proposed
asphalt demolition & 19’ from proposed
foundation.
Remove.
61 Evergreen
Pear 7.5 G G-F/F 0 0 10
10
S
W
Y X M-
H
Some wounding & decay to surface root &
S side of trunk. 2" broken branch in upper
canopy.
In proposed grading, adjacent to proposed
asphalt demolition & 12’ from proposed
foundation.
Remove.
62 Coast
Redwood 26 G/G-F G-F 15 15 15 10 M X M-
H
Small girdling root E side of trunk.
<1’ from proposed grading, 2’ from
proposed wooden boardwalk, 7’ from
proposed bioretention basin to E & 11’ from
proposed bioretention basin to S.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 20’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone
& building demolition within tree dripline.
Install temporary protection fencing.
63 Coast
Redwood 23.5 G/G-F G-F 10 15 10 10 M X H
W side of stem in contact with existing roof.
Very large surface root mass SW of trunk.
Limbed up for building clearance.
In proposed bioretention basin.
Remove.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 8
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
64 Coast
Redwood 26.5 G/G-F G-F 15 10 10 15 M X M-
H
Large surface roots NW of trunk. W side of
canopy limbed up for building clearance.
In proposed grading, 10’ from proposed
wooden boardwalk, 12’ from proposed
bioretention basin to S & 15’ from proposed
bioretention basin to E.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 20’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone
& building demolition within tree dripline.
Install temporary protection fencing.
65 Evergreen
Pear 13 G G-F 15 10 5 15 M X H
Trunk leans to N, has corrected. 7" branch
removed on N side of stem - woundwood &
decay.
In proposed grading & 4’ from proposed
bioretention basin.
Remove.
66 Coast
Redwood 31 G G-F 15 15 10 10 M X H
Uphill root crown buried. SE side of canopy
limbed up for building clearance. Sidewalk
lifting E of trunk. New sidewalk panels to N.
In proposed grading, 2’ from proposed
foundation.
Remove.
67 Coast
Redwood 25.5 G G-F 10 all M X M-
H
Uphill root crown buried. Gap on S/SE side
of canopy.
In proposed grading, 14’ from proposed
foundation. In conflict with existing water
line.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 20’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone
& building demolition within tree dripline.
Install temporary protection fencing.
Abandon existing water line in place.
68 Coast
Redwood 28 G G-F 10 all M X H
Buried root crown. Small girdling root on N
side of trunk. SE side of canopy limbed up
for building clearance.
In proposed grading, 6’ from proposed
foundation.
Remove.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 9
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
69 Evergreen
Pear 5.5 G-F P 10 SE Y L
In ROW. Wound on NW side of lower trunk
& on upper stem - drying, cracking, bark
separating from wood. Secondary stem
removed at 6'. Poor taper. Asymmetrical
canopy.
11’ from proposed bioretention basin.
Recommend removal – poor suitability
for preservation.
70 Evergreen
Pear 6.5 G-F F-P 10 10 5 10 Y L
Buried root crown. Codominant stems at 6'.
Limbed up, poor stem taper.
8’ from proposed bioretention basin.
Recommend removal – poor suitability
for preservation.
71 Evergreen
Pear 12 G-F G-F/F 15 15
NE 10 15 M L
Codominant stems at 7’. Over-extended
branches to W.
15’ from proposed bioretention basin &
irrigation needs conflict with proposed
native-centered plantings.
Remove.
72 Coast
Redwood 55 G F 20 20 15 20 M X X M-
H
Heritage tree. In Central San easement.
Codominant stems at 100’; tree height 130’.
Some minor gaps in canopy. New sidewalk
panels N side of trunk. Active PG&E trench
N side of trunk. Buttress roots buried with
soil, appear to be growing at edge of
sidewalk on W side of trunk, new sidewalk
panel, some lifting.
4’ from proposed sanitary sewer line & 11’
from proposed sanitary sewer manhole, 21’
from proposed patio & 26’ from proposed
foundation.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Central San may require removal.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 35’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone
& building demolition within tree dripline.
Install temporary protection fencing.
Consider cabling codominant stems if
retaining.
73 Coast
Redwood 45 G/F-F G-F 10 20 10 25 M X X M-
H
Heritage tree. In ROW & Central San
easement. Buried root crown. Base of
trunk pushing against sidewalk, lifting, has
been ground down. E side of canopy
limbed up for building clearance. Pale
foliage.
9’ from proposed grading, 22’ from
proposed sanitary sewer manhole & 32’
from proposed foundation.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Central San may require removal.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 30’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone
& building demolition within tree dripline.
Install temporary protection fencing.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 10
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
74 Coast
Redwood 34.5 G-F G-F 10 20 10 15 M X M-
H
In Central San easement. E side of
canopy limbed up for building clearance.
Upper canopy sparse. Seam in bark on NE
side of trunk from 1'-15'. Large surface
roots S of trunk.
3’ from proposed grading & 26’ from
proposed foundation.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Central San may require removal.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 25’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone
& building demolition within tree dripline.
Install temporary protection fencing.
75 Coast
Redwood 40 G G-F 10 20 20 20 M X X M-
H
Heritage tree. In ROW & Central San
easement. Slightly buried root crown.
Sidewalk lifted 3"+. Large surface roots NE
of trunk. E side of canopy limbed up for
building clearance.
8’ from proposed grading & 32’ from
proposed foundation.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Central San may require removal.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 30’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone
& building demolition within tree dripline.
Install temporary protection fencing.
76 Coast
Redwood 28 G G-F 10 10 15 15 Y-M X M-
H
In Central San easement. Slightly buried
root crown. New sidewalk panels SW of
trunk. E side of canopy limbed up for
building clearance.
7’ from proposed grading, 20’ from
proposed retaining wall & 26’ from
proposed foundation.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Central San may require removal.
Design to limit ground-disturbing work
within 20’ of trunk. PA on-site to monitor
ground-disturbing work within this zone
& building demolition within tree dripline.
Install temporary protection fencing.
77 Evergreen
Pear 8.5 G G-F 10 all M X H
Multiple stems at 6' with included bark.
Codominant union with included bark at 8’.
In proposed retaining wall.
Remove.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 11
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
78 Coast
Redwood 50 G-F G-F/F 20 20 10 20 M X X H
Heritage tree. Buried root crown. Stem
wound at 70’ & codominant stems at 110’;
tree height is 120’. Recent soil disturbance,
PG&E activity in area. Slightly sparse
foliage.
1’ from proposed retaining wall & 16’ from
proposed transformer.
Remove.
79 Coast
Redwood 38 G-F G-F 10 10 15 15 M X X H
Heritage tree. Buried root crown. Recent
ground disturbance, PG&E activity in area.
No limbs on E side of trunk until 30'. Basal
sprouting. Slightly sparse foliage.
In proposed walkway, 15’ from proposed
retaining wall & 15’ from proposed
transformer.
Remove.
80 Coast
Redwood 50 G-F F 15 15 15 10 M X X H
Heritage tree. Large wound/cavity on N
side of trunk at 25’-30'. Recent ground
disturbance, PG&E activity in area. SE side
basal flare growing over retaining wall, few
minor cracks in wall. Slightly sparse foliage.
In proposed walkway & 13’ from proposed
retaining wall & 7’ from proposed
transformer.
Remove.
81
Tulip Tree
(Liriodendron
tulipifera)
13 F F-P 15 10 0 10 M X H
Cavity at base of trunk, probed to 24"
depth. Dead 5" & 3" branches, 5" stub.
In proposed walkway.
Remove.
82 Tulip Tree 9.5 F F-P 10 10 5 10 M X H
Dead 2" & 3" branches. Lean to N, has
corrected. Two large trunk wounds on S
side of stem, woundwood & decay.
In proposed building.
Remove.
83 Tulip Tree 11 F F 10 10 5 10 M X H
Two 2" dead branches. Broken 4" leader in
upper canopy, has resprouted. Lean to N,
has corrected.
In proposed building.
Remove.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 12
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
84 Tulip Tree 18.5 G-F F 15 all M X H
Few dead 2"-3" branches, few 2”-3" branch
failures & 7” leader failure. Codominant
stems at 20’. Some surface roots, two with
wounding & decay.
In proposed walkway.
Remove.
85 London Plane
Tree 15 G G-F 15 20 20 10 M X X H
Off-site tree. Codominant stems at 15’.
Growing in lawn. 2.5' from manhole.
2’ from proposed sanitary sewer line to S,
8’ from proposed walkway to W, 13’ from
proposed bioretention basin to W, 16’ from
proposed storm drain line to E.
Remove.
86 Evergreen
Pear 18 G-F G-F/F 10 15 20 20 M X H
Wound on lower S side of trunk,
woundwood & drying. Codominant stems at
6’, tridominant stems at 7’. Over-extended
branches to NW.
In proposed walkway.
Remove.
87 Evergreen
Pear 18.5 G G-F/F 15 15 20 20 M X H
Two large limbs removed at 6’ on N side of
trunk, wood discoloration, some
woundwood on lower cut. Codominant
stems at 7’. Some crossing branches.
In proposed walkway.
Remove.
88 Southern
Magnolia 12 G-F/F G-F 15 15 15 10 M X H
Off-site tree. Somewhat sparse,
undersized foliage, leaves curling at
margins. Codominant stems at 12’.
In proposed sanitary sewer line & 6’ from
proposed walkway.
Remove.
89 Tulip Tree 17.5 F G-F 10 20 10 10 M X H
Several dead 1"-3" branches. Codominant
stems at 18’. Few large surface roots,
wounded roots on S side of trunk,
discoloration.
In proposed building.
Remove.
90 Tulip Tree 15.5 G-F G-F 10 15 15 15 M X H
Codominant stems at 12’, bulging below
union on NW side. Reduction cuts on S
side of canopy.
In proposed building.
Remove.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 13
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W Age P DE CI Comments Preliminary Recommendations
91 Evergreen
Pear 13 G/G-F G-F/F 15 15 15 15 M X L-
M
Off-site tree. 4" branch removed on W side
of canopy, gap in canopy on N&W sides.
Nearly codominant stems at 6' &
codominant stems at 10’.
4’ from proposed curb & asphalt demolition
and replacement.
Preservation likely: PA may recommend
removal if root encroachment is high.
Install temporary protection fencing to
encompass existing landscape area.
If roots > 2” in diameter are encountered
during demolition/excavation, consult the
project arborist for recommendations.
92 London Plane
Tree 20 G G-F 15 25 20 20 M X X M-
H
Off-site tree. Tridominant stems at 10’.
Cracking & shifted curb. Root on S side of
trunk growing over curb.
Adjacent to proposed curb & ramp; exact
distance from trunk unknown.
Possible preservation; PA may
recommend removal if root
encroachment is high.
Design to minimize ground-disturbing
work within 10’ of trunk. PA shall be on-
site to monitor ground-disturbing work
within this zone.
Wrap trunk with straw wattle.
Preliminary Tree Encroachment Summary
• Trees that will need to be removed: 25 trees (#56, 59-61, 63, 65-66, 68-71, 77-90)
o Protected: 5 trees (#56, 78-80 & 85)
• Trees that may be preserved pending final plans & root encroachment: 13 trees (#55, 57-58, 62, 64, 67, 72-76 & 91-92)
o Protected: 6 trees (#55, 58, 72-73, 75 & 92)
• Trees to be saved that will not be encroached: 9 trees (#46-54)
o Protected: 2 trees (#46 & 48)
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 14
Preliminary Tree Impact Discussion
Extensive ground disturbance is necessary across nearly the entire site for demolition,
foundation construction, utility installation, excavation for bioretention basins, etc. Some trees
are in poor condition and are unworthy of special preservation efforts. Other species, such as
the southern magnolia and tulip tree, have poor construction tolerance, so require much more
space to survive than the design allows.
When ground-disturbing work is proposed adjacent to a tree’s most critical roots, arborists
typically recommend exploratory digging to locate those roots. This is because tree root
systems are often difficult to predict, especially in developed environments where soil conditions
are not homogenous and underground obstacles can redirect root growth. At this site,
exploratory digging is more complicated because some of the proposed excavation overlaps
with existing hardscape, which cannot be removed at this time. Similarly, some aspects of the
project, such as the depth of utilities and whether directional boring is feasible, have not been
finalized. If utilities can be installed via directional boring beneath tree roots growing in the upper
3’ of soil, there is a greater chance those trees can be preserved.
Since these large specimens cannot simply be replaced and the design team would like to
preserve them, the Project Arborist will need to assess root encroachment in real time. Whether
trees can be retained will be influenced by the contractors’ adherence to the tree protection
guidelines, the design team and engineers' ability to accommodate large roots, project approval
requirements, and timely collaboration with the Project Arborist.
