HomeMy WebLinkAbout020521 - Full Packet
February 5, 2021
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Joseph Calabrigo, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Annual Town Council Planning and Goal Setting Workshop
Attached are the agenda and materials for the annual Town Council Planning
and Goal Setting Workshop scheduled for Friday, February 5, 2021. The
workshop will be held at the Danville Community Center.
All required social distancing and safety protocols will be observed throughout
the meeting. The workshop will begin at 8:30 a.m. and all participants are
asked to bring their own coffee should they so choose. Box lunches will be
provided at noon. Alternately, participants may choose to take a break from
noon to 1:00 p.m.
The workshop agenda is subject to fine tuning per the preference of the Town
Council. Additional items that the Council may wish to discuss may be
brought up under “Other Business and Updates.”
Staff in attendance will include the Town Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief,
department heads and key staff related to the agenda topics. Any issues that
cannot be covered to the satisfaction of the Town Council within the allotted
time, will be scheduled for discussion at a future Town Council Study Session.
Please contact me prior to February 5 if you have any questions related to the
material provided, or for any other needs you may have to make this day as
productive as possible.
Staff looks forward to this opportunity to assist the Town Council in identifying
potential challenges, opportunities and strategies, to ensure that the Town
government continues to operate as effectively as possible.
A G E N D A
Friday, February 5, 2021 8:30 a.m.
Danville Community Center
420 Front Street
1. 2020 Highlights and Outcomes
(staff: J. Calabrigo)
2. Mid-Year 2020/21 Financial Overview
(staff: J. Calabrigo and L. Ha)
3. Capital Improvement Program – Current Status and Future Needs
(staff: J. Calabrigo and S. Jones)
4. Housing Element Update: Challenges and Strategies
(staff: T. Williams and D. Crompton)
5. Service Delivery after COVID-19
(staff: J. Calabrigo)
6. Town Council Guidelines
(staff: J. Calabrigo and R. Ewing)
7. Other Business and Updates
Regional, State and Federal Legislative Update
Council Matters
Annual Council/Commission Workshop
Business, Development and Code Enforcement Updates
WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
Town Council
Renee Morgan Mayor
Newell Arnerich Vice-Mayor
Dave Fong Councilmember
Karen Stepper Councilmember
Robert Storer Councilmember
Town Staff
Joe Calabrigo Town Manager
Rob Ewing City Attorney
Tai Williams Assistant Town Manager
Allan Shields Police Chief
Dave Casteel Maintenance Services Director
Henry Perezalonso Recreation, Arts & Community Services
Director
Lani Ha Finance Manager/Treasurer
Steven Jones City Engineer
David Crompton Chief of Planning
Jill Bergman Economic Development Manager
Geoff Gillette Public Information Officer
Diane Friedmann Assistant to the Town Manager
2020 HIGHLIGHTS & OUTCOMES
The Annual Planning and Goal Setting Workshop provides an opportunity for the
Town Council to reflect on prior year highlights and outcomes that support the
Town’s mission to deliver superior municipal services that make people’s lives better.
OVERVIEW
The 2020 Annual Planning and Goal Setting Workshop was held on February 7. In
looking forward to the upcoming year, the Town Council was focused on
opportunities to grow and enhance community outreach and engagement and
continuing with efforts to influence regional, state and federal legislation impacting
Danville. Just weeks later, the Town’s focus along with that of the nation and the
world shifted as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic and the first of many shelter in
place orders that altered our everyday lives. Subsequently, the pandemic took center
stage, occupying much of the Town’s efforts and focus.
On March 17, the Town declared a state of local emergency. In addition to dealing
with impacts resulting from immediate closure of local businesses and schools, the
Town was required to, in many ways, reinvent local service delivery while reducing
the size of the Town government and simultaneously meeting new safety protocols.
The balance of 2020 involved operating under changing health orders and dealing
with unprecedented civil and political unrest while making every effort to help
inform and reassure the community.
While dealing with the need to close public facilities in accordance with standing
health orders, essential services continued to be provided. This was accomplished
while reducing Town expenditures by $7.2 million over the last quarter of 2019/20
and the entirety of 2020/21. A major factor in achieving the necessary expenditure
reductions involved a 15% reduction in the Town’s workforce. This included several
retirements, including four employees with over thirty years of service to the Town.
The Town acted decisively to assist and support local businesses through providing
one on one concierge service to connect businesses with federal aid opportunities,
working closely with the Danville Area Chamber of Commerce and committing a
total of $825,000 to provide small business grants and assist restaurants and personal
service-related businesses, and taking a number of supporting policy actions.
2
Owing in part to the swift and decisive actions taken to offset anticipated pandemic
driven revenue losses, the Town continued to maintain a strong fiscal position. The
2019/20 fiscal year ended on June 30, 2020, with a $3.3 million positive fund balance
and a General Fund (G.F.) Operating Reserve of $12.3 million (equivalent to 54% of
the total G.F. Budget or 38.3% of the total Operating Budget).
The Police Department maintained a constant state of readiness in the face of
threatened civil unrest following the killing of George Floyd and other events that
occurred through the summer and into the fall. Community safety remained as the
top community priority and the Danville Police Department continued their success
with combatting Part I crimes, closing the year with another record low. The Town
was once again named “Safest City in California” by Safewise.
Legislatively, the Town Council continued with advocacy efforts aimed at the
regional, state and federal levels, in the face of government efforts to require cities to
plan for and produce additional housing, especially for very low- and low-income
households.
Community outreach efforts continued to focus on online and in -person methods.
Social media channels, including Facebook, Facebook Live, Instagram, Twitter,
Nextdoor and Nixle continued to be utilized for communication, collectively allowing
the Town to maintain contact with the vast majority of Danville households.
Despite very low seasonal rainfall, Danville was largely spared from the impacts
resulting from a historically extreme fire season that saw vast areas of the state
ravaged by wildfires. Significant local disruptions resulting from the PG&E Public
Safety Power Shutoff Program were largely avoided as well.
The Town continued with plans to relocate the Town Offices and Police Department
to 500 La Gonda Way. Design was completed and construction commenced on the
new Police Department facilities, with occupancy planned by December 2021.
At the polls, Danville voters approved Measure Y in March, upholding approval of
the Magee Preserve project and dedication of over 380 acres of new public open space,
and elected three members to the Danville Town Council in November.
The annual Pavement Management project was combined with a major bicycle
facilities improvements project along the Diablo Road corridor, a heavily travelled
bicycle route. These and other efforts allowed the Town to maintain a Town-wide PCI
of 80+. The Town selected a site for a potential future skatepark at Diablo Vista Park,
and arts appreciation was broadened through the successful “Hearts around Hartz”
exhibit which cross promoted the arts with economic development downtown.
3
HIGHLIGHTS FROM 2020
Legislative
•Declared a local state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic;
adhered to various COVID-19 related Health Orders issued by the Contra
Costa County Health Services Department and the State of California.
•Continued to ensure the ongoing fiscal health of the Town by adopting a
balanced 2020/21 operating budget, reducing expenditures and fund transfers
without drawing down Town reserve funds; maintained strong reserves and
sustainable ten-year forecasts.
•Moved all public meetings to a remote (ZOOM) format while adhering to the
revised Brown Act requirements.
•Adopted an Outdoor Flagpole Display Policy; and approved the display of the
Rainbow Flag during the month of June.
•Authorized street closures for temporary outdoor restaurant seating within
public rights of way for the duration of the pandemic.
•Approved an $80,000 no interest pandemic relief loan to support the Danville
Area Chamber of Commerce.
•Adopted an urgency ordinance establishing a temporary cap on commission,
fees and costs charged by third-party food delivery services on local
restaurants within the Town during the COVID-19 pandemic.
•Worked with Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, Contra Costa Mayors Conference and
state legislators to advocate for changes to housing legislation in a manner that
lessens their impacts to Danville.
•Concluded the year with the 39th Annual Mayoral Installation and Community
Service Awards.
•Successfully recruited for, interviewed and filled several Commission, Board
and position vacancies.
Administration & Finance
•Implemented cost savings measures to reduce operating expenses by $7.2
million to offset estimated COVID-related revenue losses.
•Planned and implemented various re-organization plans to mitigate staffing
reductions necessitated by the pandemic.
•Created a COVID-19 working group to interpret and apply requirements
contained in the various COVID-19 related Health Orders issued by Contra
Costa Health Services (CCHS) and the State of California and adapted Town
services, procedures and employee working conditions to COVID protocols
and guidelines.
•Completed the 2019/20 CAFR; realized a positive $3.3 million General Fund
balance.
4
•Received Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recognition for
excellence in financial reporting, 19 years in a row.
•Maintained numerous highly successful interagency partnerships to better
serve and support the community.
Economic Development
•Continued implementation of the Community Marketing and Branding Plan,
including publication of the Live Locally Guide, marketing material and
rebranding of the Town’s quarterly newsletter.
•Created, launched and administered Phases 1 and 2 of the $525,000 Forward
Focus Grant Program to support local businesses through the pandemic.
•Provided Business Assistance Programs to support the first and second phases
of Cares Act funding and other federally sponsored pandemic relief programs
for businesses.
•Coordinated review and issuance of street closures for temporary outdoor
restaurant seating within public rights of way for the duration of the pandemic.
•Supported the Danville Area Chamber of Commerce through various staffing
changes and assisted with selection of a new president and CEO.
Police and Emergency Services
•Closed 2020 with another all-time low in reported Part I crimes.
•Received the distinction of “Safest City in California” with a population of
50,000 or less in 2019 for the third year in a row by Safewise, an independent
review website.
•Launched the 10-8 program, a weekly livestreamed event that allows for
engagement and interaction with residents via Facebook and YouTube to
replace in person engagement due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
•Upgraded Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology through Flock
Safety, reducing the overall cost and increasing the technical performance of
the program, while increasing coverage from 13 locations to 23 Town-wide.
The change will realize a 30% reduction in annual costs resulting in an
estimated savings of $150,000 over the next five years.
•Monitored Contra Costa Health Department Health Orders to assist with
community education and undertake enforcement activities when warranted.
•Monitored and responded to incidents of threatened civil unrest or staged
protests.
•Continued the Disaster Preparedness Program to increase readiness efforts
aimed at preparing for and responding to any natural or man-made disasters
or emergencies that could befall the Town.
5
Community Outreach
•Continuously updated and refreshed the Town website to provide messages
and information regarding COVID-19, health orders issued by County Health
Services, status of Town services and facilities, and other community updates.
•Continued social media efforts, including the use of Nextdoor, Twitter,
Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
•Continued promoting Nixle as the Town’s emergency communications system,
resulting in continued increase in year-over-year subscribers to alerts.
Sustainability
•Continued membership and became a “Deep Green Champion” with MCE
Clean Energy, a Community Choice Energy program, providing ratepayers
with greater choices for renewable energy options.
•Converted eight Town facilities, including the Town Offices, Library and
Community Center, Maintenance Services Center, Veterans Memorial
Building, Oak Hill Park Community Center, Town Meeting Hall and Village
Theatre to MCE 100% renewable Deep Green Service.
•Continued a reduction in electricity usage through operation of photovoltaic
arrays at four separate Town facilities.
Capital Improvement Program
•Completed the construction of the 2018/19 Pavement Rehabilitation project.
•Completed the construction of 3.6 lane miles of on-street bicycle facilities on
Diablo Road from downtown Danville to Green Valley Road.
•Completed the construction of the new children’s play area at Hap Magee
Ranch Park with a project cost of $785,000.
•Completed design and started construction on the $900,000 San Ramon Creek
pedestrian bridge connecting Diablo Road and the Riverwalk development to
the Town Green.
•Completed design work and awarded a contract for construction of the new
Police Services Building at 500 La Gonda Way.
•Completed replacement of all Railroad Avenue Parking Lot lights with LEDs.
•Completed the design of the $2.76 million Sycamore Valley Park and Ride
Expansion Project, which will add 122 new public parking spaces and bicycle
parking to serve commuters and users of the Iron Horse Trail.
•Continued the design work for the $6 million project to replace the La Gonda
Way bridge at Danville Boulevard.
•Completed design work to replace the gazebo at Hap Magee Ranch Park.
•Completed installation of bicycle video detection cameras at seven
intersections (total of 12 cameras).
6
•Completed installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at ten
locations.
•Completed replacement of traffic signal battery back-up systems at eight
intersections.
•Completed the replacement of the artificial turf sports field at Diablo Vista
Park.
Development Services
•Developed and rolled out the new Garden Cottage Program, featuring free
permit-ready Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) plans for community use, to
facilitate the production of affordable and family friendly housing.
•Adapted service delivery to provide increased ability for customers to apply
for and receive various permits and entitlements online and remotely.
•Initiated development of the first Town-wide Bicycle Master Plan.
•Continued with various Transportation programs, including: Street Smarts
traffic safety education program, Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
and participation in Danville’s TRAFFIX Student Transportation Program.
•Continued lead role with advocacy on regional transportation issues.
•Completed research and selection of new manufacturer for new signal traffic
controllers Town-wide, ensuring that they are compliant with the Advance
Transportation Controller (ATC) standards.
Maintenance Services
•Completed annual renovation of the turf in the large dog park at Hap Magee
Ranch Park (rated one of the best dog parks in the area by Diablo Magazine).
•Completed the annual creek cleaning project, which helps protect the
community and prevent damage to public and private property.
•Converted four additional landscape areas to the automated underground
irrigation management system (UgMO), doubling the total number of sites.
•Undertook landscape renovation projects on Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon
Road, Danville South Park and Diablo Vista Park to replace turf areas with
aesthetically pleasing and more drought tolerant materials.
•Awarded new landscape maintenance contracts for Roadsides - Lighting and
Landscape Assessment Districts Zone A and B.
•Upgraded the filters in every air conditioning unit at all Town buildings to
filters with higher efficacy ratings that are capable of trapping smaller particles,
including viruses.
Recreation, Arts, and Community Services
•Completed the Town Green and Arts District Concept Master Plan with
approval by the Parks, Recreation & Arts Commission, and the Town Council.
7
•Adapted recreation and enrichment programming and activities to a largely
virtual format.
•Succeeded in furthering integration of arts into the community through the
Hearts Around Hartz exhibit, which was displayed throughout the downtown.
•Continued to work with the Arts Advisory Board and Parks, Recreation and
Arts Commission to prioritize and begin implementation of recommendations
in the Parks, Recreation and Arts Strategic Plan.
•Completed a feasibility study to explore potential locations for the multi-use
scooter and skate park and identified Diablo Vista Park as the preferred
location.
•Continued work with the Danville Youth Council on communications strategy
and social media use, hosting a Tri-Valley Youth Advisory Council
Roundtable, and staging the Danville Amazing Race for Teens.
•Provided a variety of virtual arts opportunities through the Jazz Room Series
and Comedy with Liz Grant.
Attachment: A – Notes from 2020 Planning and Goal Setting Workshop
2020 ANNUAL TOWN COUNCIL PLANNING
& GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP
MEETING NOTES AND OUTCOMES
Friday, February 7, 2020, 8:30 a.m.
Crow Canyon Country Club
2019 Highlights & Challenges
The Town Council reviewed and discussed highlights and challenges from the past year.
Topics covered included:
Highlights:
•Strong fiscal management.
•Continued support of the downtown by completing the new Rose Street and Village
Theatre municipal parking lots.
•Appointment of the new Senior Advisory Commission and Arts Advisory Board.
•Approval of the Town Green Master Plan.
•The “Dogs of Danville” Public Art program was a huge hit that brought people into
our Downtown from outside the area.
•Ability to identify facility needs and execute capital projects. Projects are brought to
fruition within very reasonable time frames.
•Third year in a row designated as “Safest City in California”. Public safety continues
to be the top priority.
•Work done to complete processing of the Magee Preserve project, and wireless
communications ordinance.
•The maintenance and appearance of the town; the way our parks look is
commendable.
•Printed outreach materials including the quarterly newsletter and the Recreation
Guide are very high quality.
•Town Council is able to maintain positive working relationships with each other and
Town staff.
•Advocacy engagement has caused local policy makers to translate things at a local
level.
•Government 101 was a highlight.
ATTACHMENT A
2
Challenges:
•Need to continue to seek more effective ways to engage with our community.
Electronic Communication is good but not enough. We need to work in ways that are
personal and one on one with our residents. Lack of civility is concerning.
•Economic Development is a huge challenge for us. Retail continues to struggle and
retail space is expensive. This is a continuing challenge for us. We need to intensify
the activities that bring people to the downtown and allow them to stay downtown.
•Implementation of the Town Green Master Plan should be a top priority.
•Outreach and engagement are a challenge. Trust in government is at an all-time low.
Providing correct factual information in ways that will allow residents to access it is
critical. Need to be proactive vs reactive.
•Need to repair potholes on Camino Tassajara and Sycamore (though overall, streets
are in very good condition).
•Dealing with new cell sites and PSPS issues.
Mid-Year 2019/20 Operating Budget and CIP Status Report
Town Council accepted the mid-year operating budget and CIP status report, and discussed
the following:
Operating Budget
•The Town continues to be in a very positive financial condition.
•The formal Mid-Year Financial Report will be presented at the February 18, 2020
Town Council meeting.
•Property tax is tracking well ahead of forecast. Mid-year report will recommend
increasing the revenue estimate to offset additional expenditures.
•Sales tax – only have first 5 months, initial receipts indicate revenues may fall short of
estimates; will be offset by higher property tax revenue.
•Solid Waste VIF and SB1 funding have been key to efforts to maintain pavement
management funding. Potential passage of Measure J in March would further boost
transportation funding.
•Personnel costs are tracking well within budget at mid-year; expenditures at the end
of year are anticipated to be under budget.
•Senior Commission and Arts Advisory Board are asking for money for programs and
projects.
Capital Improvement Program
•The Town continues to invest in its infrastructure without incurring any debt - this
continues to be a significant achievement.
3
•Significant CIP accomplishments including new town offices, VT parking lot, Front
Street Creek Stabilization Project, lots of pavement management and San Ramon
Valley High School parking. 29 projects completed or closed out in 2019.
•Priority project is park and ride expansion project, 90% done with design.
Construction will start in summer time frame.
•Town office relocation project – acquisition complete, improvement costs committed
through 2021/22. We may want to look at pre-qualifying contractors for tenant
improvements.
•La Gonda Way bridge replacement project is in the initial design phase.
•Capital maintenance is still a big cost moving forward. If anything, these costs are
understated. Estimates will be updated for inclusion in the new CIP.
•New and future projects may include skate and scooter, public art and town green
improvements.
•Park and Civic Facilities funds show considerable expenses over the next five years.
Community Outreach and Engagement
Town Council accepted the report, and discussed the following:
•Twitter is our least followed platform with 5,400 followers; Instagram – we have 4
accounts, Town main page - 3800 recreation – 1300 live locally is economic
development 1937 art gallery 609; Nextdoor – 25,219 members which is 78% of
Danville households.
•Communities use open town hall to gather feedback on a regular basis, we have had
some success with open town hall. Open town hall is an opportunity to ask questions.
•Town Council discussed ideas for getting out into the community. We need to think
about physically and virtually going to the places where our residents are.
•People do not go to a meeting unless they are unhappy.
•People come to things when there are good topics. The MCE town hall was packed,
due to the fact it was a very good topic and residents wanted to know more about it.
•People get their information in different ways, two-pronged approach – education
and engagement.
•Want to take a multi-modal way of engaging.
•Idea of noticing is very important; we need to look at doing things outside the box.
Regional, State, and Federal Legislative Update
Town Council accepted the Legislative Advocacy report, and discussed the following:
•Advocacy day in Sacramento on Tuesday, February 4 was very productive.
•The 2020 legislative bills will be published as of February 22 and there are more
housing bills expected.
4
•Grayson has introduced a spot bill AB 1924; provides that impact fees must be
proportionate to the square footage of a development.
•Senate Bill 278 Faster Bay Area shell bill allocates $100 billion over the next 40 years
for transformative transportation projects. It appears that FASTER Bay Area will
merge with AB 1484 Chiu.
•Senator Wiener introducing a bill to take over PG&E ; also plans to bring back SB 50
in some form this year.
•The Tri-Valley Mayors’ Meetings in Washington D.C. accomplished stated objectives.
•The Valley Link Project continues to be a focus for funding. The Department of
Transportation is very happy we went to them so early with Valley Link.
•Tri-Valley Cities continue to build a relationship with Congresswoman Eshoo’s office
in support of H.R. 530. Congressman Swallwell has signed on as a co-sponsor.
•2020 legislative outreach plans include Tri-Valley branded informational videos,
adding a legislative page on the town website, bill fact sheets for the farmers’ market
box, policy position papers on impact fees, housing and transportation and examining
the feasibility of Mayors town hall events.
•AB 881 on ADU’s – website has new information on the ADU law, and we are
receiving inquiries about our ADU program from outside agencies and legislators.
•SB 330 implementation pre-application fee on a development freezes fees and
standards on plans submitted. Limitation of 5 public hearings – working on getting
the project plans to Planning and DRB to review before the formal plans are submitted
and the clock starts on the project.
Other Business and Updates
•The Town Council accepted and discussed the report on polystyrene ban.
•The Town Council discussed the Flag policy and decided the City Attorney would
provide research on other policies and report back to the Town Council.
MID-YEAR 2020/21
FINANCIAL UPDATE
BACKGROUND
The Annual Planning and Goal Setting Workshop provides an opportunity for the
Town Council to review the status of the Town’s finances at the December 31, 20 20
mid-point of the 2020/21 fiscal year, including revenues, expenditures, and potential
changes that could affect the Budget or the ten-year forecasts.
Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic
The onset of the global Coronavirus pandemic and the resultant Shelter in Place (SIP)
Orders that began in March 2019 created significant economic uncertainty for local
governments. As a result, the process leading up to adoption of the 2020/21
Operating Budget and CIP was unique and unlike prior year efforts.
The pandemic presented both immediate and longer-term budget planning
challenges that required the Town Council to consider several different budget
scenarios including the original pre-COVID budget and three alternate scenarios
developed based upon reducing revenues, expenditures and transfers by $3 million,
$5 million and $7 million.
Ultimately the Town Council determined that the final 2020/21 Operating Budget
and CIP would be based upon the mid-range alternative scenario which assumed a
net total revenue loss of $5.0 million for the fiscal year.
In adopting the final budget, it was also acknowledged that the process was expected
to remain fluid and ongoing throughout the fiscal year, with frequent review as
financial information changed, in order to maintain a balanced budget.
Fortunately, and unlike most California cities, the Town has no unfunded future
liabilities related to employee pension or medical costs to compound the fiscal impact
of the pandemic. Despite the significant pandemic-driven fiscal impacts, the Town
Council adopted a balanced budget without the need to utilize reserves. In order
to reduce operating expenditures, some service level reductions were required in
Police Services, Development Services, Maintenance Services and Recreation, Arts
and Community Services. It was also necessary to scale back new capital
expenditures to further reduce impacts upon the General Fund and balance the
budget.
2
The time frame for revenue recovery was projected to range from two to four years.
However, thanks to offsetting expenditure reductions the ten-year forecasts covering
2020/21 through 2029/30 showed the Town continuing on a fiscally sustainable
course while operating at minimally reduced service levels.
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OVERVIEW
Revenues
Based upon the alternative budget scenario used to develop the 2020/21 budget, total
revenues of $32.1 million were forecast for 2020/21, an 11.7% reduction from $36.3
million for 2019/20.
General Fund
Property tax continues to be the Town’s largest revenue source, accounting for 60.5%
of the General Fund. Although the Town receives only 7.5% of total property taxes
paid, property values have continued to increase at a robust level despite the
pandemic, outpacing inflation and the overall Bay Area CPI.
Sales tax accounts for 18.1% of the General Fund. Beginning of the year forecasts saw
sales tax revenues being significantly impacted by the pandemic due to the resultant
business closures and the unknown duration of the crisis. Sales tax estimates were
reduced by 22.2% below prior year.
Recreation fees and charges were also forecast to experience a major revenue loss due
to restrictions set forth in the various shelter in place and health orders. In order to
forecast revenues, it was necessary to make assumptions regarding when activities
would be allowed to resume, initially on a restricted basis, and then completely.
Revenue projections for 2020/21 were reduced by 47.5% below prior year.
Special Purpose
Special Purpose revenues were projected to account for 25.3% of total 2020/21
revenues. The largest Special Purpose revenues are the Town-wide Lighting and
Landscape Assessment District (LLAD), Building and Planning fees, and Gas Tax.
LLAD revenues remain flat due to minimal growth and fixed assessment rate s.
Building and Planning activities continue to slow, and 2020/21 revenues were
forecast to decline by 19.2 % below prior year. Based upon the anticipated loss of
sales tax revenues resulting from the pandemic, significant reductions to Gas Tax
revenues were also forecast, and revenues were expected to decline by 49.5% from
prior year. This was also the case with Measure J return to source revenues where a
decline of 29.3% below prior year was forecast.
3
Solid Waste Vehicle Impact Fees were forecast to increase by 21.3%. Though solid
waste revenues were anticipated to be affected by the pandemic, the Solid Waste VIF
Fee was increased by the JPA in order to more fully capture and offset the impacts of
refuse and recycling vehicles upon Town streets. Gas Tax, Measure J Return to Source
and Solid Waste VIF funds are the major sources of funding for the Town’s Pavement
Management and Street Maintenance programs.
Expenditures
The 2020/21 operating budget included total operating expenditures $31.0 million, a
6.8% reduction from the prior year budget of $33.3 million. These included decreases
of -1.3% for Police Services, -6.7% for Administrative Services, -22.6% for
Development Services, -5.9% for Maintenance Services and –7.3% for Recreation, Arts
and Community Services. General Government costs increased by 2.5% as the result
of the cost of the November 2020 municipal election.
Personnel costs were reduced by 11.6% below prior year. For 2020/21 this required
a reduction in total full time equivalent (FTE) staffing from 161.25 to 135.25 positions
MID-YEAR 2020/21 OPERATING BUDGET STATUS
The mid-year update identifies potentially significant deviations to appraise the
Town Council, and to identify any formal mid-year adjustments that may be required.
A formal mid-year financial report will be presented to the Town Council for
consideration at the February 16, 2021 Town Council meeting.
As of December 31, 2020, overall revenues are tracking ahead of the approved budget,
while expenditures are on track to finish the fiscal year within budget. Overall fiscal
condition remains strong and the Town expects to finish the year on a positive note.
Revenues
The Town receives revenues incrementally at different points throughout the fiscal year,
ranging from monthly to annually. While the Town will not have complete revenue
information until the end of the fiscal year, sufficient information is available to assess
the status of most of the major revenue sources.
Table 1 presents revenues received to date at the mid-point in the 2020/21 fiscal year.
The table provides a snapshot of the actual revenues received for the current fiscal year
and what these actual receipts represent as a percentage of the total revenue forecast for
the year. Exhibit A to this memorandum includes this same information and expands
upon it to compare it with similar data for each of the prior three fiscal years (2017/18 –
2019/20).
