Agenda packet — Orinda City Council, January 31, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

I. HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
A. Overview
The HAA establishes the state’s overarching policy that a local government may not deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards.1
In order for a local agency to disapprove a housing
development project, it must base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).) The phrase “disapprove a housing development project” includes disapproving a project application, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).) If a court determines that the local agency violated the HAA, the court: may direct the local agency to comply with the HAA; may direct it to approve the project if it determines the agency acted in bad faith; shall award attorneys’ fees and costs; and may impose fines and multiply those fines under certain circumstances. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A).) As with the other housing statutes discussed herein, the express intent of the HAA is to promote housing development: “It is the policy of the state that this section [HAA] should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) B. Processing Requirements
The project application was submitted on March 4, 2020. The application was deemed complete on April 3 by City Staff, and pursuant to Government Code section 65943(a). The City then had 30 days from April 3 to provide written documentation to the applicant identifying any local land use provisions to which the project is not in conformance. (Gov. Code, 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i).) The City did not do so, thus the project is deemed to be conforming to the City’s land use regulations as a matter of law. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).)
C. Limitations on the City’s Discretion
Government Code section 65589.5(j), which applies to both market rate and affordable housing developments that comply with local planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations, sets forth the limited findings that a city may rely upon when either disapproving or imposing a condition that the project be developed at a lower density. In short, the HAA requires that the local agency find, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that:
1 Receipt of a density bonus pursuant to the DBL is not a valid basis to find a project to not be in conformance with local development standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) D.1.k
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2021

Page 3 ends

• The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact”2
means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
• There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
(Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).)
There is no evidence in the record, let alone a preponderance of the evidence, that would support either of these findings. To the contrary, the Staff Report establishes that the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning and Density Bonus regulations, Phase I Objective Design Standards and, as noted above, the project is deemed consistent with the City’s land use regulations as a matter of law. In addition, the evidence in the record demonstrates that the project will not significantly impact traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (Staff Report; Planning Commission Resolution 2020-19.) There is no evidence, nor could such evidence be created, that the project would have a specific, adverse impact based on written public health or safety standards.

As such, the City must approve the project.

II. DENSITY BONUS LAW
A. Density Bonus
Under the DBL, a local agency has no discretion with regard to the density bonus award; so long as the project provides the requisite affordability, the formulaic bonus must be awarded. The bonus calculation is derived from the “maximum allowable residential density” in the project’s applicable general plan land use designation and/or zoning district. (Gov. Code § 65915(o)(2).) In this case, the project’s base density is 52 units. By providing 6 units affordable to very low income households and 3 units affordable to low income households, the project qualifies for a 35% density bonus, which equates to a total of 71 units.3

2 Assembly Bill 3194, which amended the HAA in 2019, provides that the “specific, adverse impact” basis to disapprove an HAA project shall “arise infrequently.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3).) 3 The bonus calculations are set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report (p. 6), as well as the applicant’s density bonus submission.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2021

Page 4 ends

B. Incentives
Applicants for density bonuses may also request specific incentives or concessions from cities.

Thus, “when an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development that includes the required percentage of affordable housing, section 65915 requires that a city not only grant the density bonus, but provide additional incentives or concessions where needed based on the percentage of low income housing units.” (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 933, 944.) A “concession or incentive” (referenced as an “incentive” herein as the statute does not distinguish the terms) includes:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards … including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or a city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (Gov. Code § 65915(k); see also LMC § 6-3602(e).4
)
A housing development may be awarded between one and three incentives, depending upon the level of affordability provided. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2).) In this case, the project is entitled to two incentives, and the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the requested incentives. Although a local agency may deny an incentive request, it must make a written finding, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 4 Unlike the DBL, the City’s Municipal Code does not require that the reduction in site development standards result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. (LMC § 6-3602(e)(1).) D.1.k
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2021

Page 5 ends

50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to lowincome and moderate-income households. (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1).)
As set forth in the Staff Report, the project is entitled to two incentives. The first incentive is to reduce the total guest parking requirement from 8 spaces to 5, and the second is to defer paying development impact fees until issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project. These incentives will result in cost reductions that will help offset the costs of providing the project’s affordable units, and there is no legitimate basis upon which one of the findings above could be made.

To the contrary, City Staff and the Planning Commission determined that none of the findings above could be made, and there is no evidence in the record to support any of these findings for disapproval.

In addition, the local agency bears the burden of proof in denying an incentive request. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(4).)
The Council must therefore grant both incentive requests.

C. Development Standard Waivers
A density bonus applicant may also request a waiver or reduction of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project at the densities or with the incentives permitted under the statute. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) The definition of a “development standard” includes a site or construction condition, including, without limitation, local height, setback, floor area ratio, onsite open space, and parking area ratio requirements that would otherwise apply to residential development pursuant to ordinances, general plan elements, specific plans, charters, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. (Gov. Code § 65915(o)(1).)
A request for a development standard waiver neither reduces nor increases the number of incentives to which the developer is otherwise entitled. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(2).) Furthermore, there is no limit on the number of waivers that may be issued. As with incentives, a city’s refusal to waive or reduce development standards must be supported by one or more findings similar to those available for denying a request for an incentive. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) D.1.k
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2021

Page 6 ends

Even if the developer does not submit a request for a development standard waiver, a city is prohibited from applying a development standard that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project at the densities or with the incentives permitted under the Density Bonus Law. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).)
In this case, the applicant seeks two waivers, which Staff and the Planning Commission support. The first is a reduction of the requirement in Zoning Code section 6-989 that the project’s third (and fourth) floors be set back at least 50 feet from Golden Gate Way and the boundary of any residential zone. As set forth in the in applicant’s density bonus narrative, applying a 50-foot setback requirement to the uniquely-configured project site would preclude development of the project. The second request is a waiver of the 35-foot height/3-story limit in the C-1 zoning district. (LMC, § 6- 988.) Increasing the project’s unit count from 52 to 71 units requires the project to exceed this height limit to 53.5 feet and four stories5
, as explained in detail in the applicant’s density bonus narrative.

D. Procedural Considerations
AB 2735 modified the DBL in 2018 to require a local agency, when an application for a density bonus project is deemed complete, and if the applicant seeks incentives or waivers, to provide the applicant with a determination regarding whether the applicant has provided adequate information for the local agency to make a determination as to those incentives or waivers. (Gov. Code § 65915(a)(3)(D)(i)(III).) In this case, since the City did not make the required determination, it can no longer argue that additional information is necessary.

Similar to the HAA, the DBL mandates if a court finds that a local agency’s denial of a request for a density bonus, incentive, or development standard waiver or reduction violates the DBL, the court must an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the developer. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(3),(e)(1).) III. SB 330
As stated in the introduction, SB 330 amended several sections of the Government Code, some of which are discussed above. An important procedural component of SB 330 is its limitations on public hearings. For qualifying projects such as the subject project, the City is limited to conducting a total of five hearings, which includes continued hearings. (Gov. Code § 65905(a).) A “hearing” includes “any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the city … with respect to the housing development project” by any City body or designated hearing officer. (Gov. Code § 65905.5(b)(2).) To date, the City has conducted three hearings since the project application was deemed complete on April 3, 2020. The Council must therefore approve or disapprove the project at the upcoming meeting or the next.
5 The City may process this as a request to reduce a single height development standard or two separate height development standards. There is no practical difference.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2021

Page 7 ends

IV. OTHER ISSUES
One of the purposes of this correspondence is for applicant to exhaust its administrative remedies, which is a procedural requirement under the Government Code and common law. As such, this correspondence provides notice to the City that should the Council disapprove or seek to reduce the project, it will be subject to various causes of action derived from statutory and constitutional law.

The approvals are adjudicatory in nature, and subject to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(b), which requires a local agency decision to be set aside upon a showing of a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Bell v. City of Mountain View (1977) 66 Cal. App. 3d 332, 342.) “Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(b).) In this case, the applicant, City Staff, and the Planning Commission have provided substantial evidence supporting approval of the project.

In addition, a disapproval of the project would be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and thus violate applicant’s substantive due process and property rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Moreover, a denial would be arbitrary, irrational and intended to discriminate and deprive applicant of its rights without any rational relation to a legitimate governmental interest, thereby violating the equal protection clause. Furthermore, a project disapproval would violate applicant’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and would expose the City to monetary damages for said violations.

The project complies with state and local law and helps the City meet its RHNA requirements.

The record is clear that the project must be approved by the City, and that there are no legal bases upon which the City could do otherwise. Again, we respectfully urge this Council to approve the project at its January 11 meeting.

Very truly yours,
David H. Blackwell
DHB:kem
cc: Claire Han, Madison Park
Sarah Allen, Senior Planner
Very truly yours,
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Caryn Graves
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:52:22 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

2. Orinda says they will move the low-income RHNA to other sites if they can't decertify the parcel, but this threshold is too low. HCD should require the threshold for moving low-income RHNA to other sites in Orinda from decertification (very easy to hit) to, either no RFP or a lack of bids on an RFP for the site.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Caryn Graves
[email protected]
1642 Curtis St.

Berkeley, California 94702
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Lizzie Siegle
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:52:37 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Lizzie Siegle
[email protected]
1177 California Street #701
San Francisco, California 94108
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Gina Gotsill
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:52:40 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Gina Gotsill
[email protected]
1017 Wild Oak Court
Concord, California 94521
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Elizabeth H Porter
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:52:40 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Elizabeth H Porter
[email protected]
401 Santa Clara Ave. Apt 105
Oakland, California 94610
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Courtney Coon
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:52:44 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Courtney Coon
[email protected]
2246 Lisa Lane
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: AJ Cho
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel for environmental & safety reasons Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:52:45 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

AJ Cho
[email protected]
159 Santa Teresa
San Leandro, California 94579
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 12:36 PM
To: Drummond Buckley
Cc: David Biggs; Sheri Smith; Orinda Planning; Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Brandyn Iverson; Janet Riley; Latika Malkani
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting: January 18, 2023 Actually, I was looking at the draft resolution. On what packet page is this:
“The City Council finds that based on substantial evidence provided on pages 144, 146- 147, 157-158, and in Table 5-6 (DPP Sites to Meet the RHNA – Additional Site Discussion) of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be either discontinued, repurposed, or there is land/space available for additional on-site development during the planning period. Furthermore, Section 5.7.5. (Development of Nonvacant sites) on pages 165- 166 details the City’s track record of developing both affordable and market-rate housing on non-vacant sites. Therefore, the fact that the properties are currently non-vacant does not constitute an impediment to planned residential development during the planning period covered by the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.”
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 12:34 PM
To: 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'David Biggs' <[email protected]>; 'Sheri Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; 'Brandyn Iverson' <[email protected]>; 'Janet Riley' <[email protected]>; 'Latika Malkani' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting: January 18, 2023 I was looking at the web links to the EIRs.

From: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 12:27 PM
To: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Sheri Smith <[email protected]>; Orinda Planning <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Brandyn Iverson <[email protected]>; Janet Riley <[email protected]>; Latika Malkani <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting: January 18, 2023 Packet page numbers are in the usual place:

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 D.1.k
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 14, 2023, at 9:34 AM, Nick Waranoff <[email protected]> wrote:

Pages do not show packet page numbers so far as I can tell.

Nick Waranoff
510‐334‐0729
Begin forwarded message:

From: Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Date: January 13, 2023 at 4:29:53 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting: January 18, 2023
Reply‐To: [email protected]
View this in your browser
Meeting materials for the January 18, 2023 Planning Commission meeting can be viewed online by clicking here.

This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers who might be interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at:
http://www.cityoforinda.org/list.aspx.

Please note, we will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your explicit permission.

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Planning Commission on www.cityoforinda.org. To unsubscribe, click the following link:

Unsubscribe
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Alfred Twu <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 12:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: Orinda Housing element - Freeway site has major issues and should be rejected Hillary,
I am writing to you about Orinda's latest housing element draft, which proposes that 200 low income homes will be built at a Caltrans site near the Highway 24 Cal Shakespeare theater exit.

This site is not a feasible site. It is cut off from the rest of the city and has no businesses, public transportation, or public services nearby. It is also in a fire hazard zone. Please ask the city to revise their housing element so that the 200 homes are moved to their downtown area near the BART station.

Thanks
Alfred
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Shreyas Parthasarathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 3:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Orinda Planning; [email protected]
Subject: Move Caltrans Gateway parcel closer to BART
Hello,
I am writing after learning HCD has tentatively approved the Caltrans Gateway parcel in Orinda when that parcel is cordoned off from the rest of the city and wholly inaccessible via public transit.