Redwoods
The sheer size of many of the
redwoods means structural roots
could extend 20’-25’ from their
trunks. Structural roots are
responsible for anchoring a tree in
the soil, so severing or damaging
them can increase the likelihood
of a tree uprooting. Given the size
of these trees and numerous
targets surrounding them, I
recommend minimizing structural
root damage as much as feasible.
If large structural roots are
impacted, the Project Arborist
may recommend trees be
removed.
It is important to note that external
factors may also affect the
redwoods’ fate. For instance,
Central San may request the five
redwoods growing in their
easement be removed (figure 3). Similarly, most of the redwoods are adjacent to the existing
sidewalk running along Town and Country Road and some of these trees are lifting the panels.
If the town requests sidewalk improvements, this may impact roots growing beneath the
concrete. It can be challenging to accommodate large roots in these situations due to
engineering and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Figure 3. Redwoods #73-75 (from left to right) are in the Central San
easement and are lifting the adjacent sidewalk. Note the areas of
concrete that have already been shaved down. The basal flare of tree
#73 is pushing against the sidewalk and a panel adjacent to #75 has
been lifted 3”+.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 15
The design team has already redesigned some elements to reduce root encroachment. Per my
recommendation, a bioretention basin near trees #56-58 has been removed from the plans.
Similarly, the bioretention basin near trees #62 & 64 was pulled further from the trunks and the
proposed walkway was redesigned to an elevated boardwalk on piers. The latter will keep root
impact to isolated areas.
I recommend six redwoods be removed, as their trunks are in direct conflict with proposed
improvements or close enough that it’s highly unlikely the trees can be retained. Though root
disturbance will be unavoidable, the design team would like to try and preserve the remaining
redwoods. Thus, this report outlines preservation guidelines for the remaining trees.
Redwood Health
Trees are more resilient to construction impacts when they are healthy. Thus, it is vital to
support redwood health prior to, during, and after construction. This species is adapted to
coastal environments where it receives regular moisture from the fog. Outside their native
range, they must receive supplemental water, especially in the hot summer months. Assuming
the existing irrigation will be turned off, temporary irrigation shall be provided immediately. This
can be accomplished with soaker hoses, drip hosing, a soil probe attached to a water tank, or
other method approved by the Project Arborist.
To reduce water evaporation, chipped mulch from on-site removals shall be applied in a 4”-6”
thick layer within the tree protection zones. The chipped mulch will also promote beneficial soil
life such as mycorrhizae, worms, and bacteria, which will add organic matter and nutrients to the
soil over time.
Lastly, the planting zone plan notes native-centered plantings that overlap with where the
existing redwoods are growing. Many of the proposed plants have low water needs, which
makes sense considering our drought-prone environment and water-use restrictions. However,
the redwoods’ water needs are higher, so irrigation may need to be adjusted or supplemented. I
recommend this be assessed once grading, excavation, and utility installation is complete and it
is clear which redwoods will be retained.
Preservation During Demolition & Construction
Due to the dense nature of this project, there are many opportunities for the trees to be
accidentally damaged. For instance, heavy equipment, constant foot traffic, and the staging of
materials compacts soil and crushes fine absorption roots. Compacted soil has decreased pore
space which reduces its capacity for water, air, and root growth. Moreover, bark can be stripped
from trunks, branches ripped off, or soil contaminated by toxic chemicals such as oils, fuels,
cleaning solvents, etc. To keep construction-related activities away from tree roots and soil,
contractors shall install temporary protection fencing prior to demolition. After demolition,
contractors shall consult with the Project Arborist to adjust the fencing so more of the trees’ root
systems are protected. These areas are provided in the Tree Inventory & Assessment Table.
Any work within the Tree Protection Zones shall be supervised by the Project Arborist.
The foundations and some hardscape will be demolished adjacent to select trees. The
additional permeable surface will likely benefit these trees in the long run. However, there is
potential for roots growing beneath the existing hardscape to be damaged during the demolition
process, especially if heavy equipment is used. To minimize impact, the Project Arborist shall be
called on-site to provide guidance during hardscape and foundation demolition within the zones
noted in the Tree Inventory & Assessment Table. Demolition shall start closest to the trees and
work away from the trunks to avoid compacting the soil. Some demolition may need to be
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 16
performed with a jack hammer or other hand tools, especially closer to the trunks, where larger
roots are growing. Equipment must stay on the hardscape and not re-enter the area until root &
soil protection, such as mulch and plywood or steel plates, is applied.
During excavation and grading, equipment can easily fracture roots, causing them to break
several feet closer to the trunk. Roots that are fractured have reduced strength, can be
entryways for pathogens, and are slower to regenerate, which can negatively impact tree health
and stability. To minimize damage to tree roots, the Project Arborist shall be called on-site to
monitor ground-disturbing work within the Tree Protection Zones outlined in the Tree Protection
Plan and on the Tree Inventory & Assessment Table. Some work may need to be performed by
hand or with an air excavation device, a tool which uses compressed air to dislodge soil without
harming tree roots. If large structural roots conflict with the proposed improvements and cannot
be accommodated, the Project Arborist may recommend removal.
Trees #91-92
Per my communication with Christopher Guenther at MacKay & Somps, improvements adjacent
to trees #91-92 are still tentative. The existing asphalt and curb adjacent to tree #91 is proposed
to be replaced. This will entail excavating down to 12” and reworking the aggregate on one side
of the tree, outside of the existing planting area. I expect few significant roots to be growing in
this zone, so root impact will likely be low.
For tree #92 (figure 4), a ramp next to the building north of the tree will extend south in a straight
line and may encroach 4’-5’ from the trunk. They will be rebuilding the curb to make it ADA
accessible. Nearly all of this tree’s roots are growing beneath the existing asphalt, so the Project
Arborist will need to be on-site for any demolition and excavation within 10’ of the trunk. If large
roots cannot be accommodated, the Project Arborist may recommend removal.
Figure 4. Plans for the ramp north (left) of tree #92 have not been finalized. Nearly all
its roots are growing beneath the existing asphalt. The Project Arborist shall be called
on-site to monitor ground-disturbing work within 10’ of the trunk.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 17
Tree Appraisal
Per city ordinance, appraisals are required for all protected trees whose driplines will be
encroached. The following appraised values were determined using the Trunk Formula Method,
used for larger trees that cannot be readily replaced by equal-sized specimens. All figures below
were calculated using a worksheet formatted from The Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition)
written by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. Trunk unit cost was adapted from the
Species Classification and Group Assignment Guide from the Western Chapter of the
International Society of Arboriculture.
The Basic Reproduction Cost is the reference cost of growing a new tree to the size of the
subject tree(s), assuming the existing tree is a perfect specimen, perfectly adapted to the
location, with no health or structural defects. This cost is reduced accordingly based on the
condition of the subject trees and limitations that further affect the growth of the tree and its
suitability for this specific site (including but not limited to: species issues, streets and
driveways, power lines, lack of irrigation).
# Species DBH Basic
Reproduction Cost Condition Functional
limitations
External
limitations
Depreciated
Reproduction Cost
55 Coast Redwood 49 $ 68,565.70 80% 25% 65% $ 8,900.00
56 Coast Redwood 39.5 $ 44,556.28 83% 25% 70% $ 6,500.00
58 Coast Redwood 48 $ 65,795.66 80% 45% 65% $ 15,400.00
72 Coast Redwood 55 $ 86,385.36 79% 35% 65% $ 15,400.00
73 Coast Redwood 45 $ 57,828.22 75% 35% 65% $ 9,900.00
75 Coast Redwood 40 $ 45,691.43 85% 35% 70% $ 9,500.00
78 Coast Redwood 50 $ 71,392.86 80% 40% 70% $ 16,000.00
79 Coast Redwood 38 $ 41,236.52 78% 20% 70% $ 4,520.00
80 Coast Redwood 50 $ 71,392.86 77% 20% 70% $ 7,700.00
85 London Plane Tree 15 $ 8,033.46 90% 80% 100% $ 5,800.00
92 London Plane Tree 20 $ 14,281.71 90% 40% 100% $ 5,100.00
Total Estimated Value of Appraised Trees $104,720.00
Preliminary Tree Protection Recommendations
These preliminary recommendations are not intended to be used during construction, rather
they offer initial impressions on likely tree preservation guidelines.
Design Phase
• Design to minimize ground-disturbing work (excavation, grade changes, soil compaction,
etc.) within the zones provided in the Tree Inventory & Assessment Table.
• Design with the option to accommodate structural roots (ex: discontinuous footings,
piers, directional boring, etc.) that may be growing within 5x the trunk diameter for trees
that may be preserved.
• The arborist shall review the updated plans prior to them being finalized.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 18
Pre-Demolition Phase
• Prior to demolition, contractor shall install 6’ chain-link fencing to construct a temporary
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) around each tree or grove of trees as indicated on the tree
protection plan.
o Fencing shall be attached to metal stakes spaced 10’ apart and driven firmly into
the ground. They can be supported by stands if over pavement & wired together
to avoid easily moving them.
o If fencing hinders construction access, consult with Project Arborist (PA) to apply
root & soil protection (ex: 6” thick layer of mulch with ¾” plywood on top OR steel
plates) to create an access path.
• Wrap the trunk of tree #92 with straw wattle up to 6’ above grade. The wattle acts as a
buffer to protect the trunk from accidental bark damage.
• TPZ fencing, root & soil protection, and straw wattle shall remain in an upright sturdy
manner from the start of demolition until the completion of construction. Fencing or root
& soil protection shall not be adjusted or removed without consulting the PA.
• Prior to turning off existing irrigation, contractor shall ensure trees will continue to receive
the same amount and frequency of water for the duration of demolition and construction.
Water may be provided via temporary drip irrigation, soaker hoses, soil injection, or other
method approved by the PA.
Demolition Phase
• Prior to demolition, contractors shall meet with the Project Arborist (PA) to discuss
working around trees and ensure protection measures are in place.
• Remove trees #56, 59-61, 63, 65-66, 68-71 & 77-90.
o Trees #56, 63, 65-66, 68 & 71 shall be removed by personnel certified by the
International Society of Arboriculture to avoid damaging nearby trees.
▪ Stumps shall be removed via stump grinding (do not pull them out of the
ground with heavy machinery). The depth of grinding may be limited to
avoid damaging large roots of nearby trees.
• Recommend that mulch from tree removals be spread out in a 4”-6” thick layer within the
Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) of trees that will be retained, keeping at least 12” away
from the trunks.
o Option to stage some mulch on-site to spread over larger TPZs (after demolition).
• The PA shall be on-site to monitor building demolition within the driplines of trees (#62,
64, 67 & 72-76).
• The PA shall be on-site to monitor ground-disturbing work, including hardscape &
foundation demolition, within the following distances of each tree below:
o #55, 58 & 72 – 35’
o #57 & 74 – 25’
o #62, 64, 67 & 76 – 20’
o #73 & 75 – 30’
o #92 – 10’
• Equipment must stay on the hardscape and not re-enter the above zones until root & soil
protection is applied over the exposed soil (6” thick layer of mulch & ¾” plywood on top
OR steel plates).
• If needed, pruning shall be performed by personnel certified by the International Society
of Arboriculture (ISA). All pruning shall adhere to ISA and American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) Standards and Best Management Practices.
• Should Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) encroachment be necessary, the contractor shall
contact the PA for consultation and recommendations.
Preliminary Arborist Report, 101-117 Town and Country Drive January 28, 2025
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Certified Arborist 19
• Contractor shall keep TPZs free of all construction-related materials, debris, fill soil,
equipment, etc. The only acceptable material is mulch spread out beneath the trees.
• Should any damage to the trees occur, the contractor shall promptly notify the PA to
appropriately mitigate the damage.
• After demolition, consult with the PA and adjust the TPZ fencing to encompass as much
of the root systems as feasible (zones provided above & in the Tree Inventory &
Assessment Table).
Foundation, Grading, and Construction Phase
• Prior to construction, contractors shall meet with the Project Arborist (PA) to discuss
working around trees and ensure protection measures are in place.
• The PA shall be on-site to monitor ground-disturbing work within the following distances
of each tree below:
o #55, 58 & 72 – 35’
o #57 & 74 – 25’
o #62, 64, 67 & 76 – 20’
o #73 & 75 – 30’
o #92 – 10’
• If roots > 2” in diameter are encountered during excavation or grading, consult the PA for
recommendations. If appropriate, roots shall be cleanly pruned with a handsaw or
sawzall, immediately covered, and kept moist till backfilled.
• If needed, pruning shall be performed by personnel certified by the International Society
of Arboriculture (ISA). All pruning shall adhere to ISA and American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) Standards and Best Management Practices.
• Should Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) encroachment be necessary, the contractor shall
contact the PA for consultation and recommendations.