4
Table 1
Mid-Year Revenue Summary
Budget Mid-Year % of
General Fund Forecast Actual Total
Property Tax $14,505,222 $ 6,083,333 41.9%
Sales Tax $ 4,339,328 $ 2,394,705 55.2%
Transfer Tax $ 494,838 $ 457,186 92.4%
Transient Occupancy $ 54,597 $ 18,859 34.5%
Business License $ 146,060 $ 299,113 204.8%
Franchise Cable $ 899,152 $ 201,342 22.4%
Franchise Solid Waste $ 752,413 $ 341,125 45.3%
Franchise Gas & Electric $ 629,404 $ - 0.0%
Fines & Forfeitures $ 141,400 $ 32,542 23.0%
Interest Income $ 197,250 $ 107,766 54.6%
Rental Income $ 124,490 $ 67,455 54.2%
Recreation Fees and Charges $ 1,351,262 $ 286,465 21.2%
Budget Mid-Year % of
Special Revenue Forecast Actual Total
Building and Planning $ 1,787,458 $ 1,357,186 75.9%
Engineering $ 260,535 $ 134,581 51.7%
Gas Tax $ 969,080 $ 935,849 96.6%
Measure J - RTS $ 576,288 $ 5,254 0.9%
Clean Water $ 572,700 $ 28,657 5.0%
LLAD - A $ 583,858 $ 328,047 56.2%
LLAD - B $ 746,968 $ 410,577 55.0%
LLAD - C $ 664,183 $ 367,566 55.3%
LLAD - D $ 1,134,741 $ 601,336 53.0%
Solid Waste VIF $ 585,000 $ 272,900 46.6%
General Fund
General Fund revenues are tracking positively in comparison to budget.
Property Tax – Revenues are received in three installments in December, April and June.
The percentage of property tax received through mid-year is comparable to that received
in each of the three prior years and is on track to exceed the initial budget forecast. Mid-
year receipts of $6.1 million are $230,030 higher than mid-year receipts for 2019/20. Year-
end receipts for 2019/20 totaled $15.48 million, almost $1 million more than the 2020/21
forecast of $14.5 million. Based upon the 2019/20 year-end total and the 2020/21 mid-
year receipts, the 2020/21 year-end revenues should be approximately $15.7 million, $1.2
million above the budget forecast.
5
Sales Tax – Revenues are received monthly with a built-in three-month lag time (i.e., June
revenues are received in September, etc.). Percentage of sales tax received through mid-
year (as shown in Table 1) is based upon 5 months of receipts (through November 30),
and is comparable to receipts in each of the three prior years. Actual revenues are
outperforming the forecast due to a significant increase in revenues from the county pool.
Table 2 illustrates annual per capita sales tax by sector. While overall sales have
remained fairly stable year over year, brick and mortar transactions are declining in favor
of increasing online sales. The county pool allocates revenues back to Danville from
online purchases. Because Danville’s brick and mortar businesses presently account for
3.3% of the total sales tax generated in Contra Costa County, Danville receives 3.3% of
the county pool proceeds. Because sales fluctuate from quarter to quarter, both the
percentage and actual revenues received can vary on a quarterly basis.
Table 2
Annual Danville Per Capita Sales Tax by Sector
Table 3 illustrates the year over year changes in sales tax received by sector for the third
quarter of the year (July 1 – September 30). Overall revenues for brick-and-mortar
businesses are down by 10.1% year over year. However, revenue returned to the Town
through the county pool has increased by 50.3% over that same time frame.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$19 $19 $19 $20 $29
$2 $1 $1 $1
$1
$4 $5 $6 $7
$10
$2 $3 $3 $2
$2
$14 $14 $15 $14
$11
$32 $32 $31 $29
$27
$55 $54 $51
$44
$43General Retail
Food Products
Transportation
Construction
Business to Business
Miecellaneous
County Pool
6
Table 3
Quarterly Comparison – 2020 Q3 vs. 2019 Q3
Based upon the information available at mid-year, sales tax is on track to meet or exceed
the initial budget forecast.
Business License Tax – Business license payments were due by December 30. While the
actual amount collected is approximately $50,000 less than collected in each of the prior
years, revenues have already exceeded the forecast by $153,000.
Franchise Fees – Franchise fees for Cable and Solid Waste are tracking closely with prior
years on a percentage basis and are expected to meet the budget forecast. Franchise fees
for electricity and gas are received in a single lump sum payment at the end of the fiscal
year.
Recreation Fees and Charges - Recreation Fees and Charges are underperforming the
budget forecast both in terms of actual revenue received and percentage collected at the
mid-year. Budget forecasts assumed that a greater degree of programming and facility
rental would be possible by the end of the 2020 calendar year. Unfortunately, this has
not been the case and programs and activities continue to be largely limited to what can
be offered virtually. This limitation is also expected to result in corresponding
expenditure reductions as funds budgeted for many programs and activities have not
been spent.
Special Revenue
Building and Planning – Greater than anticipated permit activity and workload have
resulted in revenues significantly outperforming the forecast at mid-year, and revenues
are expected to exceed the budget forecast.
Gas Tax - Revenues are significantly outperforming the forecast in terms of actual
revenue and percentage collected at mid-year, and are expected to exceed the budget
forecast.
Sector % Change
General Retail -2.3%
Food Products -11.6%
Transportation -31.6%
Construction 2.8%
Business to Business -7.6%
Miscellaneous -4.4%
Sub-Total -10.1%
County Pool 50.3%
7
Measure J Return to Source (RTS) – RTS revenues come from the countywide half cent
sales tax for transportation and are received as single year end payment. Mid-year sales
tax performance suggests that Measure J revenues should meet or exceed the forecast.
Solid Waste DIF - Revenues are tracking closely with prior years on a percentage basis
and are expected to meet the budget forecast.
Lighting and Landscape Assessment District – Percentage of revenues received through
mid-year is comparable to that received in each of the three prior years and is on track to
meet the initial budget forecast.
Successor Agency
Real Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues are budgeted at $2,279,212, inclusive
of Town re-payment under the Re-stated Cooperation Loan Agreement with the
former CDA. RPTTF revenues fund debt service payments for the 2001 and 2005
Certificates of Participation, the 2001 Taxable Revenue Bonds, and reimbursement of
allowed administrative costs. Mid-year revenues are on track to meet the forecast.
Revenue Summary
To date, the Town Council has approved one budget adjustments for 2020/21.
• Resolution No. 71-2020, pass-through revenue and expense - increase $10,705
revenues from the SPCP Fund for Development Services - plan check fees for
the revised Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study.
Potentially significant variances to the forecast are noted for Property Tax (positive),
Sales Tax (positive), Business License Tax, (positive), Recreation Fees and Charges
(negative), Building and Planning (positive) and Gas Tax (positive) at mid-year.
Cumulatively, these variances are running positive to the forecast. However, given
ongoing uncertainty presented by the pandemic, no formal mid-year revenue
adjustments are recommended.
Table 1 summarizes the adopted budget forecast, prior amendments and
recommended mid-year adjustments.
Table 4
Mid-Year Revenue Summary
Adopted Prior Mid-Year
Budget Amendments Revised
TOTAL $ 34,354,793 $ 34,365,498 $ 34,365,498
General Fund $ 23,963,524 $ 23,963,524 $ 23,963,524
Special Revenue $ 8,112,057 $ 8,122,762 $ 8,122,762
Successor Agency $ 2,279,212 $ 2,279,212 $ 2,279,212
8
Expenditures
General Government – 2020/21 budget is $1,864,513. All direct and contract costs are
tracking within budget and no mid-year adjustments are recommended.
Police Services – 2020/21 budget is $10,132,889. All contract and direct costs are
tracking within budget and no mid-year adjustments are recommended.
Administrative Services – 2020/21 budget is $3,796,878. Costs are tracking within
budget and no mid-year adjustments are recommended.
Development Services – 2020/21 budget is $3,804,345. Staffing vacancies have
required increased use of interim plan check services and temporary front counter
staffing in Building and Building revenues are significantly exceeding the forecast at
mid-year. Staffing vacancies are requiring the use of temporary staffing in
Transportation. All other contract and direct costs are tracking within budget. Mid-
year adjustments are recommended to utilize available fund balance to increase the
Building budget by $50,000 and the Transportation budget by $5,000.
Maintenance Services – 2020/21 budget is $7,362,710. The total water budget is
$415,000 for Roadsides, and $670,500 for Parks. The lack of rainfall through most of
the winter months has required unanticipated irrigation to sustain plant material and
drought conditions are expected to cause the annual water budget to be exceeded. A
mid-year adjustment is recommended to increase the water budgets for Roadsides
and Parks by 10%. All other costs are tracking within budget. Mid-year adjustments
are recommended to utilize available fund balance to increase the Roadside
Maintenance budget by $40,000 and the Parks budget by $60,000.
Recreation, Arts and Community Services – 2020/21 budget is $4,016,826. In order to
reduce operating costs and assist in other areas with staffing shortages, 3.0 FTE from
this department have been redeployed to Maintenance Services and Development
Services. As a result of the continued shelter in place orders, department costs will be
significantly less than budgeted and no mid-year adjustments are recommended.
Personnel – 2020/21 budget for regular and part-time temporary employees is $12.1
million, an 11.6% reduction from the prior year. At mid-year, 46% of the budget has
been expended. No mid-year adjustments are recommended.
Successor Agency
For 2020/21, Successor Agency operating expenditures total $1,179,212 for debt
service and administrative costs. Re-payment of the outstanding balance owed under
the former CDA/Town loan funds capital transfers of $1,100,000. Successor Agency
expenditures remain unchanged. No mid-year adjustments are recommended.
9
Expenditure Summary
Thus far in 2020/21 the Town Council has approved five budget adjustments totaling
$598,705, including:
• Resolution No. 62-2020, appropriating $21,000 from the General Fund to
provide traffic control for the closure of Hartz Avenue for temporary outdoor
restaurant seating due to the pandemic.
• Resolution No. 71-2020, appropriating $10,705 from the SPCP Fund for plan
check fees for the revised Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study.
• Resolution No. 74-2020, appropriating $250,000 from the General Fund to
establish a Forward Focus COVID-19 Business Grant Program.
• Resolution No. 82-2020, appropriating $293,000 from the General Fund for
$275,000 to establish Phase 2 of the Forward Focus COVID-19 Business Grant
Program, and $18,000 to administer of Business Assistance Program.
• Resolution No. 3-2021, appropriating $24,000 from the General Fund for grant
coordination and application services.
As discussed above, mid-year adjustments are recommended to increase:
• Maintenance Services - Parks budget by $60,000, including: $30,000 (General
Fund) and $30,000 (Special Revenue - LLAD Zone D);
• Maintenance Services - Roadsides budget by $40,000, including: $18,000
(Special Revenue - LLAD Zone A) and $22,000 (Special Revenue - LLAD Zone B);
• Development Services – Building budget by $50,000 (Special Revenue – Building
and Planning); and
• Development Services – Transportation budget by $5,000 (Special Revenue –
Measure J - RTS)
Table 2 illustrates 2020/21 expenditures, including the adopted budget forecast, prior
amendments and recommended mid-year adjustments.
Table 5
Mid-Year Expenditure Summary
Adopted Prior Mid-Year
Budget Amendments Revised
TOTAL $ 32,157,373 $ 32,756,078 $ 32,911,078
General Fund $ 22,785,837 $ 23,373,837 $ 23,403,837
Special Revenue $ 8,192,324 $ 8,203,029 $ 8,328,029
Successor Agency $ 1,179,212 $ 1,179,212 $ 1,179,212
10
Transfers and Designations
The 2020/21 budget includes General Fund transfers of $2,575,240: $900,000 for LLAD
operations and $1,675,240 for CIP – Project B-626. On November 17, 2020, the Town
Council adopted Resolution No. 78-2020, approving the 2019/20 CAFR and
designating $3,392,641 from the General Fund as a “COVID Reserve” fund. This
increased the total 2019/20 transfers and designations to $5,967,881.
STATUS OF TEN-YEAR FORECAST
Ten-year forecasts are key to planning for future years, ensuring long term fiscal
stability and continuity of service for Town residents. The mid-year overview
presents an opportunity to review and update information that has the potential to
impact future year revenues or expenditures. Ten-year forecasts were adjusted to
reflect the impact of the pandemic upon the current fiscal year as a part of the 2020/21
budget process. There are no further changes recommended to the ten -year forecast
at mid-year.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the 2020/21 Mid-Year Financial Overview and provide direction
and feedback to staff regarding any mid-year budget adjustments.
Attachments
Exhibit A – 2020/21 Mid-Year Update Year over Year Comparison
2020/21 MID-YEAR UPDATE
Year over Year Comparison
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Budget Mid-Year % of Budget Mid-Year % of Budget Mid-Year % of Budget Mid-Year % of
General Fund Forecast Actual Total Forecast Actual Total Forecast Actual Total Forecast Actual Total
Property Tax 13,041,067$ 5,057,877$ 38.8%13,642,000$ 5,581,354$ 40.9%14,260,222$ 5,853,303$ 41.0%14,505,222$ 6,083,333$ 41.9%
Sales Tax 5,314,000$ 2,927,180$ 55.1%5,522,000$ 2,248,234$ 40.7%5,577,220$ 2,158,204$ 38.7%4,339,328$ 2,394,705$ 55.2%
Transfer Tax 567,350$ 269,553$ 47.5%590,270$ 288,284$ 48.8%648,643$ 239,868$ 37.0%494,838$ 457,186$ 92.4%
Transient Occupancy 127,277$ 47,662$ 37.4%159,789$ 49,499$ 31.0%163,001$ 48,393$ 29.7%54,597$ 18,859$ 34.5%
Business License 385,770$ 332,782$ 86.3%365,150$ 335,672$ 91.9%365,150$ 336,965$ 92.3%146,060$ 299,113$ 204.8%
Franchise Cable 861,692$ 231,588$ 26.9%921,858$ 209,925$ 22.8%885,864$ 207,590$ 23.4%899,152$ 201,342$ 22.4%
Franchise Solid Waste 978,800$ 405,415$ 41.4%794,669$ 344,761$ 43.4%811,664$ 401,818$ 49.5%752,413$ 341,125$ 45.3%
Franchise Gas & Electric 538,382$ -$ 0.0%583,203$ -$ 0.0%629,404$ -$ 0.0%629,404$ -$ 0.0%
Fines & Forfeitures 175,000$ 50,379$ 28.8%175,000$ 49,837$ 28.5%175,000$ 57,100$ 32.6%141,400$ 32,542$ 23.0%
Interest Income 253,513$ 150,937$ 59.5%263,000$ 192,942$ 73.4%328,750$ 206,576$ 62.8%197,250$ 107,766$ 54.6%
Rental Income 158,770$ 164,351$ 103.5%164,343$ 170,647$ 103.8%163,343$ 181,262$ 111.0%124,490$ 67,455$ 54.2%
Recreation Fees and Charges 2,581,657$ 1,300,830$ 50.4%2,675,110$ 1,219,338$ 45.6%2,576,145$ 1,269,668$ 49.3%1,351,262$ 286,465$ 21.2%
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Special Revenue Budget Mid-Year %Budget Mid-Year %Budget Mid-Year %Budget Mid-Year %
Building and Planning 2,752,600$ 1,235,823$ 44.9%2,529,200$ 1,108,215$ 43.8%2,212,200$ 1,282,981$ 58.0%1,787,458$ 1,357,186$ 75.9%
Engineering 137,850$ 81,070$ 58.8%137,850$ 145,600$ 105.6%137,850$ 206,886$ 150.1%260,535$ 134,581$ 51.7%
Gas Tax 1,211,992$ 464,889$ 38.4%1,840,430$ 754,310$ 41.0%1,919,117$ 1,008,033$ 52.5%969,080$ 935,849$ 96.6%
Measure J - RTS 742,857$ 148,081$ 19.9%742,857$ 47,921$ 6.5%815,217$ 161,891$ 19.9%576,288$ 5,254$ 0.9%
Clean Water 570,793$ 64,192$ 11.2%570,793$ 12,330$ 2.2%572,200$ 14,793$ 2.6%572,700$ 28,657$ 5.0%
LLAD - A 582,115$ 325,159$ 55.9%582,115$ 327,191$ 56.2%582,115$ 332,294$ 57.1%583,858$ 328,047$ 56.2%
LLAD - B 744,744$ 412,703$ 55.4%744,744$ 412,869$ 55.4%744,744$ 412,600$ 55.4%746,968$ 410,577$ 55.0%
LLAD - C 662,204$ 381,367$ 57.6%662,204$ 365,728$ 55.2%662,204$ 369,641$ 55.8%664,183$ 367,566$ 55.3%
LLAD - D 1,131,619$ 598,653$ 52.9%1,131,619$ 601,552$ 53.2%1,131,619$ 603,992$ 53.4%1,134,741$ 601,336$ 53.0%
Solid Waste VIF -$ -$ 0.0%238,401$ 98,187$ 41.2%482,182$ 241,098$ 50.0%585,000$ 272,900$ 46.6%
EXHIBIT A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
STATUS UPDATE
The Town’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), i.e. capital budget, identifies,
prioritizes and funds capital projects that address immediate and long-term
community needs. This paper provides a status update on current CIP projects, and
describes future capital needs and priorities to help set the stage for development and
consideration of the new 2021/22 – 2025/26 CIP which will take place in spring 2021.
BACKGROUND
Since 2000, Danville has invested $154.5 million on capital projects that have
benefitted the community in numerous ways (Attachment A), an average $7.4 million
annually. Funding has come through a variety of sources, including $60.5 million
from the General Fund. Every General Fund dollar expended has been used to
leverage an additional $2.55 of Special Revenue. This has been accomplished without
the use of special taxes, assessments or debt.
In 2020, the Town completed a number of significant capital projects directly and
through partnerships with other agencies. These included:
• Completing the 2019/20 Pavement Slurry Seal project at a total cost of $1.2
million, continuing to to maintain a town-wide PCI of 80+.
• Completing the enhanced bicycle safety improvements on Diablo Road
between Hartz Avenue and Green Valley Road.
• Completing the new children’s play area at Hap Magee Ranch Park.
• Completing design work and starting construction on the new Police Services
facility at 500 La Gonda Way.
• Completing design work and starting construction on the new San Ramon
Creek pedestrian bridge connecting Diablo Road to the Town Green.
• Completing the Diablo Vista Park sythetic turf replacement project.
• Completing design work for the Sycamore Park & Ride expansion project.
Looking forward to 2021 major new or ongoing projects include:
• Constructing the Sycamore Park and Ride expansion project to add 122 new
parking spaces.
• Continuing environmental and design work for the Diablo Road Trail project.
• Securing grant funding and constructing drainage improvements and
modifications for Westridge Drive, Loch Lomond Way, and Starview Drive.
2
• Continuing design work for the La Gonda Way bridge replacement project.
• Continuing with the Town’s proactive Pavement Management Program to
maintain a positive pavement condition index (PCI) of 80+.
• Completing construction of the San Ramon Creek pedestrian bridge connecting
Diablo Road to the Town Green.
• Completing construction of the new Police Services facility at 500 La Gonda
Way.
• Completing the Town-wide Storm Drainage Master Plan.
• Completing the new Town-wide Bicycle Master Plan.
2020 Completed Projects
Table 1 shows a total of 31 projects that were completed in 2020. Several of these
projects were constructed in phases that may have spanned several years.
Table 1
Recently Completed Projects
Project Project Name Expended
A-064 Local General Improvements – Disabled Access $4,900
A-330 Town-wide Storm Drain System Maintenance $287,587
A-513 Camino Tassajara Pkwy/Sycamore Valley Rd
Sound Wall Maintenance
$2,000
A-514 Public Places for Art $6,737
A-533 Town-wide Landscape Replacement $140,308
A-579 Town-wide Roadway Damage Repair $12,235
A-606 Automated License Plate Reader & Situational
Awareness Cameras
$2,312
B-101 Park and Recreation Facilities Capital Maintenance $2,231
B-280 Sports Field Renovation $38,205
B-400 Hap Magee Ranch Capital Maintenance $340,046
B-415 Civic Facilities Capital Maintenance Projects $3,390
B-491 Library and Community Center Capital
Maintenance
$30,000
B-493 Synthetic Turf Replacement $712,913
B-494 Osage Station Park Capital Maintenance $17,640
B-495 Sycamore Valley Park Capital Maintenance $11,365
B-544 Oak Hill Capital Maintenance $3,000
B-560 Diablo Vista Park Capital Maintenance $16,348
B-574 Vista Grande/Bret Harte Park Improvements $2,900
3
B-626 Town Office Relocation $338,562
C-017 Town-wide Sidewalk Repairs $18,000
C-055 Diablo Road Trail - Alameda Diablo to Tank Access $17,900
C-305 Traffic Management Program $8,039
C-392 Bridge Maintenance $81,034
C-562 Traffic Signal Interconnect System $3,867
C-566 Town-wide Bicycle Parking Project $3,946
C-593 Front Street Creek Bank Stabilization $1,736
C-598 Park & Ride Expansion Project $430,844
C-599 La Gonda Way Bridge Improvements $67,855
C-607 Iron Horse Trail Crosswalks and Flashing Beacons $175,477
C-610 Pavement Management $1,146,325
C-621 Town-wide Bicycle Facilities Improvements $108,718
TOTAL $4,036,240
CURRENT STATUS – 2020/21 MID-YEAR REVIEW
Preparatory to considering and adopting the 2020/21 CIP, the Town was required to
make adjustments to both the operating budget and CIP to compensate for pandemic
driven revenue losses. This resulted in scaling back CIP expenditures and projects
from prior year levels. The resultant 2020/21 CIP included funding appropriations
of $2,452,740 for 16 projects (Attachment B).
Following adoption of the 2020/21 CIP the Town Council approved one additional
funding appropriation:
• Resolution 61-2019, appropriating $137,573 in Park Dedication Impact Funds
for Project B-400 – Hap Magee Ranch Park Playground Renovation.
This increased total capital appropriations for 2020/21 to $2,547,813.
A total of 64 CIP projects are currently active and in various stages of design or
construction, of which 28 are considered ongoing capital maintenance projects.
Project Status
Once included in the CIP, projects are assigned a priority ranging from 1 through
5 by the Town Council. Priority 1 projects are assigned the highest priority through
Priority 5 which are assigned the lowest. The Town Council may from time to time
add new projects or re-prioritize existing projects. Following is a status update on
some of the high priority projects:
4
Pavement Management Program
In 2020, the Town completed the 2019/20 Pavement Slurry Seal project at a total cost
of $1,146,325. The project covered 10.2 miles of public roadway affecting 43 Danville
streets. Upon completion of the project the resultant Town-wide PCI was 82. Project
C-610 includes $2.45 million for the 2021/22 Pavement Management Program. The
Program is recommended to be funded at a similar level through 2025/26.
Priority 1
C-598 – Park and Ride Expansion Project – Design work is complete to expand the
Sycamore Valley Road Park and Ride lot by approximately 122 parking spaces.
Construction is programmed to begin in summer 2021. $2.76 million has been
appropriated for the project, leaving an estimated funding gap of $700,000.
Grant/earmark funding opportunities are currently being pursued, and additional
funding will be required in order to award a construction contract.
Priority 1-2
B-626 - Town Office Relocation – The $12.47 million acquisition of the building at 500 La
Gonda Way was completed in December 2019. Design and construction of tenant and
site improvements were initially estimated to cost an additional $10.08 million. On
November 17, 2020, the Town Council awarded a construction contract and
appropriated $7,108,800 for the Police Services phase of the project. Based upon most
recent estimates, an additional $3.6 million will be needed to complete all phases of
the project. (Attachment C)
A-608, 613 & 614 – Starview Drive, Loch Lomond and Westridge Trash Rack Modifications
– Design for these storm drain projects is 90% complete. Project construction will be
completed prior to winter 2021. The total estimated cost is $564,000, with $394,000
currently appropriated. The Town is currently pursuing a FEMA Hazard Mitigation
Grant to fund the balance of the project.
C-578 – San Ramon Valley Boulevard Slurry Seal and Striping (South of Sycamore Valley
Road) – Currently in the preliminary design stage, this project consists of slurry seal
and restriping the segment of San Ramon Valley Boulevard between Podva Road and
Jewel Terrace.
C-596 – San Ramon Creek Footbridge at Danville Green – The Town is partnering with
Tramell Crow to design and construct this $900,000 project that will connect the new
Riverwalk project and Diablo Road with the Town Green. The construction is
expected to be complete by spring 2021.
C-599 – La Gonda Way Bridge Improvements – A consultant has been selected and design
of the project began in August 2019. Total project cost is estimated to be $6.03 million,
with 88% of the cost eligible for federal funding through the Caltrans Highway Bridge
Program.
5
FUTURE NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
Ongoing Capital Maintenance
Capital maintenance describes ongoing replacement or renovation of existing capital
assets such as park features, buildings, storm drains, and roads. Although much of
the CIP-centered discussion tends to focus on new projects, a significant portion of
annual capital expenditures are allocated for capital maintenance.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize anticipated capital obligations and costs for the next five
years. These figures include funding to continue the Pavement Management Program
at approximately $2.5 million annually. Annual ongoing costs of $4 million can be
expected to continue in order to maintain all facilities at current standards.
Table 2
Streets/Roads Capital Maintenance
Project Name 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Total
A-064 Disabled Access $10,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $210,000
A-330 Town-wide Storm Drainage $5,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $125,000
A-513 C. T. Wall Maintenance $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000
A-533 T.W. Landscape Replacement $0 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $160,000
A-579 Town-Wide Road Repair $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $100,000
A-606 ALPR Cameras $0 $65,600 $65,600 $65,600 $65,600 $262,400
C-017 Town-Wd. Sidewalk Rep. $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $35,000
C-545 Traffic Signal Cont. Upgrade $30,000 $84,000 $80,000 $30,000 $30,000 $254,000
C-610 Pavement Management $0 $2,450,000 $2,224,367 $2,595,527 $2,294,703 $9,564,597
TOTAL $52,000 $2,801,600 $2,571,967 $2,893,127 $2,592,303 $10,910,997
Table 3
Parks/Buildings Capital Maintenance
Project Name 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Total
B-101 Town-Wide Parks $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
B-120 Town-Wide Trails $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000
B-216 Town Service Center $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $30,000
B-280 Sportsfield Renovation $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000
B-400 H. M. R. Park $105,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 25,000 $205,000
B-415 Town-wide Buildings $0 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $120,000
B-452 S.V. Day School $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000
6
Unfunded/Underfunded Projects – 2020/21 – 2024/25
Table 4 illustrates unfunded/underfunded projects currently included in years 2-5 of
the CIP. These projects may ultimately be funded, deferred or deleted depending
upon prioritization and need. Note that, in some instances these cost estimates may
be several years old. Table 4 does not include Potential Future Projects that have yet
to be included in the CIP.
