It's been awhile since I've made any comments on what's going on around town, but..

I believe that the Planning Commission's approval of this project creates a very dangerous precedent. Of course, it is only a couple of feet higher than is allowed. If approved by the Town Council, the precedent stands as a general exception. The next project that comes along may only be a couple of feet higher than the Diablo Rd project. Another exception, right? And so on, and so on, and so on. Starting to sound like Walnut Creek, yes? If the Town Council approves this project, they will be doing a great dis-service to the fine folks of Danville; the people who voted them into office. I’ve always stood behind the decisions made by our council, even in spite of the monstrosities they have allowed in town (the vet’s hall, the Danville hotel, the work in process across from Lundardi’s. All of which distracts from the “small town charm” that the council brags about. I realize that Danville cannot survive in a vacuum and that the town must be somewhat progressive if it is to exist, but….. this is going too far. Kudos to the Danville Citizens for Responsible Growth; perhaps the can stop the wrecking ball from swinging.

Better start raising money now for the lawsuit.

Very strange that the Council wouldn't have had decide whether to approved the project unless someone appealed the PC decision. Seems like a rule imposed in this case so the Council could pretend at some future time that it had never approved the project.

@Treetopper: with respect to height, per the staff report, that is a bonus mandated by state law because of the inclusion of a certain number of low income units in the project. It is not an exception the town agreed to, and does not change the current height maximum.

@suspicious: this is the standard way all planning applications proceed. If there is not a legislative element (like enacting an amendment to the municipal code or changing zoning), the planning commission makes the final determination absent an appeal. That is pretty much constant for all cities throughout the state.

@Huh?: Methinks you are Geoff Gillette, the Town of Danville's "information officer".
The Council essentially approved this project back in 2013 when it changed the land use designation on the involved parcels to high-density residential from office. The Council did not explain then what the full consequences of that change would be. The Council also refused to seek a reduction in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment given to Danville by the Association of Bay Area Governments, which the Council claimed "required" such a redesignation. A reduction could have resulted in a lower RHNA number, and a project more in keeping with Danville.

Suspicious- Geoff Gillette posts with his own name on behalf of the Town. Just because Huh? offers facts without knee jerk emotions doesn't mean he is the PIO in disguise. I take huh? to be an educated resident of this Town. We could use a few more of these types.

Good afternoon,

I want to take a moment and clarify a few matters that have been brought up.

@Suspicious - As Kimberly mentioned, when I post on here I post as myself on a registered account. That way I maintain accountability for anything I say on behalf of the Town, which I think is very important. I do the same on our Nextdoor social media account. On our Facebook and Twitter I post under the general title of Town of Danville etc.

Regarding your other concerns, I spoke with our Town Manager, City Attorney and Chief of Planning and wanted to address those as well. This is lengthy, sorry.

Suspicious: "The Council essentially approved this project back in 2013 when it changed the land use designation on the involved parcels to high-density residential from office."

Response: Whether or not a local community such as Danville designates land for higher density residential development, is not a strictly local decision. State Housing Law requires each of California’s 482 cities to undergo a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process occurs every eight years (Danville is on its fourth such cycle since incorporation). The RHNA process is complex, requiring cities to designate land for housing based upon total numbers and by type (density).

As part of the 2030 General Plan Update in 2013, the Town was required to identify a minimum of 8.75 acres that could be designated for Residential – High/Medium and Residential/High density uses, at densities of up to 30 units per acre. After considering 15 different site options, the Town Council designated the minimum 8.75 acres. The Diablo Road site under review is one of the two sites that was redesignated for this purpose.


Suspicious: "The Council did not explain then what the full consequences of that change would be."

Response: Actually, there was extensive discussion during the General Plan Update regarding how the state-mandated RHNA numbers are translated to local reality, and how this process has been managed by Danville since incorporation in 1982. This included discussion regarding potential state-mandated density bonus provisions that could apply, as well as the rezoning and development review processes that would need to occur before any development could occur. There was also considerable discussion at those meetings regarding why the sites selected best met the requirements without changing the character of our single family residential neighborhoods


Suspicious: "The Council also refused to seek a reduction in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment given to Danville by the Association of Bay Area Governments, which the Council claimed "required" such a redesignation. A reduction could have resulted in a lower RHNA number, and a project more in keeping with Danville"

Response: The Town was actively engaged throughout the RHNA process and successfully negotiated with the State Department of Housing and Community Development to reduce the total amount of acreage required to be designated for residential high density use, and reduce the applicable densities required by 5 units per acre.

Danville also worked to keep the Town’s total RHNA numbers as low as possible based upon local conditions and comparisons with numbers assigned to the other 18 cities in Contra Costa County.

Once actual development proposals are received, the Town also applies an extensive architectural review process to ensure that our local design standards are met.


Suspicious, if you have further questions, you are more than welcome to reach out to us. You are also encouraged to attend the Town Council sessions about the appeal. It hasn't been agendized yet, but right now we believe it will be mid-April. If you can't make the meetings (or missed the Planning Commission meetings) you can find video of the meetings online so you can view the proceedings and hear all of the discussion that went into the decision. You can find those at Web Link

Hope this helps.

Thanks
Geoff

Geoff Gillette
Public Information Coordinator
Town of Danville
(925) 314-3336
e-mail: [email protected]

See you court Geoff! :)