1. Finding developers to bid on a parcel that is in a fire zone and has no existing sidewalks/retail/transit/utility infrastructure seems like wishful thinking.

2. Even if this housing were built, it would be condemning low‐income residents to be totally isolated from Orinda.

Taxpayers already fund a transit line to the town, and there is an existing Caltrans parcel next to BART and downtown. It is not their right to cordon off those benefits from those who need it most.

3. At a bare minimum, Orinda should commit to running a shuttle between BART and this site. But I view this as settling for no reason ‐‐ HCD has the power to rectify this situation and force them to use the obviously correct parcel! Thanks,
Shreyas
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Maxwell D <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 5:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Orinda Planning; [email protected]
Subject: Low income housing site comment in Orinda
Hello,
Low Income housing should be located throughout the community, not outside the core of the town by the highway.

The Caltrans Gateway site for 200 affordable homes that Orinda wants to include in the Housing Element is not a good site and should not be included.

It doesn't seem like a spot that a developer would pick, it's in a high fire severity zone, and I don't think it is in line with AFFH to put affordable housing here.

Max Davis
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Sarah J. Bell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 8:00 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Orinda Planning Subject: Please eliminate Caltrans Gateway parcel
To Whom It May Concern,
Please delete the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element. We should put affordable housing in desirable places, especially near BART, since it's been shown that residents of affordable housing near transit are less likely to own cars than residents of market‐rate housing by transit.

1. I’m concerned that even if Caltrans releases the site, no developers will bid on it, since it's so far from resources and, furthermore, in a severe fire‐risk zone.

2. Orinda says they will move the low income RHNA to other sites if they can't decertify this parcel, but that bar is too low. HCD should require the bar for moving low‐income RHNA to other sites in Orinda from decertification (very easy to hit) to, either no RFP or a lack of bids on an RFP for the site.

If this is not possible, Orinda at a minimum should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Sincerely,
Sarah Bell
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Bret Peterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 12:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: McDougall, Paul@HCD; Orinda Planning
Subject: Orinda Housing Element
To Whom it May Concern,
I'm writing to you out of a concern related to the draft Housing Element for the City of Orinda. It appears that the City is claiming that they will be able to allow for the construction of 200 units of affordable housing on the CalTrans Gateway site with many issues.

First, the site is located extremely far from the rest of the City, which will isolate the future residents from the amenities and people of Orinda. This site will force the residents to be totally car‐dependent in a time when the planning departments should be focussing on car‐independence.

Next, the site is not practical for residential development. This site is in a Very High Severity fire zone, which will dissuade developers. Additionally, the isolation of the parcel makes it less appealing for development. HCD should only allow this site to stay on the inventory if the City shows that it is in contact with a serious affordable housing developer regarding the parcel.

Lastly, building lower income housing next to freeways does not affirmatively further fair housing. Low income people are the most at risk for air quality related health issues and this will not reduce that problem.

There are many other sites in downtown Orinda that could be considered for affordable housing, and given the fact that the City will not rezone all of its downtown core, there are clearly many other locations that should be selected.

Thank you,
Bret Peterson
East Bay resident
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Shahin Saneinejad <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 3:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Orinda Planning; [email protected]
Subject: hold Orinda accountable for affordable housing I'm writing in support of East Bay for Everyone's position on the Caltrans Gateway parcel:
https://eastbayforeveryone.org/wp‐content/uploads/2023/01/2023‐01‐12‐orinda‐third‐draft.pdf Please do not allow Orinda to pretend to site affordable housing in this inaccessible enclave, in a high fire risk zone and cut off from every necessity by a freeway. Instead, Orinda should adopt an honest missing middle strategy and site affordable housing in existing high‐resource single family zone.

HCD must require movement of low‐income RHNA to other sites in Orinda, especially if no bids are received for an RFP at Caltrans Gateway.

Thanks,
Shahin Saneinejad
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Eric Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: No "Caltrans Gateway" - Orinda should build low income housing downtown Hi,
I support lots more affordable housing all over the Bay Area, but Orinda's proposal to build on the Caltrans Gateway is just a cynical runaround.

Orinda has an excellent, accessible downtown, with groceries, a library, post office, and other necessary services. More importantly, low income Bay Area residents need access to public transit to get to their jobs. Orinda should be building low income housing in its downtown, close to BART. The Caltrans Gateway is in the middle of nowhere, and walkable to nowhere. It is also in a high risk fire zone.

I live in Berkeley, just across the hills from Orinda. Housing is a regional issue. Californians need all cities in the region to step up and build lots more genuinely affordable and genuinely accessible housing, and to plan for housing that will actually get built and not just exist on paper to satisfy legal obligations. Orinda should plan and build affordable housing in its downtown, close to BART, just like Berkeley and Lafayette.

Thank you.

Eric Johnson
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Tommaso Sciortino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:12 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: Don't let Orinda include "Caltrans Gateway"
I'm concerned that Orinda is going to be allowed to shirk its duty to build housing if we allow it to plan for putting low‐ income residents on a freeway shoulder in the so‐called "Caltrans Gateway". It's a fire zone and no developers would build on it. HCD should require Orinda to plan new low‐income housing at other sites in Orinda if there is no RFP or there is an RFP but it is not bid on.
‐tomm
Oakland, Ca
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: David S <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:19 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Orinda Planning Subject: Orinda's "Caltrans Gateway"
I grew up in Walnut Creek and I live in Oakland now. I drive thru Orinda all the time and occasionally visit there. I am very familiar with the spot they're calling the "Caltrans Gateway", and the idea that anyone is going to want to develop housing there is a joke. It's far from everything except a very busy freeway.

Orinda has had major transportation investments, with HWY 24 and Orinda BART right in the middle of the city. They could easily fit more units near BART if they allowed a bit more density, and those new residents would be able to use public transportation instead of clogging up the freeway.

Orinda is listing this site because they know it won't get developed, and that is the goal. Please don't allow them to cheat the system like this.

Best,
David Stanislowski
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Seth Mazow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: Please don't let Orinda count the Caltrans Gateway Hi,
I saw that Orinda proposed (and HCD accepted) the Caltrans Gateway as a realistic, legitimate location for affordable housing. While I'm not surprised that Orinda, an exclusionary suburb that caters to privileged NIMBYs proposed a site like this, I'm surprised that HCD accepted it.

First, it's in a fire zone. Does HCD really want to have another Buffalo situation where when the inevitable fires come, it is the poor people who face the brunt of it while the wealthier parts of Orinda weather the storm? Second, there are no other homes nearby. There is no access to public transit. This is basically building a brand new Marin City.

The future of California shouldn't look like Marin City. New housing should be accessible to public transit and integrated with the rest of the community. Allowing Orinda to act like this is a legitimate and worthwhile site lets them continue their exclusionary ways.

Please reconsider allowing them to do this. I live in Oakland and have kids and don't want to allow high‐carbon intensive communities like Orinda to continue to damage the climate by not building enough dense housing near transit.

Thanks,
Seth Mazow
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Allison Bakke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:20 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Orinda Planning Subject: "Caltrans Gateway" Project Proposal
I am writing about the proposed "Caltrans Gateway" project, which the city of Orinda has proposed as part of its housing element. I am writing to request that you do NOT let Orinda count this site towards its Housing Element requirements.

The last thing our communities need is more housing locked away from public transit. Housing that is ostensibly geared towards low-income residents, in particular, MUST be located within easy access to mass transit. In Orinda's case, near its BART station, which Orinda it so fortunate to have, and which has helped drive up the value of properties in that city.

Even if you approve this site, will anyone build on it, given its wildfire risk and the difficulty targeted residents will have reaching it? Unlikely. And if you DO allow this to go forward, then HCD must insist Orinda provide a shuttle to and from the site to BART that runs 24/7, in all conditions, 365 days a year, a frequent intervals, and at the City's expense.

Every community in the Bay Area needs to be required to commit MEANINGFULLY towards alleviating our housing crisis - even insular, privileged, segregated ones like Orinda - and to do so in a way that does not exacerbate the climate and traffic congestion crises. This site should be off-limits for this project, period. Do not allow Orinda to cheat the rest of the State and the Bay Area by allowing them to include this joke of a project in their Housing Element.

Sincerely,
Allison Bakke
Oakland, CA
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Randy O <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Orinda Planning; [email protected]
Subject: Orinda's housing element, proposed affordable housing Attachments: orinda_caltransgateway.jpg
Hello,
I'm writing about Orinda's housing element proposed "Caltrans Gateway" as a site for 200 affordable homes.

As someone who lives three exits away on 24 (just over the hill in Oakland), if this is in fact the site listed for much of Orinda's affordable housing, it seems very inappropriate. There is considerable distance from any services, the site is basically a freeway onramp. I'm concerned no developers would build here because of the logistics, and also it being within a fire zone. The only upside I do see is that there are playing fields a third of a mile away.

If housing is built, I would ask or expect Orinda to run shuttles between this site and BART. If no housing is proposed or built, I would expect Orinda to have alternate sites to cover these homes.

I love this whole area, hike these hills, and visit Orinda for lunch or the farmer's market. I want to imagine the growth that we will be happy with in thirty years, and building structures on the side of the highway does not seem to make a pleasing future for those residents when there's a nice town center nearby that they cannot walk to.

Thanks for your time,
Randall O'Connor
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) D.1.k
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: John Calmeyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: Against the Caltrans Gateway site
Hello,
I'm an Oakland resident and a supporter of more low income housing. But this site is isolated, directly next to the freeway, inaccessible without adding more polluting cars to the roads, and in a Very High Severity fire zone.

Please reconsider this site and try to find a more appropriate site in an accessible and already built‐up area of Orinda.

Please consider being actual allies of our lower income neighbors and not pawn them off on the least desirable real estate in order to get the housing element approved. You have an opportunity to make life better for those who need it most.

If the project is built on this site, please consider running a shuttle to BART.

Thanks for your consideration,
John Calmeyer
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: bstarkwin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: Orinda housing plans
Dear HCD Decision Makers and Orinda Planners—
I hope you will reconsider using the Caltrains Gateway site in Orinda as a location for low‐income housing.

The proposed site is awkwardly isolated from town, vulnerable to fire, and too inaccessible (except by car!) for future residents.

A far more reasonable site— in which Orinda residents have expressed interest— is the BART station, which, in addition to providing obvious access to public transit, affords easy access to amenities in town by foot or bike. This could be a model of the kind of vibrant downtown density our small cities and towns in Contra Costa should be encouraging.

As a retired teacher and longtime Contra Costa homeowner who believes in expanding access to housing, I urge you to reconsider.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Beatrice Winslow
Danville
Sent from my iPhone
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Gabriela Ilabaca <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: Stop the Caltrans Gateway low-income housing project I'm happy to see Orinda considering housing projects for low-income families; however, this is not the way.

Orinda should not count this site ("Caltrans Gateway") for low-income housing. If you do count the site, we're concerned no developers will bid to build it, because it's so far from everything and in a fire zone. There is also no other housing for at least half a mile. Orinda says they will move the low income RHNA to other sites if they can't decertify the parcel. It would be easy for this not to happen with no housing being produced. HCD should require Orinda to plan new low-income housing at other sites in Orinda if there is no RFP or there is an RFP but it is not bid on. If the proposed project is built, Orinda must commit to running a shuttle to and from this site and BART.

Thank you for your consideration,
Gaby
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Cynthia Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:57 PM
To: Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui
Cc: Osa L. Wolff; Julie Tamayo; David Biggs
Subject: RE: Orinda HE - edit
This is the full edit to Action 1.C.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 CYNTHIA WALSH
Senior Associate I
916.932.2132 | cell: 916.607.7281
From: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Cynthia Walsh <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]> Cc: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>; Julie Tamayo <[email protected]>; David Biggs <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Orinda HE ‐ edit
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 Julie, please also include this email with additional correspondence for tomorrow.

From: Cynthia Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:44 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]> Cc: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Orinda HE ‐ edit
I would like to make this edit.

CYNTHIA WALSH
Senior Associate I
916.932.2132 | cell: 916.607.7281
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Drummond Buckley
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Cynthia Walsh; Winnie Mui
Cc: Osa L. Wolff; Julie Tamayo; David Biggs
Subject: RE: Orinda HE - edit
Julie, please also include this email with additional correspondence for tomorrow.