• Contractor shall keep TPZs free of all construction-related materials, debris, fill soil,
equipment, etc. The only acceptable material is mulch spread out beneath the trees.
• Should any damage to the trees occur, the contractor shall promptly notify the PA to
appropriately mitigate the damage.
Landscaping Phase
• The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) fencing shall remain in place with the same restrictions
until landscape contractor notifies and meets with the Project Arborist.
• Avoid all fill work, grade changes, and trenching within driplines unless it is performed by
hand.
• Pipes shall be threaded under or through large roots without damaging them.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report, and please do not hesitate to contact me if
there are any questions or concerns.
Please see the attached preliminary tree protection plan.
Sincerely,
Maija Wigoda-Mikkila
Certified Arborist #WE-12986A
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
R
E
V
I
E
W
P
A
C
K
A
G
E
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Da
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
SITE
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
ATTACHMENT H
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.01 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
SHEET INDEX GENERAL A.01 A.02 A.03 A.04 A.05 A.06 A.07 A.08 A.09 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 A.14 A.15 A.16 A.17 A.18 A.19 A.20 A.21 A.22 A.23 A.24 LANDSCAPE L1.00 L1.01 L1.02 L1.03 L2.00 L2.01 L3.00 L3.01 CIVIL C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
s
a
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
t
a
i
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
w
i
t
h
a
n
e
w
34
8
,
1
1
2
-
s
q
u
a
r
e
-
f
o
o
t
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
o
n
a
3
.
8
9
-
a
c
r
e
s
i
t
e
.
Th
e
r
e
t
a
i
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
l
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
ed
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
r
e
t
a
i
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
re
p
a
i
r
e
d
,
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
,
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
s
i
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
co
h
e
s
i
v
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
.
Th
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
2
0
0
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
a
ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
m
i
x
o
f
2
4
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
,
1
0
2
o
n
e
-
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
,
5
9
t
w
o
-
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
,
an
d
1
5
t
h
r
e
e
-
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
,
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
i
n
a
n
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
5
1
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
pe
r
a
c
r
e
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
an
d
c
o
m
p
l
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
D
B
D
)
–
A
r
e
a
1
3
:
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
–
H
i
g
h
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
.
Th
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
m
b
r
a
c
e
s
a
c
o
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
D
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
’
s
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
o
w
n
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,
c
o
m
b
i
n
i
n
g
c
l
e
a
n
l
i
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
w
a
r
m
,
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
T
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
s
s
i
n
g
s
t
e
p
s
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
f
u
l
l
y
a
c
r
o
s
s
i
t
s
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
t
o
br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
s
c
a
l
e
a
n
d
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
f
a
ç
a
d
e
.
V
a
r
i
e
d
r
o
o
f
l
i
n
e
s
,
ar
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
w
a
l
l
p
l
a
n
e
s
,
a
n
d
a
m
i
x
o
f
r
e
c
e
s
s
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
g
b
a
l
c
o
n
i
e
s
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
.
Th
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
p
a
l
e
t
t
e
b
l
e
n
d
s
s
t
o
n
e
v
e
n
e
e
r
,
f
i
b
e
r
-
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
s
t
u
c
c
o
w
a
l
l
p
a
n
e
l
s
,
an
d
w
a
r
m
w
o
o
d
-
t
o
n
e
a
c
c
e
n
t
s
,
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
i
n
a
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
,
r
e
f
i
n
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
.
La
r
g
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
v
e
g
l
a
z
e
d
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
b
u
n
d
a
n
t
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
l
i
g
h
t
wh
i
l
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
v
i
s
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
c
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
pu
b
l
i
c
r
e
a
l
m
.
At
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
t
e
r
r
a
c
e
s
a
n
d
l
o
w
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
wa
l
l
s
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
g
e
n
e
r
o
u
s
g
r
e
e
n
e
r
y
,
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
.
U
p
p
e
r
-
l
e
v
e
l
a
m
e
n
i
t
y
d
e
c
k
s
an
d
t
r
e
l
l
i
s
e
d
r
o
o
f
t
o
p
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
w
h
i
l
e
of
f
e
r
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
g
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
i
e
w
s
t
o
w
a
r
d
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
T
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
c
o
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
l
i
v
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
an
d
t
e
x
t
u
r
e
o
f
a
w
a
l
k
a
b
l
e
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
’
s
g
o
a
l
s
f
o
r
a
v
i
b
r
a
n
t
,
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
E
A
M
Ow
n
e
r
:
Bl
a
k
e
|
G
r
i
g
g
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
L
L
C
55
0
H
a
r
t
z
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
s
u
i
t
e
2
0
0
Da
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
9
4
5
2
6
At
t
n
:
S
c
o
t
t
G
r
i
g
g
s
Te
l
:
(
9
2
5
)
5
7
5
8
7
3
7
Ce
l
l
:
(
9
2
5
)
2
6
2
3
6
3
2
Em
a
i
l
:
s
g
r
i
g
g
s
@
b
l
a
k
e
g
r
i
g
g
s
.
c
o
m
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
:
LP
A
S
,
I
n
c
.
72
3
S
S
t
r
e
e
t
Sa
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
,
C
A
9
5
8
1
1
At
t
n
:
R
o
n
M
e
t
z
k
e
r
Te
l
:
(
9
1
6
)
4
4
3
-
0
3
3
5
Em
a
i
l
:
r
m
e
t
z
k
e
r
@
l
p
a
s
.
c
o
m
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
:
MI
C
I
P
G
A
80
0
H
e
a
r
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Be
r
k
e
l
e
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
9
4
7
1
0
U
S
A
At
t
n
:
K
a
r
i
T
a
n
a
k
a
Te
l
:
(
5
1
0
)
8
4
5
7
5
4
9
Em
a
i
l
:
k
t
a
n
a
k
a
@
m
i
g
c
o
m
.
c
o
m
Ci
v
i
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Ma
c
K
a
y
&
S
o
m
p
s
C
i
v
i
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
I
n
c
.
51
4
2
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
D
r
i
v
e
,
S
u
i
t
e
B
Pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
o
n
,
C
A
9
4
5
8
8
At
t
n
:
C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
W
.
G
u
e
n
t
h
e
r
Te
l
:
(
9
2
5
)
2
2
5
0
6
9
0
Ce
l
l
:
(
9
2
5
)
9
6
3
0
4
9
4
Em
a
i
l
:
c
g
u
e
n
t
h
e
r
@
m
s
c
e
.
c
o
m
PROJECT TEAM & SHEET INDEX PROJECT DATA SITE CONTEXT EXTERIOR RENDERING EXTERIOR RENDERING EXTERIOR RENDERING EXTERIOR RENDERING EXTERIOR RENDERING EXTERIOR RENDERING EXTERIOR RENDERING EXTERIOR RENDERING EXTERIOR RENDERING OVERALL SITE PLAN BUILDING PLANS - LOWER LEVEL 2 BUILDING PLANS - LOWER LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - FIRST FLOOR BUILDING PLANS - SECOND FLOOR BUILDING PLANS - THIRD FLOOR BUILDING PLANS - FOURTH FLOOR BUILDING PLANS - ROOF BUILDING SECTION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - RETAIL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN - COURTYARD ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN - TOWN & COUNTRY ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN - ROOF TERRACE PLANTING ZONE PLAN PLANTING PALETTE AND NOTES LANDSCAPE LIGHTING CUTSHEETS TREE PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL PLAN COVER SHEET DEMOLITION PLAN SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DETAILS AND SECTIONS PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN PRELIMINARY SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS PLAN
&
S
H
E
E
T
I
N
D
E
X
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
E
A
M
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.02 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
A
T
A
/$
1
'
8
6
(
$
1
'
'
(
9
(
/
2
3
0
(
1
7
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
352326('352-(&7'$7$6800$5<
1
2
7
(
6
(;
,
6
7
,
1
*
/
$
1
'
8
6
(
*H
Q
H
U
D
O
3
O
D
Q
'
2
:
1
7
2
:
1
0
$
6
7
(
5
3
/
$
1
'
2
:
1
7
2
:
1
0
$
6
7
(
5
3
/
$
1
=R
Q
L
Q
J
/$
1
'
8
6
(
/$1'86(
$O
O
R
Z
H
G
8
V
H
V
3URSRVHG8VH
1
H
Z
0
X
O
W
L
I
D
P
L
O
\
5
H
V
L
G
H
Q
W
L
D
O
([LVWLQJ5HWDLO
6,
7
(
$
5
(
$
6,7($5($
0L
Q
6
L
W
H
$
U
H
D
1
R
P
L
Q
L
P
X
P
O
R
W
V
L
]
H
6
L
W
H
$
U
H
D
6
)
$
F
U
H
V
'(
1
6
,
7
<
$
1
'
1
8
0
%
(
5
2
)
8
1
,
7
6
'
(
1
6
,
7
<
$
1
'
1
8
0
%
(
5
2
)
8
1
,
7
6
1XPEHU8QLWV
8
Q
L
W
V
6WXGLR
8
Q
L
W
V
$
Y
J
6
)
%HGURRP
8
Q
L
W
V
$
Y
J
6
)
%HGURRP
8
Q
L
W
V
$
Y
J
6
)
%HGURRP
8
Q
L
W
V
$
Y
J
6
)
0L
Q
'
H
Q
V
L
W
\
1
X
P
E
H
U
R
I
8
Q
L
W
V
'
8
$
F
U
H
7
R
W
D
O
1
X
P
E
H
U
R
I
8
Q
L
W
V
8
Q
L
W
V
$
Y
J
6
)
0D
[
'
H
Q
V
L
W
\
1
X
P
E
H
U
R
I
8
Q
L
W
V
'
8
$
F
U
H
'
H
Q
V
L
W
\
'
8
$
F
U
H
%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$
5
(
$
$
1
'
)
$
5
%8,/',1*$5($$1')$5 5HVLGHQWLDO
(
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
5
H
W
D
L
O
7
R
W
D
O
0D
[
$
O
O
R
Z
D
E
O
H
)
$
5
3
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
)
$
5
&RQFHVVLRQ:DLYHU
0D
[
$
O
O
R
Z
D
E
O
H
6
)
6
)
1HW5HQWDEOH$UHD
6
)
6
)
6
)
6
)
(IILFLHQF\
6
)
6
)
6
)
6(
7
%
$
&
.
6
6(7%$&.6
)U
R
Q
W
)
7
$
Y
H
U
D
J
H
)
U
R
Q
W
7
R
Z
Q
&
R
X
Q
W
U
\
'
U
)
7
$
Y
H
U
D
J
H
6W
U
H
H
W
6
L
G
H
)
7
6
W
U
H
H
W
6
L
G
H
1
$
)
7
6L
G
H
)
7
6
L
G
H
V
)
7
5H
D
U
)
7
5
H
D
U
)
7
(
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
5
H
W
D
L
O
/2
7
&
2
9
(
5
$
*
(
/27&29(5$*(
0D
[
%
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
&
R
Y
H
U
D
J
H
1
$
0
D
[
%
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
&
R
Y
H
U
D
J
H
&R
P
P
R
Q
2
S
H
Q
6
S
D
F
H
1
$
&
R
P
P
R
Q
2
S
H
Q
6
S
D
F
H
+(
,
*
+
7
/
,
0
,
7
+(,*+7/,0,7
0D
[
+
H
L
J
K
W
/
L
P
L
W
)
7
$
Y
H
U
D
J
H
3
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
%
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
+
H
L
J
K
W
)
7
6
W
R
U
L
H
V
6
W
R
U
L
H
V
86
$
%
/
(
2
3
(
1
6
3
$
&
(
86$%/(23(163$&(
3U
L
Y
D
W
H
2
S
H
Q
6
S
D
F
H
5
H
T
X
L
U
H
G
1
$
3
U
L
Y
D
W
H
2
S
H
Q
6
S
D
F
H
3
U
R
Y
L
G
H
G
6
)
6K
D
U
H
G
8
V
D
E
O
H
2
S
H
Q
6
S
D
F
H
1
$
6
K
D
U
H
G
8
V
D
E
O
H
2
S
H
Q
6
S
D
F
H
6
)
7RWDO2SHQ6SDFH 6)
3$
5
.