Table 4
Unfunded/Underfunded Capital Improvements
Project Name Total
A-529 Diablo Rd Wall Replace $557,219
A-561 I-680 IC Landscaping $575,800
A-608 Starview Drive Trash Rack $61,000
A-613 Loch Lomond Trash Rack $26,000
A-614 Westridge Trash Rack $82,200
B-427 Oak Hill Park Master Plan $50,000
B-479 Sycamore V.P. Site Study $50,000
B-522 Sycamore V.P. Restrooms $689,000
B-626 Town Office Relocation $1,683,509
C-055 Diablo Road Trail $1,591,432
C-598 Sycamore Park and Ride Lot Expansion 700,000
TOTAL $6,066,160
Potential New/Future Projects
In addition to funded and unfunded projects, other projects may warrant
consideration for inclusion in future CIPs. Such projects may not have been
previously included because: 1) there was no perceived need; 2) a specific funding
B-491 Library & C. C. $60,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $180,000
B-493 Synthetic Turf Rep. $0 $1,567,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $2,242,000
B-494 Osage Station Park $0 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $50,000
B-495 Sycamore Vly. Park $0 30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $120,000
B-544 Oak Hill Park $0 $86,000 $500,000 $36,000 $36,000 $658,000
B-553 Village Theatre $0 $22,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $58,000
B-556 Danville South Park $0 $20,000 $56,000 $100,000 $20,000 $196,000
B-559 School Park Facilities $0 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $70,000
B-560 Diablo Vista Park $0 $18,000 $93,000 $743,000 $18,000 $872,000
B-582 Veterans Building $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $60,000
TOTAL $270,000 $1,990,500 $1,153,500 $1,398,500 $593,500 $5,406,000
7
opportunity was identified after approval of the current CIP; 3) future project costs
are too much of an unknown; or 4) a project may not have been considered to be a
sufficiently high priority to warrant inclusion by the Town Council.
Some potential new/future projects include:
Parks & Facilities
• Public Art – Future installation of Public Art in appropriate locations, consistent
with the adopted Public Art Policy.
• Skate and Scooter Park – Following up on a recommendation contained in the
Parks, Recreation and Arts Strategic Plan, the Town has identified the preferred
location for a future skate and scooter park at Diablo Vista Park. The estimated
cost to design and construct this future propject is estimated to be in the range
of $2.5 million.
• Town Green Improvements - Completed and approved in 2019, the Town Green
Master Plan identifies seven “areas of improvement”, i.e – phases, with a
combined estimated cost of $4.6 to $5.6 million. Should the Town Council
decide to add this project to a future CIP, the implementation could be phased
over a period of years.
As with all projects included in the current CIP, any new projects would need to be
prioritized with consideration given to funding feasibility.
Future Capital Project Funding
The Town’s most significant source of funding for capital projects is the General Fund.
Attachment D is Table E from the current CIP which summarizes Estimated Funding
Activity over the next five years. The following attachment, Attachment E, uses this
information to focus on the CIP General Purpose, Park Facilities and Civic Facilities
funds. These are all funded by the General Fund. The attachment illustrates
forecasted annual General Fund transfers in to the CIP along with expenditures,
including those currently programmed as well as additional funding needs that are
currently unprogrammed.
Forecasts project total General Fund transfers of $5.8 million into the CIP, with
estimated expenditures of $11.8 million. While sufficient fund balance is available to
cover expenditures, this does not address an additional $14.8 million in potential
expenditure needs that are not currently programmed.
While the Town will continue to prioritize the need to set aside funds to pay for future
capital needs, the need to fund annual ongoing capital maintenance projects, and
other capital improvements is expected to deplete available reserves. This will
necessitate identifying additional future sources of funds to continue to provide
community facilities that meet residents’ needs and expectations.
8
SUMMARY
The Town continues to assess ongoing capital demands and needs, and balance these
with available capital funding. While the Town has done a good job of addressing
capital needs through adding and expanding facilities, and partnerships with other
agencies and community groups, capital reserves are expected to be spent to meet
anticipated needs over the next five years.
Town Council consideration and discussion of any additional capital projects
required to address current and future community needs will assist staff with fiscal
and capital planning moving forward.
Attachments:
A - 2000-2020 Completed Capital Projects by Category
B - 2020/21 CIP Projects
C – CIP Project B-626 Funding and Cost
D - CIP Table E
E – CIP G.P. Revenue – Projected Five-Year Fund Balances
ATTACHMENT A
2000-2020 Completed Capital Projects
Year
Complete
Category Proj. No. Project Name Cost Estimates
2020 General
Improvements
A-064 Local General Improvements – Disabled Access $4,900
A-330 Town-wide Storm Drain System Maintenance $287,587
A-513 Camino Tassajara Pkwy/Sycamore Valley Rd Sound Wall
Maintenance
$2,000
A-514 Public Places for Art $6,737
A-533 Town-wide Landscape Replacement $140,308
A-579 Town-wide Roadway Damage Repair $12,235
A-606 Automated License Plate Reader & Situational Awareness
Cameras
$2,312
Parks and
Facilities
B-101 Park and Recreation Facilities Capital Maintenance $2,231
B-280 Sports Field Renovation $38,205
B-400 Hap Magee Ranch Capital Maintenance $340,046
B-415 Civic Facilities Capital Maintenance Projects $3,390
B-491 Library and Community Center Capital Maintenance $30,000
B-493 Synthetic Turf Replacement $712,913
B-494 Osage Station Park Capital Maintenance $17,640
B-495 Sycamore Valley Park Capital Maintenance $11,365
B-544 Oak Hill Capital Maintenance $3,000
B-560 Diablo Vista Park Capital Maintenance $16,348
B-574 Vista Grande/Bret Harte Park Improvements $2,900
B-626 Town Office Relocation $338,562
Transportation C-017 Town-wide Sidewalk Repairs $18,000
C-055 Diablo Road Trail from Alameda Diablo to Tank Access $17,900
C-305 Traffic Management Program $8,039
C-392 Bridge Maintenance $81,034
C-562 Traffic Signal Interconnect System $3,867
C-566 Town-wide Bicycle Parking Project $3,946
C-593 Front Street Creek Bank Stabilization $1,736
C-598 Park & Ride Expansion Project $430,844
C-599 La Gonda Way Bridge Improvements $67,855
C-607 Iron Horse Trail Raised Crosswalks and Flashing Beacons $175,477
C-610 Pavement Management $1,146,325
C-621 Town-wide Bicycle Facilities Improvements $108,718
2020 Total $4,036,240
2019 General
Improvements
A-330 Town-wide Storm Drain System Maintenance $30,567
A-362 Downtown Improvement Project $94,151
A-482 Street Light Maintenance $140,615
Year
Complete
Category Proj. No. Project Name Cost Estimates
A-514 Public Places for Art $11,200
A-579 Town-wide Roadway Damage Repair $36,090
A-580 Town Office Improvements $90,094
A-606 Automated License Plate Reader & Situational Awareness
Cameras
$12,612
Parks and
Facilities
B-101 Park and Recreation Facilities Capital Maintenance $18,504
B-216 Town Service Center Capital Maintenance $41,161
B-280 Sports Field Renovation $48,915
B-400 Hap Magee Ranch Capital Maintenance $55,859
B-415 Civic Facilities Capital Maintenance Projects $63,963
B-490 Osage Station Park Improvements $72,067
B-491 Library and Community Center Capital Maintenance $80,171
B-494 Osage Station Park Capital Maintenance $113,144
B-515 Security Access Control for Town Buildings $155,625
B-544 Oak Hill Capital Maintenance $15,220
B-582 Veterans Memorial Building Capital Maintenance $13,540
B-597 Village Theatre Parking Lot Improvements $2,403,094
B-617 Town Green and Arts District Master Plan $21,000
B-618 Town-Wide Wayfinding and Directional Signage $35,200
Transportation C-305 Traffic Management Program $38,989
C-418 Traffic Signal and Street Light Maintenance Program $17,965
C-545 Traffic Signal Controller Upgrade $11,108
C-588 Battery Back-Up Systems for Traffic Signals $28,753
C-594 Student Parking at San Ramon Valley High School $725,000
C-607 Iron Horse Trail Raised Crosswalks and Flashing Beacons $258,671
C-610 Pavement Management $1,808,841
C-621 Town-wide Bicycle Facilities Improvements $32,945
2019 Total $6,475,064
2018 General
Improvements
A-330 Town-wide Storm Drain System Maintenance $77,320
A-482 Street Light Maintenance $10,132
A-540 Town Facility Security Monitoring System $16,966
A-580 Town Office Improvements $49,145
Parks and
Facilities
B-400 Hap Magee Ranch Park Capital Maintenance $289,797
B-490 Osage Station Park Improvements $233,690
B-491 Library and Community Center Capital Maintenance $42,054
B-544 Oak Hill Park Capital Maintenance $52,882
B-574 Vista Grande Street/Bret Harte Park Pedestrian
Improvements
$180,922
B-582 Veterans Memorial Building Capital Maintenance $51,208
Transportation C-017 Town-wide Sidewalk Repairs $24,925
Year
Complete
Category Proj. No. Project Name Cost Estimates
C-418 Traffic Signal and Street Light Maintenance Program $29,711
C-584 Danville Various Streets and Roads Preservation $2,282,982
C-595 Pavement Management Program $794,375
C-621 Town-wide Bicycle Facilities Improvements $33,884
2018 Total
$4,169,993
2017 General
Improvements
A-482 Street Light Maintenance $574,036
A-513 Camino Tassajara Pkwy/Sycamore Valley Rd Sound Wall
Maintenance
$694,725
A-558 Parking Lot Maintenance $149,304
A-606 Automated License Plate Reader & Situational Awareness
Cameras
$1,167,360
A-612 Town Service Center Slide Drainage Repair $28,000
A-615 Camino Encanto at Del Amigo Storm Drain Replacement $82,630
Parks and
Facilities
B-491 Library and Community Center Capital Maintenance $865,460
B-582 Veterans Memorial Building Capital Maintenance $191,500
Transportation C-508 Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon SAFETEA-LU Improvements $7,882,745
C-592 Rose Street Parking Facility $5,517,682
C-595 Pavement Management Program $6,022,208
2017 Total
$23,175,650
2016 Parks and
Facilities
B-490 Osage Station Park Improvements $5,132,750
Transportation C-585 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at Town-Owned Facilities $113,084
C-603 Danville and El Cerro Boulevard Parking Improvements $34,000
C-605 Railroad Ave. Decorative Crosswalks/Pavement Overlay $479,400
2016 Total
$5,759,234
2015 Parks and
Facilities
B-450 Park System Signage $228,000
B-591 Bocce Ball Court Expansion at Sycamore Valley Park $1,473,414
Transportation C-319 Hartz Avenue Beautification - Linda Mesa to Railroad $8,717,211
C-391 Hartz Avenue Beautification - Linda Mesa to Diablo Rd $385,326
C-405 Railroad Avenue Improvements Prospect to School $2,350,296
C-527 San Ramon Valley Blvd. & Iron Horse Trail Signal
Enhancement
$10,000
C-577 Pavement Management Program $6,000,000
C-586 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Widening $759,898
C-589 Lawrence Road Traffic Safety Improvements $75,000
2015 Total
$19,999,145
2014 General
Improvements
A-241 Crow Canyon Road Sound Walls $1,134,825
A-266 Town-Wide Wayfinding and Directional Signage $221,800
Transportation C-570 Pavement Management Program $2,000,000
C-587 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Gap Closure Sound Wall $7,420,000
2014 Total
$10,776,625
Year
Complete
Category Proj. No. Project Name Cost Estimates
2013 General
Improvements
A-458 San Ramon Creek Realignment at El Capitan Bridge $607,048
A-504 Front Street Repair (FEMA) $880,402
A-505 El Pinto Road Repair (FEMA) $341,575
A-531 Solar Photovoltaic System $1,339,579
A-583 Utility Vault Access Security $10,000
Parks and
Facilities
B-539 Town Meeting Hall Audio and Visual Projection System $266,043
B-557 San Ramon Valley H. S. Tennis Court Replacement Lighting $82,500
Transportation C-523 Downtown Crosswalk Enhancements $182,625
2013 Total
$3,709,772
2012 General
Improvements
A-549 Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) System $120,000
A-563 Downtown Trash Receptacle Replacement $207,788
Transportation C-240 Tassajara Ranch Drive Median and Bicycle Lanes $850,546
2012 Total
$1,178,334
2011 Parks and
Facilities
B-466 Osage Parking Lots Pavement Repair and Expansion $603,282
B-510 Veterans Memorial Building $8,428,654
B-548 Oak Hill Park Community Center Doors $204,000
B-565 Swimming Pool at San Ramon Valley High School $500,000
Transportation C-239 Major Arterial Overlays $301,405
C-430 West El Pintado Sidewalk Structural Repair $732,284
C-457 Diablo Road Bridge Slope Repair $657,419
C-487 Sycamore Valley Road and I-680 On-Ramp Improvements $1,095,321
C-546 Hartz and Prospect Avenues Intersection Improvements $127,720
C-547 Pavement Management Program $4,000,000
C-554 Tassajara Ranch Rd and Zenith Ridge Street Light
Improvement
$50,000
2011 Total
$16,700,085
2010 General
Improvements
A-316 Downtown Directional Signage $13,700
A-462 Clydesdale Drive Median Improvements $23,100
Parks and
Facilities
B-286 Village Theatre Renovations and Improvements $1,597,160
B-423 Village Theatre Security Improvement $98,500
B-471 Sports Field Lighting Upgrade $45,000
B-507 Railroad Plaza $250,464
B-512 Woodbine Bridge Replacement and Pedestrian Walkway $505,965
B-520 Hap Magee Ranch Park Group Picnic Area Shade Structure $165,000
Transportation C-046 Town-Wide Traffic Signal Interconnect $690,584
C-365 Green Valley Road Street Repair $20,202
C-511 Diablo and Green Valley Road Improvements (ARRA) $1,008,063
2010 Total
$4,417,738
Year
Complete
Category Proj. No. Project Name Cost Estimates
2009 General
Improvements
A-271 Parking Lot Maintenance at East Bay Fellowship Church $1,284,553
Parks and
Facilities
B-543 Monte Vista Community Pool Shade Structure $74,000
Transportation C-486 Sycamore Valley Road Improvements East of Camino Ramon $752,122
C-503 Pavement Management Program $4,200,000
C-517 Iron Horse Trail Corridor Concept Plan $66,000
2009 Total
$6,376,675
2008 General
Improvements
A-464 El Cerro Boulevard Median Renovation $246,580
Parks and
Facilities
B-276 Hap Magee Ranch Park Planning - Phase 2 $35,000
B-428 Vista Grande School/Park Playfield Renovation $834,150
B-449 Sycamore Valley and Diablo Vista Parks Play Area Renovation $1,100,543
B-451 Hap Magee Parking and Staging Area $800,000
B-489 Bocce Court Shade Structures and Group Picnic Area $351,360
B-496 Diablo Vista Middle School Gymnasium and Teen Center $800,000
Transportation C-455 Battery Back-Up Systems for Traffic Signals $355,250
C-483 Installation of Audible Pedestrian Signals at Five Intersections $66,000
C-518 Front Street Pedestrian Improvements $88,000
2008 Total
$4,676,883
2007 General
Improvements
A-393 La Questa Storm Drain - La Questa Drive to El Rincon Road $619,512
A-419 Camino Tassajara Electrical Undergrounding Project $1,852,305
A-456 Diablo/Hartz Sidewalk Repair (Southeast Corner) $39,578
A-459 Sycamore Park Parking Lot Improvements $622,917
Parks and
Facilities
B-417 Oak Hill Park Community Building $5,093,040
B-470 Student Unions/Teen Centers at Middle Schools $605,000
Transportation C-485 Camino Tassajara/Sherburne Hills Eastbound Left Turn
Extension
$110,000
2007 Total
$8,942,352
2006 General
Improvements
A-364 Diablo Road Street Repair East Phase 2 $822,288
A-408 Mariposa Court Pedestrian Walkway $150,531
Parks and
Facilities
B-414 Diablo Road Median Landscape Renovation $77,500
Transportation C-473 Pavement Management Program $1,050,000
C-481 Front Street Municipal Parking Lot $5,000,148
C-502 Vista Grande Crosswalk Safety Improvements on Diablo Road $60,000
2006 Total
$7,160,467
2005 General
Improvements
A-411 Hartz Avenue Pavement Repair $267,598
A-413 Clock Tower Parking Lot Renovation $1,100,000
A-431 Camaritas Way and Camaritas Court Reconstruction $363,384
A-436 Railroad Avenue Parking Lot Seal Coat $61,488
Year
Complete
Category Proj. No. Project Name Cost Estimates
A-441 La Gonda Way Street Improvements $34,550
A-460 Diablo Vista North Parking Lot Repair $22,623
A-463 Sycamore Valley Park Pond Filter Upgrade $15,000
Parks and
Facilities
B-294 Osage Station Park South Parking Lot Restroom $407,514
B-311 Dog Park at Hap Magee Ranch Park $179,800
B-376 Sycamore Creek Trail and Open Space Staging Area
(Castenada)
$388,297
Transportation C-424 Median Island on Ackerman Drive at Diablo Road/El Cerro
Blvd.
$0
C-434 Sycamore Valley Rd/Old Orchard Traffic Signal Modification $201,475
C-461 Brookside Drive Sidewalk $301,543
C-465 Del Amigo Road Lighted Crosswalk at Iron Horse Trail $40,500
C-472 El Capitan Lighted Crosswalk at Charlotte Wood School $40,500
C-475 Century Circle and Way Pavement Reconstruction $364,000
C-484 Install Flashing Beacon at Crosswalk on Danville Blvd at La
Gonda
$15,000
2005 Total
$3,803,272
2004 Parks and
Facilities
B-013 Osage Station Rose Gardens $232,523
B-229 All Wars Memorial at Oak Hill Park $35,000
B-279 Hap Magee Ranch Park Play Area $567,352
B-281 Hap Magee Ranch Park Group Picnic Area $250,000
B-343 Monte Vista High School Community Swimming Pool $375,000
B-378 Kiosk $179,000
B-380 Park and Recreation Facilities and Trails Master Plan $75,000
B-448 Diablo Vista Park Parking Improvements $70,200
Transportation C-044 Crow Canyon Corridor Mitigation Signal Improvements $388,189
C-426 Del Amigo Walkway - Del Amigo to Las Barrancas $91,548
C-454 Camino Tassajara Circulation Improvements $613,000
2004 Total
$2,876,812
2003 General
Improvements
A-248 Camino Tassajara Sidewalk at Holbrook $73,113
A-336 Communication Conduit $38,476
A-433 Del Amigo Drainage Improvements $105,188
A-438 Nuevo Road Drainage Improvements $20,556
Parks and
Facilities
B-379 Diablo Vista Park Synthetic Turf Soccer Field $894,519
B-406 Diablo Vista Park Improvements $50,000
B-416 Sycamore Valley Park Athletic Field Renovation $3,315,000
Transportation C-306 Pavement Management Program $7,091,901
C-396 West El Pintado Sidewalk $105,094
C-398 Prospect and Hartz Lighted Crosswalk $45,000
C-399 Paraiso Drive and Iron Horse Trail Lighted Crosswalk $45,000
C-404 Railroad Avenue Improvements (At 342 Railroad Avenue) $37,284
Year
Complete
Category Proj. No. Project Name Cost Estimates
C-421 Flashing Beacons at Diablo Road and Clydesdale Drive $59,345
C-435 Drainage Improvement on La Gonda Way (989 La Gonda) $25,454
2003 Total
$11,905,930
2002 General
Improvements
A-356 Police Department Expansion $874,185
A-366 Diablo Road Street Repair West $334,467
A-369 Sycamore Valley Road Street Repair $778,000
A-370 Camino Tassajara Street Repair $711,000
A-386 Camino Tassajara Street Repair - Old Orchard to Sycamore
Valley
$372,826
A-410 Liberta Place Storm Drain $28,215
Parks and
Facilities
B-221 Los Cerros Middle School Gymnasium $500,000
B-293 Osage Station Park Water Service $23,715
Transportation C-002 Town Meeting Hall Repairs and Renovations $45,250
C-346 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Traffic Signal Improvements $188,006
C-407 Battery Back-Up Systems for Traffic Signals $121,000
2002 Total
$3,976,664
2001 General
Improvements
A-344 Downtown Parking Structure $25,000
A-357 Town Office Lobby Modernization $50,000
A-361 El Cerro Subdrain $115,830
A-367 Camino Ramon (South) Street Repair $89,589
A-368 Hartz Avenue Street Light Project $127,996
A-375 La Questa Drainage Improvements $37,376
Parks and
Facilities
B-232 Old Blackhawk Ped/Equestrian Bridge $171,994
B-277 Sycamore Valley Park Illuminated Basketball Courts $327,212
B-278 Danville South Play Area Renovation $57,505
B-284 Sycamore Valley Park Bocce Ball Courts $169,158
B-329 Sycamore Valley Park Shade Structure $26,035
B-382 Town Green Bandstand Enhancements $18,025
Transportation C-323 Iron Horse Trail Crossing at San Ramon Valley Boulevard $203,595
C-324 Maiden Lane Traffic Calming Barrier $41,550
C-372 Railroad Avenue Parking Improvements $20,000
2001 Total
$1,480,865
2000 General
Improvements
A-113 Danville Boulevard Parking Improvements $25,000
A-304 Oak Hill Park Pond Alga Control Improvements $30,000
A-331 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Street Repair $747,583
A-350 Prospect Avenue Asphalt Walkway $63,989
A-359 Town Office Police Parking Lot Expansion $228,833
A-360 Danville Blvd. Street Repair $548,861
A-383 Camino Ramon Overlay (North) $333,220
Year
Complete
Category Proj. No. Project Name Cost Estimates
Parks and
Facilities
B-211 Freitas Road Trail/Bridge $286,905
B-285 Sycamore Valley Creek Trail Bridge Projects $59,052
B-287 Oak Hill Park Pond Pump Renovation $60,750
B-290 Hap Magee Ranch Park Magee House Renovation $32,000
B-292 Sycamore Valley Park Group Picnic Area Landscaping $106,872
B-297 Iron Horse Trailhead at San Ramon Valley Boulevard $19,763
Transportation C-062 Signal Controller Modification $35,400
C-312 Iron Horse Trail Realignment at Sycamore Valley Road. $22,646
C-349 San Ramon Valley Blvd./ Railroad Ave. Signal Controller
Upgrade
$58,000
C-352 Camino Ramon Sidewalk $49,837
C-353 San Ramon Valley Blvd./Podva Rd. Traffic Signal $145,000
2000 Total $2,853,710
Grand
Total
$154,451,690
www.danville.ca.govCIP7
Summary Tables
ATTACHMENT B
Project B-626 - Town Office Relocation
Project Cost & Funding
Estimated Cost
Property Acquisition (500 La Gonda)$12,465,362 *
Improvements
Phase 1 - Police Department $7,108,800 **
Tenant Improvements & Furnishing
(assume $125 per s.f. for 16,000 s.f.)$2,000,000
Parking Lot $750,000
Design $750,000
Sub-total $3,500,000
Contingency (assume 15%)$525,000
Solar buyout $500,000
Sub-Total - T.I. & Furnishings $4,025,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $24,099,162
Funding
Capital Improvement Program B-626
Prior Year Appropriations $9,600,000
2019/20 GF Transfer $2,100,000
2018/19 Year-end Fund Balance $3,700,000
Sale of 115-125 Hartz Avenue Property $3,274,470
2020/21 GF Transfer $1,675,240
Closeout/transfer fro CIP Project B-597 $240,943
Total Current Appropriations $20,590,653
Remaining Funding Required (Current)-$3,508,509
Future 2021/22 Appropriation - per CIP B-626 $1,825,000
Unfunded Balance -$1,683,509
*$12,750,000 -$170,000 adjustment equals cost of $12,580,000; closing costs include: taxes, insurance
and fees totalling $25,503.79; and credits of $140,141.31 for tenant deposits and rent.
**tennant improvements for fdormer theater shell - per contract awarded November 17, 2020.19-Jan-21
ATTACHMENT C
www.danville.ca.govCIP11
20
2
1
/
2
2
2
0
2
2
/
2
3
2
0
2
3
/
2
4
2
0
2
4
/
2
5
Summary Tables
ATTACHMENT D
CIP GENERAL PURPOSE REVENUE
Projected Available Fund Balance
2020/21 - 2024/25
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Total
General Fund - Transfers In
CIP General Purpose $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000
B-626 Town Offices $1,675,240 $1,465,207 $0 $0 $0 $3,140,447
Pavement Management $0 $0 $174,367 $495,527 $194,703 $669,894
Sub-Total $1,675,240 $1,465,207 $1,174,367 $1,495,527 $1,194,703 $5,810,341
Park Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Civic Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $1,675,240 $1,465,207 $1,174,367 $1,495,527 $1,194,703 $5,810,341
General Fund Expenditures
CIP General Purpose $0 $285,600 $832,350 $250,600 $250,600 $1,619,150
B-626 Town Office Relocation $1,575,240 $1,825,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,400,240
Pavement Management $0 $0 $174,367 $495,527 $194,703 $864,597
Sub-Total $1,575,240 $2,110,600 $1,006,717 $746,127 $445,303 $5,883,987
Park Facilities $30,000 $4,045,500 $900,500 $356,500 $356,500 $5,689,000
Civic Facilities $0 $57,000 $57,000 $57,000 $57,000 $228,000
TOTAL $1,605,240 $6,213,100 $1,964,217 $1,159,627 $858,803 $11,800,987
Estimated Year-End Available Fund Balance
CIP General Purpose $9,838,838 $9,553,238 $9,720,888 $10,470,288 $11,219,688
Park Facilities $366,752 -$3,678,748 -$4,579,248 -$4,935,748 -$5,292,248
Civic Facilities $44,221 -$12,779 -$69,779 -$126,779 -$183,779
$10,249,811 $5,861,711 $5,071,861 $5,407,761 $5,743,661
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
E
Potential Future Capital Funding Needs
Estimated
Cost
282 Front Street
Site Acquuisition from S.A.$600,000
Currently Unfunded/Underfunded
Various Projects (Per Table 4)$6,066,160
Potential Town Green Master Plan
Phased Improvements $5,600,000
Potential Scooter and Skate Park
Design plus Improvements $2,500,000
$14,766,160
Pavement Management Program
Revenues and Expenditures
2019/20 - 2023/24
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Total
Forecasted Revenues
G.F. to CIP Pavement $0 $0 $174,367 $495,527 $194,703 $669,894
Gas Tax $0 $500,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $2,000,000
Measure J RTS $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000
Solid Waste VIF $0 $1,450,000 $800,000 $850,000 $850,000 $3,100,000
$0 $2,450,000 $2,224,367 $2,595,527 $2,294,703 $7,269,894
Expenditures $0 $2,450,000 $2,224,367 $2,595,527 $2,294,703 $7,269,894
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE:
CHALLENGES & STRATEGIES
SUMMARY
The upcoming 2022-2030 Housing Element update will present significant policy
challenges for Danville. This is due to: (1) an assigned housing target of 2,241 units;
and (2) new state laws that allow financial penalties to be imposed on communities
which fail to meet their assigned targets within the 8-year Housing Element cycle.