CYNTHIA WALSH
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Drummond Buckley
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:28 PM
To: Cynthia Walsh; Winnie Mui
Cc: Osa L. Wolff; Julie Tamayo
Subject: RE: Orinda Housing Element - edit
Julie,
Please include this email with late/additional correspondence for tomorrow’s PC meeting.

Drummond
From: Cynthia Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:27 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]> Cc: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>
Subject: Orinda Housing Element ‐ edit
Drummond‐
We would like to make the following changes (highlighted in yellow) to ensure consistency with the Housing Element Table of Contents and Section 1.2 in the Housing Element.

Thanks,
Cynthia

1.2 Content and Organization
The Housing Element is organized into the following sections and has been structured to comply with state housing element guidelines. The content of the sections is listed below. Figure 1‐1 shows the location of Orinda relative to the other communities and nine counties that constitute the San Francisco Bay Area.

This Housing Element is organized into the following sections:

Section 1 – Introduction: This section provides information on the State of California’s requirements, the purpose of the Housing Element, the organization of the document, and General Plan consistency.

Section 2 – Public Participation: Describes the opportunities the City provided for public participation during the preparation of the updated Housing Element.

Section 3 – Evaluation of the Review of Previous Housing Element: This section contains an evaluation of the prior Housing Element and its accomplishments and analyzes differences between what was projected and what was achieved.

Section 4 – Housing Needs Assessment (Population, Employment, and Housing Characteristics): This section focuses on demographic information, including population trends, ethnicity, age, household composition, income, employment, housing characteristics, housing needs by income, and housing needs for special segments of the population. This section also includes an assessment of fair housing.

Section 5 – Housing Resources and Opportunities (Sites Inventory): This section describes the City’s housing resources as well as the City’s existing housing stock and the potential areas for future housing development. This section also D.1.k
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 discusses opportunities for energy conservation, which can reduce costs to homeowners and infrastructure costs to the City.

Section 6 – Housing Constraints: This section analyzes potential governmental and non‐governmental constraints to housing development in Orinda. This includes the City’s planning, zoning, and building standards that directly affect residential development patterns as well as influence housing availability and affordability. Potential non‐governmental constraints include the availability and cost of financing, the price of land, and the materials for building homes, as well as natural conditions that affect the cost of preparing and developing land for housing, and the business decisions of individuals and organizations (some examples are home building, finance, real estate, and rental housing that impact housing cost and availability).

Section 7 – Goals, Policies, and Actions: This section sets forth the City’s goals, policies, and actions that are designed to address the housing needs in Orinda. Based on the findings of all of the previous sections, the Goals, Policies, and Actions section identifies actions the City will take to meet local housing goals, quantified objectives, and address the housing needs in Orinda.

CYNTHIA WALSH
Senior Associate I
Sacramento: 916.932.2132 | cell: 916.607.7281
[email protected] | placeworks.com
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Drummond Buckley
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Prasad, Hillary@HCD; Winnie Mui
Cc: Cynthia Walsh; Coy, Melinda@HCD; Julie Tamayo
Subject: RE: Orinda determination letter
Thank you, Hillary. We will include this as late correspondence for the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow and include it in the packet for the City Council meeting at the end of the month.

From: Prasad, Hillary@HCD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:33 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]> Cc: Cynthia Walsh <[email protected]>; Coy, Melinda@HCD <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Orinda determination letter
Good afternoon,
Please see the public comment below that HCD received regarding the City’s housing element.

Thank you,
Hillary Prasad
Specialist, Housing Policy Division
Housing and Community Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 | Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: 916.776.7545
From: Kevin Burke <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 7:15 PM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>
Cc: Prasad, Hillary@HCD <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Joshua Hawn <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Orinda determination letter
Hi,
We clearly miscalculated ‐ on Orinda's second draft, we thought HCD would find the Caltrans Gateway site so unpalatable that we did not bother to include suggestions for how to get a better outcome on that site.

Our third letter [eastbayforeveryone.org] includes these suggestions as well as additional context ‐ for example, we spoke to a nonprofit developer who said, quote, "we wouldn’t touch this site" which suggests it may get decertified and not attract any bids.

At a very minimum we think HCD should apply this criteria to the Gateway site:

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 1. Change the threshold for moving the low‐income RHNA from decertification ‐ easy to meet ‐ to, Orinda fails to put out an RFP for the site, or, Orinda puts out an RFP but does not attract any bids by mid cycle (December 2027).

2. Orinda should commit to running a BART shuttle to and from the site. Otherwise very low income individuals could be required to own a car to get to and from the site, which would be a heavy share of their income.

To us this represents a reasonable compromise that will follow the spirit of the law, which is designed to encourage the production of lower income housing. We know you are working on a tight timeline and appreciate your consideration.

Thanks very much,
Kevin
‐‐
Kevin Burke
phone: 925‐271‐7005 | kevin.burke.dev [kevin.burke.dev] On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 3:40 PM McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for your understanding Kevin. We generally give the City a day to review the letter out of etiquette and we are glad to send it to you first thing Tuesday. I might be around Monday too and could send

From: Kevin Burke <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 3:38 PM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>; Prasad, Hillary@HCD <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Joshua Hawn <[email protected]> Subject: Orinda determination letter

Hi,
Do you have a copy of the determination letter for Orinda's second draft? It was due today, if we need to wait the long weekend to give Orinda enough time, we totally get it.

On behalf of all of us at East Bay for Everyone, thanks for everything you've been doing at HCD and we hope you have a good long weekend.

Best,
Kevin
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Key, Darien <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Orinda Planning
Cc: Curtin, Patricia; [email protected]; [email protected]; Drummond Buckley Subject: LTR to Orinda Planning Commission re RHNA Housing Sites - January 18, 2023 Agenda Item 6A Attachments: 28642446_1(LTR to Orinda Planning Commission re RHNA Housing Sites).PDF Dear Planning Commission members:

Please see attached public comments for the Commission’s upcoming January 18, 2023 hearing and the agenda item regarding the Housing Element Update.

Let me know if you have any questions regarding this submission.

My regards,
Darien Key

Darien K. Key
Associate
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607
T: 510.622.7511 | F: 510.834.1928
[email protected]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Darien K. Key
Associate
[email protected]
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
PH (510) 622-7511 | FX (510) 834-1928
fennemorelaw.com
January 17, 2023
Chair Ann Parnigoni and Planning Commission Members
Planning Commission
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Re: January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda Item 6.A regarding draft Housing Element Update Approval: Request to Add in Residential Development Sites to the City’s Housing Element Update Housing Site Inventory
Dear Chair Ann Parnigoni and Planning Commission Members:

This letter is to request an addition to the City’s Housing Element Update, Housing Site Inventory, particularly Table 5-7 for two properties located at 3 Rae Dr. and 7 Rae Dr. These sites were not identified as available potential housing sites which could assist in the City’s goal to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) obligations. Our client owns both these properties and would seek to include them with all other potential housing sites by addition to Table 5-7 as opportunity sites.

On January 18, 2023 the Planning Commission will hear an agenda item seeking recommendations to the City Council for the update to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. As part of this Housing Element update, the City had to analyze additional sources of land for which additional residential housing could be built. The City identified such potential land in Tables 5-4 through 5-7.

Our client supports this Housing Element update approval with the minor addition of these two parcels into Table 5-7 as additional opportunity sites.

Current Housing Needs Identified in the Housing Element Per the draft Housing Update, “[t]he inventory must identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for households of all income levels.”1
1 City of Orinda, Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, p. 138, Housing Element — Plan Orinda.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Chair Ann Parnigoni and Planning Commission Members
January 4, 2023

Page 2 ends

The draft Housing Update further elaborated on these potential sites and noted that “HCD recommends in their Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook (Government Code Section 65583.2) that the City create a buffer in the sites inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required”.2 This recommendation assists local jurisdictions in compliance with state law because “at no time” shall a City allow its Housing Inventory to fall below its RHNA obligations thresholds.3
As such additional surplus should be readily welcomed to ensure compliance with state law in the event that some sites on the Housing Inventory fail to yield actual residential units.

Both 3 Rae Dr. and 7 Rae Dr. Are Available for Development as Residential Units And Can Bolster the City’s Surplus Buffer For Its Housing Site Inventory The following chart contains the information contained for each site found in the Housing Element Update:
3 Rae Drive 7 Rae Drive
Location Corliss Corliss
APN APN 255-240-029 APN 255-240-020
Acreage 7.6 .4
Current GP OS RL
Current Zoning OS RL-10
Current du/acre 0 0
Current Capacity 0 0
Proposed GP RL RL
Proposed Zoning RL-10 RL-10
Percentage of Site 52% 100%
Assumed Acreage 4 .4
Proposed du/acre 1.1 1.1
Proposed Capacity 4 4
Current Use of Site Open Space Open Space
In addition, the sites would only need minor changes in the General Plan and Zoning Map, similar to the other sites identified in the Housing Update. Public services and facilities already service additional nearby residential units and would not require extensive work to extend to the respective properties. Additionally, the sites owned by our client could bolster the City’s Housing Inventory 2 Housing Element Update, p. 169.
3 Gov. Code section 65863(a).

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Chair Ann Parnigoni and Planning Commission Members
January 4, 2023

Page 3 ends

surplus since the City’s Housing Update only projects a surplus of 257 units which equates to roughly an 18% surplus.4
Given the current surplus level, we request that both 3 Rae Dr. and 7 Rae Dr. be added to Table 5-7 as additional opportunity sites to bolster the City’s housing site inventory surplus buffer. Our client is available to provide any further information the City needs to consider this request.

Sincerely,

FENNEMORE WENDEL
DARIEN K. KEY
Cc: Drummond Buckley, Planning Director
Min H. Kim
Chul M. Kim
4 Housing Element Update, p. 169.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Chair Ann Parnigoni and Planning Commission Members
January 4, 2023

Page 4 ends

28641406.2/060976.0001
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Drummond Buckley
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:36 PM
To: [email protected]; David Biggs; [email protected]; Jennifer Gastelum; Winnie Mui; Julie Tamayo
Subject: FW: Mixed income at Orinda Caltrans Gateway
Julie, please include with the additional correspondence for tomorrow night.

From: Kevin Burke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:23 PM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>; Prasad, Hillary@HCD <[email protected]>; Housing Elements@HCD <[email protected]>
Cc: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Subject: Mixed income at Orinda Caltrans Gateway
Nick Waranoff is an Orinda resident who has been intently following the Housing Element process, submitting detailed feedback to the city, and organizing other residents to follow the process. He is more on the side of "Orinda should do the least amount possible to meet the state requirements." I've attached his letter for the January 10th City Council meeting. Notably:

1. He was just as surprised as us that Orinda's second draft would be found to meet most of HCD's standards for compliance, due to HCD's letters sent to other cities like Lafayette and San Francisco, HCD's explicit guidelines about the sites inventory and fair housing, and the lack of interest from downtown property owners in building residential.

If even someone who wants a city to do as little rezoning as possible to meet the standards is surprised by HCD's lack of enforcement, that's not a great sign.

2. His proposal suggests changing the Gateway parcel to mixed income instead of low income. We don't think the Gateway site is suitable for housing, but if HCD is going to allow it, mixed income on this site would be more "fair" than 100% low income, and also increase the likelihood of being able to e.g. fund a BART shuttle.

Full link to comments here. http://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=1721 D.1.k
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 D.1.k
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 D.1.k
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Dear members of the Orinda Planning Commission,
Having been a member of Orinda’s Planning Commission years ago, I appreciate the weight of responsibility you can feel as you make decisions that affect the community and your neighbors.

That said, during my tenure we only dealt with single-family homes. We didn’t have to contend with revisions to the documents guiding the community’s future. But one thing is the same as when I was on the Commission - it is being underutilized.

To be truly useful to the Council and to the community, the Planning Commission should provide its honest opinions based on their development expertise, input from the community, their own judgment and the community’s guiding planning documents. The Council should then listen to and consider that planning input, but make decisions that necessarily must take nonplanning considerations into account. To expect the City Council members to be experts on planning and design topics is unrealistic. The Council needs the particular perspective of the city’s Planning Commission. Further, to expect the Planning Commission to be a rubber stamp of the Council is a very sad waste of talent, knowledge and experience.

So I urge you all to consider whether you, as PLANNING Commissioners, truly believe that the proposed building heights, densities, zoned uses, limited private and public open spaces, parking and traffic impacts, etc., support Village Character in downtown Orinda. A downtown with village-like character has been the strong preference by the residents of Orinda as expressed repeatedly in numerous surveys and other forms of outreach. Consider this question with the understanding that an allowed height of 45 feet will almost certainly result in a building height of 75 feet when density bonus laws are applied; and the density of 55 units per acre can increase significantly through the use of those same laws.

