I was motivated to track this meeting down based on my report for the 9/28/2021 meeting, which was very a very strange 15-minute affair dominated by staff member Diane Friedmann just read a report into the record and no subsequent discussion.

​

The video for the 6/8 meeting (this one) is less suspicious, but still very bad.  They had another 15 minute presentation, but this one was followed by 12 minutes of real discussion, including some minor controversies.  They went through their outreach plans, including recent results from their HE outreach website at danvilletowntalks.org.  Most of the presentation was just a walkthrough of that website, explaining everything people can do there.

​

Noteworthy observations:

   ~3 months passed between Planning discussing HE-related topics.

   Their planned timeline doesn't really get into drafting their HE until Spring 2022 and has a gap for Winter 2021-2022.[1]

   They had a screenshot with some user comments that were mostly cringe-NIMBY stuff, but with some goodish/positive ones mixed in.

    I suspect the commission is very NIMBY, but haven't heard them talk much.  Staff member Friedmann definitely is.  

    One semi-encouraging sign is there were some indications in discussion that they want this website to help them sell the community on countering misinformation.  I took this to mean they know they have to do some things that they know NIMBYs will organize against.

    What's concerning me most right now is their lack of progress and urgency.

   Raw notes [2]

​

​

[1] 

Timeline summary

Launch: Winter 2021

Inform: Spring 2021

Engage: Summer-Fall 2021

Draft: Spring 2022

Adopt: Winter 2023

​

[2] 

Dianne Friedmann gives an update on their outreach website.

  danvilletowntalks.org

  website tour

​

Questions open at ~15 minutes

 Bowles: Limit on registration for webinars? A: 500. Lafayette's gone as high as 100. Q: Where are QR codes?

 Radich: How do we screen feedback? A: language, disrespect, off-topic. 

 Palandrani: Is there a responsibility to post comments? Doesn't see benefit. 

 Graham: Idea is to engage where we can counter misinformation.

 Friedmann: Engagement is bidirectional.

 Palandrani: Doesn't want user posts to be public.

 Graham: Can commissioners use the website in their formal role? Crompton: As individual & be careful.

~12 minutes of discussion

​

Adjourned @31 minutes

This meeting was 15 minutes., from start to finish. There was very little discussion.  They spent about 10-12 minutes on administrivia and a speech by Diane Friedmann describing their outreach efforts.  Then there was 1-2 minutes discussion of their failed RHNA appeal involving David Crompton.  Then they adjourned the meeting.

​

There were two members of the public, including myself.  They were surprised to see anyone.  No one spoke.  We had about 5-10 seconds to get our hands up to comment.  If I had a serious disability I might not have been able to swing it, but as an able-bodied person the only issue was I hadn't collected my thoughts on this body enough to know what to say.

​

It sounds like their videos are to be made public.

Below are my raw notes. My overall summary was that the Danville officials in charge of the meeting were very NIMBY, and will generally fight new housing every step of the way. I don't think either of them were city council members, but still seemed to hold positions of influence in the city government. This is a city YIMBYs should pay attentions to with regards to the housing element, since it's within proximity of the Walnut Creek BART station, as well as the job centers in Dublin / Pleasanton area. And more importantly, the city government will probably act in bad faith if we don't hold them accountable every step of the way.

​

* Diane Friedman

   * Very NIMBY

   * Deputy Director, Development Services

   * “The state has decided that more housing will result in lower prices”

   * “SB9 will eliminate single family zoning”

   * “We believe that cities should have the ability to set their own rules”

   * “more and more the state is taking away our ability to plan at the local level”

   * Work with Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore to collectively lobby for legislation

   * About SB9 - “We are incentivizing developers to build market rate housing, we need the state to fund affordability requirements”

​

* Diane Elrod - Consultant

   * She didn’t really advocate against or for housing, very informational section from her

   * Giving overview of what a Housing Element is

   * Said that determining sites for housing availability 

   * Overview of how Housing Element is conceived, first state sets targets, ABAG allocates numbers to cities, and then cities select the sites of potential development

   * Consequences of non compliance

      * limited access to state funding, court fines up to $600k / month, potential loss of legal control

      * Transportation dollars especially at risk

​

* David Crompton

   * Seemed overall NIMBY

   * Talked about Alexan Riverwalk, a recent development with 10 VLI units

      * Developer invoked density bonus law

      * No Net Loss law, somehow prevented the VLI units from being counted for Danville 

   * Described meeting the RHNA numbers for low income housing as “we need help to meet these numbers”

   * Lamented the litany of state laws the prevented local control

   * Have hired an environmental consultant to determine environment impacts and prepare an EIR

* “Is it possible to build all the housing in the outer parts of Danville like Camino Tassajara?”