,
1
*
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3$5.,1*3529,'('
9H
K
L
F
X
O
D
U
3
D
U
N
L
Q
J
5
H
T
X
L
U
H
G
0
X
Q
L
F
L
S
D
O
&
R
G
H
3
D
U
N
L
Q
J
5
HTXLUHPHQWV
9
H
K
L
F
X
O
D
U
3
D
U
N
L
Q
J
3
U
R
Y
L
G
H
G
6W
X
G
L
R
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
5
H
V
L
G
H
Q
W
L
D
O
5
H
W
D
L
O
7
R
W
D
O
%
H
G
U
R
R
P
8
Q
L
W
V
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
6XUIDFH 6SDFHV
6SDFHV 8QDVVLJQHG
%
H
G
U
R
R
P
8
Q
L
W
V
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
*
D
U
D
J
H
%
H
G
U
U
R
R
P
8
Q
L
W
V
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
6
W
D
Q
G
D
U
G
6SDFHV
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
&
R
P
S
D
F
W
6SDFHV 7RWDO*DUDJH
6
S
D
F
H
V
6
S
D
F
H
V
7RWDO
6
S
D
F
H
V
6SDFHV 6SDFHV
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
9H
K
L
F
X
O
D
U
3
D
U
N
L
Q
J
5
H
T
X
L
U
H
G
6
W
D
W
H
'
H
Q
V
L
W
\
%
R
Q
X
V
5HVLGHQWLDO3DUNLQJ'HWDLO,QFOXGHG$ERYH
6W
X
G
L
R
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
*
D
U
D
J
H
%
H
G
U
R
R
P
8
Q
L
W
V
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
$
F
F
H
V
V
L
E
O
H
6
S
D
F
H
V
6SDFHV
%
H
G
U
R
R
P
8
Q
L
W
V
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
(
9
6
S
D
F
H
V
6SDFHV
%
H
G
U
U
R
R
P
8
Q
L
W
V
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
(9&KDUJLQJ6SDFHV (9&6
6SDFHV 8QDVVLJQHG (95HDG\6SDFHV (95
6SDFHV $VVLJQHG
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
([
L
V
W
L
Q
J
5
H
W
D
L
O
3
D
U
N
L
Q
J
'
H
W
D
L
O
3URSRVHG5HWDLO3DUNLQJ'HWDLO
([
L
V
W
L
Q
J
%
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
5
H
Q
W
D
E
O
H
$
U
H
D
6
)
3
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
%
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
5
H
Q
W
D
E
O
H
$
U
H
D
6
)
([
L
V
W
L
Q
J
5
H
W
D
L
O
9
H
K
L
F
X
O
D
U
3
D
U
N
L
Q
J
6
S
D
F
H
V
3
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
5
H
W
D
L
O
9
H
K
L
F
X
O
D
U
3
D
U
N
L
Q
J
6
S
D
F
H
V
6
)
6
S
D
F
H
6
)
6
S
D
F
H
5HWDLO3DUNLQJ'HWDLO,QFOXGHG$ERYH $FFHVVLEOH6SDFHV
6SDFHV (96SDFHV
6SDFHV (9&KDUJLQJ6SDFHV (9&6
6SDFHV (95HDG\6SDFHV (95
6SDFHV
%L
F
\
F
O
H
3
D
U
N
L
Q
J
5
H
T
X
L
U
H
G
&
D
O
L
I
R
U
Q
L
D
*
U
H
H
Q
%
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
&
R
G
H
%
L
F
\
F
OH3DUNLQJ3URYLGHG
/R
Q
J
7
H
U
P
/RQJ7HUP
5H
V
L
G
H
Q
W
L
D
O
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6SDFHV 5HVLGHQWLDO
6SDFHV
5H
W
D
L
O
1
$
6
S
D
F
H
V
8
Q
L
W
6
S
D
F
H
V
5HWDLO
1
$
6SDFHV
7R
W
D
O
6SDFHV 7RWDO
6SDFHV
6K
R
U
W
7
H
U
P
6KRUW7HUP
5H
V
L
G
H
Q
W
L
D
O
Y
L
V
L
W
R
U
V
V
S
D
F
H
V
6SDFHV 5HVLGHQWLDO
6
S
D
F
H
V
5H
W
D
L
O
V
S
D
F
H
V
6SDFHV 5HWDLO
6
S
D
F
H
V
7R
W
D
O
6
S
D
F
H
V
7
R
W
D
O
6
S
D
F
H
V
3URMHFW0HHWV'HQVLW\%RQXV3DUNLQJ6WDQGDUGV
*X
H
V
W
S
D
U
N
L
Q
J
I
R
U
EH
G
U
R
R
P
X
Q
L
W
V
0X
O
W
L
I
D
P
L
O
\
U
H
V
L
G
H
Q
W
L
D
O
&
R
P
P
H
U
F
L
D
O
'R
Z
Q
W
R
Z
Q
%
X
V
L
Q
H
V
V
'
L
V
W
U
L
F
W
'
%
'
$
U
H
D
0
X
O
W
L
I
D
P
L
O
\
5H
V
L
G
H
Q
W
L
D
O
+
L
J
K
6
S
H
F
L
D
O
'RZQWRZQ%XVLQHVV'LVWULFW '%' $UHD 0XOWLIDPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO+LJK6SHFLDO &RQFHVVLRQ:DLYHU$ERYHJURXQGJURVVFRQGLWLRQHGIORRUDUHD *URVV%XLOGLQJ$UHD ,QFOXGHVXQFRQGLWLRQHGVSDFHV (VWDEOLVKHGWKURXJKDVLWHVSHFLILFGHYHORSPHQWSODQDSSURYDO3URMHFW6HHNV'HQVLW\%RQXV
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.03 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
SI
T
E
C
O
N
T
E
X
T
7 8 9 106 11
5 12
4 3 2 1
1
2
4
5
12
3
6
8
7
10
11
9
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.04 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
TO
W
N
&
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
.
|
W
E
S
T
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.05 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
LO
B
B
Y
&
E
N
T
R
Y
|
S
O
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.06 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
SH
O
P
P
I
N
G
C
E
N
T
E
R
F
A
C
A
D
E
|
E
A
S
T
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.07 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
B
L
V
D
|
E
A
S
T
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.08 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
GA
R
A
G
E
E
N
T
R
Y
V
I
E
W
|
E
A
S
T
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.09 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
TO
W
N
&
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
.
|
N
O
R
T
H
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.10 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
T
A
I
L
V
I
E
W
|
W
E
S
T
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.11 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
T
A
I
L
V
I
E
W
|
E
A
S
T
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.12 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
TO
W
N
&
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
.
|
S
O
U
T
H
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.13 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
OV
E
R
A
L
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
NE
W
4
S
T
O
R
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
WI
T
H
2
L
E
V
E
L
S
O
F
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
.
(E
)
2
S
T
O
R
Y
R
E
T
A
I
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
TO
R
E
M
A
I
N
.
ACCESS EASEMENT ACCESS EASEMENT LANDSCAPE AREA ACCESS EASEMENT LANDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT ACCESS EASEMENT PARKING AREA
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.14 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
2
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
*$
5
$
*
(
67
$
,
5
67$,567$,5 (/(9(/(9
(/
(
9
87
,
/
,
7
<
%,.(6 87,/,7<
87
,
/
,
7
<
87
,
/
,
7
<
*$
5
$
*
(
)/2253/$1/(*(1'%,.(6 (/(9*$5$*(67$,5 87,/,7<
7
2
:
1
$
1
'
&
2
8
1
7
5
<
'
5
( '$19,//(72:1$1'&28175<6+233,1*&(17(53$5.,1*/27
/2
:
(
5
/(
9
(
/
/2:(5/(9(/
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.15 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
1
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
67
$
,
5
67$,567$,5 (/(9(/(9
(/
(
9
87
,
/
,
7
<
87
,
/
,
7
<
87
,
/
,
7
<
%,.(6 87,/,7<
5$
0
3
'
2
:
1
&,5&
87
,
/
,
7
<
*$
5
$
*
(
87
,
/
,
7
<
87
,
/
,
7
<
5$
0
3
$
%
2
9
(
*8
(
6
7
3
$
5
.
,
1
*
67$//6
3(
'
(
6
7
5
,
$
1
*$
7
(
7
<
3
3('(675,$1*$7(7<3 9(+,&8/$5*$7(7<33('(675,$1$&&(66 9(+,&8/$5$&&(66 67$,56$%29(%$/&21<$%29(
3(
'
(
6
7
5
,
$
1
$&
&
(
6
6
$
%
2
9
(
29(5+$1*$%29(
%$
/
&
2
1
<
$%
2
9
(
%$/&21<$%29(%$/&21<$%29(%$/&21<$%29(%$/&21<)281'$7,21%$/&21<)281'$7,21
%$
/
&
2
1
<
$%
2
9
(
%$
/
&
2
1
<
$%
2
9
(
%$
/
&
2
1
<
)2
8
1
'
$
7
,
2
1
%$
/
&
2
1
<
$%
2
9
(
%$
/
&
2
1
<
$%
2
9
(
%$/&21<$%29(
%$
/
&
2
1
<
$%
2
9
(
3$
7
,
2
$
%
2
9
(
02180(176,*1
[
[
)/2253/$1/(*(1'%,.(6 &,5&(/(9*$5$*(67$,5 87,/,7<
7
2
:
1
$
1
'
&
2
8
1
7
5
<
'
5
( '$19,//(72:1$1'&28175<6+233,1*&(17(53$5.,1*/273/$17(5/$1'6&$3,1* 6((/6':*63/$17(5/$1'6&$3,1* 6((/6':*6
3/
$
1
7
(
5
/
$
1
'
6
&
$
3
,
1
*
6(
(
/
6
'
:
*
6
/2
:
(
5
/(
9
(
/
/2:(5/(9(/
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.16 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
FI
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
/
G
R
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
83
83
(/
$&
&
(
6
6
,
%
/
(
5
$
0
3
3('(675,$1$&&(66
83
3(
'
(
6
7
5
,
$
1
$&
&
(
6
6
75
$
6
+
87
,
/
,
7
,
(
6
81
,
7
6
81
,
7
6
8
1
,
7
6
8
1
,
7
6
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
(
81
,
7
(
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
(/
(
9
67
$
,
5
81
,
7
$
/2
8
1
*
(
81
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
&,
5
&
81
,
7
6
81
,
7
6
87
,
/
,
7
<
81,7&),71(6681,7$81,7&81,7&(/(967$,5 /2%%</($6,1*(/(967$,581,7$
(/
(
&
7
5
,
&
$
/
52
2
0
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
$
81,7$
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
&,
5
&
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
0$
,
/
3$
5
&
(
/
02180(176,*1
[
[
)/2253/$1/(*(1'678',2 %('522081,7 %('522081,7 %('522081,7 $0(1,7<23(163$&(87,/,7<+25,=217$/&,5&8/$7,21 9(57,&$/&,5&8/$7,21
7
2
:
1
$
1
'
&
2
8
1
7
5
<
'
5
( '$19,//(72:1$1'&28175<6+233,1*&(17(53$5.,1*/27
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
1
'
5
,
9
(
:
$
< 1 '5,9(:$<3/$17(5/$1'6&$3,1* 6((/6':*63/$17(5/$1'6&$3,1* 6((/6':*6
3/
$
1
7
(
5
/
$
1
'
6
&
$
3
,
1
*
6(
(
/
6
'
:
*
6
3/$17(5/$1'6&$3,1* 6((/6':*63/$17(5/$1'6&$3,1* 6((/6':*6:$/.:$< 6((/6':*6675((73$5.,1*
67
5
(
(
7
3
$
5
.