Finally, the EIR concluded that the significant increase in the downtown population supported by ‘PlanOrinda’ could “substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan”. (They drew this conclusion without assuming the increased development allowed via the bonus density laws.) Even so, the impact was determined by the EIR to be “significant and unavoidable” if ‘PlanOrinda’ was built. One mitigation not considered was to reduce the number of units downtown (and thereby the number of new residents there) to a level that fits the topographic restraints of Orinda.

Tonight you are being asked to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and thereby accept this wildfire-related risk to the lives of existing and future Orinda residents. I strongly urge the Planning Commission to not accept the level of risk proposed in ‘PlanOrinda’ nor to accept the DPP’s severe urbanization of the downtown and decline to recommend adoption of ‘PlanOrinda’ by the City Council.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Michele Jacobson
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Andy Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 8:05 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Orinda Planning Subject: Housing Element--Caltrans Gateway Parcel
Hello,
I'm writing to object to Orinda's inclusion of the Caltrans Gateway parcel as part of their housing element and urge Orinda to either remove it, or HCD to reject this inclusion in the plan. At a very high level, I agree with the objections stated by East Bay for Everyone in their letter, which can be found here.

In no way does this site advance the cause of fair housing. Creating a segregated, low‐income community that is located more than a half mile from amenities, solely accessible by Highway 24 makes a mockery of the goals advanced by the state and HCD, especially in comparison to the available sites near the Orinda BART station. At the very minimum, Orinda must commit to running regular shuttles from this site to the rest of the town.

This remote nature of the site, and the fact that it is in a fire zone, also makes it unlikely that a developer will bid to develop this site. It does not appear to be a realistic parcel for development and Orinda should be responsible for proving developer interest in this site.

I grew up in Lafayette and spent a considerable amount of my time as a youth in Orinda. While it has never been particularly affordable to low and middle‐income families, the affordability issue has reached crisis levels. Allowing Orinda to continue with a plan that will lead to segregation and relies on car‐dependent transportation is counter to the principles of fair housing and will only further enshrine Orinda as a place of exclusion for all but the very wealthy.

Sincerely,
Andy Lynch
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Chris Lu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:09 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: No to the Orinda Caltrans Gateway Housing Site Hello,
My name is Chris Lu. I'm a resident of Oakland who believes that we need more good affordable housing in the East Bay.

Each city must do its part in providing such housing, but Orinda's Caltrans Gateway site for affordable housing is a horrible suggestion. It is a very unattractive site for potential developers and is a fire zone.

If this is greenlit, I urge HCD to require Orinda to plan new low‐income housing at other sites in Orinda no proposal and/or bid is made for the parcel. In addition, if the proposed project is built, Orinda should commit to running a shuttle to and from this site and BART. This will help ensure successful affordable housing in Orinda! Thanks for listening!
Best,
Chris Lu
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 11:29 AM
To: Ann Parnigoni; John Smith; Willy Mautner; Robert Hubner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek Cc: Orinda Planning; Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Brandyn Iverson; Janet Riley; Latika Malkani Subject: RE: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 -- opposition to resolution adopting DPP If you do nothing else, PLEASE ask yourself one question: is 55 d.u./acre (higher than elsewhere downtown) appropriate for Country Club Plaza, the most beautiful block in downtown Orinda, and the home to several very popular, long term restaurants (Szechuan, Geppettos, Baan Thai) which we will lose to redevelopment? The proposed height limit, and stepbacks under the Objective Design Standards, are meaningless because they will be waived virtually as of right, under the density bonus law.

From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 3:11 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; 'Brandyn Iverson' <[email protected]>; 'Janet Riley' <[email protected]>; 'Latika Malkani' <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 ‐‐ opposition to resolution adopting DPP Also, the EIR failed to consider an alternative of lower density downtown, WITHOUT BART. Per my spreadsheet.

Re density bonus law: Councilmember IVERSON wanted a real life example of density bonus law in action. This is a real, on the ground example of how density bonus, waivers, height increases, etc. work. And it puts to rest the BS from our city manager, Biggs, about low height limits from construction above podium.

See pp 10-12. Height goes from 35 to 63 feet.
https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=23&event_id=1048&meta_id=158938 From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:36 PM
To: 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]>; 'Winnie Mui' <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 ‐‐ opposition to resolution adopting DPP D.1.k
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 I oppose the resolution adopting the DPP for these reasons:

A. Per EIR: “Finding: The City finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measure WFR-1, congestion induced from additional residents at these Housing Element Sites during an evacuation may be reduced. However, it is not possible to ensure that the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, despite implementation of mitigation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.” In fact, the City could reduce density downtown below the density proposed in the DPP, and thereby further mitigate this risk, and still meet its RHNA. See attached spreadsheet. Start with the read me tab. The spreadsheet is based on a spreadsheet provided to me by Ms. Mui, with only inputs changed.

The 10 acre CalTrans site across from Wilder should be an 80 d.u./acre, mixed income, mixed use site so that a small village with local amenities can be developed there, including a cleaner, casual restaurant, small pharmacy, etc.

It is reckless to adopt the DPP as proposed with its significant wildfire risk.

B. The single biggest flaw of the DPP is that it ignores the Density Bonus Law and impliedly assumes that the density, height, and design limits and standards are enforceable. In fact, under the Density Bonus Law, developers will obtain, virtually as a matter of right, greater density, higher height, and will be able to ignore step-back requirements for upper floors.

1. The density and height limits, and step-backs for upper floors (included in the Objective Design Standards [“ODS”]) impliedly assume, incorrectly, that these limits and requirements will be enforceable. In fact, under the Density Bonus Law, the density and height limits will be substantially increased, and any step-back requirement will be waived virtually as a matter of right. As a result, the DPP presents an unrealistic, unduly rosy picture of what a redeveloped downtown would look like. Worse, these densities and heights will become the base from which they are increased under the density bonus law. If the purpose of the DPP is propose the densities and heights that are the goals, then the DPP needs to set lower limits, so that when a developer presents a project and obtains increases, the end point will be the desired densities and heights. The higher you start, the higher you end up.
a. The EPS Economic Feasibility study determined that only Density Bonus projects were “likely feasible.” See Figure 6 on page 13 here
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 b. Under the Density Bonus Law, a developer can obtain unlimited waivers, which can waive height limits. See https://www.meyersnave.com/california-densitybonus-law-2022-update/ and within that doc, the hyperlink to the more general analysis, copied here: https://www.meyersnave.com/wpcontent/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2022.pdf c. Step-backs are also subject to waiver. See page 5, Section II, C, of the attached letter to Lafayette. Yet step-backs of upper floors above 35 feet are a key aspect of the ODS.
d. Therefore, the likely densities and heights (without step-backs) will exceed the DPP.
e. Here is a real, on the ground example of how density bonus, waivers, height increases, etc. work. See pp 10-12 at this link, showing how despite a height limit of 35, the project will be 63 feet
high. https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=23&event_id=1048 &meta_id=158938 [developer did agree to some step-backs]. This project also puts to rest the notion, stated by our city manager, Biggs, and others, regarding practical height limits from construction above podium. f. A better DPP would generally set 20 d.u./acre and 35 feet as the limits throughout downtown. These would mitigate the increases under the density bonus law. I have shown that our RHNA can be met by doing so, with a sizeable buffer. See attached spreadsheet. It has a “read me” tab that explains what it contains. g. Note: there is no algorithm that links densities and heights. Merely reducing the height limit to retain the current 35 foot limit will NOT be sufficient, as the Lafayette experience cited above demonstrates.
h. The concept of separate zones is outdated in light of AB2011, which allows residential construction as of right in any commercial zone. Moreover, the areas closest to the freeway and BART should have higher density and heights, not lower. Yet the DPP proposes the greatest density at the north end of the Village – furthest from BART – and the lowest density closest to BART. Perhaps the area closest to the freeway and BART could be a different zone from the rest of downtown with higher density and height.

2. The DPP’s assumptions about mixed-use, including “horizontal” mixed use, fail to reflect the reality of AB2011, effective January 1, 2023. A city can not require mixed use. A developer can build a residential project anywhere that commercial is specified, and the city cannot require more than half of the ground floor to be retail. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220A B2011 AB2011 can be challenging to read and understand, but a word search for “half” yields this provision from new Govt Code Section 65912.123: “A development project shall not be subject to the streamlined, ministerial review process provided by Section 65912.124 unless the development project meets all of the following objective development standards:
“[(j … ]
“(3) The applicable objective standards may include a requirement that up to one-half of the ground floor of the housing development project be dedicated to retail use.” D.1.k
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 4 3. Oddly, the DPP allows greater heights further from BART and the freeway than closer. This is backwards.

4. In light of the foregoing, the existing height limit of 35 feet should be maintained, and the overall density downtown set at 20 d.u./acre, with a higher density at the BevMo/CVS block. This would preserve our village character while still complying with RHNA.

Nick Waranoff
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Orinda Planning; Ann Parnigoni; John Smith; Willy Mautner; Robert Hubner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek Cc: Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 -- opposition to resolution adopting DPP based on flaw in Statement of Overriding Considerations
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:15:21 PM
You face an important decision: whether to recommend adoption of a Downtown Precise Plan that the city’s own EIR consultant found that, even with mitigation measures, congestion induced from additional residents during an evacuation caused by a wildfire may be reduced will be “significant and unavoidable.” (Proposed Resolution 23-01, page 33 of 89. https://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx? Frame=&MeetingID=2336&MediaPosition=&ID=2997&CssClass= ) In fact, the evacuation risk is much worse than the consultant realized, because the consultant ignored the effect of the Density Bonus Law, which allows substantial density increases.

Staff proposes that you accept this impact and issue a “statement of overriding considerations” that the “specific benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects.” (page 41 of 89) However, for the Statement of Overriding Considerations to be valid it must be true that “there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the Project’s significant environmental impacts.” Yet the EIR did not consider a feasible alternative: less density downtown with more density at the 10 acre CalTrans parcel near the Caldecott Tunnel. Instead, the alternative to the DPP only included using the BART parking lots instead, which of course would not eliminate congestion downtown. As such, the EIR is flawed, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations fails.

The best way to mitigate the wildfire evacuation risk is to increase density at the CalTrans site and reduce the density proposed in the DPP.

Nick Waranoff
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Drummond Buckley
To: Cynthia Walsh; Winnie Mui
Cc: Osa L. Wolff; Julie Tamayo
Subject: RE: Housing Element revision
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:28:20 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Julie,
Please add this email to the Additional Correspondence for tonight’s meeting.

Drummond
From: Cynthia Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]> Cc: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element revision
DrummondI would like to make the following edits to table A-1.

Thanks,
Cynthia
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda)

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Plan Orinda - Recommendation for Adoption
On Wednesday, January 18th at 7pm, the Planning
Commission will consider a recommendation to the City
Council for adoption of Plan Orinda which includes:

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
The Downtown Precise Plan (DPP),
The 6th Cycle Housing Element, and
The Safety Element Update.

A printed copy of the staff report and attachments is
available for public review at the Planning Counter and in the reference section of the Orinda Library.

Click below to attend the
Planning Commission
January 2023
18 From: Winnie Mui
To: Julie Tamayo
Subject: FW: Feedback Re: Plan Orinda - Recommendation for Adoption Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:42:53 PM
From: CAROLINE UTZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:41 PM
To: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>
Subject: Feedback Re: Plan Orinda - Recommendation for Adoption Hello,
I have no objection to State's proposed height change from 2 to 3 stories.