These challenges occur within the political backdrop of a governor that aspires to
aggressively build 3.5 million new units by 2025, a state legislature that seeks to
wrestle regulatory control of housing approvals from local governments, and
intensifying pressure from pro-housing groups that view having a large housing
supply as the main solution to the state’s affordable housing and homeless crises. This
paper provides:
•Background for this complex multi-faceted challenge;
•Update of the Housing Element process; and
•Strategies at the state, regional and community levels
BACKGROUND
California Housing Challenge
Historically, California is viewed as having a housing shortage – defined as producing
fewer housing units than are deemed necessary to accommodate its population and
job growth. Since 2005, California has added just 308 units for every 1,000 new
inhabitants (source: 2016 McKinsey Global Institute report). Comparatively, the
states of Texas, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada and New York have added
333, 386, 397, 409, 442 and 549 units for every 1,000 new residents, respectively.
A report by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
substantiates this decline by illustrating that the number of annual housing permits
issued – a leading indicator of housing construction – has declined since the housing
boom of the 1980s (Figure A).
2
Figure A. Annual permitting of housing units 1954-2016. Source: California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
Critics have long argued that community resistance and local government controls
are the main culprits of California’s chronic housing underproduction.
RHNA: Purpose and Process
In 1969, the state enacted the Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583)
which requires all cities and counties to ‘plan for’ their fair share of the statewide
housing need. This is implemented through the adoption of a Housing Element by
every California city and county with a required update every eight years (referred to
as ‘cycles’). The broad concept is to spread the responsibility of accommodating new
housing units equitably among all communities.
The most controversial aspect of each Housing Element update is the requirement for
cities and counties to identify specific viable land parcels within their communities to
accommodate the new housing target, including units that are affordable for
persons/households of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income levels).
For built-out communities, this means that lands must be repurposed – usually
through a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning – to accommodate higher density
housing.
Each community receives its assigned housing target through a process called the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA) which involves three levels of
government, each with its prescribed role:
3
1. State level, State Department of Housing and Community Development (State
HCD) and Department of Finance (DOF) collaborates to determine the
number of housing units each region in California needs to plan for. Each
region receives its number through State HCD.
2. Regional level, the Council of Governments (COGs) is responsible for
developing a method to distribute these units to its cities and counties. The
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) functions as the COG for the
nine-county Bay Area region.
3. Local level, cities and counties must update their Housing Element to
accommodate the housing target assigned to them by their COG.
As noted previously, the most prominent aspect of a Housing Element involves
identifying land parcels that can be repurposed and rezoned for higher density
housing development.
Within this simplified framework, the Bay Area is currently in the final stages of Step
2 (Exhibit A).
DISCUSSION
In June 2020, ABAG was assigned a housing target of 441,176 units from State HCD,
representing a 135% increase from the previous cycle. During the latter half of 2020,
the Town led a Contra Costa coalition to provide input into ABAG ’s process of
developing a methodology to distribute these units among the 101 cities and 9
counties of the Bay Area. Danville participated in a similar effort as a member of the
Tri-Valley Cities (Exhibit B).
As a county whose
residents endure some of
the longest commutes in
the Bay Area, the
coalition advocated for a
method that achieves a
greater jobs/housing
balance by placing
housing units closer to
high-wage job centers in
the south and west bay
where job growth has far
outpaced housing
growth.
4
ABAG ultimately chose a methodology, which has been submitted for HCD approval,
that prioritizes ‘social equity’ at the expense of a jobs/housing balance. The draft
methodology allocates large housing targets to rural and suburban communities,
regardless of their limited land capacity or lack of transportation services, while
simultaneously shifting housing growth away from regional job centers (Exhibit C).
Based on ABAG’s adopted methodology, Danville’s assigned housing target is now
2,241 units, representing a startling 4-fold increase from the prior cycle. This
assignment is equivalent to 14% of the existing housing stock in Danville. At a more
granular level, the housing target is divided among five household income
affordability levels:
Household Income 2015-2022 2022-2030 Difference
Very Low 196 652 +456
Low 111 376 +265
Moderate 124 338 +214
Above Moderate 126 875 +749
Total: 557 2,241 +1,684
The most affordable units, which cater to the lowest income category, require the
highest density zoning. The concept is that smaller units tend to be more affordable.
Typically, ‘very low’ income units take the form of apartments or condominiums,
‘moderate’ units might take the form of townhomes, and ‘above moderate’ units are
market rate homes.
In practice, this translates to a need to find 70-90 acres of land as designated housing
sites that could accommodate the new housing target in the 2022-2030 Housing
Element.
Why This Matters
Since incorporation in 1982, Danville has been a carefully planned community,
balancing the need for growth and expansion with the desire to preserve the history
and setting that make the community unique. This reflects the concept of local control
which was the driving force behind voter’s decision to incorporate. Growth has been
linked to the need to preserve open space, provide facilities and infrastructure, while
retaining the capacity to serve and maintain the community based upon established
service level standards. The current population places the Town at about 95% of the
buildout capacity that was envisioned by the current general plan.
5
As a community reaching build-out, it will be a significant challenge to find 70-90
acres of land for higher density housing. Amplifying this challenge are new (more
restrictive) definitions on what qualifies as ‘viable’ housing sites. The inability to
achieve this objective would render the Town’s housing element to be non-compliant
with the State Housing Element Law. Repercussions include:
• Limited access to state funding, including transportation funding for local
roadway maintenance and capital improvement projects;
• Lawsuits: When community’s housing element is found to be out of
compliance, its General Plan is at risk of being deemed inadequate and
therefore invalid, opening the possibility for lawsuits. Consequences of
lawsuits include:
• Court mandated compliance
• Court suspension of local control on building matters, freezing the
community’s ability to issue building permits, zoning changes, etc.
• Court approval of housing developments on behalf of the community
• Attorney fees associated with the lawsuit
Over the past 20 years, a number of cities and counties throughout the Bay Area
(including Corte Madera, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, Alameda, Benicia, Fremont,
Rohnert Park, , Menlo Park Napa County, and Santa Rosa) have faced legal
challenges to the adequacy of their housing elements. In virtually every case,
the city settled by amending their housing element and/or zoning ordinance
to accommodate more housing and paid the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees. Each of
these cases were filed prior to the most recent amendments to the state housing
law which make it exceedingly more difficult for cities to win such cases.
• Court imposed fines of $10,000 to $100,000 per month until the violation is
cured. The court may triple the amount if non-compliance remains after 3
months; and multiply by a factor of 6 if non-compliance remains after 6 months.
The statute also allows the state to collect these fines by withholding state
funding due to the city.
The crux of the issue is the misconception that local governments control the housing
market and should therefore be held accountable for housing production.
Consequently, the trend in legislation indicates that municipalities can expect to face
increasingly punitive sanctions for failing to accommodate housing targets or
‘produce’ these units.
6
Next Steps: Actions and Possible Strategies
Housing Element Update
As creatures of the State, cities and counties are bound by Housing Element Law. At
present, the next technical step in the RHNA process is to begin updating the Danville
Housing Element, which must be adopted and submitted to State HCD for review by
January 2023.
It is recommended that the Housing Element along with the accompanying General
Plan land use amendments and Environment Impact Report (EIR), be considered as
one action. This would be a departure from past practice where the Housing Element,
General Plan Amendment, and accompanying EIR were considered as separate
publicly notified actions. We believe this would minimize public confusion and
streamline the process.
Procedural and Legal Options
Many have observed that the housing targets – compounded by the “No Net Loss
Law” requirement - are so substantially out-of-reach as to be infeasible. And even if
the Town can find adequate housing sites, the ability to ensure that 2,241 units are
built within the 8-year cycle is not only improbable but also out of the Danville’s
control.
Recommendation: Explore all procedural options and legal remedies, including an
appeal of Danville’s RHNA allocation from ABAG and State HCD’s allocation
methodology.
Building (Broader) Coalitions
The Contra Costa and Tri-Valley coalitions were unsuccessful in influencing ABAG’s
housing methodology selection. However, the effort illustrated that alliances of cities
did catch the attention of ABAG and compel a more thoughtful (if immovable)
response to Contra Costa and Tri-Valley concerns. The take-away is that earlier
engagement and a broader network is necessary to achieve a higher level of success.
Recommendation: Monitor actions other agencies statewide and collaborate with
those who are seeking achieve similar or compatible objectives.
7
Community Education and Outreach
In prior cycles, our community became actively engaged only when notified of
potential rezoning of lands near them. By that point, it was a challenge to provide
objective information as community members were already alarmed about changes
to their neighborhood.
Recommendation: Retain a consultant to assist the Town with developing:
• Outreach approach (framework, timeline, channels)
• Strategic messaging (tone, delivery, audience)
• Public engagement methods (online tools)
It is recommended that the community outreach effort begin as early as practicable.
7
Community Education and Outreach
In prior cycles, our community became actively engaged only when notified of
potential rezoning of lands near them. By that point, it was a challenge to provide
objective information as community members were already alarmed about changes
to their neighborhood.
Recommendation: Retain a consultant to assist the Town with developing:
• Outreach approach (framework, timeline, channels)
• Strategic messaging (tone, delivery, audience)
• Public engagement methods (online tools)
It is recommended that the community outreach effort begin as early as practicable.
8
RECOMMENDATION
Consider the information outlined and provide feedback to staff regarding the
recommended actions:
1. Explore all procedural options and legal remedies, including an appeal of
Danville’s RHNA allocation from ABAG and State HCD’s allocation
methodology;
2. Monitor actions of other agencies statewide and collaborate with those who are
seeking achieve similar or compatible objectives;
3. Retain a public relations firm to assist the Town with developing a community
outreach approach, strategic messaging, and public engagement methods.
Exhibit A: RHNA Process and Timeline
Exhibit B: Letters to ABAG: Contra Costa Mayors Conference to ABAG Methodology
Committee (August 7, 2020); Contra Costa Mayors Conference to ABAG
Executive Board (October 2, 2020)
Exhibit C: Town of Danville letter to ABAG Executive Board (November 27, 2020)
Exhibit D: News Articles of Interest
8
RECOMMENDATION
Consider the information outlined and provide feedback to staff regarding the
recommended actions:
1. Explore all procedural options and legal remedies, including an appeal of
Danville’s RHNA allocation from ABAG and State HCD’s allocation
methodology;
2. Monitor actions of other agencies statewide and collaborate with those who are
seeking achieve similar or compatible objectives;
3. Retain a public relations firm to assist the Town with developing a community
outreach approach, strategic messaging, and public engagement methods.
Exhibit A: RHNA Process and Timeline
Exhibit B: Letters to ABAG: Contra Costa Mayors Conference to ABAG Methodology
Committee (August 7, 2020); Contra Costa Mayors Conference to ABAG
Executive Board (October 2, 2020)
Exhibit C: Town of Danville letter to ABAG Executive Board (November 27, 2020)
Exhibit D: News Articles of Interest
EXHIBIT A
Contra Costa Mayors Conference 1 Letter to ABAG HMC
C O U N T Y M A Y O R S C O N F E R E N C E
2221 Spyglass Lane, El Cerrito, CA 94530
August 7, 2020
Mayor Jesse Arreguin, Chair
Association of Bay Area Governments
Housing Methodology Committee
375 Beale Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: Support for the Plan Bay Area 2050 Baseline Data Methodology
Chair Arreguin,
The Contra Costa Mayors Conference, representing all 19 cities in Contra Costa county,
wishes to convey our appreciation for the Housing Methodology Committee’s work on
evaluating housing allocation methodologies for the next RHNA cycle (2023-2031).
We recognize that it is a daunting task, not only because of the collective recognition to
provide more housing that is affordable to a wide range of income levels but also because
we can’t forget that where we distribute the 441,176 housing unit assignment by
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to the Bay Area
is just as important to the overall quality of life for all residents in the Bay Area.
In light of these considerations, the Contra Costa Mayors Conference supports and
endorses the use of Plan Bay Area 2050 as the baseline data methodology because it is
consistent with the decades-long region-wide effort to:
1. Encourage housing development in proximity to jobs, which would in turn;
2. Reduce transit and transportation congestion, helping to alleviate long region
wide commutes; and
3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with both AB 32 and SB 375.
EXHIBIT B
Contra Costa Mayors Conference 2 Letter to ABAG HMC
It is of great concern to Contra Costa communities that the alternative “2019 Baseline
Household” method would reverse the decades-long region-wide effort to reduce traffic
congestion and GHG emissions through a greater jobs-housing balance. We appreciate
your consideration of our perspective and recommendation.
Sincerely,
/Signed hard copy to follow via U. S. mail. /
Gabriel Quinto, Conference Chair
Contra Costa Mayors Conference
Contra Costa Mayors Conference Membership
City of Antioch City of Oakley
City of Brentwood City of Orinda
City of Clayton City of Pinole
City of Concord City of Pittsburg
Town of Danville City of Pleasant Hill
City of El Cerrito City of Richmond
City of Hercules City of San Pablo
City of Lafayette City of San Ramon
City of Martinez City of Walnut Creek
Town of Moraga
1
C O U N T Y M A Y O R S C O N F E R E N C E
2221 Spyglass Lane, El Cerrito, CA 94530
October 2, 2020
Mayor Jesse Arreguin, President
Executive Board, Association of Bay Area Governments
375 Beale Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: Consideration of a Modified Option 8A using the Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth
Baseline Methodology
Chair Arreguin,
Once again, the Contra Costa Mayors Conference (CCMC), representing all 19 cities and
nearly one million citizens in Contra Costa county, wishes to convey our sincere
appreciation for your efforts to facilitate an equitable distribution of the 441,176
housing units assigned to the Bay Area by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for the next RHNA cycle (2023-2031).
Since our last communication on August 7, 2020, the ABAG Housing Methodology
Committee (HMC) has chosen to utilize “Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households”
methodology (a ‘middle road’) and a weighting of factors that prioritize ‘access to high
resource areas’ over the region-wide efforts to reach a jobs/housing balance.
IMPACT OF BASELINE METHODOLOGY CHANGE
At a county-by-county level, our analysis indicates that using a new “Plan Bay Area 2050
Future Households” baseline results in extraordinarily inequitable – and hopefully
unintended – benefits to primarily one county (Santa Clara) at the expenses of nearly all
others (Figure A):
2
Figure A. Impact of switching to the Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households Baseline
Coincidentally, Santa Clara county is the home to all ten of the San Francisco Bay Area’s
largest technology companies including: Apple (188,000 employees), Hewlett Packard
(186,000 employees), Google (184,000 employees), Oracle (169,000 employees), Intel
(128,000 employees), Cisco (91,000 employees, and Facebook (60,000 employees).
Consequently, it seems counter-intuitive to utilize a baseline that reduces the housing
assignment to the sub region that is in greatest need of affordable housing and has the
largest existing housing deficit illustrated by ABAG’s CASA Compact presentation:
3
4
On a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction level, our analysis reveals an even more alarming
pattern that the PBA 2050 Future Households baseline appears to allocate
disproportionately large assignments to small and rural communities while alleviating
the responsibility of communities with large job centers (Attachment B). This disparity
occurs within the county level, as illustrated in Santa Clara county’s numbers.
Sampling of
Impacted
Jurisdictions
Plan Bay Area 2050
Growth
(advocated by CCMC)
Plan Bay Area 2050
Future Households
(advanced by HMC)
Difference % Change
Santa Clara County
Los Gatos 142 1,430 +1,288 +907%
Monte Sereno 3 140 +137 +4,567%
Mountain View 12,377 7,810 -4,567 -37%
Palo Alto 11,127 6,810 -4,317 -39%
San Jose 100,155 67,240 -32,915 -33%
Santa Clara 14,285 9,630 -4,655 -33%
Sunnyvale 12,025 9,980 -2,045 -17%
Alameda County
Albany 355 930 +575 +162%
Piedmont 60 430 +370 +617%
Unincorporated 1,638 5,950 +4,312 +263%
Contra Costa County
Danville 223 1,820 +1,597 +716%
Hercules 411 1,060 +649 +158%
Martinez 311 1,670 +1,359 +437%
Unincorporated 2,588 7,310 +4,722 +182%
Marin County
Fairfax 215 460 +245 +114%
Mill Valley 27 710 +683 +2530%
San Anselmo 202 670 +468 +232%
San Mateo County
Atherton 30 280 +250 +833%
Hillsborough 116 470 +354 +305%
Pacifica 199 1,580 +1,381 +694%
Portola Valley 3 200 +197 +6,567%
Solano County
Benicia 258 1,270 +1,012 +392%
Dixon 209 690 +481 +230%
Rio Vista 84 420 +336 +400%
Suisun City 298 1,070 +772 +259%
Vacaville 1,056 3,650 +2,594 +246%
Vallejo 2,117 5,250 +3,133 +148%
Sonoma County
Sonoma 184 620 +436 +237%
Unincorporated 6,893 9,080 +2,187 +32%
5
RECOMMENDED BASELINE
We understand that the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) has chosen to present
“Option 8A” to the ABAG Executive Board as the only option for consideration at your
October 15, 2020 meeting. It appears that other compelling options – even as a valid
minority report - did not have a chance to advance.
Consequently, we are appreciative of the opportunity to present an alternative -
Modified Option 8A – to the ABAG Executive Board at its October 15, 2020 meeting.
Contra Costa’s alternative (highlighted in green) uses the Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth
baseline and leaves the HMC-recommended factors in place. A summary of the results
for each county is shown below and the effects for all cities are included in Attachment
B.
County Option 8A
(2050 Future HH)
Modified 8A
(PBA 2050 Growth) Change %
Alameda 85,690
79,412
(6,278) -7%
Contra
Costa
43,960
27,890
(16,070) -
37%
Marin 14,210
8,803
(5,407) -
38%
Napa 3,820
1,655
(2,165) -
57%
San
Francisco
72,080
57,792
(14,288) -
20%
San Mateo 48,440
45,804
(2,636) -5%
Santa
Clara
143,550
196,746
53,196 37%
Solano 11,920
8,075
(3,845) -
32%
Sonoma 17,520
15,000
(2,520) -
14%
6
The recommended use of the Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth baseline appears to make
significantly more intuitive sense for the entirety of the San Francisco Bay Area as it:
•Encourages housing development in proximity to job centers, which would
•Reduce transit and transportation congestion, helping to alleviate long region wide
commutes; and
•Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with both AB 32 and SB 375.
Furthermore, alternative Modified Option 8A is consistent with both the RHNA statutory
objectives as it would:
1.Increase housing supply, but in a manner that adds much needed housing near
the job centers;
2.Promotes infill development and reinvestment in urban centers that wish to
redevelop, thereby promoting socioeconomic equity;
3.Protects the environment, agricultural resources, and wild land hazards by
moving development pressure away from the urban edges;
4.Helps the San Francisco Bay Area achieve mandated GHG reduction targets
through an improved jobs/housing balance; and lastly
5.Ensures policy consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint by more closely
aligning the housing assignment at the major centers.
We appreciate your consideration of our recommendation and perspectives.
Sincerely,
/Signed hard copy to follow via U. S. mail. /
Gabriel Quinto, Conference Chair
Contra Costa Mayors Conference
Attachment A: Comparison of Baseline Methodologies and Housing Allocation
Alternatives – Option 8A (recommended by ABAG HMC) and
Modified Option 8A (recommended by CCMC)
7
Contra Costa Mayors Conference Membership
City of Antioch City of Oakley
City of
Brentwood
City of Orinda
City of Clayton City of Pinole
City of Concord City of Pittsburg
Town of Danville City of Pleasant
Hill
City of El Cerrito City of Richmond
City of Hercules City of San Pablo
City of Lafayette City of San
Ramon
City of Martinez City of Walnut
Creek
Town of Moraga
+
“Small Town Atmosphere,
Outstanding Quality of Life”
November 27, 2020
Public Information Office
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
375 Beale Street Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject: Methodology for Distribution of RHNA
Dear ABAG & MTC colleagues:
Once again, the Town of Danville wishes to express our appreciation for ABAG’s work
on the 6th Cycle RHNA process. The Town recognizes that it is not an easy task to develop
a methodology that appropriately and fairly distributes the 441,176-unit RHND to the
101 cities and nine Bay Area counties.
On October 15, 2020, the ABAG Executive Board voted to support the Housing
Methodology Committee’s recommended methodology “Option 8A” and to forward it
for public review in advance of submittal to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development. The methodology utilizes the “Plan Bay Area 2050 Future
Households” Baseline and applies a series of Factors that adjust the Baseline allocation, in
a manner which prioritizes a social equity focus (“Access to High Opportunity Areas”)
at the expense of region efforts to reach a jobs/housing balance and a greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) reduction targets.
Prior to the October public hearing, the Contra Costa Mayors Conference, Alameda
County Mayors Conference and cities in the Bay Area submitted letters expressing
significant concerns with the proposed methodology. This letter highlights five concerns
that have been identified, which is that the proposed methodology is:
1.Inconsistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint.
2.Promotes suburban sprawl and furthers a pattern of jobs-housing imbalance.
3.Inconsistent with other State mandates including the requirement to reduce
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
4.Directs growth to areas with limited land capacity, restricted open space and
natural hazards.
5.Works against equity and fair housing goals.
EXHIBIT C
Page 2
This letter also suggests an alternate methodology which would more equitably
distribute RHNA and in a manner that is more consistent other State mandates.
1. Insufficient evidence to demonstrate consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft
Blueprint, the Bay Area’s long-range transportation, housing, economic and
environmental plan.
SB 375 requires that the RHNA is consistent with the Sustainable Communities
Strategy. In other words, consistency between the 2023-2031 RHNA and the Plan
Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint (PBA 2050) is statutorily required. Page 13 of
ABAG’s RHNA methodology report concludes that the two documents are
consistent since the 8-year RHNAs do not exceed the 35-year (2015-2050) growth
forecasts for sub-regions in the Bay Area.
This conclusion is flawed on several levels. First, the 35-year forecast period is
more than four times the length of the 8-year RHNA time horizon. It is
unreasonable to conclude that a RHNA can be deemed consistent with the SCS if
it presumes a sub-regional growth rate that is four times higher than the forecast
for that area. It is also unreasonable to presume that a community can condense
and assimilate housing growth that is projected over a 35-year period into a much
shorter period of time.
Second, and more importantly, there is no way to evaluate consistency without
jurisdiction-level forecasts. Consistency at a sub-regional level is meaningless, as
sub-regions do not have the authority to write, adopt, or implement Housing
Elements. This responsibility rests with cities and co unties alone. Sub-regions
contain jurisdictions with vastly different populations, employment bases,
geographies, hazard levels, and physical constraints. Lumping dissimilar cities
together as sub-regions in PBA 2050, and then assigning growth at the city-level
through the RHNA process, makes it impossible to determine consistency between
the two processes.
We urge ABAG to publish jurisdiction-level forecasts for PBA 2050 so that
consistency can be accurately and transparently determined. If the 2040 forecasts
are used as a proxy, the RHNA appears grossly inconsistent with the forecasts for
many jurisdictions, including our own.
Page 3
2. The Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households Baseline promotes suburban sprawl
by allocating a disproportionate number of housing units to the region’s urban
fringes away from the major job centers, furthering the historic pattern of jobs-
housing imbalance.
Figure A. Impact of switching to the 2050 Future Households Baseline from the 2050 Growth Baseline.
Furthermore, this baseline reduces housing assignment in the western and
southern subregions of the Bay Area that has historically under-produced
housing, at the expense of subregions that have historically been the region’s
housing supplier. Under the Draft RHNA, the housing allocation to Santa Clara
County fails to match the explosive jobs growth in that County over the past
decade. This under allocation of new housing to Santa Clara County results in
significantly higher allocations to other counties and fails to adequately address
the significant jobs-housing imbalance in Santa Clara County.
Page 4
Figure B. Job Growth in the Bay Area between 2010 to 2016, as documented by ABAG.
This conflicts with Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050), which anticipates a 42%
increase in housing growth in Santa Clara while the methodology assigns only
32% of the RHND there. This amounts to over 40,000 units allocated elsewhere in
the region – most problematically, to outer suburbs, small cities, and rural and
unincorporated county areas.
Figure C. Job Growth in the Bay Area between 2010 to 2016, as documented by ABAG
Page 5
3. The proposed RHNA methodology is inconsistent with State mandates to
reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
improve air and water quality, preserve agricultural land, and focus
development away from areas with high wildfire risks.
As result of the lack of jobs-housing balance, the Draft RHNA will work against
key regional planning goals and State mandates including those to address VMT
and GHG emissions by perpetuating sprawl and inefficient growth patterns.
The housing distribution under the Draft RHNA conflicts with the requirements
of SB 743, which requires use of the VMT standard when evaluating potential
environmental impacts of a proposed development under CEQA. The Legislative
Intent of SB 743 is to: encourage infill development; improve public health through
active transportation; and reduce GHG emissions. Placing the housing in the
urban fringes of the Bay Area, away from job centers and transportation hubs, will
increase, not reduce, VMT. As a result, review of proposed housing developments
under CEQA will not meet established VMT Thresholds of Significance and will
result in potentially significant environmental impacts that cannot be easily
mitigated.
The Draft RHNA also conflicts with the GHG reduction requirements under AB
32, SB 32, and AB 197. These laws require that the State limit GHG emissions so
that emission levels in 2030 do not exceed 1990 levels. Based on Plan Bay Area’s
housing and job projections, and emphasis on housing-jobs balance and transit-
oriented housing, the plan would still fall short of GHG emission reduction goals.
The Draft RHNA’s departure from prioritizing housing-jobs balance and transit-
oriented housing will lead the region and the State further from achieving these
GHG emission requirements.
This impact is amplified for the Town of Danville as the community is not
projected to add a significant number of new jobs over the next 35 years and
Danville has limited bus service and limited access to mass transit options.
4. The proposed RHNA methodology directs growth to cities and unincorporated
county areas with limited to no develop-able land, restricted open space areas,
land outside of voter-approved urban growth boundaries, areas that lack mass
transit, and natural hazard constraints.