,
1
*
75
$
6
+
5
2
2
0
$
&
&
(
6
6
6
7
)/
2
2
5
3/
$
1
),567)/2253/$1
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.17 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
81
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
81
,
7
6
81
,
7
6
8
1
,
7
6
8
1
,
7
6
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
(
81
,
7
(
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
(/
(
9
67
$
,
5
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
&,
5
&
81
,
7
6
81
,
7
%
75
$
6
+
81
,
7
6
87
,
/
,
7
<
81,7&81,7$81,7$81,7$81,7$81,7&81,7&(/(967$,5 81,7$(/(967$,581,7$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
$
)/2253/$1/(*(1'678',2 %('522081,7 %('522081,7 %('522081,7 87,/,7<+25,=217$/&,5&8/$7,21 9(57,&$/&,5&8/$7,21
7
2
:
1
$
1
'
&
2
8
1
7
5
<
'
5
( '$19,//(72:1$1'&28175<6+233,1*&(17(53$5.,1*/27
1
'
)/
2
2
5
3/
$
1
6(&21')/2253/$1
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.18 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
TH
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
81
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
81
,
7
6
81
,
7
6
8
1
,
7
6
8
1
,
7
6
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
(
81
,
7
(
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
(/
(
9
67
$
,
5
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
&,
5
&
81
,
7
6
81
,
7
%
75
$
6
+
81
,
7
6
87
,
/
,
7
<
81,7&81,7$81,7$81,7$81,7$81,7&81,7&(/(967$,5 81,7$(/(967$,581,7$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
$
)/2253/$1/(*(1'678',2 %('522081,7 %('522081,7 %('522081,7 87,/,7<+25,=217$/&,5&8/$7,21 9(57,&$/&,5&8/$7,21
7
2
:
1
$
1
'
&
2
8
1
7
5
<
'
5
( '$19,//(72:1$1'&28175<6+233,1*&(17(53$5.,1*/27
5
'
)/
2
2
5
3/
$
1
5')/2253/$1
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.19 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
FO
U
R
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
81
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
81
,
7
6
81
,
7
6
8
1
,
7
6
8
1
,
7
6
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
(
81
,
7
(
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
)
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
(/
(
9
67
$
,
5
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
&
&,
5
&
81
,
7
6
81
,
7
%
75
$
6
+
81
,
7
6
87
,
/
,
7
<
81,7&6725$*(81,7$522)7(55$&(81,7$81,7&81,7$(/(967$,5 81,7$(/(967$,581,7$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
'
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
'
)/2253/$1/(*(1'678',2 %('522081,7 %('522081,7 %('522081,7 23(163$&(87,/,7<+25,=217$/&,5&8/$7,21 9(57,&$/&,5&8/$7,21
7
2
:
1
$
1
'
&
2
8
1
7
5
<
'
5
( '$19,//(72:1$1'&28175<6+233,1*&(17(53$5.,1*/27
7
+
)/
2
2
5
3/
$
1
7+)/2253/$1
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.20 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
$5($5(6(59(')253+27292/7$,&3$1(/60(&+$1,&$/81,7 29(5&255,'256&5((1('%<522)3$5$3(767<3,&$/
75
$
6
+
&
+
8
7
(
6
9(
1
7
6
6,
1
*
/
(
3
/
<
)
/
$
7
52
2
)
,
1
*
7
<
3
67$1',1*6($00(7$/6/23('522)7<3 :22'75(//,67<3
:2
2
'
75
(
/
/
,
6
7
<
3
522)$&&(66
:2
2
'
75
(
/
/
,
6
7
<
3
:2
2
'
75
(
/
/
,
6
7
<
3
:22'75(//,67<3
6,1*/(3/<)/$7522),1*7<3
6,
1
*
/
(
3
/
<
)
/
$
7
52
2
)
,
1
*
7
<
3
67$1',1*6($00(7$/6/23('522)7<3
67
$
1
'
,
1
*
6
(
$
0
0(
7
$
/
6
/
2
3
(
'
52
2
)
7
<
3
67
$
1
'
,
1
*
6
(
$
0
0(
7
$
/
6
/
2
3
(
'
52
2
)
7
<
3
67$1',1*6($00(7$/6/23('522)7<3
67
$
1
'
,
1
*
6
(
$
0
0(
7
$
/
6
/
2
3
(
'
52
2
)
7
<
3
67
$
1
'
,
1
*
6
(
$
0
0(
7
$
/
6
/
2
3
(
'
52
2
)
7
<
3
:2
2
'
75
(
/
/
,
6
7
<
3
52
2
)
3/
$
1
7232)522)
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.21 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
/(9(//(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
7232)522)
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
(/
(/
(/
81
,
7
$
*$5$*(*$5$*(
*$
5
$
*
(
*$
5
$
*
(
81
,
7
$
725,'*($1'3$5$3(7
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
/2
8
1
*
(
)
,
7
1
(
6
6
81,7$81,7$81,7$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
$
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
81
,
7
&
8
1
,
7
$
7<3(9$&216758&7,21
7<3(,$&216758&7,21
&,5&&,5&&,5&&,5&
&,
5
&
&,
5
&
&,
5
&
&,
5
&
/(9(//(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
7232)522)
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
725,'*($1'3$5$3(7
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81
,
7
%
81,7&81,7&81,7&81,7&81,7%81,7%81,7%&,5&&,5&&,5&&,5&
&,
5
&
&,
5
&
&,
5
&
&,
5
&
*$
5
$
*
(
*$
5
$
*
(
(/
(/
(/
%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
6(
&
7
,
2
1
%8,/',1*6(&7,21
%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
6
(
&
7
,
2
1
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.22 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
2.
13
.
1.
3
.
4.
6.
5.
7.
8.
10
.
9.
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
AM
A
Z
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
7
0
4
4
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
MF
R
:
G
U
S
L
E
D
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
SC
O
N
C
E
O
R
E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
WH
I
T
E
D
U
C
K
S
W
7
0
1
0
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
AN
T
L
E
R
V
E
L
V
E
T
S
W
9
1
1
1
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
GA
U
N
T
L
E
T
G
R
A
Y
S
W
7
0
1
9
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
BO
A
R
D
&
B
A
T
T
E
N
AM
A
Z
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
7
0
4
4
MF
R
:
J
A
M
E
S
H
A
R
D
I
E
OR
E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
TH
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
A
Y
SW
7
6
4
5
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
ME
T
A
L
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
SE
A
M
R
O
O
F
MF
R
:
A
E
P
S
P
A
N
-
L
O
K
HP
1
6
”
CO
L
O
R
:
M
I
D
N
I
G
H
T
BR
O
N
Z
E
BR
I
C
K
V
E
N
E
E
R
MF
R
:
M
C
N
E
A
R
-
GR
E
E
N
W
I
C
H
O
R
EQ
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
ST
O
N
E
V
E
N
E
E
R
MF
R
:
C
R
E
A
T
I
V
E
MI
N
E
S
-
FA
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
LE
D
G
E
GR
E
Y
P
E
A
R
L
O
R
EQ
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
TR
I
M
S
&
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
TY
P
.
MF
R
:
W
O
O
D
T
O
N
E
-
RU
S
T
I
C
S
E
R
I
E
S
CO
L
O
R
:
S
U
M
M
E
R
WH
E
A
T
SU
B
S
T
R
A
T
E
:
J
A
M
E
S
HA
R
D
I
E
F
I
B
E
R
CE
M
E
N
T
KEY PLAN 11. 12. RUSTIC BRONZE WINDOWS & STOREFRONT TYP.MFR: VPI & ARCADIA VINYL & ALUMINUM SIMULATED DIVIDED LITE OR EQUIVALENTDARK BRONZE DOORS -FIBERGLASS MFR: PLASTRO ONLITE SERIES DRS1170 OR EQUIVALENT TO MATCH WINDOW FRAME COLOR
10
"
14
"
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
SO
U
T
H
/
E
A
S
T
, -.
,,
1.
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2.
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
8
12 3 1
1
6
5
7
3
8
82
2
2
9
3
8
2
2
5DECORATIVE METAL RAILING TYP.
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
SI
G
N
A
G
E
ME
T
A
L
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
A
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
FI
N
I
S
H
A
N
D
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
E
D
S
H
E
E
T
PA
N
E
L
S
-
B
R
O
W
N
T
A
N
,
T
Y
P
METAL RAILING WITH A PAINTED FINISH AND PERFORATED SHEET PANELS - BROWN TAN, TYP
DE
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
M
E
T
A
L
RA
I
L
I
N
G
T
Y
P
.
DE
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
R
O
O
F
CO
R
N
I
C
E
S
DE
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
R
O
O
F
CO
R
N
I
C
E
S
WD
.
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
,
T
Y
P
.
WD
.
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
,
T
Y
P
.
2
8 1313
13
6
6
7
10
10
10
4
4 DECORATIVE METAL RAILING TYP.1ST FLOOR 0’-0”LOWER LEVEL 1 -11’-6”LOWER LEVEL 2 -21’-0”2ND FLOOR 12’-3”3RD FLOOR 22’-6”ROOF 43’-10”T.O RIDGE 48’-10”4TH FLOOR 32’-9”1ST FLOOR 0’-0”LOWER LEVEL 1 -11’-6”LOWER LEVEL 2 -21’-0”2ND FLOOR 12’-3”3RD FLOOR 22’-6”ROOF 43’-10”T.O RIDGE 48’-10”4TH FLOOR 32’-9”
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.23 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
2.
13
.
1.
3
.
4.
6.
5.
7.
8.
10
.
9.
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
AM
A
Z
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
7
0
4
4
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
MF
R
:
G
U
S
L
E
D
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
SC
O
N
C
E
O
R
E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
WH
I
T
E
D
U
C
K
S
W
7
0
1
0
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
AN
T
L
E
R
V
E
L
V
E
T
S
W
9
1
1
1
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
GA
U
N
T
L
E
T
G
R
A
Y
S
W
7
0
1
9
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
BO
A
R
D
&
B
A
T
T
E
N
AM
A
Z
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
7
0
4
4
MF
R
:
J
A
M
E
S
H
A
R
D
I
E
OR
E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
TH
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
A
Y
SW
7
6
4
5
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
ME
T
A
L
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
SE
A
M
R
O
O
F
MF
R
:
A
E
P
S
P
A
N
-
L
O
K
HP
1
6
”
CO
L
O
R
:
M
I
D
N
I
G
H
T
BR
O
N
Z
E
BR
I
C
K
V
E
N
E
E
R
MF
R
:
M
C
N
E
A
R
-
GR
E
E
N
W
I
C
H
O
R
EQ
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
ST
O
N
E
V
E
N
E
E
R
MF
R
:
C
R
E
A
T
I
V
E
MI
N
E
S
-
FA
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
LE
D
G
E
GR
E
Y
P
E
A
R
L
O
R
EQ
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
TR
I
M
S
&
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
TY
P
.
MF
R
:
W
O
O
D
T
O
N
E
-
RU
S
T
I
C
S
E
R
I
E
S
CO
L
O
R
:
S
U
M
M
E
R
WH
E
A
T
SU
B
S
T
R
A
T
E
:
J
A
M
E
S
HA
R
D
I
E
F
I
B
E
R
CE
M
E
N
T
KEY PLAN 11. 12. RUSTIC BRONZE WINDOWS & STOREFRONT TYP.MFR: VPI & ARCADIA VINYL & ALUMINUM SIMULATED DIVIDED LITE OR EQUIVALENTDARK BRONZE DOORS -FIBERGLASS MFR: PLASTRO ONLITE SERIES DRS1170 OR EQUIVALENT TO MATCH WINDOW FRAME COLOR
10
"
14
"
NO
R
T
H
/
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
, -.
,,3 4
3.
N
O
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
4.
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
ME
T
A
L
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
A
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
FI
N
I
S
H
A
N
D
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
E
D
S
H
E
E
T
PA
N
E
L
S
-
B
R
O
W
N
T
A
N
,
T
Y
P
METAL RAILING WITH A PAINTED FINISH AND PERFORATED SHEET PANELS - BROWN TAN, TYP
10
10
10
8
8
8
8
8
6
7
7
7
DE
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
R
O
O
F
BR
A
K
E
T
S
,
T
Y
P
.
DE
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
R
O
O
F
CO
R
N
I
C
E
S
WD
.
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
,
T
Y
P
.
2
2
3
1
6
5
67
DE
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
R
O
O
F
CO
R
N
I
C
E
S
WD
.
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
,
T
Y
P
.
6
6
6
2
5
1
1ST FLOOR 0’-0”LOWER LEVEL 1 -11’-6”LOWER LEVEL 2 -21’-0”2ND FLOOR 12’-3”3RD FLOOR 22’-6”ROOF 43’-10”T.O RIDGE 48’-10”4TH FLOOR 32’-9”1ST FLOOR 0’-0”LOWER LEVEL 1 -11’-6”LOWER LEVEL 2 -21’-0”2ND FLOOR 12’-3”3RD FLOOR 22’-6”ROOF 43’-10”T.O RIDGE 48’-10”4TH FLOOR 32’-9”
2
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
A.24 December 9, 2025
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
2.
13
.
1.
3
.
4.
6.
5.
7.
8.
10
.
9.
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
AM
A
Z
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
7
0
4
4
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
MF
R
:
G
U
S
L
E
D
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
SC
O
N
C
E
O
R
E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
WH
I
T
E
D
U
C
K
S
W
7
0
1
0
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
AN
T
L
E
R
V
E
L
V
E
T
S
W
9
1
1
1
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
GA
U
N
T
L
E
T
G
R
A
Y
S
W
7
0
1
9
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
BO
A
R
D
&
B
A
T
T
E
N
AM
A
Z
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
7
0
4
4
MF
R
:
J
A
M
E
S
H
A
R
D
I
E
OR
E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
CE
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
S
T
E
R
TH
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
A
Y
SW
7
6
4
5
FI
N
E
S
A
N
D
2
0
/
3
0
ME
T
A
L
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
SE
A
M
R
O
O
F
MF
R
:
A
E
P
S
P
A
N
-
L
O
K
HP
1
6
”
CO
L
O
R
:
M
I
D
N
I
G
H
T
BR
O
N
Z
E
BR
I
C
K
V
E
N
E
E
R
MF
R
:
M
C
N
E
A
R
-
GR
E
E
N
W
I
C
H
O
R
EQ
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
ST
O
N
E
V
E
N
E
E
R
MF
R
:
C
R
E
A
T
I
V
E
MI
N
E
S
-
FA
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
LE
D
G
E
GR
E
Y
P
E
A
R
L
O
R
EQ
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
TR
I
M
S
&
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
TY
P
.