One question: Is the proposed height for DPP-9 through 13 at 3 or 5 stories? Caroline Utz (resident)
On 01/13/2023 5:02 PM City of Orinda <[email protected]> wrote:

Upcoming Planning Commission meeting!
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 22 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE – RECEIVED AFTER JANUARY 18, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
Received AfterJanuary 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Name
Robert Fruchtman
Zac Bowling
Armand Domalewski
Rowyn McDonald
David Mendelsohn
Jordan Hinkes
Stuart Smith
Robert Prinz
Tim Chan
Liat Zavodivker
Debra Timmers
Zach Sorenson
Jasminder Brar
Evan Tschuy
Corrine Scown
Nanditha Ramachandran
Owen Murphy
Kevin Burke
Colin Dentel-Post
Lowen Baumgarten
Kyle Huey
East Bay for Everyone
Alfred Twu
Nick Waranoff
Max Neninger
Seth Mazow
Lowen Baumgarten
Ryan Meckel
Isaiah Berke
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Roberto Garuti
Katherine Walley
Jonathan Singh
Tim Chan
Sophia Dewitt
Jamie Salcido
Justin Truong
Mitch Conquer
Michael Tessaro
Ryan Lester
Howard Cohen
Stephanie Beechem
Justin Truong
Carole Gonsalves
Lynn Luther
Lin Griffith
Susan Dalcamo
Donna Johnke
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Robert Fruchtman
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42:42 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Orinda should remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from its housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. I am concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Robert Fruchtman
[email protected]
616 Page St
San Francisco, California 94117
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Zac Bowling
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42:44 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Zac Bowling
[email protected]
1531 Sherman Street
Alameda, California 94501
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Armand Domalewski
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42:48 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Armand Domalewski
[email protected]
2149 Lyon Street, Unit 4
San Francisco, California 94115
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Rowyn McDonald
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42:48 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

The site is inaccessible, and in no way advances fair housing.

Rowyn McDonald
[email protected]
3555 East View Drive
Lafayette, California 94549
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: David Mendelsohn
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42:50 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

David Mendelsohn
[email protected]
2732 MLK
Berkeley, California 94703
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Jordan Hinkes <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 11:15 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Orinda Planning Subject: Re: Concerns about Orinda Housing Element
Quick follow‐up/clarification: I'm aware the plan also calls for housing at church sites and the high school. That's great if it can get built. But my concerns about the Gateway parcel remain, as does my belief that more should be built closer to downtown (in conjunction with the Orinda Downtown Precise Plan).

Thank you!
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:14 PM Jordan Hinkes <[email protected]> wrote:

To the Department of Housing and Community Development, My name is Jordan Hinkes and I live in Orinda with my wife and two young daughters. I'm writing because of my concerns about the proposed use of the "Caltrans Gateway Parcel" for Orinda housing.

There is nothing more critical to me than maintaining a vibrant, safe, welcoming community for my daughters to grow up in. For those reasons, I strongly support Orinda doing its part to build new housing. Using the Caltrans Gateway Parcel as part of the solution is okay with some additional assurances, but it would be far better to also build housing closer to BART, whether in addition to or instead of the Caltrans parcel. There's several reasons why the Parcel, on its own, isn't enough:

1. Fire danger. Fire safety was my #1 concern when moving to Orinda, and safety for new homes should be prioritized‐‐the parcel appears to be in a high fire zone. Also, I know from experience that getting insurance in Orinda is extremely difficult. Insuring homes on this site may be prohibitive given the fire danger.

2. The site is right on the 24 freeway with no access to public transportation or walking or biking paths. There are no amenities for this site, so anything as simple as a jog or a carton of milk, let alone getting to BART, will require a trip on the freeway. Unlike Wilder, which is up the hill from the 24, this parcel is right alongside the freeway.

3. I wonder whether any developer will actually want to build on this site. Has a developer been secured? Building near BART will be far more attractive to developers.

4. Building near BART is not only good for new residents and developers, but also for existing business and residents.

While always small, Orinda has historically had a vibrant downtown with successful long term businesses like the movie theater and Loard's ice cream. A lack of foot traffic downtown, caused in part by decreased use of BART, endangers those businesses and discourages new ones. Putting new housing near BART will increase pedestrians downtown, help existing businesses and attract new ones, and help make Orinda a destination for residents and visitors.

I hope you'll review the sites again. If this parcel is included, it should be in addition to new housing near BART, rather than the exclusive solution, so that if any of the issues I mentioned above lead to difficulties in getting housing built (which seems likely), there will be alternate plans downtown. If the parcel is part of the plan, there should be plans to address fire safety issues, lack of amenities, and ease of getting to downtown/BART.

Thank you,
Jordan Hinkes
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Stuart Smith
To: Orinda Planning
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 9:37:45 PM
You should be ashamed of yourselves.

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
Subject: FW: Orinda Housing Element - HCD Submittal Draft 2 comment From: Robert Prinz <[email protected]>
Date: January 19, 2023 at 10:06:23 AM PST
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Orinda Housing Element ‐ HCD Submittal Draft 2 comment Hello,
I am writing on behalf of Bike East Bay to provide comment on the City of 2023‐203 Orinda Housing Element ‐ HCD Submittal Draft 2 (link here).

As referenced on page 192 of the document, Contra Costa Measure J "stipulates the jurisdiction incorporate policies and standards into the development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments."
However, on page 158 a development site proposal referenced as the "Caltrans Gateway" is only accessible by bicycle via a long and steep detour through the Wilder community and across the Hwy 24 interchange, or on the Hwy 24 shoulder itself which is a legally bikeable facility but a well known hazard and barrier among the bicycling community for even extremely experienced and confident bike riders.

This development site proposal can not reasonably be considered to support bicycle access as directed by Measure J, and it is not reasonable to expect that many (or any) individuals would choose to bicycle to and from this site.

Meanwhile, we were surprised and disappointed that the Orinda BART eastern and western lots were not included in the site inventory. Bike East Bay has been working for many years with the City of Orinda on bicycle access improvements along Camino Pablo to and from this site, but with some additional infrastructure upgrades still needed that could potentially be incorporated into development proposals at this location. Simultaneously, we have also been working with BART on bike parking and access improvements in the station area and on the trains.

From a biking and walking access and safety perspective, the BART lots are the highest opportunity locations for development in Orinda, and we would like to see these swapped with the Caltrans Gateway site in the RHNA opportunity sites list. While we acknowledge that this is a complicated location, all of the constraints listed on page 164 seem surmountable, especially with support from the Housing Element to prioritize these locations.

Thank you for receiving these comments, and for your consideration.

Robert Prinz | Advocacy Director
Pronouns: he/him
Mail: PO Box 1736 Oakland, CA 94604
Office: 466 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
P: (510) 845-7433 x2 | E: [email protected]
᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ፮፯᡼᡽᡾᡿ᢀᢁ D.1.l
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Drummond Buckley
To: [email protected]; David Biggs; [email protected]; Jennifer Gastelum; Winnie Mui Cc: Douglas Alessio
Subject: FW: BART Comments to the Orinda Housing Element Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:18:58 PM
Attachments: 20230119_Orinda Housing Element_BART Comments.docx From: Tim Chan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Cc: Abigail Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>; Carli Paine <[email protected]>; Kamala Parks <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: BART Comments to the Orinda Housing Element
Hi Drummond, please find our comments to the Orinda Housing Element and direct questions and comments to Kamala Parks. Thanks.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
2150 Webster Street, P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6000
January 26, 2023
Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Sent by email to [email protected]
RE: Comments to Orinda’s Housing Element
Dear Mr. Buckley:

We have reviewed section 5.7.4 Bay Area Rapid Transit Sites of Orinda’s draft Housing Element and would like to take this opportunity to make clear BART’s position on development of the Orinda station parking lots.

BART fully supports transit-oriented development on the station parking lots. In order to move a project like this forward, it is crucial to permanently zone these parcels to meet or exceed targets set forth in Figure 1 and Table 1 of BART’s Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines (2017). BART would also need the city to dedicate staff resources to working with us and Caltrans to move the project forward.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Kamala Parks at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Tim Chan
Group Manager, Station Area Planning
Cc:

Abigail Jackson, Lead Planner for Housing and Homelessness Solutions, Caltrans Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Director of Real Estate, BART
Carli Paine, Manager, Transit Oriented Development
Kamala Parks, Principal Station Planner, BART
2023
Janice Li

PRESIDENT
Mark Foley

VICE PRESIDENT
Robert Powers

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTORS
Debora Allen
1ST DISTRICT
Mark Foley
2ND DISTRICT
Rebecca Saltzman
3RD DISTRICT
Robert Raburn, Ph.D.
4TH DISTRICT
John McPartland
5TH DISTRICT
Elizabeth Ames
6TH DISTRICT
Lateefah Simon
7TH DISTRICT
Janice Li
8TH DISTRICT
Bevan Dufty
9TH DISTRICT
www.bart.gov
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Liat Zavodivker <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 9:13 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Orinda Planning Subject: Orinda planning
Dear Housing and Community Development,
I am an Oakland resident and a patron of the East Bay Parks and Recreational districts. Orinda is trying to build affordable housing near a freeway and near the Sibley park area. In addition to this being the most environmentally unsound and damaging way to build housing, this housing is not near transit and would require the people living in it to buy an expensive car to live there and commute to work. There are many sites in Orinda near the BART station to build housing. This plan is unacceptable. Please reject it for the housing element and tell Orinda to build more housing near the BART station.

Sincerely,
Liat Zavodivker
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Debra Timmers
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: I Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:38:57 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Debra Timmers
[email protected]
22701 Medina Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Zach Sorenson
To: Drummond Buckley
Cc: Winnie Mui; Celina Palmer; Darin Hughes
Subject: Affordable housing should be downtown
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 5:00:13 AM
Dear Orinda Planners,
As a lifelong and fourth-generation Orinda resident and someone paying close attention to housing issues in California, I appreciate your work on these issues on behalf of the city.

However, I was disappointed to learn that the City’s recent Housing Element placed affordable housing units at the Caltrans Gateway site instead of downtown, located near BART and other forms of accessible transit.

Orinda has a lot more work to do to build more housing and ensure that the city — and the broader East Bay — has room for everyone. But at minimum, we should be meeting our required housing needs in a way that incorporates new residents to the heart of the community — and makes it as likely as possible that affordable housing will actually be built.

Thanks again for your work on the Housing Element, and for taking this input into consideration.

Zach Sorenson
30 Greenwood Ct
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Jasminder Brar
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:45:01 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Jasminder Brar
[email protected]
100 Devon Ave., Apt # 26
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Evan Tschuy
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:47:21 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Evan Tschuy
[email protected]
3410 California Street
Berkeley, California 94703
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Corinne Scown
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:47:25 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Corinne Scown
[email protected]
1333 Powell Street, Unit 416
Emeryville, California 94608
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Nanditha Ramachandran
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:47:26 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Nanditha Ramachandran
[email protected]
2450 Valdez St
Oakland, California 94612
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
Subject: RE: Please prevent Orinda from determining that development in a specific location overrides safe evacuation in the event of a wildfire
From: Owen Murphy <[email protected]>
Date: January 20, 2023 at 6:26:53 PM PST
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Inga Miller <[email protected]> Subject: Please prevent Orinda from determining that development in a specific location overrides safe evacuation in the event of a wildfire
Dear Mr LaBonte and Ms Kirkeby,
I write in full support of Nick Waranoff's very‐well researched email of Jan 19, 2023 on this same subject. I believe that many in our community also agree with Mr Waranoff. Thank you.

Owen Murphy
Co‐Founder Save Orinda
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
Subject: FW: Orinda counting 1 foot wide parcel in Housing Element and other issues with single family home sites
From: Kevin Burke <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 8:00:00 AM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>; Prasad, Hillary@HCD <[email protected]> Cc: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Latika Malkani <[email protected]>; Brandyn Iverson <[email protected]>; Janet Riley <[email protected]>; John Smith <[email protected]>; Lina Lee <[email protected]>; Marian Jelinek <[email protected]>; Robert Hubner <[email protected]>; Willy Mautner <[email protected]>; Ann Parnigoni <[email protected]>
Subject: Orinda counting 1 foot wide parcel in Housing Element and other issues with single family home sites

In light of this news story about a renovated house in Orinda sliding down a hill and becoming uninhabitable we revisited the 300 or so parcels in single family zones that Orinda claims will become housing in their third Draft Housing Element. https://mobile.twitter.com/KTVU/status/1616528568959336457 Orinda’s response to our concerns about these parcels in the second draft was to remove only the 6 or 7 parcels we flagged in October instead of re‐reviewing all of them, even though we indicated we only reviewed a subset. We subsequently found about ten more parcels with problems for the third draft.

On our recent look, we found even more parcels that are very clearly unsuitable for housing and would obviously have been found unsuitable if anyone in Orinda's Planning Department or Placeworks had bothered to look at the parcel.

Given the magnitude of the housing crisis and the short deadline, it is frustrating that Orinda is delegating this responsibility to unpaid volunteers (us).

Here for example is a parcel that is about one foot wide and supposed to turn into one home according to the Orinda Planning Department.

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 Parcel 268251014, no road access, probably zero buildable area inside the setbacks for R‐20, one home assumed.

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 At least one journalist is currently working on a story about the problems with Orinda’s Housing Element. I would hate for people to lose trust in the state Housing and Community Development Department or in Orinda's planning department if HCD were to accept sites that are clearly fake.