Sampling of
Impacted
Jurisdictions
PBA 2050 Growth
Methodology
(Proposed Altern)
PBA 2050 Future
Households
(HMC Option 8A)
Difference % Change
Santa Clara County
Los Gatos 142 1,430 +1,288 +907%
Page 6
Monte Sereno 3 140 +137 +4,567%
Mountain View 12,377 7,810 -4,567 -37%
Palo Alto 11,127 6,810 -4,317 -39%
San Jose 100,155 67,240 -32,915 -33%
Santa Clara 14,285 9,630 -4,655 -33%
Sunnyvale 12,025 9,980 -2,045 -17%
Alameda County
Albany 355 930 +575 +162%
Piedmont 60 430 +370 +617%
Unincorporated 1,638 5,950 +4,312 +263%
Contra Costa County
Danville 223 1,820 +1,597 +716%
Hercules 411 1,060 +649 +158%
Martinez 311 1,670 +1,359 +437%
Unincorporated 2,588 7,310 +4,722 +182%
Marin County
Fairfax 215 460 +245 +114%
Mill Valley 27 710 +683 +2530%
San Anselmo 202 670 +468 +232%
San Mateo County
Atherton 30 280 +250 +833%
Hillsborough 116 470 +354 +305%
Pacifica 199 1,580 +1,381 +694%
Portola Valley 3 200 +197 +6,567%
Solano County
Benicia 258 1,270 +1,012 +392%
Dixon 209 690 +481 +230%
Rio Vista 84 420 +336 +400%
Suisun City 298 1,070 +772 +259%
Vacaville 1,056 3,650 +2,594 +246%
Vallejo 2,117 5,250 +3,133 +148%
Sonoma County
Sonoma 184 620 +436 +237%
Unincorporated 6,893 9,080 +2,187 +32%
Page 7
5. While the Draft RHNA provides an emphasis on equity and fair housing which
is vitally important, we believe the unintended consequences of the growth
patterns dictated by Option 8A may actually work against equity goals by:
o Requiring people who are unable to work from home to travel long distances
from where they live to where they work.
o Increasing auto reliance those residents who are unable to work from home for
daily commutes by underemphasizing transit access – at a significant
economic, social and environmental cost to those residents.
o Disincentivizing urban re-investment on in-fill lots and brownfields by
prioritizing housing growth away from cities that want and need new housing
to serve their communities and support their local economies.
o Allocating a disproportionate number of housing units to communities that are
largely built out, with little undeveloped or under-developed lands, would
result in the need to re-designate lands for housing which already contain
either viable housing and/or high assessed-value developments.
Page 8
In terms of economics, this makes these lands un-likely to redevelop regardless
of the change in land use designation, especially when multiple properties
would need to be aggregated to create a viable site. Furthermore, assigning
units to physically constrained communities in some instances would require
the removal of existing affordable units (due to their age and/or other
characteristics) in order to accommodate a high housing assignment. In either
scenario, these lands would carry a high land cost and any resulting re-
development would result in housing units that would be far from affordable
without significant subsidies.
Adopting a RHNA that more equitably assigns units to under-developed
urban areas would result in timely re-development addressing the States
critical housing shortage.
Recommended Alternative Baseline and Factors
As previously requested, and similar to the approach advocated by Contra Costa Mayors
Conference and others at the Executive Board’s October public hearing, we would urge
the Executive Board to consider an Alternative to Option 8A, that uses the “Plan Bay Area
2050 Growth” Baseline. We would also seek further refinements to the Factors as follows:
HMC Option 8A Proposed Alternative Methodology
Baseline Plan Bay Area 2050 Households Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth
Factors and Weighting
Very-Low and Low
Income Units
• 60 % Access to High
Opportunity Areas
• 20 % Jobs Proximity – Auto
• 20 % Jobs Proximity - Transit
Moderate and Above
Moderate Income
Units
• 40 % Access to High
Opportunity Areas
• 60 % Jobs Proximity Auto
• 20 % Access to High
Opportunity Areas
• 40 % Jobs Proximity - Auto
• 40 % Jobs Proximity - Transit
Together, these changes would have the following beneficial outcomes for the region,
each of which would improve its consistency with Plan Bay Area:
• Increased share of RHNA to the “Big Three” cities and inner Bay Area, and a
corresponding decrease in that assigned to the outer Bay Area, unincorporated,
and small and rural communities by approximately 30,000 units. This will ensure
Page 9
that that the largest share of housing growth is allocated to the region’s biggest
job centers, in areas well-served by transit and infrastructure.
• Reduced allocation to unincorporated county areas by over 10,500 units –
avoiding further residential growth pressures in areas most subject to natural
hazards, lack of infrastructure capacity, and threatened loss of agricultural and
open space land.
• Alignment of the share of housing growth in Santa Clara County to match
Plan Bay Area 2050 and the County’s significant jobs growth of the past
decade. Santa Clara, home of some of the region’s largest tech firms, has the
largest numeric deficit in housing production to jobs production over the past
decade, which could be corrected in part by this adjustment.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or would like to discuss this
letter further.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF DANVILLE
Karen G. Stepper, Mayor
C: Danville Town Council
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
1/13
______
Construction workers unload roofing tiles at the future Santa Ana Veterans Village,Construction workers unload roofing tiles at the future Santa Ana Veterans Village,
which will provide permanent supportive housing to ex-service members. The citywhich will provide permanent supportive housing to ex-service members. The city
helped developers get financing by committing a stream of revenue from futurehelped developers get financing by committing a stream of revenue from future
“project-based” rent vouchers to the project. Santa Ana is one of just 15 California“project-based” rent vouchers to the project. Santa Ana is one of just 15 California
jurisdictions on track to meet state-mandated housing goals. (Photo by Mindyjurisdictions on track to meet state-mandated housing goals. (Photo by Mindy
Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG)Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG)
NEWSNEWSHOUSINGHOUSING
California needs more housing,California needs more housing,
but 97% of cities and countiesbut 97% of cities and counties
are failing to issue enoughare failing to issue enough
RHNA permitsRHNA permits
2018 data shows most California cities got a failing2018 data shows most California cities got a failing
grade in permitting new homes.grade in permitting new homes.
EXHIBIT D
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/2/13
By By JEFF COLLINSJEFF COLLINS | | JeffCollins@scng.comJeffCollins@scng.com and and NIKIE JOHNSONNIKIE JOHNSON | |
nijohnson@scng.comnijohnson@scng.com | Orange County Register | Orange County Register
PUBLISHED: PUBLISHED: December 9, 2019 at 7:40 a.m.December 9, 2019 at 7:40 a.m. | UPDATED: | UPDATED: December 10, 2019 atDecember 10, 2019 at
6:37 p.m.6:37 p.m.
Neighborhood leaders gathered in Long Beach in the spring of 2017 to discussNeighborhood leaders gathered in Long Beach in the spring of 2017 to discuss
a City Hall plan to address the city’s housing shortage. What they learneda City Hall plan to address the city’s housing shortage. What they learned
sparked a revolt.sparked a revolt.
To increase the housing supply and stem skyrocketing residential costs,To increase the housing supply and stem skyrocketing residential costs,
planners proposed multi-story apartment buildings line major streets andplanners proposed multi-story apartment buildings line major streets and
boulevards throughout the city, including its affluent, mainly suburban eastboulevards throughout the city, including its affluent, mainly suburban east
side.side.
To the planners, it was an equitable solution to the housing crisis. ToTo the planners, it was an equitable solution to the housing crisis. To
neighborhood associations, it was armageddon.neighborhood associations, it was armageddon.
“There was a passionate, angry plea … demanding the city halt the plans for“There was a passionate, angry plea … demanding the city halt the plans for
ruining neighborhoods,” said activist Corliss Lee. “With increased buildingruining neighborhoods,” said activist Corliss Lee. “With increased building
heights comes lots of people and cars.”heights comes lots of people and cars.”
In the ensuing outcry, residents mobbed town hall meetings and ultimatelyIn the ensuing outcry, residents mobbed town hall meetings and ultimately
forced the city to compromise, concentrating new housing mostly inforced the city to compromise, concentrating new housing mostly in
downtown Long Beach.downtown Long Beach.
The Long Beach revolt may be symptomatic of California’s losing battle withThe Long Beach revolt may be symptomatic of California’s losing battle with
an ever-worsening housing crisis, some housing officials say.an ever-worsening housing crisis, some housing officials say.
California needs between 1.8 million and 3.5 million new homes by 2025,California needs between 1.8 million and 3.5 million new homes by 2025,
state and private reports say. To get there, cities and counties would havestate and private reports say. To get there, cities and counties would have
to approve two to four times the number of homes they’ve been permitting into approve two to four times the number of homes they’ve been permitting in
the past few years.the past few years.
But instead of approving more homes, almost every California city and countyBut instead of approving more homes, almost every California city and county
is falling behind its state-mandated housing goals, a is falling behind its state-mandated housing goals, a Southern California NewsSouthern California News
Group analysis of state dataGroup analysis of state data shows. shows.
Most cities and counties comply with a state law requiring them to plan andMost cities and counties comply with a state law requiring them to plan and
zone for housing at all income levels. But fewer than 3% — just 15zone for housing at all income levels. But fewer than 3% — just 15
jurisdictions — were on track to actually build those homes by the end ofjurisdictions — were on track to actually build those homes by the end of
2018.2018.
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/3/13
Among SCNG’s findings:Among SCNG’s findings:
97% of all cities and counties were behind in permitting new housing97% of all cities and counties were behind in permitting new housing
sought under the sought under the Regional Housing Needs AssessmentRegional Housing Needs Assessment process, or RHNA process, or RHNA
(pronounced “reena”).(pronounced “reena”).
Almost two-thirds of local governments are less than 50% on track.Almost two-thirds of local governments are less than 50% on track.
Almost half are behind in all four homebuilding categories: very-low-Almost half are behind in all four homebuilding categories: very-low-
income, low-income, moderate-income and above-moderate-income.income, low-income, moderate-income and above-moderate-income.
The problem is worse for low-income housing: Just 22% of the state’sThe problem is worse for low-income housing: Just 22% of the state’s
jurisdictions are on track for permitting low-income housing, while 45% are onjurisdictions are on track for permitting low-income housing, while 45% are on
track for upper-income housing.track for upper-income housing.
And the inability to stay on track will be even more acute for SouthernAnd the inability to stay on track will be even more acute for Southern
California in the decade ahead California in the decade ahead when the region’s target is expected to triplewhen the region’s target is expected to triple ..
A scorecard created by SCNG showed that just one-sixth of California citiesA scorecard created by SCNG showed that just one-sixth of California cities
and counties earned an A or a B based on building permit numbers. Moreand counties earned an A or a B based on building permit numbers. More
than half earned a D or an F.than half earned a D or an F.
“The numbers accentuate why California is in our worst housing crisis in state“The numbers accentuate why California is in our worst housing crisis in state
history,” said David Chiu, chair of the state Assembly Housing and Communityhistory,” said David Chiu, chair of the state Assembly Housing and Community
Development Committee. “We’re not building enough homes, pure andDevelopment Committee. “We’re not building enough homes, pure and
simple.”simple.”
California “is all talk and virtually no action,” added John Burns, an Irvine-California “is all talk and virtually no action,” added John Burns, an Irvine-
based homebuilding consultant.based homebuilding consultant.
“Most cities and counties celebrate economic growth, yet don’t permit enough“Most cities and counties celebrate economic growth, yet don’t permit enough
housing to accommodate the additional workforce, resulting in high homehousing to accommodate the additional workforce, resulting in high home
prices, high rents and worsening traffic,” Burns said. “Anti-growth stancesprices, high rents and worsening traffic,” Burns said. “Anti-growth stances
seem to be the key to getting reelected in many cities.”seem to be the key to getting reelected in many cities.”
City and county officials around the state lamented that while they see theCity and county officials around the state lamented that while they see the
need for more housing, their RHNA targets are unrealistic given the risingneed for more housing, their RHNA targets are unrealistic given the rising
costs of construction, a labor shortage, aging infrastructure and neighborhoodcosts of construction, a labor shortage, aging infrastructure and neighborhood
resistance to change.resistance to change.
RHNA is “the worst four-letter word you’ve never heard of,” said aRHNA is “the worst four-letter word you’ve never heard of,” said a
commentary by Laguna Niguel Mayor John Mark Jennings, who dislikes thecommentary by Laguna Niguel Mayor John Mark Jennings, who dislikes the
process even though his city got an A- in the SCNG scorecard after permittingprocess even though his city got an A- in the SCNG scorecard after permitting
eight times its RHNA target.eight times its RHNA target.
The need for more housing “is not in question,” Jennings wrote.The need for more housing “is not in question,” Jennings wrote.
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/4/13
But “this one-size-fits-all, oversimplified, top-down approach creates a host ofBut “this one-size-fits-all, oversimplified, top-down approach creates a host of
problems that cities are left to address,” he wrote. “Never mind allowing localproblems that cities are left to address,” he wrote. “Never mind allowing local
residents and business owners to decide what is right for their communities.residents and business owners to decide what is right for their communities.
And never mind that a city is built out leaving no space for the mandatedAnd never mind that a city is built out leaving no space for the mandated
units.”units.”
The consequences of not meeting state housing goals, however, “are dire,”The consequences of not meeting state housing goals, however, “are dire,”
Chiu warned.Chiu warned.
“We will lose our workforce and our competitiveness. Hundreds of thousands“We will lose our workforce and our competitiveness. Hundreds of thousands
of families will be pushed out on the streets and into homelessness,” Chiuof families will be pushed out on the streets and into homelessness,” Chiu
said. “… When you have a huge percentage of our state paying an enormoussaid. “… When you have a huge percentage of our state paying an enormous
portion of their monthly income on housing, it makes it harder for everydayportion of their monthly income on housing, it makes it harder for everyday
Californians to put food on the table, afford health care (or) pay forCalifornians to put food on the table, afford health care (or) pay for
educational expenses.”educational expenses.”
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/5/13
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/6/13
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/7/13
Mostly voluntaryMostly voluntary
Until recently, RHNA goals have been mostly voluntary, and few municipalitiesUntil recently, RHNA goals have been mostly voluntary, and few municipalities
met their targets to actually build housing.met their targets to actually build housing.
Although state leaders have enacted several measures designed to “put teeth”Although state leaders have enacted several measures designed to “put teeth”
in RHNA, few sanctions exist for cities and counties failing to meet actualin RHNA, few sanctions exist for cities and counties failing to meet actual
construction goals.construction goals.
Senate Bill 35Senate Bill 35 forces communities failing to meet RHNA construction goals to forces communities failing to meet RHNA construction goals to
automatically green-light residential projects meeting zoning and planningautomatically green-light residential projects meeting zoning and planning
rules and other standards. But so far, rules and other standards. But so far, just 44 projects around the state havejust 44 projects around the state have
sought approval under SB 35sought approval under SB 35 , mainly for affordable housing, according to data, mainly for affordable housing, according to data
compiled by the Bay Area News Group.compiled by the Bay Area News Group.
Other laws opened cities up to lawsuits if their plans fail to include enoughOther laws opened cities up to lawsuits if their plans fail to include enough
housing or if they fail to approve developments that comply with their land-housing or if they fail to approve developments that comply with their land-
use policies. So far, use policies. So far, Huntington Beach remains the only city sued by the stateHuntington Beach remains the only city sued by the state
under those laws.under those laws.
In January, Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to withhold transportation fundingIn January, Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to withhold transportation funding
from local governments that failed “to make progress toward requiredfrom local governments that failed “to make progress toward required
production goals.” But in June, Newsom production goals.” But in June, Newsom backed down during budgetbacked down during budget
negotiationsnegotiations from imposing financial consequences on localities that fail to from imposing financial consequences on localities that fail to
build enough housing.build enough housing.
Under the RHNA process, the state housing department determines howUnder the RHNA process, the state housing department determines how
many homes each region must plan for over a five- to eight-year period. Thenmany homes each region must plan for over a five- to eight-year period. Then
regional planning agencies like the regional planning agencies like the Southern California Association ofSouthern California Association of
GovernmentsGovernments or the or the Association of Bay Area GovernmentsAssociation of Bay Area Governments divvy up the divvy up the
numbers among local cities and counties.numbers among local cities and counties.
For the scorecard, SCNG looked at how far each jurisdiction is into its RHNAFor the scorecard, SCNG looked at how far each jurisdiction is into its RHNA
cycle and compared how many building permits it has issued with the numbercycle and compared how many building permits it has issued with the number
it should have issued by now to be on track.it should have issued by now to be on track.
Asked to explain their housing performance, all 25 of the jurisdictions reachedAsked to explain their housing performance, all 25 of the jurisdictions reached
by SCNG — even those that had earned a D or an F — said they’re pro-by SCNG — even those that had earned a D or an F — said they’re pro-
housing and understand the need for stepped-up homebuilding.housing and understand the need for stepped-up homebuilding.
But many argued they’re only responsible for “setting the table” forBut many argued they’re only responsible for “setting the table” for
development under RHNA. They must adopt land-use plans and ensuredevelopment under RHNA. They must adopt land-use plans and ensure
there’s sufficient zoning for new housing, but aren’t responsible if the homesthere’s sufficient zoning for new housing, but aren’t responsible if the homes
don’t get built.don’t get built.
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/8/13
Finding solutionsFinding solutions
“State law does not require cities to achieve their RHNA goals because cities“State law does not require cities to achieve their RHNA goals because cities
only control one aspect of the development process — plans andonly control one aspect of the development process — plans and
development regulations,” said Brian Saeki, city manager for the San Gabrieldevelopment regulations,” said Brian Saeki, city manager for the San Gabriel
Valley town of Covina, which received an F in the SCNG scorecard for failing toValley town of Covina, which received an F in the SCNG scorecard for failing to
report the 80 building permits it issued since 2014.report the 80 building permits it issued since 2014.
“We’re at the mercy of the market,” added Albert Lopez, planning director of“We’re at the mercy of the market,” added Albert Lopez, planning director of
the Bay Area’s Alameda County, which received a C- after permitting aboutthe Bay Area’s Alameda County, which received a C- after permitting about
half of the homes needed to be on track. “If the builders want to come in, wehalf of the homes needed to be on track. “If the builders want to come in, we
will accommodate them.”will accommodate them.”
Scott Wiener, chairman of the state Senate Housing Committee, called thoseScott Wiener, chairman of the state Senate Housing Committee, called those
answers “an excuse.”answers “an excuse.”
“We hear this all the time,” Wiener said. “Cities don’t build housing. It’s all the“We hear this all the time,” Wiener said. “Cities don’t build housing. It’s all the
developers’ fault.”developers’ fault.”
While most cities do “set the table” by adopting land-use plans, they alsoWhile most cities do “set the table” by adopting land-use plans, they also
adopt restrictive regulations and high “impact” fees that keep housing out,adopt restrictive regulations and high “impact” fees that keep housing out,
Wiener said.Wiener said.
“There are far too many cities in California that make it extremely difficult or“There are far too many cities in California that make it extremely difficult or
even impossible to build new housing,” he said. “Cities that have veryeven impossible to build new housing,” he said. “Cities that have very
restrictive zoning. Cities that put you through a multi-year approval process,restrictive zoning. Cities that put you through a multi-year approval process,
even for a small project. Cities that will zone for, say, 20 units, but then forceeven for a small project. Cities that will zone for, say, 20 units, but then force
you down to five units. … The list goes on.”you down to five units. … The list goes on.”
Communities that are on track don’t agree cities should merely “set the table.”Communities that are on track don’t agree cities should merely “set the table.”
“Cities can modify how the table is set,” said Peter Noonan, rent stabilization“Cities can modify how the table is set,” said Peter Noonan, rent stabilization
and housing manager for West Hollywood, which got an A after issuing 20and housing manager for West Hollywood, which got an A after issuing 20
times the 77 building permits it’s required to provide. “RHNA is the minimum,times the 77 building permits it’s required to provide. “RHNA is the minimum,
not the maximum.”not the maximum.”
Cities can change standards such as parking requirements and height limits,Cities can change standards such as parking requirements and height limits,
and they can set density minimums to spur development, Noonan said.and they can set density minimums to spur development, Noonan said.
Successful cities and counties have “inclusionary zoning” laws, create housingSuccessful cities and counties have “inclusionary zoning” laws, create housing
trust funds, lower development fees and, in some cases, buy the land or buildtrust funds, lower development fees and, in some cases, buy the land or build
infrastructure to spur affordable homebuilding.infrastructure to spur affordable homebuilding.
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/9/13
ObstaclesObstacles
West Hollywood passed an “inclusionary zoning” ordinance in 1986 —West Hollywood passed an “inclusionary zoning” ordinance in 1986 —
requiring developers to either include affordable units in their projects or payrequiring developers to either include affordable units in their projects or pay
a fee into an affordable housing fund. It also created a nonprofit housinga fee into an affordable housing fund. It also created a nonprofit housing
provider, the West Hollywood Community Housing Corp., which partners withprovider, the West Hollywood Community Housing Corp., which partners with
the city in low-income housing development.the city in low-income housing development.
San Bernardino County, which permitted 45 times its RHNA target, bought aSan Bernardino County, which permitted 45 times its RHNA target, bought a
15-acre tract in the unincorporated community of Bloomington to build 15-acre tract in the unincorporated community of Bloomington to build anan
almost 300-unit affordable housing developmentalmost 300-unit affordable housing development ..
The county then found funding to replace the area’s septic systems withThe county then found funding to replace the area’s septic systems with
sewers and storm drains. The development, which has been opening insewers and storm drains. The development, which has been opening in
phases since 2016, included a new library and a pool.phases since 2016, included a new library and a pool.
“Communities can be less than enthusiastic about a new affordable housing“Communities can be less than enthusiastic about a new affordable housing
project in their neighborhood,” said David Wert, San Bernardino Countyproject in their neighborhood,” said David Wert, San Bernardino County
spokesman. But when projects look high-end, include a new library and bringspokesman. But when projects look high-end, include a new library and bring
needed infrastructure to an area, “it becomes an asset.”needed infrastructure to an area, “it becomes an asset.”
The development ’s existence “meant a world of difference” to Jennifer Gibson,The development ’s existence “meant a world of difference” to Jennifer Gibson,
43, who moved to Bloomington Grove about two years ago after becoming43, who moved to Bloomington Grove about two years ago after becoming
disabled. “We have higher rent in California than a lot of other states have, sodisabled. “We have higher rent in California than a lot of other states have, so
it’s extremely important for there to be some type of affordable housing. It ’sit’s extremely important for there to be some type of affordable housing. It’s
families that are working hard — just a normal, average family trying to makefamilies that are working hard — just a normal, average family trying to make
a living and survive.”a living and survive.”
If she and her children, now 18 and 22, hadn’t been able to move intoIf she and her children, now 18 and 22, hadn’t been able to move into
Bloomington Grove, Gibson said, they would probably have to live withBloomington Grove, Gibson said, they would probably have to live with
relatives. Without sufficient affordable housing options, “there would be a lotrelatives. Without sufficient affordable housing options, “there would be a lot
more homeless people, a lot more people in shelters, a lot more people notmore homeless people, a lot more people in shelters, a lot more people not
able to be independent,” she said.able to be independent,” she said.
But cities and counties say they face a host of obstacles to getting homes built.But cities and counties say they face a host of obstacles to getting homes built.
Chief among them is steady push-back from so-called “NIMBYs,” or localChief among them is steady push-back from so-called “NIMBYs,” or local
residents resistant to change.residents resistant to change.
Cities and counties also cite the high cost of land, construction and financing.Cities and counties also cite the high cost of land, construction and financing.
1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg…
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/10/13
“There’s a labor shortage that brings the price up. The cost of materials …“There’s a labor shortage that brings the price up. The cost of materials …
(also) is very high,” said Matt Hertel, senior planner for the city of Sacramento,(also) is very high,” said Matt Hertel, senior planner for the city of Sacramento,
which got a C in the SCNG scorecard after issuing just over half the 15,000which got a C in the SCNG scorecard after issuing just over half the 15,000
permits it needed to be on track. “The infrastructure is aging and doesn’t havepermits it needed to be on track. “The infrastructure is aging and doesn’t have
the capacity for added development.”the capacity for added development.”
Even though California allocated billions of dollars for affordable housing inEven though California allocated billions of dollars for affordable housing in
the past year, local officials say they’ve been stymied by the 2011 decision tothe past year, local officials say they’ve been stymied by the 2011 decision to
shut down redevelopment agencies, wiping out about $1 billion a year in low-shut down redevelopment agencies, wiping out about $1 billion a year in low-
income housing funding.income housing funding.
Outdated planning documents, environmental concerns and a lack of land forOutdated planning documents, environmental concerns and a lack of land for
new housing likewise complicate development.new housing likewise complicate development.
“Torrance is a largely built-out city,” said long-range planning manager Gregg“Torrance is a largely built-out city,” said long-range planning manager Gregg
Lodan, whose city got an F in the RHNA scorecard after falling behind in allLodan, whose city got an F in the RHNA scorecard after falling behind in all
four housing categories.four housing categories.
Some cities also disputed whether the RHNA numbers were allocated fairly.Some cities also disputed whether the RHNA numbers were allocated fairly.
UCLA urban planning Professor Paavo Monkkonen agreed, arguing in a recentUCLA urban planning Professor Paavo Monkkonen agreed, arguing in a recent
“issue brief ” on RHNA the process bases numbers more on politics than need.“issue brief ” on RHNA the process bases numbers more on politics than need.
“That’s why Beverly Hills … was famously determined to ‘need’ only three new“That’s why Beverly Hills … was famously determined to ‘need’ only three new
units of income-restricted housing between 2013 and 2021, while otherunits of income-restricted housing between 2013 and 2021, while other
similarly sized cities and much more affordable cities were determined tosimilarly sized cities and much more affordable cities were determined to
‘need’ hundreds of units,” Monkkonen’s brief says.‘need’ hundreds of units,” Monkkonen’s brief says.
RHNA, Monkkonen said, “creates unrealistic production goals.”RHNA, Monkkonen said, “creates unrealistic production goals.”
In Long Beach, residents who helped stop the spread of high-densityIn Long Beach, residents who helped stop the spread of high-density
development last year say they’re feeling the pressure from Sacramento, anddevelopment last year say they’re feeling the pressure from Sacramento, and
worry about its impact on their neighborhoods.worry about its impact on their neighborhoods.
“Not all cities are the same,” said Joan Greenwood, president of Long Beach’s“Not all cities are the same,” said Joan Greenwood, president of Long Beach’s
Wrigley Neighborhood Alliance. “I don’t think it makes sense to put all thisWrigley Neighborhood Alliance. “I don’t think it makes sense to put all this
density in an area where they can’t accommodate it with schools and parks.”density in an area where they can’t accommodate it with schools and parks.”
“Local control of zoning is one of the most important issues of freedom there“Local control of zoning is one of the most important issues of freedom there
is,” added Robert Fox, executive director of Long Beach’s Council ofis,” added Robert Fox, executive director of Long Beach’s Council of
Neighborhood Organizations and a candidate for the City Council’s 2ndNeighborhood Organizations and a candidate for the City Council’s 2nd
District seat. “American democracy is local control.”District seat. “American democracy is local control.”