MF
R
:
W
O
O
D
T
O
N
E
-
RU
S
T
I
C
S
E
R
I
E
S
CO
L
O
R
:
S
U
M
M
E
R
WH
E
A
T
SU
B
S
T
R
A
T
E
:
J
A
M
E
S
HA
R
D
I
E
F
I
B
E
R
CE
M
E
N
T
KEY PLAN 11. 12. RUSTIC BRONZE WINDOWS & STOREFRONT TYP.MFR: VPI & ARCADIA VINYL & ALUMINUM SIMULATED DIVIDED LITE OR EQUIVALENTDARK BRONZE DOORS -FIBERGLASS MFR: PLASTRO ONLITE SERIES DRS1170 OR EQUIVALENT TO MATCH WINDOW FRAME COLOR
10
"
14
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
T
A
I
L
-:
#
;
-
!
+
5
(
,
#
<
(
+
,
+
)
=
1
#
:+
!
"
#
>
/#
?
@#
<
(
+
,
-:
#
A
,
-
*
(
!
#
>
:-
.'
.
#
<
(
0
/
#
B
(
(
,
,
-
,
#
!
#'
+
*
-
-:
#
3
(
)
/+
-
1
-:
#
>
-
)
(
)
!
#
%
+
=)(
=-
-:
#
>
-
)
(
)
!
#
%
+
=)(
=-
AC
+
1
!
+
)
=#3
(
)
/D
-:
#
A
,
-
*
(
!
#>:-
AC
+
1
!
+
)
=#3()/D
-:
#
<
-
!
(
+
,
#
%
+
=)-:#3()/+-1 -:#>-)()!#%+=)(=--:#E )&0-)!#%+=)
4.
N
O
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2.
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1.
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
1
6
”
=
1
’
-
0
”
*T
H
E
0
’
-
0
”
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
R
E
S
P
O
N
D
S
T
O
T
H
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
FL
O
O
R
L
E
V
E
L
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
3.
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2 14 3 RETAIL 1ST FLOOR -2’-0”RETAIL 2ND FLOOR 13’-1”ROOF PEAK 42’-7”T.0 ROOF 32’-0”RETAIL 1ST FLOOR -2’-0”RETAIL 2ND FLOOR 13’-1”ROOF PEAK 42’-7”T.0 ROOF 32’-0”
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
2
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
L1.00
OV
E
R
A
L
L
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
6(
(
,
1
7
(
5
,
2
5
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
(
1
/
$
5
*
(
0
(
1
7
2
1
/
6(
(
7
2
:
1
$
1
'
&
2
8
1
7
5
<
'
5
,
9
(
(
1
/
$
5
*
(
0
(
1
7
2
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
///
/
/
/
/
/
/
6,7(/,*+7,1*/(*(1'%2//$5'/,*+7$/21*3('(675,$13$7+:$<6
+,*+&2/25),1,6+ %/$&.25'$5.%521=('8$/32/(/,*+7$73$5.,1*
32/(6&2/25),1,6+ %/$&.25'$5.%521=(127( /,*+7,1*),;785(/2&$7,216$5(6+2:1',$*5$00$7,&$//<6((/)25/,*+7,1*&876+((76//6,1*/(32/(/,*+7$73$5.,1*
32/(6&2/25),1,6+ %/$&.25'$5.%521=(/
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
IW1
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
2
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
L1.01
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
EN
L
A
R
G
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
32
2
/
63
$
:$
/
/
0
2
8
1
7
(
'
7
9
)(
$
7
8
5
(
:
$
/
/
%$
5
6
(
$
7
,
1
*
),
5
(
3
,
7
$
1
'
%
8
,
/
7
,
1
6(
$
7
,
1
*
3,
1
*
3
2
1
*
*
$
0
(
6
28
7
'
2
2
5
.,
7
&
+
(
1
7
<
3
32
2
/
*
$
7
(
32
2
/
*
$
7
(
5$
,
6
(
'
'
(
&
.
35
,
9
$
7
(
)
(
1
&
(
'
3$
7
,
2
7
<
3
29
(
5
+
(
$
'
7
5
(
/
/
,
6
/2
8
1
*
(
%$
7
+
5
2
2
0
6+
2
:
(
5
),
5
(
3
,
7
$
1
'
%
8
,
/
7
,
1
6(
$
7
,
1
*
&$
%
$
1
$
7
<
3
)2
&
$
/
3
2
,
1
7
6&
8
/
3
7
8
5
(
32
7
6
7
<
3
02
9
(
$
%
/
(
/2
8
1
*
(
&
+
$
,
5
6
7<
3
/$
'
'
(
5
3
$
'
6
,
1
3/
$
1
7
(
5
6
7
<
3
/$
'
'
(
5
3
$
'
6
$
7
3$
9
,
1
*
7
<
3
%$
/
&
2
1
<
$
%
2
9
(
6+
2
:
1
'
$
6
+
(
'
%$
/
&
2
1
<
$
%
2
9
(
6+
2
:
1
'
$
6
+
(
'
$&
&
(
6
6
,
%
/
(
3
2
2
/
/,
)
7
7
<
3
1 IW
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
,1
7
(
5
,
2
5
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
(1
/
$
5
*
(
0
(
1
7
32
2
/
'
(
&
.
/2
8
1
*
(
$
1
'
)
,
5
(
3
,
7
,1
7
(
5
,
2
5
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
%8
,
/
7
,1:22'%(1&+$1''(&.,1*3/$17(5:$//6$1'/,*+7,1*
&2
1
&
5
(
7
(
8
1
,
7
3
$
9
,
1
*
3
$
7
7
(
5
1
3/$17(5:$//681,73$9(5&2/256 %$567($,1*$1'(17(57$,10(17
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
2
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
L1.02
TO
W
N
A
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
EN
L
A
R
G
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
(
7
5
(
(
7
2
5(
0
$
,
1
7
<
3
(
6
,
'
(
:
$
/
.
7
2
5
(
0
$
,
1
1
7
5
(
(
7
<
3
67
2
5
0
:
$
7
(
5
3
/
$
1
7
(
5
7<
3
:
2
2
'
%
5
,
'
*
(
7
2
:
1
$
1
'
&
2
8
1
5
7
<
'
5
,
9
(
1$
7
8
5
$
/
6
&
5
(
(
1
3
/
$
1
7
,
1
*
$
7
%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
7
<
3
67
2
1
(
:
$
/
/
6
7
<
3
67
2
5
0
:
$
7
(
5
3/
$
1
7
(
5
7
<
3
(
3
2
/
(
/
,
*
+
7
7
2
5
(
0
$
,
1
1
6
,
'
(
:
$
/
.
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
72
:
1
$1
'
&2
8
1
7
5
<
'5
,
9
(
(1
/
$
5
*
(
0
(
1
7
1
67
2
1
(
:
$
/
/
6
$
7
6
7
2
5
0
:
$
7
(
5
3
/
$
1
7
(
5
6
:2
2
'
%
2
$
5
'
:
$
/
.
2
9
(
5
6
7
2
5
0
:
$
7
(
5
3
/
$
1
7
(
5
6
(;7(5,25/$1'6&$3(3/$17,1*%8))(5$7675((7
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
2
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
L1.03
RO
O
F
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
EN
L
A
R
G
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
28
7
'
2
2
5
.
,
7
&
+
(
1
/2
8
1
*
(
$
5
(
$
:
,
7
+
),
5
(
3
,
7
/$
5
*
(
*
5
2
8
3
'
,
1
,
1
*
28
7
'
2
2
5
7
9
02
8
1
7
(
'
$
7
:
$
/
/
9,
(
:
6
(
$
7
,
1
*
7
<
3
35
(
3
$
5
(
$
%
$
5
6
(
$
7
,
1
*
35
(
)
$
%
5
,
&
$
7
(
'
3/
$
1
7
(
5
6
7
<
3
*8
$
5
'
5
$
,
/
6
$
'
6((522)7(55$&((1/$5*(0(17
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
/(
9
(
/
7(
5
5
$
&
(
(1
/
$
5
*
(
0
(
1
7
1 IW
/
/(
9
(
/
5
2
2
)
7
(
5
5
$
&
(
(
1
/
$
5
*
(
0
(
1
7
//(9(/29(5$//.(<3/$1
),
5
(
3
,
7
$
1
'
6
(
$
7
,
1
*
/281*($1'287'225.,7&+(1
&2
1
&
5
(
7
(
8
1
,
7
3
$
9
(
5
6
35
(
)
$
%
5
,
&
$
7
(
'
0
(
7
$
/
3
/
$
1
7
(
5
6
29
(
5
+
(
$
'
7
5
(
/
/
,
6
$
7
6
7
5
,
1
*
/
,
*
+
7
,
1
*
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
2
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
L2.00
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
Z
O
N
E
P
L
A
N
(9
9
$
1
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
d
K
t
E
E
K
h
E
d
Z
z
Z
))
))
))
(;
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
7
2
5
(
0
$
,
1
(;
3
$
5
.
,
1
*
7
2
5
(
0
$
,
1
8+)58*°*8'=/4-9°9.5=°)544+):/54°,58°'°(;/2 */4-°4+<+8°(;/2:%°45°+</*+4)+°,5;4*°/4°,/+2*
d
K
t
E
E
K
h
E
d
Z
z
Z
3/
$
1
7
,
1
*
=
2
1
(
6
/
(
*
(
1
'
1$
7
,
9
(
&(
1
7
(
5
(
'
3
(
5
,
0
(
7
(
5
5(
)
,
1
(
'
&
2
0
0
(
5
&
,
$
/
)$&,1*
%,
2
)
,
/
7
5
$
7
,
2
1
21
6
7
5
8
&
7
8
5
(
75((/(*(1'6287+(510$*12/,$0$*12/,$*5$1',)/25$%$</$85(//$858612%,/,6.286$'2*:22'&25186.286$&5$3(0<57/(/$*(56752(0,$,1',&$3$&,),&0$'521($5%87860(1=,(6,,$5067521*0$3/($&(5
$5067521*
(;,67,1*75(('(6(57:,//2:&+,/236,6/,1($5,6
3/
$
1
7
,
1
*
=2
1
(
3/
$
1
3/$17/,67
%2
7
$
1
,
&
$
/
1
$
0
(
&
2
0
0
2
1
1
$
0
(
&217$,1(5 6,=(63$&,1*:$7(5 86(:$7(586(6285&(
75
(
(
$&
(
5
$
5
0
6
7
5
2
1
*
$
5
0
6
7
5
2
1
*
*
2
/
'
0
$
3
/
(
%
2
;
$
6
6
+
2
:
1
0
2
'
(
5
$
7
(
:
8
&
2
/6
$5
%
8
7
8
6
0
(
1
=
,
(
6
,
,
3
$
&
,
)
,
&
0
$
'
5
2
1
(
%
2
;
$
6
6
+
2
:
1
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
&+
,
/
2
3
6
,
6
/
,
1
(
$
5
,
6
'
(
6
(
5
7
:
,
/
/
2
:
%
2
;
$
6
6
+
2
:
1
9
(
5
<
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
&2
5
1
8
6
.
2
8
6
$
.
2
8
6
$
'
2
*
:
2
2
'
%
2
;
$
6
6
+
2
:
1
0
2
'
(
5
$
7
(
:
8
&
2
/
6
/$
*
(
5
6
7
5
2
(
0
,
$
,
1
'
,
&
$
&
5
$
3
(
0
<
5
7
/
(
%
2
;
$
6
6
+
2
:
1
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
/$
8
5
8
6
;
6
$
5
$
7
2
*
$
6
$
5
$
7
2
*
$
%$</$85(/
%
2
;
$
6
6
+
2
:
1
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
0$
*
1
2
/
,
$
*
5
$
1
'
,
)
/
2
5
$
6
2
8
7
+
(
5
1
0
$
*
1
2
/
,
$
%
2
;
0
2
'
(
5
$
7
(
:
8
&
2
/
6
68
&
&
8
/
(
1
7
0$
1
*
$
9
(
/
$
9
(
1
'
(
5
/
$
'
<
/
$
9
(
1
'
(
5
/
$
'
<
0
$
1
*
$
9
(
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
<8
&
&
$
$
/
2
,
)
2
/
,
$
%
/
8
(
%
2
<
%
/
8
(
%
2
<
<
8
&
&
$
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
6+
5
8
%
$5
&
7
2
6
7
$
3
+
<
/
2
6
'
(
1
6
,
)
/
2
5
$
+
2
:
$
5
'
0
&
0
,
1
1
+
2
:
$
5
'
0
&
0
,
1
1
0
$
1
=
$
1
,
7
$
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
&(
$
1
2
7
+
8
6
*
5
,
6
(
8
6
<
$
1
.