Our estimate was 20‐60% of these parcels (60‐180 homes in Orinda's RHNA) are unsuitable. Kyle Huey, the volunteer who looked through the entire list and should be getting in touch shortly, estimates 45% of the list ‐ 135 homes, or two decent apartment buildings worth ‐ are unsuitable for housing. All of these sites should be verified manually and reallocated if necessary to other sites in Orinda.

To avoid future problems with these sites, Orinda should also:
‐ exclude any parcel with a current value under $20,000 as any parcel below that is likely not buildable. ‐ exclude any parcel narrower than their side setback requirements. ‐ exclude parcels smaller than 0.06 acres (about 2500 square feet) ‐ include information about the maximum grade change for parcels it’s including in this list.

Kevin
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Colin Dentel-Post <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 9:43 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Orinda Planning
Subject: Orinda Housing Element: Reject "Caltrans Gateway" Site Dear HCD and Orinda Staff,
As a resident of Oakland, I see in our rampant homeless encampments and soaring rents the impacts of wealthy suburban jurisdictions' long‐term failure to accommodate housing for a range of incomes. HCD should reject Orinda's cynical ploy to segregate all of its required low‐income housing at the "Caltrans Gateway" site adjacent to a freeway off‐ ramp disconnected from anything else and in an extremely high fire risk zone. The "Caltrans Gateway" site does not meet the basic requirements for an appropriate and feasible affordable housing site because it is:

1. Inaccessible: Daily necessities (transit, retail, services, jobs, etc) cannot be reached except by driving for every trip, but low‐income households are less likely to own vehicles than average.

2. Unaffordable for residents, because owning, maintaining, and operating the likely multiple vehicles required for daily life would result in very high household transportation costs.

3. Unsafe, due to its location in an extremely high fire risk zone, directly adjacent to wildlands, and on/adjacent to steep slopes that may be prone to mudslides.

4. Effectively segregated from the City's high‐resource areas of which it is nominally a part, therefore not meeting the requirement to locate low‐income housing in high‐opportunity areas.

5. Likely infeasible to build affordable housing on due to the costs associated with construction on its steep slopes.

Orinda should instead be required to identify sites for low‐income housing that are accessible to transit (e.g. near BART) and connected via multiple travel modes to the amenities other city residents enjoy in this high‐resource community.

Failing that, HCD should at least require the City to identify an alternate site if there are no successful responses to an RFP for the Caltrans Gateway site, and should further require the City to provide a frequent shuttle from the site to BART.

Thank you for your work to ensure cities like Orinda are faithfully doing their part to address the widespread housing and homelessness crisis that is impacting all of us.

Colin Dentel‐Post
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Lowen Baumgarten <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 10:12 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Orinda Planning
Subject: Requesting a better housing plan for Orinda
Hi Ms. Prasad, Mr. McDougall,
I’m an Oakland resident, grown and raised in the Bay Area. I’m concerned about fair housing, and in particular, access to housing near transit at all income levels. The neighboring community of Orinda, where I ride my bike, shop and see movies has a great BART stop minutes from downtown Oakland and downtown San Francisco, connected to bike paths and bus routes. I’d love to see more housing close to this BART station.

Unfortunately, Orinda’s latest Housing Element does not propose building low‐income housing near BART, but rather on a noisy, polluted freeway shoulder — isolated from the rest of the Orinda community. There are no other homes within a half mile. Resident would need a car to get anywhere.

I’m requesting that HCD not allow this site to count towards Orinda’s housing element. If the site is counted, I don’t know if any builders would build homes there, being so far away and near fire zones. I’d request more sites near the BART station, which is currently surrounded by freeway lanes and parking lots. There may be noise near the station, but at least there would be access to all the services of downtown Orinda, and a fast transit link to the rest of the Bay Area.

Thanks for your consideration,
‐Lowen
Lowen Baumgarten | (202) 746‐0300 | [email protected] D.1.l
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Kyle Huey
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; [email protected] Subject: Some concerns about mod/above-moderate sites inventory (Tables A-1/A-2) in Orinda"s latest housing element draft
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:27:39 AM
Attachments: Orinda Housing Element Sites.xls
Hi everyone,
I've been reviewing the sites inventory in the January revision of Orinda's housing element. I suspect a lot of the attention thus far has (rightfully) been on the lower income parts of the housing element. I went through the moderate and above moderate income sites assessing them rapidly (no more than 30 seconds a piece) for development potential.

I would estimate that at least 40% (or more than 250) of the mod/above-mod units claimed are either physically or practically impossible to build. This includes 6 sites that don't appear to exist (perhaps the APNs are mistyped?), 3 sites that are 1 foot wide lots, 1 site that is essentially entirely in the neighboring town of Moraga, at least 1 site on the utility roll, a number of lots that are clearly too small to support and development, as well as a very large number of lots recorded as unbuildable by the Contra Costa Assessor's Office.

I've attached a spreadsheet with my findings for each site, but I do have a few recommendations that would be worth considering, in order of ease to implement:

1. Remove site 124, which is essentially in Moraga (and thus, to the extent it is developable, Moraga should be the jurisdiction credited with the housing).

2. Sites 28, 116, 169, 215, 303, and 316 should have their non-existent APNs fixed or be discarded.

3. All sites below some minimum size should be discarded. Some of the sites are as small as one hundredth of an acre and regardless of regulations could never support a home.

4. Really, all sites with an acreage below the minimum lot size for their zoning should be discarded, unless there's a plan to rezone these parcels. This would be straightforward because the zoning designations and acreages are already in the sites inventory, so it should be easy to e.g. discard any RL-20 site that isn't 0.46 acres per unit or more. (I didn't see any discussion of rezoning in the Housing Element for parcels other than the low/very-low income sites, but it's a long document and it's possible I've missed it.)

5. Sites that are classified as "vacant, unbuildable" by the assessor (use code 10 in Contra Costa County) should be presumed not to be suitable for development, unless there's evidence to the contrary.

Two other things I want to raise:

1. The total numbers of units claimed to be developable on these sites are not accurate (the sums Orinda listed are actually *lower* than the sums I calculated by summing the individual entries, so they'll definitely want to fix that).

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda)

2. Site 234 is the single largest site in the moderate/above-moderate sites inventory, claimed to be developable for 18 units. The inventory indicates the site is currently designated as open space in the general plan. I didn't see any discussion of modifying the general plan to open this site for development (though again, it's a long document and it's possible I've missed it).