SERVICE DELIVERY AFTER COVID-19
INTRODUCTION
The onset of the Coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 resulted in the need for the
Town to make immediate adjustments to both the range of public services provided
and methods of service delivery. The range of services was affected by the need to
close public buildings and facilities, while reducing staffing to offset fiscal impacts.
Immediate adjustments were required with respect to areas including:
• Conducting meetings and public hearings
• Community outreach and engagement
• Permitting and conducting business with the Town
• Ensuring the safety of Town employees
• Space planning and the physical configuration of employee workspaces
This paper discusses some of the advantages and disadvantages of these changes,
lessons learned, and how some of these changes might be expected to carry over into
future post pandemic models for service delivery.
DISCUSSION
Much of the business conducted by public agencies occurs by virtue of meetings that
occur at all organizational levels, up to and including public hearings held by the
legislative bodies and the advisory commissions that support them.
A variety of different meetings involving staff occur internally, interagency and with
customers and the public. This is also the case with meetings involving elected
officials serving on multi-jurisdictional committees, boards and Joint Powers
Authorities. Even internal staff meetings require certain logistical coordination with
Town staff located in several different locations.
The use of platforms such as “Zoom” and “Teams” has replaced traditional meeting
formats featuring live, in-person participation in conference and meeting room
settings. After an initial adjustment period required to assimilate a different meeting
dynamic, it has become apparent that the convenience and ease with which these
meetings can be coordinated and staged is such that use of these platforms to conduct
virtual meetings will continue post-pandemic. Though unlikely to replace all live
2
meetings, the use of live meetings will be much more selective and dependent upon
purpose and occasion.
Public Meetings
Under the state’s emergency declaration, virtual meetings have also been permitted
to be used for public meetings and hearings. Though necessitated by the pandemic,
this change has proven to be beneficial in a number of ways. Virtual participation is
more convenient for potential meeting attendees who may have technological access
but be constrained by time, distance, work and/or family obligations or mobility
limitations. For all of these reasons, virtual public meetings have achieved greater
viewership. The added convenience has also allowed public meetings to be
scheduled earlier in the day on set dates, when people are, generally speaking, less
tired and better prepared to engage in decision-making processes.
At present the Town plans to continue utilizing a virtual meeting format for Town
Council and Town Commission meetings through the end of the current fiscal year,
or until advised that live meetings can safely be resumed. Upon resuming live
meetings, incorporating certain aspects of the virtual meetings warrants
consideration.
One example would be the use of a “hybrid” meeting format for the Town Council.
Council meetings could be held on the first and third Tuesdays, starting at 5:00 p.m.,
at the Town Meeting Hall. In addition to the Town Council, staff and members of the
public, additional public attendance/participation could occur virtually, allowing the
Town Council to receive public input and/or testimony both in person and virtually
at the same meeting. Community members wishing and able to attend in person
would be encouraged to do so, while those unable to do so, would have the option of
engaging remotely. Based upon discussions with the Town’s I.T. staff, the technology
required to support this hybrid meeting approach is feasible and staff can present
more specific details upon direction of the Town Council.
Community Outreach and Engagement
Effectively engaging and communicating with residents and businesses is one of the
Town’s priorities. Over the past decade, the Town has sought to communicate and
engage with residents through a community outreach program that seeks to inform,
educate and inspire residents about the programs, projects and activities that take
place in Danville. The Town utilizes various approaches toward this goal, including
print, digital, media relations, and person to person contacts.
Despite the use of varied formats, prior efforts to invite community members to
attend “Town Hall” style meetings have produced underwhelming attendance and
engagement. Looking at options available to improve this was a featured topic at last
year’s workshop.
3
Takeaways from that discussion included:
• Considering greater use of online surveys to ask questions and gather
community feedback on specific subjects.
• Getting out into the community, physically and virtually going to the places
where our residents are.
• A belief that better topic content drives increased meeting attendance.
• The need to meeting focus to be on education or engagement.
• An openness to considering multi-modal ways of engagement.
Focused implementation efforts were delayed as the Town was required to address
the pandemic. However, some of the approaches utilized by the Town to adapt
information sharing and engagement efforts to the pandemic have picked up on the
themes identified last year. These efforts have also demonstrated that the community
is both receptive and willing to engage in new ways that are both user friendly and
convenient. Some examples include:
A Zoom meeting that featured the Vice-Mayor, Town Manager and Health
Services Officer responding to questions about the County Health Order;
A regular Facebook Live program hosted by the Police Chief, addressing public
safety and other topics of community interest.
Virtual comedy shows and arts programming.
A virtual Community Awards and Mayoral Installation program that blended
pre-recorded and real time content into an event that garnered considerable
viewership.
Increased availability of e-permitting and ability to conduct business with the
Town remotely.
An enhanced and expanded website that provides better and more interactive
content.
While continuing with these efforts, potential additional steps could include:
o Continuation of the “Government 101” program started in 2019, using a virtual
platform.
o Utilizing Zoom to conduct a periodic, virtual “Coffee with the Mayor”, which
would present speakers and provide information on topics of community
interest.
o Virtual Town Hall meetings for the Town Council to solicit ideas and feedback
on topics such as the upcoming Housing Element.
o Other forms of ongoing virtual programming that provide content of interest
and benefit to the community.
o Greater use of citizen surveys through available social media platforms.
4
Permitting and conducting business with the Town – business by appointment
For several years, the Town has aspired to expand the use of technology to broaden
the range of services and business that can be provided remotely or virtually.
Resource limitations coupled with the heavy ongoing workload have slowed and
delayed these efforts. The pandemic presented an immediate need and opportunity.
Safety and social distancing protocols necessitated an immediate re-tooling of
operations by significantly reducing the amount of business that could be conducted
in person. Development Services is a prime example of how the Town has adapted:
• An expanded range of applications, from Building to Encroachment Permits,
can now be submitted electronically and many can be issued online;
• Certain tasks, from Building to Engineering plan check, are transitioning to
more extensive use of electronic plan review;
• Where in-person service is required or preferred by the customer,
appointments can now be booked electronically from the Town’s website and
directly from the Danville Connect app;
• The ability for the customer to view and select an available appointment of
their choice (in-person, online or telephone) will be expanded to all of
Development Services and eventually organization-wide. This feature gives
the customer an ability to consult with Town staff at a time that is convenient
for them;
• To ensure business continuity, new technology will be installed to connect
staff working (or quarantining) remotely at the permit center, though this is
less than ideal and would function only as a back-up situation.
Similar approaches, albeit on a more limited basis, have been employed in other areas
of service delivery. Looking forward, many of these services are expected to continue
and expand organization wide, as they afford both convenience and scheduling
predictability that customers have come to expect in all aspects of their lives.
This will involve both additional investments in technology hardware, software,
training as well as potential expansion (or redeployment) of personnel to facilitate
online service delivery in the back office.
Working Virtually
The Town has always maintained a relatively small workforce (fewer than 100 regular
employees) in combination with the use of contract services. Approximately one-
third of the staff works in the field, while many others perform specialized duties that
are unique to specific position classifications; and, Town staff is deployed in six
different service delivery locations. These factors, combined with the strong customer
service approach, have necessitated having all staff on site and publicly accessible.
5
The pandemic has necessitated changes in order to meet new federal and state safety
standards directed at ensuring employee safety. Owing to the small size of the
workforce, the Town has designated all employees as essential. However, it has been
necessary to reduce the number of employees working on site at any given time in
order to increase spacing, reduce proximity and ensure safety.
A significant number of employees currently have schedules that have them working
remotely for periods of time throughout the week. This varies by department and
function. All employees are accessible by phone and e-mail meaning that service
delivery continues uninterrupted. In many areas, remote work schedules have been
able to operate effectively with little or no change in productivity.
Certain critical front line and field personnel do not have the option of working
remotely and it has been necessary to incorporate other safety measures. In
Maintenance Services, field personnel have been divided into smaller cohorts with
operations staged from several remote locations, rather than being consolidated at the
Town Service Center.
Once health orders are lifted to allow for re-opening of facilities and return to full
public access, Town service delivery will shift back toward the pre-pandemic staffing
model. However, based upon lessons learned over the past year, this will continue to
include increased use of remote work schedules for some employees. As has been the
case throughout the pandemic, it will be necessary to ensure that uninterrupted
service delivery is maintained along with employee productivity and the ability for
supervisors to effectively oversee performance.
Space planning and physical configuration
The pandemic has changed employee norms and expectations with respect to factors
such as proximity, need for minimum separation, need to avoid physical contact, need
to provide for greater separation between employees and public at areas of public
interface, and re-assessing whether and how certain spaces can be shared. In general,
this will result in the need to evaluate our space planning for regular and temporary
employees to ensure that adequate spacing is provided between employees,
especially in shared work spaces.
SUMMARY
The Coronavirus has prompted adjustments to some methods of service delivery to
the community. Based upon the experience gained and lessons learned, many of these
adjustments are expected to carry over into future post pandemic models for service
delivery. Town Council feedback and input is sought preparatory to development of
the draft 2021/22 Operating Budget.
Attachment A – 2020 Paper on Community Outreach and Engagement
COMMUNITY OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT
“Effectively engaging and communicating with residents and businesses” is one of
the Town’s priorities. The constant evolution of social media and related platforms
has created a new paradigm within which local governments now operate. The Town
foresaw this trend and was among the first local governments of this size to hire a full
time Public Information Officer in 2010.
Over the past decade, the Town has sought to communicate and engage with residents
through a community outreach program that seeks to inform, educate and inspire
residents about the programs, projects and activities that take place in Danville. The
program seeks to engage and inform residents through print, digital, media relations,
and person to person contacts.
The Town’s Communications and Outreach efforts include:
1. Print Media
a. Quarterly “Live Locally” Newsletter - A printed 12-page newsletter which is
mailed to +/- 21,000 households and businesses in Danville.
b. Triannual Recreation Activity Guide - The Recreation, Arts and Community
Services Activity Guide is mailed three times each year to 26,000 residents in
Danville, Alamo, Blackhawk and unincorporated Danville.
c. Silver Streak Newsletter – A printed quarterly newsletter for seniors which is
mailed to +/- 7,500 households in Danville.
2. Digital Media
a. Town Website - The Town’s website features information about Town services,
current news and announcements, a community calendar, meeting agendas
and minutes, publications, press releases, and embedded social media content.
b. Danville Connect Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system -
Available on Google Play, the Apple App Store and on web browsers, Danville
Connect provides a centralized point of access for all Town information,
concerns and inquiries.
ATTACHMENT A
2
c. Public Meeting Video Streaming- Town Council and Planning Commission
meetings are video streamed in real time through the Town’s website.
d. Nixle- Nixle is used to provide police and public safety-related alerts to the
public on a variety of issues.
e. Facebook- The Town maintains three Facebook pages for General Information,
the Police Department and the Village Theatre & Art Gallery.
f. Facebook Live - Facebook Live is used to livestream information to the public.
g. Twitter - Twitter is used as a fast and reliable mode of communication when
the size and type of message are appropriate for this platform.
h. Instagram – The Town has three Instagram accounts. Instagram posts are
shared and reposted among the accounts to help build subscriber numbers and
expose existing users to other images and stories from the Town.
i. Nextdoor- Over 75% of Danville households are on Nextdoor. Through
creating a second account solely for the Danville Police Department, residents
are able to provide tips and information to the police department due to the
increased functionality.
j. LinkedIn - LinkedIn is used primarily for Business Outreach/Economic
Development and Human Resources purposes to provide information about
Town-sponsored business workshops, events and job postings.
3. News Media
For residents that continue to rely on news media for information, staff maintains
relationships with reporters who cover Danville and the region. In addition to media
press releases, staff regularly reach out to reporters with updates on Town activities
or suggestions on human interest or program-focused story ideas.
At the local level, DanvilleSanRamon.com continues to cover the San Ramon Valley,
including most Town Council meetings and sharing nearly all Town press releases
with the public. The Sentinel and the East Bay Times also continue to cover more
prominent news stories about Danville’s efforts. The Danville Patch continues to be a
popular news site at the local level.
4. In-Person Outreach
a. Town Council Office Hours at Farmers’ Market - The Town Council continues
to hold weekly office hours at the Saturday Danville Farmers’ Market engaging
in one-on-one conversations with residents, providing informational materials
and handouts and relaying requests that require further follow-up back to staff
through the Town Manager’s Office.
b. Coffee/Recess with the Cops – The Police Department holds Coffee with the
3
Cops events throughout the town to engage with a broad range of residents.
Police officers also visit one elementary or middle school per week throughout
the school year. These efforts allow law enforcement to connect with the
community in a friendly environment to build positive relationships with all
segments of the community.
While each of these efforts have succeeded in connecting with segments of the
community, current trends continue to further underscore a move away from
“personal” contact and engagement with residents toward increased dependence
upon “impersonal” communication – i.e. the use of social media to express views and
opinions which may sometimes be lacking in civility or factual accuracy. While
always respecting free speech rights, the Town attempts to manage and balance this
through having the PIO monitor various media platforms and as appropriate, weigh
in with answers to questions or correct factual information.
5. Public Meetings and Participation
Assisted by several commissions and boards, the Town Council continues to rely
upon public hearings as the heart of the local decision making and policy setting
process (local democracy in action). Several public meetings occur each month.
Agendas and information are provided in electronic form in advance of meetings and
in printed form at the meetings themselves. Though updated to provide electronic
information more readily through the Town’s website, this process follows the
traditional public input process used by local government – i.e. attend a meeting and
provide input or testimony preparatory to decision-making by an advisory or elected
body. Attendance at public meetings tends to be low, absent a contentious issue –
typically one where residents are concerned that a matter may have a direct or indirect
negative impact upon their perceived quality of life.
A question facing all local governments is whether or not there may be additional
steps that can be taken to more effectively promote and facilitate engagement with,
and participation in, the local decision-making process.
The annual workshop presents an opportunity to brainstorm ideas on what steps the
Town can take to promote greater participation and engagement in the local
decisionmaking process.
Attached to this paper is an ICMA article entitled “The Extent of Public Participation”.
The article identifies and describes a range of interactions that local governments can
have with their communities. Some interesting highlights: Close to 40% of City
Managers describe the “civic discourse” in their communities as “very’ or
4
“somewhat” polarized, strident and rude…” Given that the article dates to 2014, and
considering the current state of discourse nationwide, these numbers have almost
certainly worsened. Second, only 12% of those responding indicated a “high level of
participation” in their city’s engagement efforts. These results support what we’ve
seen locally.
Looking forward, the types of issues that the Town will be faced with regarding state
housing mandates present challenges and opportunities. Most recent experiences
with the 2014-22 Housing Element and 2030 General Plan underscore as much.
Brainstorming Exercise
Consider whether or not there are steps or actions that could be considered to improve
this process. How can the Town more effectively engage with residents both outside
of and through our own meetings?
Some Ideas:
• Expand the use of Open Town Hall to conduct online polling. Engagement on
subjects such as the skate park and Town Green Master Plan show that people
respond when prompted. This platform could be used to gather feedback on both
broad and specific questions – i.e. What do you love about Danville? Do you own
an electric car, if so, do you have a charger at home, where else do you charge?
What’s the most effective way for the Town to engage with you? Residents could
potentially be polled on a new question each month
• Expand the use of Social Media:
o Post full agendas to social media ahead of upcoming meetings. (The Town
currently posts about upcoming meetings and directs people to the website to
see the agendas.) Cut out the middle step and consider summarizing issues to
be discussed.
o Consider livestreaming meetings on social media.
o Redouble online efforts to get people to subscribe to the automated agendas so
they have a better handle on what items are on the horizon.
• Consider changes to current Town Council meeting format:
o Use a ‘mixer’ format and set aside 30 minutes prior to the meeting for residents
to come and meet/speak with the Council informally prior to the beginning of
the meeting.
o Augment in-person testimony at a public hearing with an Online Open House
consisting of a short informational video and input collecting surv ey (i.e.,
MTC’s approach to soliciting input on changes to the Express Lane Toll Policy).
o Invite residents to write in questions to the Town Council mailbox about issues
in town. During the next Council meeting, following the ‘Good of the Town’
5
the Mayor can read a question on camera, provide a live answer and recognize
the resident for taking part in the meeting.
• Bring printed meeting agendas for distribution at the Farmers Market.
• Consider having more informal, mixer style informational meetings to inform and
educate residents on various topics. Info sessions could even be livestreamed, and
residents could ask questions online.
• Consider conducting a series of “listening” sessions attended by the Town Council
and staff. Invite residents to attend and speak for 3-5 minutes about a concern,
something they like about Danville, something they think the Town needs, etc.
The purpose is not to respond but rather to simply hear what residents have to say
in a respectful and thoughtful way.
• As we look forward to the 2022-2030 Housing Element, consider holding
informational meetings similar to what the consultant did on the Parks, Recreation
and Arts Master Plan. If the Town is required to zone for x number of housing
units, get resident input on how they would do it. Consider using a facilitator
rather than having the Town Council or staff run meetings, with the goal of getting
people to think about how to achieve this without responding to a specific
proposal.
These are just a few ideas to get the ball rolling. Councilmembers are asked to consider
the degree to which they are satisfied with the current level of citizen engagement
occurring at Town Council and Commission meetings; and be prepared to brainstorm
and consider other ways to increase and improve citizen engagement.
February 5, 2021
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Joe Calabrigo, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Town Council Guidelines/Training
As part of the Annual Planning and Goal Setting Workshop, the Town Council has
the opportunity to review and re-visit the self-developed Guidelines that serve as
operational protocols.
Any discussion related to the Guidelines is up to Council’s discretion. As in past
years, please consider whether:
• the guidelines are still relevant and of assistance;
• there are any questions, issues or concerns regarding any ground rules, values
or norms and commitments contained in the guidelines; or
• there any changes that the Council wishes to discuss or consider.
Only one change has been made to this year’s version - Section E. 7. c. has been revised
to update the mayoral rotation.
Please be prepared to provide direction to staff regarding any other changes to be
incorporated as part of the annual review.
TOWN COUNCIL GUIDELINES
These Guidelines were initially developed by the Town Council in October 2003. The
Guidelines are reviewed annually and updated as directed by the Town Council.
GROUND RULES
The Town Council will follow four basic ground rules in order to work effectively
together on an ongoing basis:
1. Keep focused!
2. Use inquiry vs. judgment - hear all points!
3. Be respectful of one another
4. Focus on issues not people
VALUES
The top three values identified by the Town Council are:
1. Honesty, Integrity, Trust, Ethical
2. Leadership/Clear Direction/Vision
3. Fiscal Responsibility
NORMS AND COMMITMENTS
A. When dealing with each other council member to council member, we expect… How
will we resolve conflict among ourselves?
At meetings:
1. Be prepared; read the packet thoroughly before the meeting.
2. Ask questions of staff in advance of the meeting.
3. Give credit and positive feedback.
4. Challenge issues rather than personalities; do not criticize fellow council
members.
5. Be mindful of negative body language; minimize eye rolling, audible sighing.
6. Give the public three minutes without responding, but make sure due attention
is given. Show respect.
7. Keep feedback constructive.
8. At meetings, disclose information that you have that is relevant.
9. Avoid the following:
a. surprises d. personal attacks
b. grandstanding e. condescending/sarcastic tone
c. side conversations f. emotional escalation
10. The Town Manager will manage the agenda process. Individual council
members may request placement of items on the agenda, but only the Town
Council may direct placement of items. Video recordings of live streamed
public meetings constitute a public record and cannot be edited .
11. Each councilmember will have the opportunity to be heard and to present their
respective views. Once a matter has been discussed and/or debated and the
Town Council makes a decision (vote taken), that decision becomes the Town
Council position. It is expected that individual council members will respect
this process and represent individual decisions that have been made by the full
Town Council to the community and elsewhere as appropriate, regardless of
their individual views.
12. To facilitate quality video recording for live streamed public meetings:
a. make sure that your microphone is turned on and speak directly into the
microphone.
b. be mindful of verbal and non-verbal communication.
In General:
13. When invited to meet with a constituent or advocate to discuss a specific issue
or project, inform the Town Manager and encourage the constituent or
advocate to meet with all council members to provide similar information.
14. In situations where conflicts arise that impede the function of the Town
Council, council members will attempt to resolve issues on a one-on-one basis.
Depending upon the circumstances, it may also be appropriate for the Town
Manager to facilitate resolution among the affected members.
B. When dealing with the Town Manager and staff, we expect…
1. Treat staff as professionals; do not publicly criticize an individual staff member.
2. The Town Council takes action as an elected body, rather than individually.
Allow staff to handle administrative functions and limit individual requests for
staff support. When interacting with the Town staff, remember:
a. Staff may be contacted for the purpose of asking questions or s eeking
information (asking). Whenever possible, direct questions to department
heads or senior staff.
b. Work requests or assignments should only be directed to the Town
Manager (directing).
c. Comments or concerns regarding staff should be directed to the Town
Manager in private.
3. In study sessions or regular meetings, the Town Council will summarize and
clarify direction (action items/next steps).
4. As an individual council member, do not ask the Town Manager to do
something that is contrary to the direction of the Town Council.
5. Do not draw staff members into disagreements among council members.
6. Do not solicit political support from staff or involve staff in any political
activity.
7. Try to give credit and positive feedback (on behalf of the Council).
8. Provide questions for staff ahead of time so staff can prepare. Ask early, ask
often.
9. When dealing with the press, the public or anyone external to the Town
government, staff’s role is to communicate the policy, direction or action
determined by the Town Council. Staff does not speak for the Town Council,
nor will the staff speculate as to what action the Town Council may take on any
issue or subject.
10. Staff occasionally conducts or attends working meetings that council members
are not invited to attend due to the nature of the meeting (e.g. - meetings to
discuss development proposals and/or conditions and special event wrap -up
meetings). Should other meeting participants invite a member of the Council,
that council member should talk to the Town Manager before attending.
(Please refer to Attachment A for additional material describing the roles of the Town
Council and Town staff)
C. When dealing with media and public, we expect…
1. State your view, avoid repeating a reporter's terms.
2. Try to speak in sound bites.
3. Clarify the position: "the Town's decision is….", "my opinion is…."
4. Once a decision is made, don't discredit the decision or criticize your colleagues
for having made it. Also, don't influence the media to.
5. Identify issues where it may be appropriate to develop a “party line” for
presentation to the press or public to assure that a consistent message is
delivered, and key points are covered.
6. Inform the Town Manager when you've spoken to the media.
D. When representing the Town in other forums, we expect…
1. Present and support decisions or positions made by the full Town Council – i.e.
"the Town Council's position is X, and this issue been decided."
2. If you are presenting a personal point of view or opinion, make it clear: "the
Town Council hasn't discussed or decided this issue, my opinion is Y."
3. When appointed to or assigned a sub-committee, committee, or liaison role,
council members are representing the Town rather than themselves.
4. Make sure to distinguish between political activity and Town business.
5. If invited to attend a function as a Town representative, don't campaign.
E. Role of the Mayor
1. The Mayor always represents the Town and the Town Council.
2. At the beginning of their mayoral term, the Mayor makes/coordinates Town
liaison appointments.
a. The Mayor first meets or speaks with each council member to determine
areas of interest.
b. If more than one council member is interested in a specific role or position,
and it is not possible to resolve the matter through compromise, the Mayor
may take the appointment to the full Town Council at a study session.
3. Designate alternates for external committees/liaisons to provide exposure to
subject matter and experience in preparing for the primary position.
4. Consider rotation of assignments every couple of years to afford other council
members the opportunity to serve in different capacities. Consider the impact
to the Town of rotation.
5. Every council member has the right and obligation to serve as representatives.
6. Time permitting, the Mayor will bring issues back to the full Town Council for
direction or a vote (e.g., appointments by the Mayors’ Conference or positions
taken by the Mayors’ Conference).
7. Mayoral Rotation
a. The position of Mayor is rotated annually. Each council member has the
right to serve (barring Council changes) every five years.
b. The Vice-Mayor is next in line of succession.
c. Mayoral Rotation for the next 5 years is agreed upon as follows:
2021 – Renee Morgan 2024 – Karen Stepper
2022 – Newell Arnerich 2025 – Dave Fong
2023 – Robert Storer
d. If one new councilmember is elected or appointed, they are placed at the
end of the rotation and incumbent members move up one year.
e. If more than one new councilmember is elected, they are placed at the end
of the rotation in an order determined by the number of votes that each new
council member received (highest # of votes goes first, etc.) Incumbent
council members move up by a number of years equivalent to the number
of new council members elected (i.e. 2 new members means that the others
move up 2 years).
8. Provides direction to the Town Manager on use of the annual ‘Mayor’s
Discretionary Fund’, which is intended to be used for a public improvement,
program, or event that is located within the town, and accessible to the general
public.
F. Appointments of advisory commissions and boards; Council appointments;
Council resignations.
1. The Town Council will adhere to Resolution No. 11-2005, regarding selection
and appointment of Town commissioners.
2. The Town Council expects that commissioners will abide by the same ground
rules for dealing with the Town staff as have been agreed to herein. The Town
Council will use the annual Town Council/Commission workshop to review
and reinforce these expectations.
3. The Town Council agrees that the selection process used to fill prior Town
Council vacancies in 2003 and 2009 was appropriate and effective. The need to
fill future Town Council vacancies will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis,
considering the circumstances and conditions present at that time, and the need
to adhere to all applicable laws.
G. Orientation of new councilmembers
1. A successful orientation process can facilitate the transition of new council
members into their roles as elected officials. The following items were cited as
being helpful in this process.
a. Good documentation f. Visit commission meetings
b. Tours g. Overview of regional issues
c. Historical perspective h. Opportunity to observe meetings
d. Legal orientation i. Provide calendar of meetings
e. Meeting with incumbents j. “Buddy System” mentoring
by other council members
H. Town Council Expenses and Reimbursements
Certain expenses are necessary in order to assist council members in discharging the
duties of their office. Events or activities for which the Town may expend funds are
described and listed in Attachment B (excerpted from Resolution No. 17-2006). The
Town Council will consider such needs on an annual basis, as part of adopting the
annual operating budget.
I. Follow up Actions
The Town Council may re-visit these guidelines annually to see how the process is
working and determine whether any additional steps are appropriate to further
facilitate how council members work together in an appropriate manner to conduct
the Town’s business.
Attachments:
A – Roles and Responsibilities of the Town Council and Town Manager/Staff
B - Events and Activities qualifying for reimbursement (from Resolution No. 17-
2006)
2021 TC Guidelines – updated 2/5/2021
ATTACHMENT A (This material has been assembled from various sources and is
provided to the Town Council for information purposes).
ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES OF TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN MANAGER &
STAFF
The degree to which policy and administration mix in a given community can
sometimes become an issue. There is no clear demarcation between the two – but
there is the need for everyone involved to be cognizant of roles. The opportunity to
periodically revisit this subject provides an opportunity to ask questions, address
issues and better define the process for the Town Council and the Town Manager.
