Parcel B of SD 6196, on the hillside above the Anderson Ranch neighborhood, Danville, CA
Ido Adler, who has owned the land with Einat Adler since 2021, filed a builder's remedy preliminary application on July 11, 2023 to subdivide Parcel B of SD 6196, a parcel of about 47 acres on the hillside above and north of the Anderson Ranch neighborhood in Danville (town file SD 9673). The land is designated General Open Space, which "allows for no development," and access would come from an extension of Hill Meadow Drive across land owned by the Anderson Ranch Single Family Owners Association. Town records from 2024 describe 30 lots; later press accounts and the owners' 2026 complaint describe 38 units, at least 20 percent for low- to moderate-income households. Danville lacked a compliant housing element when the preliminary application was filed; HCD found it in substantial compliance on April 9, 2024. The town found the formal application incomplete on January 19 and May 16, 2024, citing missing access and utility easements and a landslide repair plan, and on June 18, 2024 the Town Council denied Adler's appeal 5-0; staff said the 2023 preliminary application would then expire. Adler sued in November 2024. After a tentative ruling in May 2025, the council rescinded its incompleteness finding on June 17, 2025, and on July 11, 2025 Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Danielle Douglas ruled that the town had violated the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act and that the 2023 rules, including the builder's remedy, apply. The project still has no legal access. In a separate suit over the easement, a judge tentatively denied Adler's motion on August 17, 2026, finding the easement's scope disputed.
Ask a question to begin.
Press Enter to send · Switch personas to start a new conversation
A judge ruled in July 2025 that Danville violated state law by deeming the application incomplete. The remaining fight is the owner's suit against the neighborhood HOA over the access easement; town staff say site studies cannot proceed until it resolves.
Filed while Danville lacked a compliant housing element. The formal application follows on Dec. 22, 2023.
Town of DanvilleThe letter lists eight deficiencies.
Town of DanvilleHCD finds the housing element in substantial compliance.
Town of DanvilleCites missing access and utility easements and a landslide repair plan.
Town of DanvilleResolution 44-2024. Staff said the 2023 preliminary application would then expire.
Town of DanvilleFiled in November 2024 in Contra Costa County Superior Court, with Permit Streamlining Act and Housing Accountability Act claims.
Danville San RamonResolution 47-2025 passes on consent, 5-0, after a May tentative ruling; the application is declared complete.
Town of DanvilleJudge Danielle Douglas finds violations of the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act; the 2023 rules, including the builder's remedy, apply.
Pleasanton WeeklyIn the easement case against the homeowners association, the judge finds the easement's width disputed: 55 feet claimed, 28 to 40 feet possible.
Contra Costa Superior CourtTold the council on June 18, 2024 that everything the town requested had been provided.
Complaint: "Many local agencies are hostile to Builder's Remedy projects that seek to develop housing that would not have been permissible had the local agency maintained a compliant Housing Element."
Minutes, June 18, 2024: "The Town Council expressed support for denying the appeal due to an incomplete development application."
"The clear purpose of requiring this information is to determine whether the development can be carried out as proposed."
"Mr. Adler purchases land knowing he cannot build on it and that it is zoned as open space."
Through attorney Allan Moore, told the town it opposes the project and will not grant easements.
"The court finds that the town's disapproval under the HAA constituted a prejudicial error." (July 11, 2025)
Tentative ruling, Aug. 17, 2026: "the scope of the easement is not undisputed."
Repeated incompleteness findings, upheld 5-0 on appeal, would have let the 2023 builder's remedy vesting lapse. The town rescinded them on June 17, 2025 after a tentative ruling, and the court found that the town violated the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act.
Each row is a dated action by a deciding body, taken from the minutes, agenda packet, video, or ruling linked in the source column.
| Date | Body | Action | Vote | Staff recommendation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| January 19, 2024 | Staff | deemed application incomplete First incompleteness letter, listing eight deficiencies. | — | None | Town of Danville |
| May 16, 2024 | Staff | deemed application incomplete Second incompleteness letter, citing access and utility easements and a landslide repair plan. | — | None | Town of Danville |
| June 18, 2024 | City Council | appeal rejected Denied the applicant's appeal of the incompleteness determination (Resolution 44-2024). | 5–0 | Unknown | Town of Danville |
| July 11, 2025 | Court | ruling issued Ruled that the town violated the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act. | — | Unknown | Pleasanton Weekly |