HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.1 CALHDF EMAIL 022426
Feb 24, 2026
Town of Danville
500 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 101-119 Town & Country Drive
To: devserv@danville.ca.gov; dcrompton@danville.ca.gov;
Cc; planning@danville.ca.gov; Rewing@Danville.ca.gov; Msunseri@danville.ca.gov;
Dear Danville Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its
obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 200-unit housing
development project at 101-119 Town & Country Drive, which includes 21 very low-income
units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law
(“DBL”), AB 130, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general
plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding
specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The
HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would
render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) or reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j))
unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of
its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies
with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and
waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the
project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not
reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.
Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a
thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at
subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain
protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in
residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers
and concessions with respect to height, stories, floor area ratio, and parking. If the City
wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1)
requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or
safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code
section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in
identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse
impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law.
The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd.
(d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in
addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the
California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more
waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development
standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the
building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers
Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130
(Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local
governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA
exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of
San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing
shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it
will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring
new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by
reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide
housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the
City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for
increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
2 of 3
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3