As the elected body who represents the community, the Town Council must be able
to communicate the vision of the Town and set the tone. The Town Manager and staff
are responsible for seeing that the vision is carried out.
A. Role of the Town Council:
1. Representational: The Town Council is directly accountable to constituents.
The Town Council must balance individual and group demands with the needs
of the entire community.
2. Governmental: The Town Council makes policy, adopts legislation,
establishes/adopts budgets and adjudicates issues. The Town Council sets the
mission and goals for the organization. They explain and promote programs.
Individual council members are expected to:
a. Interact with constituents
b. Serve on Town Council sub-committees
c. Serve in a liaison role
d. Attend public events and ceremonies
3. Financial Oversight: The Town Council adopts an annual operating and
capital budget and is responsible for appropriating funds and approv ing
contracts pursuant to Town policy. The Town Council adopts an investment
policy and assures adherence to that policy.
4. Intergovernmental: Council members represent the Town on various
intergovernmental and regional boards.
5. Supervisorial: The Town Council appoints and evaluates the Town Manager
and City Attorney, as well as advisory commissions and boards.
6. Business Management: Council members sit as members of the Financing
Authority and Civic Improvement Corporation.
B. Role of the Town Manager:
1. Communication: The Town Manager must develop a rapport with council
members through maintaining frequent contact with each member. The Town
Manager must provide equal information to each member and provide early
warning on problems.
2. Policy Implementation: The Town Manager assists the Town Council in
identifying and focusing on goals. The Town Manager is responsible for
interpreting policies set by the Town Council for staff and making sure Town
Council intent is implemented after a decision is made.
3. Professionalism: The Town Manager (through the Town staff) is responsible
for:
a. Providing professional recommendations and making sure that all viable
options are presented for Town Council consideration.
b. Maintaining a professional position despite political pressure.
c. Providing good customer service and follow-up.
4. Organizational: The Town Manager is responsible for developing leadership
abilities among the staff, building a decisive and responsive management team
and holding staff accountable for results. The Town Manager is also expected
to maintain good relationships with employee groups.
5. Foster Teamwork: The Town Manager fosters teamwork with the Town
Council by becoming knowledgeable on key issues that are important to the
Town Council, expressing views and providing perspective to the Town
Council on key issues. The Town Manager can also coach council members
and help to refine their skills, and buffer the Town Council when appropriate.
6. Financial Stewardship: The Town Manager submits an annual budget for
Town Council consideration and is responsible for keeping the Town in sound
financial condition.
TWENTY WAYS TO OFFEND TOWN COUNCIL COLLEAGUES
The responsibility for the effectiveness and success of an elected body ultimately lies
with the members of that body. If you don’t really care about working cooperatively
with your colleagues, here are some surefire ways to agitate them:
1. Attempt to dominate meetings.
2. Cut off statements of colleagues.
3. Magnify errors of colleagues.
4. Make fun of colleague’s statements.
5. Tell colleagues they are wrong.
6. Insist upon pontificating.
7. Appeal directly to the audience.
8. Amend a motion and then don’t vote for it.
9. Don’t show up at scheduled events.
10. Request a special meeting or meeting time and fail to attend.
11. Commit to a position before the meeting.
12. Take individual credit for group accomplishments.
13. Fail to actively listen to colleagues.
14. Pressure colleagues to take a position before the meeting.
15. Pack the meeting for pressure purposes.
16. Violate a colleagues’ confidence.
17. Covertly use the media to achieve your agenda.
18. Force a vote on a key issue before the group is ready.
19. Criticize staff in public.
20. Fail to prepare for meetings.
Excerpted from the “Elected Officials Little Handbook.”
ATTACHMENT B
Events and Activities Qualifying for Reimbursement
Government Code Section 53232.2(b) requires that each local agency adopt a written
policy specifying the types of events or activities qualifying for reimbursement of
expenses. Following is a list of events and activities for which the Town Council
may expend Town funds or seek reimbursement:
1. Attending educational seminars or conferences designed to improve
officials’ skill and information levels regarding municipal governance;
2. Participating in and attending meetings of regional, state and national
organizations whose activities affect the Town’s interests (including, but not
limited to, the League of California Cities, the National League of Cities, the
U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference);
3. Meeting with representatives of regional, state and national government to
present information or testimony related to proposed or pending legislation
or administrative actions that may impact the Town and its operations;
4. Attending functions of local civic or community organizations where there
is a clear nexus between the event and the official’s function or job, i.e., not
purely social events;
5. Attending meetings, seminars or similar functions regarding economic
development or attracting or retaining businesses to the Town where there
is a clear nexus between the event and the official’s function or job and the
event is consistent with Town policy; and
6. Any other event or activity related to the public official’s duties and
approved in advance by the Town Council at a public meeting.
REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
2021 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
In 2021 the State Legislature is expected to continue to intensify their efforts to
encourage housing production and affordability by imposing new requirements on
local governments. While the business of the Legislative sessions is the same, the
COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the state and will have broad implications
on shaping policy in the future.
The Town will continue to work with the other Tri-Valley Cities (TVC) to further
policy issues and positions that affect our communities. These eff orts include
continuing to work with TPA to advocate for and promote TVC interests at both state
and federal levels. In the past two years, TPA has assisted the TVC more effectively
advocating on behalf of over 365,000 people, making significant inroads on issues
where individual City/Town efforts would have been less effective.
The number of bills being introduced in the state legislature having the potential to
further erode cities’ local control has increased significantly. The Town is continuing
to expand advocacy efforts and public outreach to counter these measures through
advocacy resources including:
•Town of Danville Legislative Framework (attachment A)
•Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework (attachment B)
•Legislative Committee of the Danville Town Council
•Legislative Advocacy page on the Towns’ website
•Legislative Advocacy updates in the Danville Quarterly Newsletter
2020 LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY
The California State Legislature (legislature) opened the 2020 legislative session with
approximately 2,200 active bills as of February 21, the last day for bills to be
introduced during the session. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the legislative session
was suspended on March 16. The Assembly reopened on May 4, followed by the
Senate on May 11.
2
During the 7 and 8-week respective closings, the COVID-19 pandemic had a major
impact on the legislative schedule and priorities. State, counties, and local agencies
had to confront a steep and unprecedented economic crisis including job losses,
budget shortfalls and reduced services. As a result of this change, the legislature
reduced the number of bills and the most consequential bills in the 2020 session, the
Senate Pro Tem Housing bills, failed passage.
Danville Town Council Legislative Committee
The Danville Town Council Legislative Committee was approved by Town Council
in December 2019 to allow for more rapid response to certain legislative actions and
allow the Town to advocate in ways that are specific and unique to Danville. During
2020 the Legislative Committee tracked 20 bills and took action on 13 bills related to
housing. The Committee also updated the Town of Danville Legislative Framework.
Grant Funding
In December 2019, the Town Council authorized a contract with Townsend Public
Affairs to provide Grant writing assistance and services. Due to the COVID-19
pandemic and the cascading impact the Federal and State Government, many of the
grant programs were delayed. TPA and Danville staff have worked together
throughout the year to pursue State and Federal Grant Funding and COVID -19
recovery funding resulting in $1.1 million received. The Town currently has four
pending applications totaling $3.6 million from 2020. Town Council approved
funding the grant program through the end of the fiscal year and as a result staff is in
the process of pursuing grants from the Regional Early Action Funding (REAP),
CalRecycle Grants Program and the CalTrans Sustainable Communities Grant
Program.
Townsend Public Affairs has prepared a detailed 2020 Legislative Summary
(attachment C), highlights include:
Federal Advocacy - In January 2021, the Tri-Valley Cities’ (TVC) Mayors continued their
annual advocacy efforts in conjunction with the U.S. Conference of Mayors in
Washington, D.C. Working with TPA the TVC group engaged in a series of
productive meetings and discussions aimed at furthering the TVC legislative
platform.
State Advocacy & Leadership - At the state level the TVC coalition took the lead in
advocating for local control at the Legislature. On February 4, the coalition met with
the Chief of Staff for Senator Beall, Senior Policy Advisory Stephanie Park from the
Office of the Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer -
Kahan in an effort to build relationships with policy makers in Sacramento. The Town
3
continues to stay engaged with the League of California Cities in policy development
and advocacy efforts including Legislative Action Day.
2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
As anticipated, at the beginning of the 2021 Legislative Session, California Senate Pro
Tem Toni Atkins introduced several key pieces of legislation including the
reintroduction of bills from the Senate Housing Package. The new “Building
Opportunities for All” housing package includes six bills designed to offer housing
opportunities and solutions to Californians.
Building Opportunities for All Housing Package
SB 5: Senate Housing Bond (Atkins, Skinner, Weiner)
Senate Bill 5, establishes the initial framework that would state the intent of the
Legislature to enact legislation that would authorize the issuance of bonds and would
require the proceeds from the sale of those bonds to be used to finance housing -
related programs that serve the homeless and extremely low income and very low-
income Californians.
SB 6: (Caballero) The Neighborhood Homes Act
Senate Bill 6, the Neighborhood Homes Act, authorizes residential development
on existing lots currently zoned for commercial office and retail space, such as strip
malls or large “big box” retail spaces, that are not adjacent to industrial use
zones. The bill would require the density for a housing development under these
provisions to meet or exceed the density deemed appropriate to accommodate
housing for lower income households according to the type of local jurisdiction,
including a density of at least 20 units per acre for a suburban jurisdiction.
Senate Bill 7: (Atkins) The Housing + Jobs Expansion and Extension Act
Senate Bill 7, eliminates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process by
extending and expanding provisions of AB 900, which streamlined paperwork and
expedited legal challenges to large, multi-benefit housing, energy, and manufacturing
projects. SB 7 would extend the 2021 ‘sunset’ of AB 900, through 2025.
Senate Bill 8: (Skinner) Density Bonus Law
Senate Bill 8, would change the Density Bonus Law and incentivize the construction
of housing developments that will contain a specified percentage of units for low and
moderate-income households. This bill is currently listed as a spot bill.
Senate Bill 9: (Atkins) California Housing Opportunity & More Efficiency (HOME)
Act
4
Senate Bill 9, promotes small-scale neighborhood residential development by
streamlining the process for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an existing
lot in residential areas. SB 9 is identical to SB 1120, a bill that essentially eliminates
single family zoning. SB 9 language, at a minimum allows for 4 full size houses where
one sits now.
Senate Bill 10: (Wiener)
SB 10, allows cities to upzone areas close to job centers, transit, and existing urbanized
areas to allow up to ten units without having to go through the lengthy CEQA
process.
State Budget Proposal 2021/22
Governor Newsom presented the 2021-22 State Budget proposal on January 8
including an unexpected $15.5 billion windfall. . Last year the legislature faced an
unprecedented challenge to adopt a budget in a time of great uncertainty. Under the
Governors’ budget, revenues are close to pre-pandemic levels and State costs have
not risen as dramatically as anticipated. The $227 billion fiscal plan calls for includes
$165 billion for the General Fund. The Budget blueprint calls for immediate COVID-
19 response and relief efforts while making investments towards a broad-based
economic recovery.
COVID-19 Relief - $4.4 billion to address vaccines, testing, contact tracing, food banks,
Community engagement and State operations of corrections and rehabilitations.
Economic Development Package - $4.4 billion to include small business grants, workforce
development, deferred maintenance, housing development, zero-emissions vehicles
and the California Jobs Initiative
Golden State Stimulus - $2.4 billion for $600 direct payments to low-income houses and
low-income housing tax credits.
Education – $86 billion in Proposition 98 spending, additional $2 billion non-
Proposition 98 General Fund investments, address the impacts of the pandemic on
student learning, student mental health services, early childhood education and
educator development package.
Homelessness - The budget contains $1.75 billion in new investments including local
government grants to purchase hotels/motels, mental health housing and housing
for vulnerable seniors.
5
Housing – The budget includes $500 million for the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
and $500 million for low-income housing tax credits.
Climate Change - 1 Billion to support the Forest Management’s Task Force’s Wildlife
and Forest Resilience Action Plan, flood management, coastal protection and
restoration of natural areas and ecosystems.
The next step in the budget process is for the Legislature to begin to consider the
Governor’s budget. In the coming weeks, the Senate and Assembly Budget
Committee, and various Budget Subcommittees, will conduct hearings to receive
more detail about the various items in the Governor’s budget proposal. The
committees will also begin the process of determining legislative priorities for
inclusion in the budget. Hearings will occur over several months until the Governor
releases his May Revise of the budget. The FY 2021-22 budget will need to be
approved by June 15th.
Federal
The Biden Administration was sworn into office on January 20. The first item on the
agenda is to curb the spread of COVID-19. President Biden unveiled a $1.9 trillion
emergency relief plan designed to deliver direct aid to families, businesses, and
communities, as well as focus on coronavirus testing and vaccine production and
delivery. Key components of the package include $350 billion to state and local
governments, $15 billion for small business grant programs, $160 billion for schools,
$25 billion in rental assistance for low and moderate-income households who have
lost jobs during the pandemic, a $15-dollar minimum wage, $20 billion for
vaccines and $50 billion for testing.
CONCLUSION
The Town Council is asked to provide further direction or feedback to staff regarding
steps being taken to effectively advocate the Town’s positions.
Attachments:
A - Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework
B - Town of Danville 2020 Legislative Framework
C - Townsend Summary of 2020 Legislative Efforts
Tri-Valley Cities | Legislative Framework A
2018-2020
TRI-VALLEY CITIES
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
ATTACHMENT A
TVC CITY CONTACT INFORMATION
Town of Danville
510 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
(925) 314-3388
dfriedmann@danville.ca.gov
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 833-6650
dublininfo@dublin.ca.gov
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 960-4040
info@cityoflivermore.net
City of Pleasanton
123 Main Street
P. O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(925) 931-5001
bhopkins@cityofplesantonca.gov
City of San Ramon
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 973-2500
citymanager@sanramon.ca.gov
Tri-Valley Cities | Legislative Framework 1
INTRODUCTION & STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW
Background
The Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville
have joined together to work on legislative issues, projects and initiatives at the State and
Federal level. Each city and town is represented by the Mayor, City Manager and Staff Liaison.
Coordination of the group is rotated annually between each city. Activities include quarterly
meetings to discuss legislative matters, and an annual State Legislative visit to Sacramento
in the spring, and an annual Federal Legislative visit to Washington, D.C. in the winter. The
objective of these trips is to hold meetings with state and federal representatives, promote
the Tri-Valley Legislative Agenda, and attend either the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Annual
Winter Meeting or the National League of Cities’ Annual Congressional City Conference.
The Cities and Town have contracted with a state and federal advocacy firm, Townsend Public
Affairs (TPA) and prior to TPA, Jordan & Associates. The Cities and Town, have experienced
success in advocacy for legislation and leveraging funding for projects that meet the needs of
the region.
Previous successful efforts include:
• Interstate 580, 680 and State Route 84 improvements; and
• East Bay Regional Communication System; and
• Tri-Valley Housing Opportunity Center.
Overview
The Cities and Town have determined that the development of a Strategic Framework would
assist the region with a more focused effort and improve strategic advocacy at all levels of
government (e.g. federal, state, regional, local).
This document sets a clear direction regarding the region’s priorities, including desired
objectives, estimated timelines for completion, and potential partnerships with regional
agencies (e.g. transportation agencies) for each legislative effort. The goal of the Strategic
Framework is to provide focus, drive alignment, promote strategic relationships, and assist in
2018-2020
TRI-VALLEY CITIES
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
2 Tri-Valley Cities | Legislative Framework
promoting a clear and concise narrative to maintain and improve the quality of life for Tri-
Valley residents and businesses and enable continued opportunities for public and private
investment within the region.
TRI-VALLEY CITIES VALUES STATEMENT
The Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville value
regional leadership, collaboration, and problem solving to maintain and improve the quality of
life for Tri-Valley residents and businesses, and enable continued opportunities for public and
private investment within the region.
Each City or Town provides a unique perspective on how to best meet the needs of their
residents. The Cities and Town agree to respect the individuality of each community while
focusing on collaboration towards common efforts and regional solutions.
The Cities and Town are committed to open and honest communication with a goal of building
consensus and a united approach to advocacy for solutions that will serve the residents and
businesses of the Tri-Valley.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION FRAMEWORK
The current political landscape has required the Cities and Town to develop a different
legislative framework in order to create positive outcomes for the region. Historically, the
practice has been to advocate at the federal level for funding of local projects by meeting
with federal legislators and seeking direct funding through federal “earmarks.” The elimination
of federal “earmarks” by the Obama Administration as a funding mechanism for local projects
and initiatives has severely limited the region’s legislative advocacy efforts.
The new reality is that Federal funding is now primarily distributed by Federal Agencies
via grant programs. While these grants are available to cities, in practice local and regional
governmental entities apply to respective federal agencies for these funds through a
competitive application process. To be successful in this environment, the Cities and Town
must be strategically focused and rely on relationship building and other public private
partnerships to achieve successful outcomes.
The Legislative Action Framework provides a mechanism to better equip the Cities and Town
Tri-Valley Cities | Legislative Framework 3
to work together on issues of joint interest. The process includes the following objectives:
• Identifying and prioritizing Focus Areas;
• Identifying and prioritizing specific projects and/or initiatives within each Focus Area;
Developing the Tri-Valley Legislative Platform that highlights project leads, regional
partnerships, timelines and specific outcomes; and
• Developing a two-year Action Plan Framework which serves to implement the
aforementioned objectives.
Focus Areas
Focus Areas anchor the work of the Cities and Town by providing clearly defined areas of
interest. The Cities and Town will prioritize their Focus Areas and determine which of the Focus
Areas will be included in the Action Plan. The City Managers and Mayors may evaluate and
amend Focus Areas as needed.
The seven (7) Focus Areas are as follows (listed in priority order):
1. Public Infrastructure
2. Transportation
3. Housing
4. Local Control
5. Fiscal Sustainability
6. Economic Development
7. Public Safety
Projects
Projects were identified and prioritized for each Focus Area. Based upon the Focus Areas
identified to include in the Action Plan, the Cities and Town will select projects and identify
specific outcomes to be included in the Action Plan. An Engagement Plan will be outlined
for each project/initiative and a Fact Sheet will be developed. The Engagement process
is explained in further detail on page 5. The specific projects within the Focus Area are as
follows (listed in priority order):
Public Infrastructure
1. Secure funding for local roads and bridges.
2. Expand renewable energy infrastructure (e.g., solar, wind, etc.).
3. Improve water infrastructure (e.g., potable, recycled water, etc.).
4. Secure funding for Storm Water Management Infrastructure/Green Infrastructure.
4 Tri-Valley Cities | Legislative Framework
Transportation
1. Implement Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Regional Priorities.
2. Implement capacity improvements and regional highway connectivity on State Route 84
and Interstates 580 and 680.
3. Accelerate connection of the Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority’s
Valley Link project to the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE).
4. Complete the Iron Horse Trail from Danville to Livermore, including improvements over
crossings within each jurisdiction.
Housing
1. Strengthen local control to address state housing mandates.
2. Monitor and influence regional housing policy (e.g. Plan Bay Area, RHNA cycles, etc.).
3. Secure and protect local funding sources for workforce housing opportunities (e.g. CDBG,
etc.).
4. Work to minimize homelessness within the region.
Local Control
1. Advocate for CEQA reform.
2. Strengthen local land use control.
3. Support permit streamlining initiatives.
Fiscal Sustainability
1. Advocate for fiscal reform to ensure retention of local revenue sources (e.g. sales tax,
property tax, gas tax, reform county pool allocations, etc.).
2. Support and secure regional and state grants for eligible capital projects and/or initiatives.
3. Advocate for sustainable statewide CalPERS pension reforms.
Economic Development
1. Support regional collaboration around business innovation.
2. Promote private investment.
3. Recruit and retain local employers.
Public Safety
1. Protect local COPS Funding.
2. Strengthen law enforcement (e.g. AB109).
3. Reduce repeat offender crimes.
Tri-Valley Cities | Legislative Framework 5
Engagement Plan
This plan will expand engagement to four (4)
levels: Federal, State, Regional, and Local, and will
include a strategic focus on relationship-building.
For each specific project and initiative, it is
important to evaluate and strengthen existing, and
cultivate new, relationships. These relationships
will be key to preparation of an Engagement
Plan which will clearly identify steps and tasks to
achieve project success.
With established working relationships, the
municipalities will be poised to better understand
partners and how to leverage support for projects and initiatives.
The Engagement Plan will identify partners at each of the four levels, and the project liaisons
from each municipality will work on the selected
projects or initiatives and outline a communication
loop to ensure that information is shared at all levels
regarding status, next steps and desired outcomes.
The plan will also provide an analysis of how the
project or initiative aligns with partner agency
priorities, and identify any additional relationships
that need to be developed and/or expanded.
The municipalities will be responsible to work with
the lobbyist/consultant/ contract staff to develop
an Engagement Plan that will identify goals and
strategies for each selected project or initiative.
TVC
Federal State Regional Local
Iron Horse Trail
PARTNERSHIPS
Federal
DOT
FHWA
State
CalTrans
Local
Division
Regional
MTC
Local
EBRPD
AlamedaCTC
TVC
Federal State Regional Local
Iron Horse Trail
PARTNERSHIPS
Federal
DOT
FHWA
State
CalTrans
Local
Division
Regional
MTC
Local
EBRPD
AlamedaCTC
6 Tri-Valley Cities | Legislative Framework
2018–2020 FOCUS AREAS AND PROJECTS
Areas of Focus: Local Control, Transportation, and Housing
Projects:
Primary Priority
• Strengthen local land use and control.
Secondary Priorities
• Accelerate connection of the Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority’s
Valley Link project to the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE).
• Complete the Iron Horse Trail from Danville to Livermore, including improved over
crossings within each jurisdiction looking for grant funding.
• Strengthen local control to address state housing mandates.
Tertiary Priorities
• Secure and protect local funding sources for workforce housing opportunities
(e.g. CDBG, etc.).
• Implement capacity improvements and regional highway connectivity on State Route 84
and Interstates 580 and 680.
NEXT STEPS
Working together with TPA we will focus on developing relationships through Engagement
Plans in an effort to progress toward measurable outcomes for each project.
The Legislative Framework may be periodically updated to adjust to the changing conditions
of the Tri-Valley Area and the policy objectives of the region.
8 Tri-Valley Cities | Legislative FrameworkTri-Valley Cities | Legislative Framework
Town of Danville
Legislative Framework
Town Council Legislative Committee
ATTACHMENT B
2
Overview
The Town of Danville is actively engaged in legislative advocacy efforts that are aimed at
protecting and promoting Danville’s best interests at the local, state and federal levels. These
efforts are driven by two primary considerations: 1) continuing to uphold the Town mission of
delivering superior municipal services that make people’s lives better; and 2) an increasing level
of state involvement and regulation in areas that have previously fallen within local control.
The significant increase in bills being introduced in the state legislature that have the potential
to further impact cities’ local control has prompted the Town to continue to expand advocacy
efforts through various means and channels. Key to these efforts is the development of this
Legislative Framework which outlines the Town’s legislative principles, policies, goals and
strategies. The Framework will be monitored and driven by a Town Council Legislative
Committee.
Legislative Goals
• Advocate the Town’s legislative interests at the federal, state, regional, and county levels
to support our Town’s vision and mission.
• Serve as an active participant with other local governments, the League of California Cities,
regional agencies, and local professional organizations on legislative issues that are important
to the town and our region.
• Participate in the Tri-Valley Cities coalition to work together on legislative issues, projects
and initiatives at the federal, state, regional and county levels.
• Seek grant and funding assistance for Town projects, services, and programs.
Legislative Principles
To fulfill the goals identified, the Town supports legislation and policies that favor:
1. Outstanding Quality of Life - provide opportunities to protect and enhance our
residents’ quality of life through active living, a healthy lifestyle and diverse recreational
services.
2. Community Safety - provide access to resources and services for residents, such as
quality police, fire, emergency management, emergency medical services, services for
vulnerable populations and community benefit efforts.
3. Local Control over Land Use and Preservation - ensures the Town’s continued
ability and authority to exercise decisions on land use matters and reasonably regulate
new development to ensure consistency with Town design standards. The orderly
growth and development of the Town together with the preservation of open-space is a
high priority for the Danville community.
4. Foster Economic Vitality and Growth - provide funding for initiatives that
promote: economic health and resilience, business development, workforce
3
development, and small business entrepreneurship training and assistance.
5. Public Infrastructure - enable continued improvement and maintenance of the
Town’s public infrastructure.
6. Transportation - provide funding for planning and implementation of regional
transportation projects.
7. Housing - seek balanced solutions which consider housing, jobs, and transportation
together; does not take a one size fits all approach; provides funding and resources for
infrastructure and allows the Town to exercise local control in developing locally-
appropriate plans that meet State objectives in a manner that is compatible with existing
community character.
8. Support Residents Growth and Enrichment - enhance and encourage
recreational programming, exercise, use of parks and services, community engagement,
social and recreational experiences; and performing and visual arts.
9. Sustainability - enable sustainable development, conserve natural resources, and,
provide resources to enable environmental awareness and health in our community.
10. Fiscal Sustainability - protect existing federal, state, and local funding sources that
provide revenues to the Town of Danville. Oppose Unfunded Mandates and legislation
that seeks to impose any requirement upon the Town that is not fully funded; aid
recovery of Town costs stemming from State and/or Federal mandates.
Town Council Legislative Committee
• The Legislative Committee will consist of two members of the Town Council to be
appointed annually by the Mayor, supported by appropriate Town staff.
• The committee will meet as frequently as monthly to review and discuss the Town’s
legislative platform and pending/possible legislation.
• The committee will develop positions on pending or possible legislation and make
recommendations for consideration by the Town Council. Recommendations will be
based upon a determination of potential legislative impacts upon the Town and its
residents. Potential positions to be considered include:
o Support: Legislation that the Town should support as drafted
o Support if Amended: that the Town should support if the author accepts
amendments proposed or supported by the Town
o Oppose: Legislation that the Town should oppose as drafted
o Oppose unless amended: Legislation the Town should oppose unless amended
o Watch: Town will take no formal position but will watch the Legislation and
consider taking a position as the legislative process progresses
• Once a determination has been made that a legislative proposal may impact the Town, a
letter outlining the Town’s position will be drafted for the Mayor’s or Town Manager’s
signature.
4
• The committee will make regular reports to the Town Council at duly noticed public
meetings.
• The committee will work collaboratively with Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton and San Ramon to further the Tri-Valley Legislative Framework.