Thanks for your time and all your work on this process, - Kyle
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Site # APN Claimed unit couNew in revisi Address Comments 2 273083039 4 103 BARBARA RD Has power lines over much of the site5 273081043 2 58 OAK RD Has power lines and transmission towers. Owned by PG&E?6 273083030 1 36 OAK RD Contains another house's driveway, is the owner the same as 273083029?7 273083031 1 between 30-32 OAK RD Has power lines, 4000 sq ft lot, marked unbuildable by assessor8 273083032 1 between 30-32 OAK RD Has power lines, 4000 sq ft lot, marked unbuildable by assessor 10 273081029 2 next to 96 BARBARA RD Has power lines over much of the site12 273082001 1 61 OAK RD Marked unbuildable by asessor13 273081021 1 Yes next to 273081043 Has a transmission tower, 2700 sq ft lot, marked unbuildable by assessor14 273082042 2 next to 61 OAK RD Marked unbuildable by asessor15 273100031 2 next to 19 PATRICIA RD Marked unbuildable by asessor16 273082006 1 between 29 and 45 OAK RD Drainage easement17 273100030 8 end of PATRICIA RD Marked unbuildable by asessor18 273100039 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor19 273100049 2 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor20 273100040 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor21 273100038 5 end of PATRICIA RD Marked unbuildable by asessor22 273100041 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor23 273100027 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor24 273100042 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor25 273100043 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor26 273072009 1 20 LUCILLE WAY Marked unbuildable by asessor27 273071006 1 8 PATRICIA RD Appears to be 8 PATRICIA RD (273071007)'s backyard, has improvements28 273072015 1 Assessor has no record of this parcel number29 273100044 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor32 273100026 4 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor34 273100045 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor36 273100025 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by asessor39 273072011 1 LUCILLE WAY Marked unbuildable by asessor, 3400 sq ft40 273100024 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by assessor42 273100046 1 SPRING RD Marked unbuildable by assessor46 273083027 2 BARBARA RD Power lines, marked unbuildable47 273082019 1 OAK RD Marked unbuildable by assessor49 273083002 1 BARBARA RD Power lines, marked unbuildable50 273082020 1 OAK RD Marked unbuildable by assessor51 273063011 1 72 LONGRIDGE RD Transmission towers, powerlines, marked unbuildable53 273063012 2 72 LONGRIDGE RD Transmission towers, powerlines, marked unbuildable54 273063014 1 70 BARBARA RD Power lines, marked unbuildable55 273063023 1 Yes BARBARA RD Too small, marked unbuildable56 273064008 1 BARBARA RD Appears to contain solar panels for the Oak Springs pool/clubhouse. Owned by the HOA?57 273064012 1 Yes UNDERHILL RD 2625 sq ft lot58 273064014 1 Yes BARBARA RD Power lines, marked unbuildable59 273065005 1 67 UNDERHILL RD Power lines, marked unbuildable60 273065026 1 Yes 56 BROOKWOOD RD 2100 sq ft lot61 273065031 1 BROOKWOOD RD Power lines, marked unbuildable62 273065032 1 BROOKWOOD RD Appears to be neighbor's backyard, marked unbuildable63 273065034 1 Yes 88 BROOKWOOD RD 3750 sq ft lot, power lines passing through the middle of the lot64 255250020 2 RAE DR Oddly shaped parcel86 264075016 1 Yes CRESCENT DR 40x40 lot in the back yard of two other homes88 264081009 1 Yes HOLLY LN Lot shape will make it impossible to build89 264072002 1 HOLLY LN Marked unbuildable by assessor90 264062003 1 Yes Between 57-69 STANTON AVEMarked unbuildable by assessor D.1.l
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) 91 271312009 7 Between 122-128 ARDITH DR Owned by government (who?), has improvements 101 270460004 3 44 CEDAR TER Marked unbuildable by assessor102 273270005 5 BROOKSIDE RD Marked unbuildable by assessor111 265110009 1 ALTA VISTA RD Marked unbuildable by assessor112 265110008 3 ALTA VISTA RD State assessed, PG&E property?113 264240025 1 LA ENCINAL Marked unbuildable by assessor114 265034001 1 RIO VISTA Government owned, zoned for utility use115 264230016 1 LA ENCINAL Marked unbuildable by assessor116 265153018 1 Assessor has no record of this parcel number119 263132017 2 HACIENDA CIR EBMUD land120 267020008 5 Rural land, no paved road to it123 262170018 3 EL SERNO No street access124 270470002 1 Yes RHEEM BLVD MORAGA Lot isn't even in Orinda!125 273092039 1 Power lines127 262010048 1 Yes Between 9-15 EL PATIO Marked unbuildable by assessor129 267020002 1 EL TOYONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor130 264130007 1 Yes CAMINO PABLO Government owned with improvements131 272230001 1 Next to 71 LOST VALLEY DR No street access132 271020013 1 Yes DALE CT 3900 sq ft, marked unbuildable by assessor134 272200009 3 Behind 18 LOST VALLEY DR No street access135 272210015 1 Yes 26 LOST VALLEY DR No street access, marked unbuildable by assessor143 272050057 1 1 CASA VIEJA DR No street access147 270301014 8 247 ORCHARD RD No street access151 270230008 1 No street access, marked unbuildable by assessor152 270020016 2 GLORIETTA BLVD No street access155 270353003 1 82 ZANDER DR Marked unbuildable by assessor156 270420004 8 49 CALVIN DR Marked unbuildable by assessor160 270372024 2 CALVIN CT No street access163 269090013 1 Between 201-205 GLORIETT A Marked unbuildable by assessor
164 269132015 2 SCENIC CT No street access165 270123015 1 GREENWOOD CT Someone's driveway, marked unbuildable by assessor169 270100021 1 Yes Assessor has no record of this parcel number170 269132002 1 Behind 69 SCENIC DR Someone's backyard, marked unbuildable by assessor171 269100017 1 HEATHER LN Marked unbuildable by assessor173 273120048 1 7 OAK KNOLL LN Appears to be someone's driveway175 273092029 1 Yes Lot is 0.015 acres176 270071006 1 Yes SALLY ANN RD Somebody's tennis court, marked unbuildable by assessor179 269202046 1 Yes SCENIC DR 112 SCENIC DR's swimming pool, marked unbuildable by assessor180 268190026 1 Yes End of WESTWOOD CT 846 sq ft banana shaped lot183 268182010 1 Yes OVERHILL RD 2178 sq ft triangle lot, marked unbuildable by assessor184 268181003 1 Yes MORAGA WAY tiny triangle lot, marked unbuildable by assessor185 268220001 5 No street access, marked unbuildable by assessor186 268251014 1 Yes TARABROOK DR tiny lot, marked unbuildable by assessor187 268141007 1 Yes VASHELL WY tiny lot, no access, zero lot line188 265070012 1 Yes LOS NORRABOS This lot is a road189 265070015 2 DOS OSOS PG&E transmission tower, marked unbuildable190 265110007 1 ALTA VISTA Marked unbuildable by assessor191 265070010 6 DOS OSOS Marked unbuildable by assessor192 265070008 4 DOS OSOS Marked unbuildable by assessor193 265070014 2 DOS OSOS Marked unbuildable by assessor194 265060011 1 LA MADRONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor195 265052023 1 SOUTH TRAIL Marked unbuildable by assessor D.1.l
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) 196 265100013 1 Yes ALTA VISTA skinny lot, marked unbuildable by assessor 197 265100012 1 CAMINO DEL MONTE Marked unbuildable by assessor198 265080004 1 Yes DOS OSOS Marked unbuildable by assessor199 265060010 1 LA MADRONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor200 265052022 1 SOUTH TRAIL Marked unbuildable by assessor201 265070003 12 40 DOS OSOS All of the adjacent vacant lots are considered unbuildable, questionable whether this one is, especially for 12 homes202 265052021 1 SOUTH TRAIL Marked unbuildable by assessor203 265070007 4 DOS OSOS Marked unbuildable by assessor204 265060009 1 LA MADRONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor205 265090020 1 CAMINO DEL MONTE Marked unbuildable by assessor207 265052002 1 Yes LA MADRONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor208 265060007 1 LA MADRONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor209 265080020 1 33 DOS OSOS Marked unbuildable by assessor210 265060008 1 Yes LA MADRONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor211 265040004 1 SOUTH TRAIL No street access, marked unbuildable by assessor214 265090019 2 CAMINO DEL MONTE Marked unbuildable by assessor215 265052009 1 Assessor has no record of this parcel number216 265040005 1 Yes LOMA VISTA DR Marked unbuildable by assessor218 265080009 1 ALTA VISTA Marked unbuildable by assessor219 265040008 1 LOMA VISTA DR Marked unbuildable by assessor220 265080010 1 267 EL TOYONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor221 265051006 1 EL TOYONAL Marked unbuildable by assessor224 264210004 1 Yes Inside 157 EL TOYONAL Lot is a 1600 sq ft well reserve in someone's back yard226 264250012 1 MIRAMONTE RD No street access, marked unbuildable by assessor228 265090028 1 LAS PIEDRAS Marked unbuildable by assessor229 264190008 1 Yes Inside 94 EL TOYONAL Tiny spring reserve in someone's back yard230 264230005 1 TWIN SPRINGS TRAIL No street access, marked unbuildable by assessor231 264102015 1 LA ENCINAL Marked unbuildable by assessor233 264190019 1 Yes LAS MESAS PATH Marked unbuildable by assessor235 264190017 1 Yes LAS MESAS PATH Marked unbuildable by assessor236 264190018 1 Yes LAS MESAS PATH Marked unbuildable by assessor238 264102024 1 Behind 26 CAMINO DEL DIABLNo street access, marked unbuildable by assessor 240 264091007 1 Yes CAMINO DEL DIABLO Marked unbuildable by assessor241 264200020 1 Marked unbuildable by assessor245 264091006 1 Yes CAMINO DEL DIABLO Small triangle lot, no street access, marked unbuildable by assessor247 264110016 3 CANON DR Marked unbuildable by assessor248 264091020 3 No street access, marked unbuildable by assessor249 262032007 1 LA CUESTA DR Lot has the same last sale date as 56 LA CUESTA DR and based on satellite photos is part of that property's yard250 260181005 1 15 CASCADE LN No street access, marked unbuildable by assessor251 251193001 1 Yes TAHOS RD Marked unbuildable by assessor254 262131009 1 Yes 327 CAMINO SOBRANTE Marked unbuildable by assessor259 260012001 1 Yes CHARLES HILL RD Marked unbuildable by assessor262 260152004 1 ST STEVENS DR Clearly part of 119 VIA FLOREADO from satellite photos, transferred in the same deed recently263 262102024 1 Yes CAMINO SOBRANTE Marked unbuildable by assessor264 263143004 1 CAMINO DON MIGUEL Clearly part of 170 CAMINO DON MIGUEL from satellite photos, transferred in the same deed in 2012267 263143007 1 29 CAMINO DON MIGUEL Clearly part of 29 CAMINO DON MIGUEL from satellite photos, transferred in the same deed in 2010272 262220032 1 Yes LA ESPIRAL Tiny lot, no street access, marked unbuildable by assessor274 263040018 1 Yes LOS ALTOS RD Lot is 1 foot wide!280 263040020 1 Yes LOS ALTOS RD Lot is 1 foot wide!282 263040019 1 Yes LOS ALTOS RD Lot is 1 foot wide!294 272020013 2 CRESTVIEW DR Marked unbuildable by assessor298 263030010 1 Yes MINER RD Clearly part of 2 CAMINO DON MIGUEL from satellite photos, transferred in the same deed in 2022 D.1.l
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) 299 263151036 1 Yes SANTA LUCIA 6 foot wide triangle lot 301 263030004 1 OAK ARBOR RD Has a tennis court on it, appears to be part of 3 OAK ARBOR RD303 261200017 1 Assessor has no record of this parcel number304 261060024 1 Yes MINER RD 425 sq ft triange lot with no road access308 261080013 1 643 MINER RD Not vacant, already has a home311 266032003 1 Yes 17 TARRY LN Last transferred in the same deed as the adjacent house, marked unbuildable312 266142004 1 Yes LOMBARDY LN Last transferred in the same deed as adjacent 1 VAN TASSEL LN, seems like part of their yard316 266142012 1 Assessor has no record of this parcel number317 266210027 1 Yes tiny triangle lot, marked unbuildable by assessor325 265140010 1 Yes 3 DEL VALLE Marked unbuildable by assessor237 265120005 1 Yes TRES MESAS tiny triangle lot, marked unbuildable by assessor331 265130010 1 Yes LOS VENADOS Marked unbuildable by assessor332 265130005 1 Yes LOMAS CANTADAS Marked unbuildable by assessor333 265140001 1 Yes VISTA DEL ORINDA Marked unbuildable by assessor334 265130012 1 Yes VISTA DEL ORINDA Marked unbuildable by assessor335 265130013 1 Yes TUMBLING BROOK RD Marked unbuildable by assessor336 265130014 1 Yes TUMBLING BROOK RD Marked unbuildable by assessor337 265130002 1 TUMBLING BROOK RD Marked unbuildable by assessor 272
234 268120017 18 BATES BLVD GPLU=open space, is that being changed? D.1.l
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) From: East Bay for Everyone
To: Kyle Huey
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui Subject: Re: Some concerns about mod/above-moderate sites inventory (Tables A-1/A-2) in Orinda"s latest housing element draft
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:36:26 AM
Thank you very much for doing this Kyle, we share your concerns about these sites and appreciate your time and input.

Best,
Kevin
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:27 AM Kyle Huey <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi everyone,
I've been reviewing the sites inventory in the January revision of Orinda's housing element. I suspect a lot of the attention thus far has (rightfully) been on the lower income parts of the housing element. I went through the moderate and above moderate income sites assessing them rapidly (no more than 30 seconds a piece) for development potential.

I've attached a spreadsheet with my findings for each site, but I do have a few recommendations that would be worth considering, in order of ease to implement:

1. Remove site 124, which is essentially in Moraga (and thus, to the extent it is developable, Moraga should be the jurisdiction credited with the housing).

2. Sites 28, 116, 169, 215, 303, and 316 should have their non-existent APNs fixed or be discarded.

3. All sites below some minimum size should be discarded. Some of the sites are as small as one hundredth of an acre and regardless of regulations could never support a home.

4. Really, all sites with an acreage below the minimum lot size for their zoning should be discarded, unless there's a plan to rezone these parcels. This would be straightforward because the zoning designations and acreages are already in the sites inventory, so it should be easy to e.g. discard any RL-20 site that isn't 0.46 acres per unit or more. (I didn't see any discussion of rezoning in the Housing Element for parcels other than the low/very-low income sites, D.1.l
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) but it's a long document and it's possible I've missed it.)

Two other things I want to raise:

Thanks for your time and all your work on this process, - Kyle
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Alfred Twu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:45 PM
To: Orinda Planning; [email protected]
Subject: Questionable Sites in Orinda Housing Element
Hi HCD and Orinda Planning
There are several very questionable sites that should not be included in the Housing Element ‐ some examples are below. Please revise the housing element and zoning so that it contains normal, realistic sites ‐ ideally near the BART station.

Thanks
Alfred
Banana shaped lot at Westwood Ct
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 Tiny landlocked lot wedged betweena few backyards, no road access D.1.l
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 Pump station
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 4 Low income housing site cut off from the rest of the city D.1.l
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 5 Spite house lot that is1 foot wide on Los Altos Road
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 6 D.1.l
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Ann Parnigoni; John Smith; Willy Mautner; Robert Hubner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek Cc: Orinda Planning; Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Brandyn Iverson; Janet Riley; Latika Malkani Subject: RE: what is the point of having a planning commission if you don"t discussion the most important issue you face Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:34:13 PM
Sorry; one more point. There wasn’t even candor from staff, or discussion, about staff raising the density at the north end of the village from the 50 d.u./acre approved by the council last fall, to 55 d.u/acre. With the density bonus law, 50 will become 65 or more d.u./acre. My study of densities, and the density bonus law provision allowing unlimited waiver of heights, means that we are looking at 7-10 story buildings at the north end of the village! The height limit is meaningless in a density bonus project. The developer takes the density, adds the bonus, designs the building, and if the developer needs more height, asks for a waiver of any height limit, and a city is powerless to oppose.

From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:26 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; 'Brandyn Iverson' <[email protected]>; 'Janet Riley' <[email protected]>; 'Latika Malkani' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: what is the point of having a planning commission if you don't discussion the most important issue you face
How could you not even discuss the staff recommended finding (that you adopted without discussion) that Plan Orinda was more important than the adverse impact on evacuation (due to the population increase) that the EIR consultant found would be substantial and unavoidable? And the EIR consultant didn’t even consider the even greater population increase that is reasonably foreseeable when the density bonus law is invoked (bear in mind that EPS found that only density bonus projects were “likely feasible”).

The EIR didn’t consider reducing the proposed increase in population downtown by making greater use of the CalTrans parcel. The only alternative it considered was more development at BART, which of course would still cause massive congestion downtown. I have shown in my Plan B spreadsheet that making greater use of the CalTrans parcel, and reducing development downtown, will still meet our RHNA plus buffer.

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) And the EIR found that Plan Orinda would have the greatest ADVERSE impact on the environment. Yet that was not worthy of discussion? Human life and maximizing safe evacuation are more important than maximizing development downtown. And if you don’t think so, surely you agree that the subject is worthy of some discussion.

From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:03 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; 'Brandyn Iverson' <[email protected]>; 'Janet Riley' <[email protected]>; 'Latika Malkani' <[email protected]> Subject: what is the point of having a planning commission if you don't discussion the most important issue you face
We don’t need a planning commission if you aren’t going to even discuss an issue like the DPP. Just hand Drummond a rubber stamp. You folks should resign.

From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 11:29 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; 'Brandyn Iverson' <[email protected]>; 'Janet Riley' <[email protected]>; 'Latika Malkani' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 -- opposition to resolution adopting DPP If you do nothing else, PLEASE ask yourself one question: is 55 d.u./acre (higher than elsewhere downtown) appropriate for Country Club Plaza, the most beautiful block in downtown Orinda, and the home to several very popular, long term restaurants (Szechuan, Geppettos, Baan Thai) which we will lose to redevelopment? The proposed height limit, and stepbacks under the Objective Design Standards, are meaningless because they will be waived virtually as of right, under the density bonus law.