(
(
3
2
,
1
7
<
$
1
.
(
(
3
2
,
1
7
&
(
$
1
2
7
+
8
6
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
',
&
.
6
2
1
,
$
$
1
7
$
5
&
7
,
&
$
7
$
6
0
$
1
,
$
1
7
5
(
(
)
(
5
1
*
$
/
0
2
'
(
5
$
7
(
:
8
&
2
/
6
/(
8
&
$
'
(
1
'
5
2
1
6
$
)
$
5
,
*
2
/
'
6
7
5
,
.
(
6
$
)
$
5
,
*
2
/
'
6
7
5
,
.
(
<
(
/
/
2
:
&
2
1
(
%
8
6+
*
$
/
0
2
'
(
5
$
7
(
:
8
&
2
/
6
/2
1
,
&
(
5
$
1
,
7
,
'
$
7
:
,
*
*
<
%
2
;
+
2
1
(
<
6
8
&
.
/
(
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
0<
5
7
8
6
&
2
0
0
8
1
,
6
&
2
0
3
$
&
7
$
'
:
$
5
)
0
<
5
7
/
(
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
3+
2
5
0
,
8
0
3
/
$
7
7
6
%
/
$
&
.
3
/
$
7
7
6
%
/
$
&
.
1
(
:
=
(
$
/
$
1
'
)
/
$
;
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
3,
7
7
2
6
3
2
5
8
0
7
(
1
8
,
)
2
/
,
8
0
6
,
/
9
(
5
6
+
(
(
1
6
,
/
9
(
5
6
+
(
(
1
.
2
+
8
+
8
*
$
/
0
2
'
(
5
$
7
(
:
8
&
2
/
6
5+
$
0
1
8
6
&
$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
&
$
0
2
8
1
'
6
$
1
%
5
8
1
2
&
2
)
)
(
(
%
(
5
5
<
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&2/6
5,
%
(
6
6
$
1
*
8
,
1
(
8
0
&
/
$
5
(
0
2
1
7
)
/
2
:
(
5
,
1
*
&
8
5
5
$
1
7
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
6$
/
9
,
$
0
(
;
,
&
$
1
$
/
,
0
(
/
,
*
+
7
/
,
0
(
/
,
*
+
7
0
(
;
,
&
$
1
%
8
6
+
6
$
*
(
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
3(
5
(
1
1
,
$
/
$&
+
,
/
/
(
$
0
,
/
/
(
)
2
/
,
8
0
<
$
5
5
2
:
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
$1
,
*
2
=
$
1
7
+
2
6
%
8
6
+
<
(
/
/
2
:
%
8
6
+
*
2
/
'
.
$
1
*
$
5
2
2
3
$
:
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&2/6
*5
2
8
1
'
&
2
9
(
5
*$
=
$
1
,
$
0
,
7
6
8
:
$
<
(
/
/
2
:
0
,
7
6
8
:
$
<
(
/
/
2
:
$
)
5
,
&
$
1
'
$
,6<
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
/,
5
,
2
3
(
0
8
6
&
$
5
,
9
$
5
,
(
*
$
7
$
9
$
5
,
(
*
$
7
(
'
/
,
/
<
7
8
5
)
*
$
/
0
2
'
(
5
$
7
(:8&2/6
0<
2
3
2
5
8
0
3
$
5
9
,
)
2
/
,
8
0
*
5
2
8
1
'
&
2
9
(
5
0
<
2
3
2
5
8
0
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
:(
6
7
5
,
1
*
,
$
)
5
8
7
,
&
2
6
$
/
2
:
+
2
5
,
=
2
1
/
2
:
+
2
5
,
=
2
1
&
2
$
6
7
5
2
6
(
0
$
5
<
*
$/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
*5
$
6
6
&+
2
1
'
5
2
3
(
7
$
/
8
0
7
(
&
7
2
5
8
0
&
$
3
(
5
8
6
+
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
)(
6
7
8
&
$
*
/
$
8
&
$
(
/
,
-
$
+
%
/
8
(
(
/
,
-
$
+
%
/
8
(
)
(
6
&
8
(
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/6
.2
(
/
(
5
,
$
0
,
&
5
$
1
7
+
$
3
5
$
,
5
(
-
8
1
(
*
5
$
6
6
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&2/6
/(
<
0
8
6
&
2
1
'
(
1
6
$
7
8
6
&
$
1
<
2
1
3
5
,
1
&
(
&
$
1
<
2
1
3
5
,
1
&
(
:
,
/
'
5
<
(
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
/2
0
$
1
'
5
$
/
2
1
*
,
)
2
/
,
$
%
5
(
(
=
(
'
:
$
5
)
0
$
7
5
8
6
+
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
/2
0
$
1
'
5
$
/
2
1
*
,
)
2
/
,
$
3
/
$
7
,
1
8
0
%
(
$
8
7
<
3
/
$
7
1
,
8
0
%
(
$
8
7
<
0
$
7
5
8
6
+
*$/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
0(
/
,
&
$
&
$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
$
&
$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
$
0
(
/
,
&
*
5
$
6
6
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
08
+
/
(
1
%
(
5
*
,
$
5
,
*
(
1
6
'
(
(
5
*
5
$
6
6
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
63
2
5
2
%
2
/
8
6
$
,
5
2
,
'
(
6
$
/
.
$
/
,
6
$
&
$
7
2
1
*
$
/
/
2
:
:
8
&
2
/
6
IW1
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
2
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
L2.01
AN
D
N
O
T
E
S
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
A
L
E
T
T
E
,55,*$7,21'(6,*1,17(17 0:(/2&21)250$1&(7+(352-(&73/$17,1*$1',55,*$7,21'(6,*1:,//%('(6,*1(':,7 +/2::$7(586(3/$176$1'()),&,(17,55,*$7,216<67(0:+,&+:,//0((77+(67$7(
602'(/:$7(5()),&,(17/$1'6&$3(25',1$1&(&203/(7('&$/&8/$7,216$1':25.6+((76:,//%(3529,'(''85,1*%8,/',1*3(50,73+$6(3/$1766(/(&7(':,//%(/2::$7(586($1',55,*$7,21:,//&216,672)68%685)$&('5,3:,7+$60$57,55,*$7,21&21752//(5,55,*$7,216<67(0,6'(6,*1('723529,'(7+(0,1,080$028172):$7(51(&(66$5<726867$,1*22'3/$17+($/7+$//6(/(&7('&20321(17 6 $5(&200(5&,$/*5$'(6(/(&7(')25'85$%,/,7<9$1'$/5(6,67$1&($1 '0,1,0800$,17(1$1&(5(48,5(0(17&203/,$17:,7+&$/,)251,$02'(/:$7(5()),&,(17/$1'6&$3(25',1 $1&( 0:(/2 &203/,$17:,7+/2&$/:$7(5()),&,(17/$1'6&$3(5(48,5(0(176&203/,$17:,7+5(48,5(0(1762)$33/,&$%/(:$7(53529,'(5$'(',&$7(',55,*$7,21:$7(50(7(5)5207+($33/,&$%/(/2&$/:$7 (53859(<25:,//%(5(48,5('7+(6<67(0$/62,1&/8'(67+()2//2:,1* +,*+()),&,(1&<'5,36<67(06)25$//6+58%*5281'&29(5$5($6 6<67(00$1$*(0(17%<
60$57
&21752//(5&$3$%/(2)'$,/<6(/)$'-8670(172):$7(5,1*6&+('8/(6%$6('215($/7,0('$7$)52021 6,7(62,/25:($7+(56(162525&/28'%$6(':($7+(56(59,&($//0$7(5,$/672%(&200(5&,$/*5$'(:,7+3529(1),(/'68&&(66$1'0,1,0$/0$,17(1$1&(5(48,5(0(177+(6<67(0,1&/8'(6$0$67(5&21752/9$/9($1')/2:6(16,1*&$3 $%,/,7<:+,&+:,//6+87'2:1$//253$572)7+(6<67(0,)/($.6$5('(7 (&7('
3/
$
1
7
,
1
*
3$
/
(
7
7
(
$1
'
12
7
(
6
1$
7
,
9
(
&(
1
7
(
5
(
'
3
(
5
,
0
(
7
(
5
&2
0
0
(
5
&
,
$
/
)$
&
,
1
*
21
6
7
5
8
&
7
8
5
(
&+
,
/
2
3
6
,
6
/
,
1
(
$
5
,
6
'(
6
(
5
7
:
,
/
/
2
:
$5
%
8
7
8
6
0
(
1
=
,
(
6
,
,
3$
&
,
)
,
&
0
$
'
5
2
1
(
&(
$
1
2
7
+
8
6
*
5
,
6
(
8
6
<
$
1
.
(
(
3
2
,
1
7
<$
1
.
(
(
3
2
,
1
7
&
$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
$
/
,
/
$
&
$5
&
7
2
6
7
$
3
+
<
/
2
6
+
2
:
$
5
'
0
&
0
,
1
1
+2
:
$
5
'
0
&
0
,
1
1
0
$
1
=
$
1
,
7
$
5,
%
(
6
6
$
1
*
8
,
1
(
8
0
)/
2
:
(
5
,
1
*
&
8
5
5
$
1
7
5+
$
0
1
8
6
&
$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
&
$
6
$
1
%
5
8
1
2
6$
1
%
5
8
1
2
&
2
)
)
(
(
%
(
5
5
<
/$
8
5
8
6
1
2
%
,
/
,
6
6:
(
(
7
%
$
<
$&
(
5
$
5
0
6
7
5
2
1
*
$5
0
6
7
5
2
1
*
0
$
3
/
(
0$
*
1
2
/
,
$
*
5
$
1
'
,
)
2
/
,
$
62
8
7
+
(
5
1
0
$
*
1
2
/
,
$
3,
7
7
2
6
3
2
5
8
0
6
,
/
9
(
5
6
+
(
(
1
6,
/
9
(
5
6
+
(
(
1
.
2
+
2
+
8
0<
5
7
8
6
&
2
0
0
8
1
,
6
&
2
0
3
$
&
7
$
&2
0
0
2
1
0
<
5
7
/
(
:(
6
7
5
,
1
*
,
$
/
2
:
+
2
5
,
=
2
1
/2
:
+
2
5
,
=
2
1
&
2
$
6
7
5
2
6
(
0
$
5
<
/(
8
&
$
'
(
1
'
5
2
1
6
$
)
$
5
,
*
2
/
'
6
7
5
,
.
(
6$
)
$
5
,
*
2
/
'
6
7
5
,
.
(
<
(
/
/
2
:
&2
1
(
%
8
6
+
*$
=
$
1
,
$
0
,
7
6
8
$
<
(
/
/
2
:
0,
7
6
8
$
<
(
/
/
2
:
$
)
5
,
&
$
1
'
$
,
6
<
/2
0
$
1
'
5
$
3
/
$
7
,
1
8
0
%
(
$
8
7
<
3/
$
7
,
1
8
0
%
(
$
8
7
<
0
$
7
5
8
6
+
$1
,
*
2
=
$
1
7
+
8
6
%
8
6
+
<
(
/
/
2
:
%8
6
+
<
(
/
/
2
:
.
$
1
*
$
5
2
2
3
$
:
<8
&
&
$
'
(
6
0
(
7
,
$
1
$
%
/
8
(
%
2
<
%/
8
(
%
2
<
<
8
&
&
$
',
&
.
6
2
1
,
$
$
1
7
$
5
&
7
,
&
$
7$
6
0
$
1
,
$
1
7
5
(
(
)
(
5
1
6$
/
9
,
$
0
(
;
,
&
$
1
$
/
,
0
(
/
,
*
+
7
/,
0
(
/
,
*
+
7
6
$
*
(
/2
1
,
&
(
5
$
1
,
7
,
'
$
7
:
,
*
*
<
7:
,
*
*
<
%
2
;
+
2
1
(
<
6
8
&
.
/
(
/,
5
,
2
3
(
0
8
6
&
$
5
,
9
$
5
,
(
*
$
7
$
9$
5
,
(
*
$
7
(
'
/
,
/
<
7
8
5
)
/2
0
$
1
'
5
$
/
2
1
*
,
)
2
/
,
$
%
5
(
(
=
(
%5
(
(
=
(
0
$
7
5
8
6
+
&2
5
1
8
6
.