Strategic Documents
The following documents are available on the Town’s website at www.danville.ca.gov
• Town Vision and Mission Statements
• Town of Danville General Plan 2030
• Town of Danville Adopted Budget and Capital Improvement Program
• Town of Danville Recreation, Arts & Community Services Master Plan
• Town of Danville Climate Action Plan
The Legislative Framework will be reviewed annually by the Town Council. Day to day
oversight of legislative matters is the responsibility of the Town Manager’s Office, consistent
with this Legislative Framework and policy set by the Town Council.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Renee Morgan and Members of the Danville Town Council
From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
Niccolo De Luca, Northern California Senior Director
Alex Gibbs, Senior Associate
Andres Ramirez, Associate
Laura Kroeger, Federal Senior Associate
Date: February 5, 2021
Subject: 2020 Legislative Summary for the Town of Danville
SUMMARY
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this report for the Town of Danville
following the end of the 2020 legislative year. This report provides a summary of our
efforts to date for the advocacy objectives of Danville.
Summary of 2020 State Legislative Efforts and Successes
TPA worked with the elected Danville leadership, management, and management
staff to develop, advocate, and secure several major initiatives through various means
including legislation. This was done working hand in hand with the four other
municipalities in the Tri-Valley Cities (TVC) coalition and working directly with our
elected leaders in Sacramento.
A major success in 2020 included an invitation for Townsend Public Affairs to
represent the TVC on Senate Pro Tem Atkins’ Housing Production committee/working
group. This engagement ensured the TVC voice was heard and incorporated as a part
of developing state-wide housing production legislation. TPA continued to follow up
with comment letters and meetings with the Senate Pro Tem’s staff and lead policy
advisors. While Danville and the TVC were not able to support all five of the housing
production bills, many of our specifically suggested amendments were incorporated
into a number of the high-profile bills. Some of the language amendments are
highlighted below, under the respective bills. Not only did our submission of thoughtful
suggested amendments result in changes to bill language, but they also helped
Danville and the TVC coalition continue to make a name as a respected thought
partner to various members of the State Legislature.
In addition to work on legislation, TPA worked with the Town of Danville and other four
Tri-Valley Cities on formulating and sending a request the Governor, Senator Glazer,
Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, and Budget Staff for COVID-19 response funding at
the beginning of the pandemic. This was followed up with aggressive advocacy on to
ensure the needs and concerns of the coalition, such as staffing shortages, budget
deficits, and more, were being fully understood. Our intense and constant advocacy
ATTACHMENT C
2
helped drive allocations to individual cities and towns through the Coronavirus Relief
Fund from the CARES Act.
As part of the Tri-Valley Cities coalition, the Town of Danville took unified formal
positions on five major housing production bills, one housing bill focused on impact
fees, one homelessness related bill, and one transportation related bill. TPA also
closely monitored numerous other pieces of legislation in which a formal position was
not taken. The formal positions were on the following pieces of legislation:
AB 1484 (Grayson) Mitigation Fee Act: housing developments
• This bill would have prohibited a local agency from imposing a housing impact
requirement on a housing development project, unless specified requirements
are satisfied by the local agency, including that the housing impact requirement
be roughly proportional in both nature and extent to the impact created by the
housing development project. It would also have required local governments
to post fee list and number of other related documents on municipal websites.
• TPA expressed the concerns of TVC to the author and his staff, our legislative
delegation, housing committee staff, local government committee staff, and
others.
• Pressures from various advocacy organizations and local governments
resulted in the bill being halted for the 2020 legislative session.
AB 3269 (Chiu) State and local agencies: homelessness plan
• This bill would have established the Housing and Homelessness Inspector
General (Inspector General), require the Homeless Coordinating and
Financing Council (HCFC) to conduct a specified needs and gaps analysis,
require local governments to develop actionable plans to address
homelessness, and create a public right of action for the Inspector General to
compel compliance with those new plans.
• Danville and TVC engaged by submitting a constructive comment letter with
suggested changes to the proposed legislation.
• TPA helped craft the content of the letter and submitted it directly to the
authors office and continued with follow up with the Assemblymember’s lead
staff and the Governor’s office.
• The bill was ultimately held in the Senate Appropriations Committee and did
not advance in 2020.
3
SB 278 (Beall) A Proposal Related to FASTER Bay Area
• Proponents of the legislation planned to include substantive language, which if
passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, would have placed a
$100 Billion funding measure on the regional ballot, where the nine Bay Area
Counties would vote on tax(es) to fund transformative transit projects over the
next 40 years.
• Danville, as part of TVC, and TPA weighed in with a comment letter to the
Author, Senate Transportation Committee staff, our legislative delegation, and
others.
• TPA has numerous follow up meetings with the committee staff heading the bill
on incorporation of the Valley-Link project as a funding earmark.
• Due to a reduced bill package and financial concerns as a result of COVID-19,
the bill did not continue in 2020.
SB 902 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: density
• This bill was introduced as a “more palatable” version of previous zoning bills,
but still had limited protections for sensitive communities and residents. As you
know we worked closely with Senator Wiener’s staff on the previous bill (SB
827) and were able to recommend legislative ideas that fit more within the
context of the Tri-Valley.
• Specifically, we pushed to include protections for historic districts, helped refine
the definition of “transit-rich” areas, and helped ensure there was an opt-in
option where local governments could decide whether or not they would like to
zone a parcel for residential development. The language included:
o A neighborhood multifamily project may not ‘demolish sound rental
housing or housing that has been placed on a national or state historic
register.’
o ‘“Transit-rich area” means a parcel within one-half mile of a major transit
stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or a
parcel on a high-quality bus corridor.’
• Additionally, we helped push the removal of the provision which allows a local
government to override a local voter-approved initiative that bans rezoning of
a particular parcel or area.
• Through our work in amending the bill, we were able to move to a “Support
with a proposed amendment to go above 10 units” position.
• The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and did not
advance in 2020.
4
SB 995 (Atkins) Environmental quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement
Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011: housing projects
• This bill would have provided State funds for lead agencies/local governments
to develop a Master EIR to facilitate more seamless, but locally controlled
housing development in their respective jurisdictions.
• TPA stayed in close communication with the Pro Tem’s Office as the bill
language was drafted and amended through the legislative process. With the
final amendments in place, this was a useful tool for local governments.
• Danville and the TVC were able to come to a “Support with clarification ”
position.
• The bill did not make it to a final vote on the last night of session due to time
constraints and other factors. As such, it did not advance in 2020.
SB 1085 (Skinner) Density Bonus Law: qualifications for incentives or
concessions: student housing for lower income students: moderate-income
persons and families: local government constraints
• This bill would have expanded the number of incentives available to housing
developers to build moderate income units.
• TPA engaged the Author’s office, Legislative Leadership, and our Legislative
delegation, voicing the Tri-Valley Cities’ concerns.
• Specifically, we expressed concerns with the provisions that prohibit the
collection of impact fees on affordable units, and the language that fostered the
creation of more moderate-income units, but less affordable units.
• Danville and the TVC were ultimately unable to support the legislation, despite
actively participating in the working group.
• This bill was heavily contested by a number of affordable housing advocacy
groups and cities across the state.
• The bill did not make it to a final vote on the last night of session due to time
constraints and other factors. As such, it did not advance in 2020.
SB 1120 (Atkins) Subdivisions: tentative maps
• This bill was introduced to require a proposed housing development
containing two residential units to be considered ministerially, without
discretionary review or hearing, in zones where allowable uses are limited to
single-family residential development.
• Like with SB 902, Danville, TVC, and TPA engaged in discussions with staff
and stakeholders about the importance of ensuring this legislation did not
infringe in sensitive areas such as historic districts. We also reiterated the
5
importance of maintaining the architectural integrity of a community and having
ADU’s that fit within a neighborhood’s context. The language included:
o ‘The proposed housing development does not allow the demolition of
more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls unless the
housing development meets at least one of the following conditions: (A)
If a local ordinance so allows. (B) The site has not been occupied by a
tenant in the last three years.’
• In all, the bill had been significantly amended from its original housing
production idea, and was crafted to support modest, appropriately scaled infill
development.
• However, Danville and the TVC were unable to support the final bill text.
• The bill did not make it to a final vote on the last night of session due to time
constraints and other factors. As such, it did not advance in 2020.
SB 1385 (Caballero) Local planning: housing: commercial zones
• This bill would have allowed a housing development on land zoned as office or
retail commercial use so long as no commercial tenants occupied 50% of the
property for at least 3 years.
• With input from Danville and the Tri-Valley Cities, TPA worked to highlight the
negative effects the bill would have on small business owners, community
amenities, and ultimately residents.
• Danville and TVC were unable to support the bill.
• TPA met with the Author’s office, policy committee staff, and others. As a
byproduct, the second housing policy committee proposed significant
amendments that the author did not accept.
• The bill was held in Assembly Local Government Committee and did not
advance in 2020.
2020 Sacramento Advocacy Trip
On February 4th, 2020, Vice Mayor Lisa Blackwell, Assistant Town Manager Tai
Williams, Assistant to the Town Manager Diane Friedmann, and other staff and
elected officials from the TVC coalition travelled to Sacramento for a legislative
advocacy day of meetings with state elected officials and key policy staff. Discussion
topics were centered around housing legislation and briefing Legislators and Staff on
the Valley Link Project. Meetings Included:
Office of Senator Jim Beall
• Met with the Senator’s Chief of Staff, Sunshine Borelli
Office of Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins
• Met with Stephanie Park, Senior Policy Advisor
6
• This led to an eventual invitation by the Pro Tem to have Townsend represent
TVC in a select working group of Senators to craft and give input on major
housing production policy
• Additionally, TPA set a follow-up meeting with the Pro Tem’s top
environmental and housing advisors to discuss CEQA issues, in which the
TVC coalition participated
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
• Met with the Assemblymember and her Chief of Staff, Jordan Curley
Senate Governance and Finance Committee
• Met with Anton Favorini-Csorba and Jonathan Peterson, Senior Committee
Consultants
Office of Senator Steve Glazer
• Met with McKinley Thompson-Morley, Legislative Staff for Housing and
Transportation
Office of Senator Scott Wiener
• Met with Annie Fryman, Lead Staff on Housing Policy
Assembly Local Government Committee
• Met with Angela Mapp, Chief Committee Consultant
Funding Advocacy/Grant Writing
TPA has been assisting the Town of Danville with funding advocacy and grant writing
since January 2020. TPA continues to work closely with staff to analyze the Town’s
CIP list and provide recommendations on grant and funding opportunities the closely
meet the Town’s needs. TPA conducts weekly phone calls with Town staff to review
current and upcoming opportunities. To date TPA has assisted Town Staff in applying
for CARES Act Funding, FEMA reimbursements and securing $514,640 in State Grant
Funding.
2020 Washington DC Advocacy Trip
On January 21 and 22, 2020, Mayor Karen Stepper along with other Mayors and one
Vice-Mayor from the TVC coalition travelled to Washington DC, for the US Conference
of Mayors and two days of legislative advocacy meetings with federal elected officials
and key policy staff. Discussion topics were centered around briefing attendees on
the Valley Link Project, advocating for local control over wireless infrastructure and
cable fees, and support for workforce development. Meetings Included:
7
US Department of Transportation
• Met with Sean Poole, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs; Michael Russo,
Special Assistant for Governmental Affairs; and Mindy Shaw, Special Assistant
for Governmental Affairs
Office of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
• Met with Asad Ramzanali, Legislative Director
Office of Congressman Mark DeSaulnier
• Met with Allison Johnson, Legislative Director
Office of Congressman Eric Swalwell
• Met with Kyle Alagood, Transportation Legislative Advisor
Office of Senator Diane Feinstein
• Met with Josh Esquivel, Legislative Director; Anant Rout, Counsel; and Rishi
Sahgal, Legislative Assistant
Office of Congressman Josh Harder
• Met with Adela Amador, Deputy Chief of Staff/Legislative Director
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
• Met with Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, Under Secretary of Energy
2021 Federal Outlook for the Town of Danville
With Democrats winning the presidency, retaining the House, and now flipping the
Senate, there will be a number of significant implications trickling down from the
National scale all the way down to the local level.
First and foremost, President Biden will face a friendlier Senate than he otherwise
would have, which must confirm his Cabinet picks after inauguration. This could mean
that his appointees will be confirmed easier and quicker, and the Senate can move on
to other major priorities quicker. Nominees need only 50 votes in the Senate, instead
of 60 under the filibuster, to be confirmed.
A Democratically controlled Senate will also be much friendlier to President Biden’s
judicial appointments, and could consider proposals to counter past Republican
controlled Senate judicial procedures, like expanding the Supreme Court. Judicial
nominees, including Supreme Court nominees, need only 50 votes in the Senate,
instead of 60 under the filibuster, to be confirmed.
A “Phase 5” coronavirus relief package, including state and local funding vaccine
distribution, expanded unemployment benefits, school re-opening, tax credits, rental
8
relief, aid to small businesses, and the balance of the $2,000 stimulus checks , would
likely pass quickly.
Major legislative pushes, like the Green New Deal and large infrastructure packages,
would be likely to move with haste. Legislative packages would likely be more
progressive in nature, but will still have to keep the House Democratic Caucus unified
enough to stand up against their very narrow majority, and overcome the filibuster if
still in place. If House Democrats lose votes within their caucus regularly, they may
have to change course and make major legislative packages more Republican -
friendly to pick up a few GOP votes.
California is also looking to a resurgence of influence at the federal level. With
California Senators members of majority party, their priorities will more likely align with
Senate priorities. Senator Feinstein would have been in line to Chair the Judiciary
Committee, but she recently resigned her leadership position . Senator Alex Padilla
has not yet received committee assignments, but may yet have a larger role to play in
future legislative discussions.
Vice President Harris, a California native, will also have influence over California’s
role in the Administration – though at least for the first two years, we will see her
impact primarily in Congress. With a 50-50 split in the Senate, Vice President Harris
will cast the tie-breaking vote when a tie occurs. If Senators vote along party line
frequently, which is expected, Vice President Harris will often be in the Senate to vote,
hampering other meetings and travel outside of DC.
Procedurally, the Senate can eliminate the filibuster if no Democrats oppose.
Eliminating the filibuster would take a vote to proceed from requiring 60 votes to only
51, opening up roads for legislation to move extremely quickly. This would require a
simple rule change to be voted on by simple majority.
Also, with the House looking poised to bring earmarks back, the last outsta nding
question was whether the Senate would get on board. Democratic control of the
Senate makes the federal earmark return more likely, opening up wider possibilities
for congressionally-directed spending on local projects – which is very likely to favor
public agencies.
Ongoing Communication
TPA stays in frequent communication with Danville’s TVC liaison on weekly TVC
conference calls, as well as individual grant and advocacy calls. Since the inception
of the COVID-19 pandemic, TPA has provided daily updates and well as weekly
recaps of all policy and regulatory news and decisions on the State and Federal levels
related to COVID-19. Additionally, TPA always makes availability for email and phone
outreach with staff, management, and elected officials if they wish to speak.
DATE: February 5, 2021
TO: Town Council & Commissions
FROM: Lianna Adauto, Economic Development Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Danville Quarterly Business Activity Update
Below is a snapshot of the business activity in Danville from September 2020 to the present. The
following designations have been established to indicate the type of activity for retail and
restaurant businesses: (CS) coming soon; (NB) new business; (R) relocated; (RME)
remodeled/expanded; (T) temporary and (C) closed. The previous Quarterly Business Activity
Update dated August 28, 2020 (Attachment A) is included for comparison purposes.
Danville Square
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C I Love Kickboxing Fitness 7 Railroad Avenue
Historic Downtown
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C Francesca’s Retail 522 Hartz Avenue
C L’Arc Method Pilates Studio 222 Railroad Avenue
C Subway Sandwich Shop 125 Railroad Avenue
C The Coffee Shop Coffee Shop 100 Linda Mesa
NB Baba & Cece Convenience Store 442 Hartz Avenue
NB Hazy BBQ BBQ Restaurant 200 Hartz Avenue
NB Hopstone – Farm & Craft Café 405 Railroad Avenue
NB SPENGA Danville Yoga/Fitness Studio 200 Hartz Avenue
NB Taco Bell Cantina Restaurant 444 Front Street
R Casey Howard Interior Design Interior Design 120 W. Linda Mesa
R Cottage Jewel Antique Boutique 391 Hartz Avenue
R Power Stitch Embroidery 181 Hartz Avenue
R The Peasant and the Pear Restaurant 111 W. Prospect Avenue
The Crossroads
Status Business Name Business Type Address
NB G-Mama's Halal Indian Food Restaurant 480 SRV Blvd.
2
The Livery
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C Dana’s Restaurant 416 Sycamore Valley W
NB Pure Barre Danville Barre Studio 600 Sycamore Valley W
NB Space Hair Studio Hair Salon 816 Sycamore Valley W
Town & Country
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C
Beautify Permanent Makeup &
Lashes Beauty Services 111 Town & Country Drive
C Danville Karate Fitness 111 Town & Country Drive
C Escalante Esthetics Spa 111 Town & Country Drive
Tassajara Crossings
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C AFC Sushi Sushi in Safeway 3496 Camino Tassajara
DATE: August 28, 2020
TO: Town Council & Commissions
FROM: Lianna Adauto, Economic Development Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Danville Quarterly Business Activity Update
Below is a snapshot of the business activity in Danville from March 2020 to the present. The
following designations have been established to indicate the type of activity for retail and
restaurant businesses: (CS) coming soon; (NB) new business; (R) relocated; (RME)
remodeled/expanded; (T) temporary and (C) closed.
Crow Canyon Medical Center
Status Business Name Business Type Address
NB Endo and Diabetes Center Medical Office 1320 El Capitan Drive
NB
Medical Anesthesia
Consultants Medical Group Medical Office 1320 El Capitan Drive
Danville Square
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C
Bishops Haircuts & Hair Color
(Sold to Prep) Salon 39 Railroad Avenue
Green Valley Shopping Center
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C G-Mama's Halal Indian Food Restaurant 480 SRV Blvd.
Historic Downtown
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C Burger King Restaurant 444 Front Street
C Christina’s Fine Clothing Retail 145 E Prospect Avenue
C Christine's A Complete You Salon 374 Hartz Avenue
C Dentgnostix Digital Dental Lab 158 W Linda Mesa Avenue
C East Bay Counseling Private Practice 301 Hartz Avenue
C Fit Mind-N-Body Nutrition Consulting 145 E Prospect Avenue
C Forge Pizza Restaurant 345 Railroad Avenue
C Gingerlily Gifts & Home Decor 120 W Linda Mesa Avenue
ATTACHMENT A
2
C Golden Gate Sotheby's Int'l Real Estate 360 Hartz Avenue
Historic Downtown (Cont’d.)
C Gotta Eatta Pita Restaurant 110 Hartz Avenue
C Health Clinic and Spa Spa/Acupuncture 130 E Prospect Avenue
C Identity, A Tribez Salon Salon/Retail Store 822 Hartz Way
C Kaufman Chiropractic Corp. Chiropractic 413 Railroad Avenue
C North American Title Co. Financial 645 SRV Blvd.
C Tootsies Shoe Store/Pedicure 175 E Prospect Avenue
C Two Left Feet Dance Center Dance Studio 194 Diablo Road
NB Cannon Quality Group LLC Business Services 77 Front Street
NB East Bay Tongue Tie Center Dental Health 822 Hartz Way
NB MWAC Architectural Corp. 675 Hartz Avenue
NB Paradiso, A Salon by JD Salon 822 Hartz Way
NB Players Pub & Piano's Pub/Restaurant 148 E Prospect Avenue
NB Provence Pizza LLC Restaurant 345 Railroad Avenue
NB Pure Organic Nail Salon, Inc Salon 9 Railroad Avenue
NB Quantum Escapes Escape Room 391 Diablo Road
NB The Good Life Spa Day Spa 158 W Linda Mesa Avenue
NB The Shade Store Window Treatments 111 W Prospect Avenue
NB TopHap Real Estate 360 Hartz Avenue
R Spree Boutique Retail 374 Hartz Avenue
Iron Horse Plaza
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C Koko Fitclub Fitness Club 499 SRV Blvd.
Sycamore Square
Status Business Name Business Type Address
NB YogaSix Exercise Studio 680 SRV Blvd.
The Crossroads
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C Sigs Little Kitchen Filipino Takeout 480 SRV Blvd.
C Silk Road Massage Massage Spa 480 SRV Blvd.
The Livery
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C McCaulou's Shoe Boutique Retail 600 Sycamore Valley
NB Aozora Japanese Restaurant Sushi and More 820 Sycamore Valley W
Town & Country
Status Business Name Business Type Address
C
Beautify Permanent Makeup &
Lashes Beauty Services 111 Town & Country Drive
C Escalante Esthetics Spa 111 Town & Country Drive
The Victorians
Status Business Name Business Type Address
NB Danville Neuropathy Center Integrative Medicine 919 SRV Blvd.
CODE ENFORCMENT ACTIVITY 2020
The chart below summarizes the code enforcement activity for the 2020 calendar year.
2020 Summary: All Code Enforcement Cases (1/1/20 – 12/31/20)
Case Type Case Status Subtotal
by Type
# Initiated by
Resident
% Initiated by
Resident Open Closed
Building 10 45 55 53 96%
Encroachment 1 28 29 22 100%
Fence 3 5 8 8 100%
Home
Occupation 0 5 5 5 100%
Noise 0 17 17 17 100%
Other 3 55 58 58 100%
Screening 1 11 12 12 100%
Sign 0 1 1 1 100%
Smoking 0 4 4 4 100%
Tree 1 7 8 8 100%
Zoning 2 8 10 9 90%
Subtotal by
Status: 21 186
207 197 97%
Total Cases in 1/1/20 – 12/31/20:
HERITAGE RESOURCE COMMISSION
REPORT AND SUMMARY
➢ Public Outreach Sub-Committee: The Heritage Resource Commission formed a public
outreach sub-committee to review ways of enhancing public awareness of the Town’s
history and historic preservation program. The committee’s first effort has been to
create a program to raise awareness through the installation and promotion of
informational bronze plaques. To date, 12 plaques have been installed on Town
Heritage Resources.
➢ Historic Survey Sub-Committee – The Heritage Resource Commission formed a sub-
committee to review and recommend updates to the Town’s Survey of Historic
Properties. The sub-committee’s work has included identifying additional structures
that may have historic significance, evaluating properties currently listed on the Town’s
Identified Potential Resources survey for possible inclusion on the Town Heritage
Resource Survey, and the review of the existing structures on the Town’s Historic
Survey for possible designation as a Town Heritage Resource.
The Heritage Resource Commission are involved with the following developments
which involve heritage resources:
➢ 521 Hartz Avenue - DEV-0008; applicant is William Wood Architects and the Owner is
Terrance Doyle ESQ.
Project status: Staff Review.
➢ 342 Railroad Avenue – DEV18-0016; Todd Fitch is the owner and Barry& Winn
Architects are the applicant.
This project approval allowed the construction of a new two-story 2,635 square foot
building to the rear of the existing 988 square foot historic building on the site. The
project would also include minor restoration improvements to the historic building.
Project status: The applicant has submitted for Building Permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - 2020
File #Type Name Address Description Status
PUD19-0001 Residential Misson 14 Lot 2570 Camino
Tassajara
Planned Unit Development (P-
1) Rezoning and Major
Subdivision to subdivide a
19.43-acre site to create 14
single-family residential lots
Staff Review
SUB19-0003 Residential Tassajara
Subdivision 2434 Tassajara Lane
Subdivision of an existing
34,175 square foot parcel into
two single-family residential
lots
Staff Review
DEV20-0008 Commercial Terence Doyle ESQ 571 Hartz Ave
1,064 square foot two-story
addition to the historic Bert
Read House
Staff Review
DEV20-0012 Residential VIAM Danville LLC Loyal Dragon Place
Architecural approval for four
single family residences
associated with a previously
approved subdivision
Staff Review
PR20-0001 Mixed Use Fazloah Poursohi 600 Hartz Avenue
33 residntial units and 3,800
square foot commercial mixed
use re-development
Pre-Application
PUD15-0001 Residential 375 West Elpintado 375 & 359 West El
Pintado
Planned Unit Development (P-
1) Rezoning and 37 lot
multifamily subdivision
Approved
DEV18-0016 Commercial Fitch Office Building 342 Railroad Ave
Renovation of an existing 988
square foot historic building
and the construction of a new
2,604 square foot two-story
building at the rear of the site
Building Permits
DEV19-0008 Commercial Silvio Quattro, LLC 200 Hartz Ave
Complete renovation and
remodel of an existing 14,182
square foot comnercial
building
Under
Construction
DEV20-0008 Commercial Scarbroough
Management Co.444 Front Steet
Exterior remodel related to
change of business from
Burger King to Taco Bell
Cantina
Complete
DEV18-0020 Commercial Mixed Use Building 198 Diablo Road
Construction of an
approximately 10,600 square
foot two-story mixed-use
building
Approved
PUD10-0004 Residential Magee Preserve South side Diablo &
Blackhawk Road
Planned Unit Development (P-
1) Rezoning and 69 lot
subdivision
Approved
DEV19-0018 Residential Shannon Residence 46 Smokewood Ct Construction of a 4,621
square foot residense
Under
Construction
SUB18-0001
PUD18-0001 Residential The Collection 2550 Camino
Tassajara
Developemnt of 18 single
family homes on a 5.05 acre
site
Under
Construction
SUB19-0001 Residential Shannon Subdivision 46 Smokewood Ct
Subdivision of an existing
0.76 parcel into two single
family residential parcels
Under
Construction
DEV20-0011 Residential Haven Development 134 El Dorado
Development Plan for a five
lot subdivision and
architectural plans for the five
residences
Approved
SUB20-0001 Residential The Address
Company 1485 Lawrence Road Subdivision to divide a 4.4-
acre parcel into five lots Approved
SUB851-2020 Residential Haven Development 1475 Lawrence Road Subdivision of a 5-acre parcel
into four lots Approved
DEV19-0024 Residential Chevron Car Wash 400 Diablo Road
Construction of a new 798
square foot drive-through car
wash, a 372 square foot
expansion of an existing
convenience store
Approved
DEV19-0011 Commercial ClockTower Addition
& Exterior Remodel 301 Hartz Ave
Construction of a 2,677+/-
square foot second-story
addition, complete building
façade remodel, and
landscape improvements, and
development of a new public
plaza.
Under
Construction
SUB18-0002 Residential Kirkcrest Road Minor
Subdivision 777 Kirkcrest Rd
Minor Subdivision to
subdivide a 2.06 acre parcel
into two single family
residential lots
Approved
SUB19-0004 Residential Klaus Subdivision
and Tree Removal 1610 Lawrence Rd
Minor Subdivision to divide an
existing 5.21-acre parcel into
four parcels
Approved
DEV19-0015 Commercial First Floor Expansion 156 Diablo Raod
1,759 square foot first floor
addition to an existing 24,599
square foot commercial office
building
Building Permits
SUB19-0005 Commercial 321 Hartz Ave 321 Hartz Ave
Subdivision of an the existing
commercial building for
condominium purposes
Approved
DEV20-0001 Commercial I Can Do Performing
Arts Studio 194 Diablo Road
Complete exterior remodel of
an existing 2,400 square foot
building
Under
Construction