   * county imposed urban limit line that prevents too much sprawl on the east side of Danville

* “Will the state’s multi-year drought mean there is any water left for these new houses”

* What are some of the benefits of new housing?

   * “the services we provide probably cost more than the new taxes”

   * “the upside is that new development in the downtown area do get more customers”

* Does the town use “eminent domain”

   * Surprisingly, they have used it twice since incorporation in 1982

   * It is within police powers

* Is one of the goals of the Housing Element to make housing more affordable for first time homebuyers?

   * 

* www.DanvilleTownTalks.org/HousingElement

This Danville meeting was a public workshop or info session on the Housing Element process. The main topics were: what is the Housing Element process, why does Danville need to plan for more housing, how is the city going about planning, and what are the opportunities for public involvement. Staff was very candid about the existence of a housing shortage in the Bay Area. They pointed to community opposition as a reason why we don't have enough housing. Unfortunately staff was also quick to blame state law for this process and said several times that they are lobbying to change state laws and allow more local control. They asked for more involvement from the Danville community. 

Danville Town Council study session on HE process, https://danville-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?viewid=9&eventid=1767.

​

Before, EB4E had noticed that this meeting agenda item only had a physical location, and tweeted that this was inappropriate. There was some engagement from their town account, but long story short, a few days later they reversed course and made it online.

​

Although the agenda had said study session and had a lot of attached materials on RHNA and why the town thinks it's being treated unfairly, etc., during the meeting it was clarified that the topic was just how the entire HE outreach process would go. So there was a short presentation on how they planned to get as much outreach as possible, had just put up a specific website for it (I haven't found that site yet), use virtual meetings, etc. There was not a lot of discussion, but the council supported the plan, said outreach very important, etc. 

​

Since we had submitted a letter talking about realistic ways and means (as starting ideas), like fourplexes citywide, more upzoning closer to the center, and laying out in advance what their design goals were, our letter had been a little off topic compared to their topic. So in my comment I acknowledged our letter covered a broader scope than that but encouraged them to read it. I then thanked them for making the meeting accessible, emphasized the importance of outreach and listening to people who aren't regular meeting-goers, and advocated to keep remote participation options indefinitely, even when not required for pandemic reasons. I was the only public commenter

​

After me, Newell Arnerich, one of the older and more outspoken members, talked about the the need to communicate facts and realistic inventory; I didn't listen 100%, but it sounded like he was wanting to communicate to the public "Look, we don't like this any more than you do, we think it's absurd, but we're being forced." There were some elliptical references to outsiders commenting, but it remained extremely polite. Others agreed in general. Karen Stepper noted in the last cycle a lot of the feedback had been negative comment on developing individual sites members of the public happened to live near, and hoped to engage a conversation on what the broader solutions are, even "Cal-wide". Dave Fong talked about engaging as many people as possible, including local businesses, and it sounded like he was elliptically saying even non-residents should be listened to. 

I attended the 2/3/21 Danville Town Council meeting. They appropriated money for a Housing Element consultant on consent without debate or public speakers. I had the opportunity to speak and wish I had, but I missed it (this Council moves fast). 

​

Later in the meeting the Town manager gave an update where the Council talked at length about the Housing Element and development projects currently happening. It was obvious that city staff and the Council are not supportive of more housing. Their focus was appealing to HCD and ABAG for a lower RHNA allocation. They said variously that the town is built out, that there needs to be more state money for affordable housing, new market rate construction is not affordable so no need to build more, and that new housing would damage the character of the town. Staff emphasized that the new RHNA target is four times Danville's prior target. There was also detailed discussion about an ongoing application for a new condo project at 273 W. El Pintado. The applicant is applying for 49 units instead of the 37 originally proposed. The Council wants to review the project again because of parking and density concerns.