2
8
6
$
.2
8
6
$
'
2
*
:
2
2
'
/$
*
(
5
6
7
5
2
(
0
,
$
,
1
'
,
&
$
&5
$
3
(
0
<
5
7
/
(
3+
2
5
0
,
8
0
3
/
$
7
7
6
%
/
$
&
.
3/
$
7
7
6
%
/
$
&
.
1
(
:
=
(
$
/
$
1
'
)
/
$
;
0$
1
*
$
9
(
/
$
9
(
1
'
(
5
/
$
'
<
/$
9
(
1
'
(
5
/
$
'
<
0
$
1
*
$
9
(
63
2
5
2
/
8
6
$
,
5
2
,
'
(
6
$/
.
$
/
,
6
$
&
$
7
2
1
.2
(
/
(
5
,
$
0
,
&
5
$
1
7
+
$
35
$
,
5
,
(
-
8
1
(
*
5
$
6
6
0(
/
,
&
$
&
$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
$
&$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
$
0
(
/
,
&
*
5
$
6
6
)(
6
7
8
&
$
*
/
$
8
&
$
(
/
,
-
$
+
%
/
8
(
(/
,
-
$
+
%
/
8
(
)
(
6
&
8
(
%,2),/75$7,21 $&+,//($0,//()2/,80
02216+,1(
02216+,1(<$552:/(<086&21'(16$786
&$1<2135,1&(
&$1<2135,1&(%/8(:,/'5<(&+21'523(7$/807(&72580 &$3(586+0<2325803$59,)2/,80
),1(/($)
),1(/($)0<232580 08+/(1%(5*,$5,*(16 '((5*5$66
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
2
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
L3.00
CU
T
S
H
E
E
T
S
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
/,
*
+
7
,
1
*
&8
7
6
+
(
(
7
6
127( &876+((76)2532/($1'%2//$5'/,*+76$5()25),;785(67</($1'),1,6+21/<25$33529('(48,9$/(17/,*+7,1*'(6,*1(572'(7(50,1(63$&,1*$1'3+2720(75,&6
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
Ň Danville, CA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
2
5
5
-
0
0
0
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
2
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
+
(
$
5
6
7
$
9
(
1
8
(
%(
5
.
(
/
(
<
&
$
7(
/
)$
;
ZZ
Z
P
L
J
F
R
P
F
R
P
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
(
6,
7
(
3/
$
1
29
(
5
$
/
/
L3.01
RE
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
TR
E
E
P
R
E
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
d
K
t
E
E
K
h
E
d
Z
z
Z
))
))
))
(;
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
7
2
5
(
0
$
,
1
(;
3
$
5
.
,
1
*
7
2
5
(
0
$
,
1
8+)58*°*8'=/4-9°9.5=°)544+):/54°,58°'°(;/2*/4-°4+<+8°(;/2:%°45°+</*+4)+°,5;4*°/4°,/+2*
d
K
t
E
E
K
h
E
d
Z
z
Z
75((35(6(59$7,21 5(029$/127(6 352-(&7$5%25,6772%(3529,'('$1','(17,),('%<2:1(565(35(6(17$7,9($767$572)352-(&7352-(&7$5%25,6772%($&(57,),('$5%25,67352-(&7$5%25,67720((7:,7+7+(&2175$&72 5$1'/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7216,7(72',6&86675((35(6(59$7,215(9,(:7+(/2&$7,212)7+(75((3527(&7,21)(1&,1*27+(575((3527(&7,216$1':25.352&('85(6$5281'75((635,2572&216758&7,21$1'%(35(6(17216,7()25$//:25.:,7+,175((3527(&7,21=21(2)(;,67,1*75((6$5%25,675(325735(3$5('%<75$9(56275((6(59,&(,1&21$35,/&2175$&7256725(9,(:5(325735,2572%(*,11,1*:25.$1',03/(0(173527(&7,21675$7(*,(65(48(67&23,(62)5(3257)5202:1(5
65(35(6(17$7,9(3527(&7$//75((672%(5(7$,1('6+28/''$0$*(2&&85'85,1*&216758&7,215(9,(::,7+$5&+,7(&7352-(&7$5%25,67$1'/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7$6680($//75((6127&$//('287)255(029$/725(0$,175((35(6(59$7,21$1'5(029$//(*(1'(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1$1'%(3527(&7('75((180%(5,1*3(5$5%25,675(32576((127(6 (;,67,1*75((72%(5(029('678035(029$/25*5,1',1*3(5$5%25,675(325775((180%(5,1*3(5$5%25,675(32576((127(6 75((3527(&7,21)(1&,1*3/$&()(1&,1*$66+2:1213/$16250,1,08072287(5('*(2)75((&$123<75((3527(&7,21=21( 73= $//'(02/,7,21*5$',1*(;&$9$7,21&216758&7,21$1'67$*,1*72%($33529('%<$5%25,67;;;;
75
(
(
35
(
6
(
5
9
$
7
,
2
1
$1
'
5(
0
2
9
$
/
3/
$
1
IW1
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
OV
E
R
A
L
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
A
C
5
B
C
5
D C5
E
C5
I
C5
G C5
F
C
5
C
C
5
H C5
I C5
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
LE
G
E
N
D
STRAW WATTLES HYDROSEED (APPROXIMATE LIMITS)GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT BARRIERPERIMETER SILT FENCE
1.
R
E
P
A
I
R
O
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
S
P
L
I
T
,
T
O
R
N
,
UN
R
A
V
E
L
I
N
G
O
R
S
L
U
M
P
I
N
G
F
I
B
E
R
R
O
L
L
S
.
2.
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
F
I
B
E
R
R
O
L
L
S
W
H
E
N
R
A
I
N
I
S
FO
R
E
C
A
S
T
,
F
O
L
L
O
W
I
N
G
R
A
I
N
E
V
E
N
T
S
AN
D
A
T
L
E
A
S
T
D
A
I
L
Y
D
U
R
I
N
G
P
R
O
L
O
N
G
E
D
RA
I
N
F
A
L
L
.
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
.
3.
I
N
M
O
S
T
C
A
S
E
S
,
F
I
B
E
R
R
O
L
L
S
D
O
N
O
T
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
A
N
D
C
A
N
B
E
AB
A
N
D
O
N
E
D
I
N
P
L
A
C
E
.
I
F
N
O
T
EX
C
E
S
S
I
V
E
L
Y
S
O
I
L
E
D
.
R
O
L
L
S
M
A
Y
B
E
RE
P
L
A
C
E
D
A
N
D
R
E
U
S
E
D
.
WA
T
T
L
E
S
AL
O
N
G
C
/
G
&
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
T
O
W
N
A
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
DATE REVISION NO.CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:SHTPROJECT NO.OFCALIFORNIA 13DANVILLE
1
Amanda Levine
From:David Crompton
Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 7:52 AM
To:_Planning Commission
Cc:Amanda Levine
Subject:FW: Danville villages apartment planned project
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
From: Art Gardner <artay98@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 4:34 PM
To: David Crompton <dcrompton@danville.ca.gov>
Cc: Art Gardner <artay98@hotmail.com>
Subject: Danville villages apartment planned project
***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF
This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member!
Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
TO: Danville Planning Commission / David Crompton, Senior Planner FROM: Art Gardner
DATE: February 15, 2026 RE: Case File Nos: DEV25-0002 / TR25-0028 (The Village Apartments)
LOCATION: 101-119 Town & Country Drive (APN: 208-060-053) To the Honorable Planning Commission: I
am writing to formally oppose the proposed development at 101-119 Town & Country Drive. While I
recognize state housing mandates, this specific proposal contains significant legal and environmental
oversights that the Town must address before any approvals are granted. I. Objection to CEQA Statutory
Exemption (SB 130) The applicant asserts a Statutory Exemption under CEQA Section 21080. However,
for an "Infill" exemption to apply, the project must be consistent with the specific development
standards of the underlying zone. The applicant is simultaneously requesting major waivers for height,
stories, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). By definition, if the project requires these waivers to exist, it is not
consistent with the current zoning, and therefore the CEQA exemption is misapplied. We demand a full
Initial Study to determine the cumulative impacts on local infrastructure. II. Violation of the Danville Tree
Ordinance (DMC § 32-79) The project requires a Tree Removal Permit for five Town-protected trees.
Under DMC Section 32-79, the Commission must find that "the removal is necessary to allow for the
reasonable use" of the property. • Lack of Alternatives: The applicant has not demonstrated that a
reasonable alternative site plan—one that scales back the 200-unit density or shifts the footprint—could
not preserve these essential natural resources. • Heritage Status: If any of these trees are "Heritage
Trees" (36-inch diameter or greater per DMC § 32-77.4), the burden of proof for removal is significantly
higher. We request an independent arborist's report be made public before this hearing proceeds. III.
Public Health and Safety: FAR and Parking Waivers Under Government Code § 65915, the Town has the
authority to deny waivers that result in a "specific, adverse impact" to public health and safety. •
Emergency Access: The massive 348,112 square foot footprint combined with the retention of the
ATTACHMENT I
2
existing 27,700 square foot commercial building creates a density that may impede emergency vehicle
ingress/egress on Town & Country Drive. • Pedestrian Safety: The parking waivers will lead to dangerous
overflow parking on narrow public streets, creating a "nuisance" and visibility hazards for the high volume
of pedestrians in this commercial corridor. IV. Request for Continuance Given the complexity of "The
Village Apartments" and the potential for long-term degradation of the Westside Danville character, I
respectfully request that the Planning Commission continue this hearing to allow for a more robust
public review of the Staff Report and the specific findings used to justify the CEQA exemption.
Respectfully Submitted,
Art Gardner
3558 Canfield Drive
Danville, CA 94526
1
Amanda Levine
From:David Crompton
Sent:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 8:12 AM
To:_Planning Commission
Cc:Amanda Levine
Subject:FW: 101-119 Town & Country Drive (APN: 208-060-053)
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
From: Lisa Lutz <llutz111@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 7:44 AM
To: David Crompton <dcrompton@danville.ca.gov>
Subject: 101-119 Town & Country Drive (APN: 208-060-053)
***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF
This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member!
Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
TO: Danville Planning Commission / David Crompton, Senior Planner FROM: [Your Name] DATE:
February 15, 2026 RE: Case File Nos: DEV25-0002 / TR25-0028 (The Village Apartments)
LOCATION: 101-119 Town & Country Drive (APN: 208-060-053) To the Honorable Planning
Commission: I am writing to formally oppose the proposed development at 101-119 Town & Country
Drive. While I recognize state housing mandates, this specific proposal contains significant legal and
environmental oversights that the Town must address before any approvals are granted. I. Objection
to CEQA Statutory Exemption (SB 130) The applicant asserts a Statutory Exemption under CEQA
Section 21080. However, for an "Infill" exemption to apply, the project must be consistent with the
specific development standards of the underlying zone. The applicant is simultaneously requesting
major waivers for height, stories, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). By definition, if the project requires
these waivers to exist, it is not consistent with the current zoning, and therefore the CEQA exemption
is misapplied. We demand a full Initial Study to determine the cumulative impacts on local
infrastructure. II. Violation of the Danville Tree Ordinance (DMC § 32-79) The project requires a Tree
Removal Permit for five Town-protected trees. Under DMC Section 32-79, the Commission must find
that "the removal is necessary to allow for the reasonable use" of the property. • Lack of Alternatives:
The applicant has not demonstrated that a reasonable alternative site plan—one that scales back the
200-unit density or shifts the footprint—could not preserve these essential natural resources. •
Heritage Status: If any of these trees are "Heritage Trees" (36-inch diameter or greater per DMC §
32-77.4), the burden of proof for removal is significantly higher. We request an independent arborist's
report be made public before this hearing proceeds. III. Public Health and Safety: FAR and Parking
Waivers Under Government Code § 65915, the Town has the authority to deny waivers that result in
a "specific, adverse impact" to public health and safety. • Emergency Access: The massive 348,112
square foot footprint combined with the retention of the existing 27,700 square foot commercial
building creates a density that may impede emergency vehicle ingress/egress on Town & Country
2
Drive. • Pedestrian Safety: The parking waivers will lead to dangerous overflow parking on narrow
public streets, creating a "nuisance" and visibility hazards for the high volume of pedestrians in this
commercial corridor. IV. Request for Continuance Given the complexity of "The Village Apartments"
and the potential for long-term degradation of the Westside Danville character, I respectfully request
that the Planning Commission continue this hearing to allow for a more robust public review of the
Staff Report and the specific findings used to justify the CEQA exemption. Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Lutz
The following studies were not included in this packet:
Biological Study
Noise Study
Air Quality Study
Geotechnical Study
Hydrology Study
To view these studies, please visit the Danville Town Talks webpage,
or use the QR code below.
ATTACHMENT J
https://danvilletowntalks.org/private-land-development/news_feed/danville-village-apartments