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 3:11 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; 'Brandyn Iverson' <[email protected]>; 'Janet Riley' <[email protected]>; 'Latika Malkani' <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 -- opposition to resolution adopting DPP Also, the EIR failed to consider an alternative of lower density downtown, WITHOUT BART. Per my spreadsheet.

See pp 10-12. Height goes from 35 to 63 feet.
https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=23&event_id=1048&meta_id=158938
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:36 PM
To: 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]>; 'Winnie Mui' <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 -- opposition to resolution adopting DPP I oppose the resolution adopting the DPP for these reasons:

A. Per EIR: “Finding: The City finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measure WFR-1, congestion induced from additional residents at these Housing Element Sites during an evacuation may be reduced. However, it D.1.l
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) is not possible to ensure that the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, despite implementation of mitigation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.”
In fact, the City could reduce density downtown below the density proposed in the DPP, and thereby further mitigate this risk, and still meet its RHNA. See attached spreadsheet. Start with the read me tab. The spreadsheet is based on a spreadsheet provided to me by Ms. Mui, with only inputs changed.

It is reckless to adopt the DPP as proposed with its significant wildfire risk.

1. The density and height limits, and step-backs for upper floors (included in the Objective Design Standards [“ODS”]) impliedly assume, incorrectly, that these limits and requirements will be enforceable. In fact, under the Density Bonus Law, the density and height limits will be substantially increased, and any step-back requirement will be waived virtually as a matter of right. As a result, the DPP presents an unrealistic, unduly rosy picture of what a redeveloped downtown would look like. Worse, these densities and heights will become the base from which they are increased under the density bonus law. If the purpose of the DPP is propose the densities and heights that are the goals, then the DPP needs to set lower D.1.l
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) limits, so that when a developer presents a project and obtains increases, the end point will be the desired densities and heights. The higher you start, the higher you end up.
a. The EPS Economic Feasibility study determined that only Density Bonus projects were “likely feasible.” See Figure 6 on page 13 here https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo
b. Under the Density Bonus Law, a developer can obtain unlimited waivers, which can waive height limits. See
https://www.meyersnave.com/california-density-bonus-law-2022- update/ and within that doc, the hyperlink to the more general analysis, copied here: https://www.meyersnave.com/wpcontent/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2022.pdf c. Step-backs are also subject to waiver. See page 5, Section II, C, of the attached letter to Lafayette. Yet step-backs of upper floors above 35 feet are a key aspect of the ODS.
d. Therefore, the likely densities and heights (without step-backs) will exceed the DPP.
e. Here is a real, on the ground example of how density bonus, waivers, height increases, etc. work. See pp 10-12 at this link, showing how despite a height limit of 35, the project will be 63 feet high. https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=23&event_id=1048&meta_id=158938 [developer did
agree to some step-backs]. This project also puts to rest the notion, stated by our city manager, Biggs, and others, regarding practical height limits from construction above podium.
f. A better DPP would generally set 20 d.u./acre and 35 feet as the limits throughout downtown. These would mitigate the increases under the density bonus law. I have shown that our RHNA can be met by doing so, with a sizeable buffer. See attached spreadsheet. It has a “read me” tab that explains what it contains.
g. Note: there is no algorithm that links densities and heights. Merely reducing the height limit to retain the current 35 foot limit will NOT be sufficient, as the Lafayette experience cited above demonstrates. h. The concept of separate zones is outdated in light of AB2011, which allows residential construction as of right in any commercial zone.

Moreover, the areas closest to the freeway and BART should have higher density and heights, not lower. Yet the DPP proposes the greatest density at the north end of the Village – furthest from BART – and the lowest density closest to BART. Perhaps the area closest D.1.l
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) to the freeway and BART could be a different zone from the rest of downtown with higher density and height.

2. The DPP’s assumptions about mixed-use, including “horizontal” mixed use, fail to reflect the reality of AB2011, effective January 1, 2023. A city can not require mixed use. A developer can build a residential project anywhere that commercial is specified, and the city cannot require more than half of the ground floor to be retail.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml? bill_id=202120220AB2011 AB2011 can be challenging to read and understand, but a word search for “half” yields this provision from new Govt Code Section 65912.123: “A development project shall not be subject to the streamlined, ministerial review process provided by Section 65912.124 unless the development project meets all of the following objective development standards:
“[(j … ]
“(3) The applicable objective standards may include a requirement that up to one-half of the ground floor of the housing development project be dedicated to retail use.”

3. Oddly, the DPP allows greater heights further from BART and the freeway than closer. This is backwards.

Nick Waranoff
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Brandyn Iverson; Latika Malkani; Janet Riley Cc: Drummond Buckley; David Biggs; Winnie Mui; Sheri Smith; Osa Wolff Subject: Agenda Jan. 31, 2023 -- Housing Element and DPP - NEW EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL AND UNAVOIDABLE

ADVERSE IMPACT ON EVACUATION MUST BE CONSIDERED
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:17:24 PM
Attachments: Nick"s Plan B housing element using only sites likely to be redeveloped.xlsx Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that you issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations, finding that the benefits of the DPP override the determination in the EIR that the density caused by the DPP will have a substantial and unavoidable adverse impact on emergency evacuation. Based on NEW EVIDENCE, consideration of the DPP should be delayed. Surely you do not believe that maximizing downtown development is more important than lives saved in an emergency evacuation.

Although the Housing Element and EIR are flawed, there isn’t time to delay or fix them. I am therefore only asking that you delay the DPP and pledge that, after the HE is certified, you will consider asking HCD to allow you to amend the HE so that you can move +/- 600 units to the CalTrans parcel, which (1) should be upzoned to 85 d.u./acre, (2) be designated for mixed income, not lower income; and (3) zoned for mixed use. The goal is to build a small village there that would provide amenities not just for its residents, but also for Wilder. The amenities might include a dry cleaner, a casual restaurant, a small pharmacy, or other retail uses. The reason for doing this is to reduce the projected downtown population and reduce what the EIR has determined to be a substantial and unavoidable adverse impact on evacuation. My suggested changes would moot any concern about a lower income outpost far from downtown.

The Village side of downtown, especially Country Club Plaza and its adjacent parcels, should be downzoned to 20 or 30 d.u./acre, because (a) that area will be most adversely impacted by downtown congestion in the event of an evacuation; (b) it is the most beautiful block downtown, and is occupied by several small restaurants and other businesses that have served Orinda for decades (Szechuan, Geppettos, Baan Thai); and (c) greater density and height belong closer to BART and the freeway, not at the entrance to the city from the north. The EIR did not consider increased density at the CalTrans parcel as an alternative.

Based on this new evidence:

1. The flawed EIR should be certified, because there is no time to do D.1.l
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) otherwise, and it is a prerequisite to adopting the HE.

2. The HE should be adopted because you are up against a deadline;

3. After HCD certifies the HE, you should plan to ask HCD to amend the HE to move several hundred units out of downtown, and specifically to reduce the density at Country Club Plaza and its environs (DPP-1 through -6), because those sites will be most adversely impacted by the downtown congestion during an evacuation, being furthest from the freeway;

4. You should reduce the density at Country Club Plaza to 20 or 30 d.u./acre and increase density at CalTrans to 80 or more d.u./acre.

5. Make the CalTrans parcel mixed income, and mixed use with the goal of creating a small village there.

It is undisputed that there will be a substantial and unavoidable adverse impact on emergency evacuation. The proposed resolution approved by the PC states:
"Finding: The City finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measure WFR-1, congestion induced from additional residents at these Housing Element Sites during an evacuation may be reduced. However, it is not possible to ensure that the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, despite implementation of mitigation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable." This is new evidence. Previously, the discussion was about what was desirable.

Country Club Plaza and its environs will be most impacted by congestion downtown. Its density should be reduced to 30 d.u./acre.

Last year, at the Nov. 1, 2022 meeting, the council approved 50 d.u./acre: See page 22 here:
https://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?
Type=12&ID=1706&Inline=True Yet last week staff proposed to the PC (without mentioning the council decision last fall to approve 50) and the PC approved 55 d.u./acre. See slide 31 from Jan. 18, 2023 presentation to PC here:
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/jshviykwaatjiaxt342un1m12m4ak2uj D.1.l
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Indeed, in a last minute change:

Increased densities on select sites:
▪ DPP-1 through DPP-5 (County Club Plaza block): increased from 30 du/acre to 50 du/acre – revised
to allow 55 du/acre
▪ DPP-6 (County Club Plaza): increased from 30 du/acre to 50 du/acre – revised to allow 55 du/acre
▪ DPP-8 through DPP-13 (BevMo Block): increased from 30 du/acre to 50 du/acre – revised to allow 55 du/acre
See slide 28 here.
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/jshviykwaatjiaxt342un1m12m4ak2uj CalTrans parcel
Regarding CalTrans parcel: the issues are a self-inflicted wound caused by designating the site as exclusively lower income. That decision creates opposition because it looks like you are putting the poor people at an outpost.

A better plan would be to create a small village there with higher density, mixed income, and mixed use. Perhaps 80 d.u./acre, mixed income, and mixed use so that there can be some amenities that would also serve Wilder, such as a casual restaurant, a dry cleaners, and maybe an independent pharmacy.

My Plan B, attached, shows that this would easily meet RHNA plus a buffer.

There is a 217 unit lower income buffer, so even loss the proposed 200 lower income units at CalTrans would not require rezoning. See slide 37 here re buffer:
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/jshviykwaatjiaxt342un1m12m4ak2uj See Table 5-7, “opportunity sites,” page 144 (thumbnail 159) here for number of units and lower income designation:
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/jshviykwaatjiaxt342un1m12m4ak2uj By contrast, the DPP sites are all designated mixed income in the same proportions as RHNA. See slide 29 here
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/jshviykwaatjiaxt342un1m12m4ak2uj NOTE: the EIR did not even consider increased development at CalTrans and reduced density downtown as an alternative. At the PC meeting on Jan. 18, 2023, City Attorney Wolff dismissed that notion as not satisfying the objectives D.1.l
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) of Plan Orinda. But that alternative was not considered.

Somehow, preservation of life – minimizing adverse emergency evacuation impacts – plays second fiddle to placing a few hundred units downtown, especially at Country Club Plaza, rather than at CalTrans.

If development at the CalTrans doesn’t timely materialize, there will be ample time for additional upzoning. There is just as much risk that development won’t materialize at other HE and DPP sites, notably Pine Grove, the full BevMo/CVS block, and at other nonvacant sites. But of all the sites, only CalTrans is actually vacant.

The effect of the density bonus.

It is necessary to bear in mind the effect of the density bonus. It is not clear that all of you fully understand this. The EIR specifically excluded consideration of the density bonus law. Yet EPS, your consultant, found that only DB projects were feasible, and stated, “While the law offers a wide range of options, the “sweet spot” for most high-density residential projects has been a 35 percent density bonus in exchange for 11 percent very low income (VLI) units (as of 2021 the law allows for 50 percent density bonus with a 15 percent VLI).” Highlighting added. See page 6 here:
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo
Examples of density bonus law in action:

1. 1010 Oak Hill Road, Lafayette. This is a real, on the ground example of how density bonus, waivers, height increases, etc. work. And it puts to rest the out of date assertion by our city manager, Biggs, that there are low height limits from construction above podium. See pp 10-12. Height goes from 35 to 63 feet. https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php? view_id=23&event_id=1048&meta_id=158938

2. On Feb 15, 2022, “Mr. Buckley said they keep hearing concerns with the potential for the density bonus piece and so part of his thinking about reducing density down to 30 du/acre is that it reduces the potential the City would end up with something with the density bonus with 5 or 6 stories if you consider retail on the ground floor.” See page 17 here:
https://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?
Type=12&ID=1616&Inline=True

3. Other examples here: https://www.thd.org/bonus
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) There is no formula or algorithm for determining height based on density. Too many variables: size of units, ceiling height, layout, etc. The way it seems to work is that a developer determines what it wants to build, taking the density bonus into account. If that results in a taller height than the local height limit, the developer asks for a waiver, on the ground that the height limit is a development standard
that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project at the density permitted. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) The implications were discussed at a joint Council-Planning Commission workshop on November 17, 2021. See the minutes here
https://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?
Type=12&ID=1595&Inline=True At that meeting:
“Mayor Worth asked if staff had enough direction. Mr. Buckley asked to get an understanding about the height issue for purposes in the EIR.

Mayor Worth referred to flexibility, said the City needs to have a downtown framework that will enable the City to accommodate RHNA, as well as other sites. She asked how Commissioners and Councilmembers felt.

Vice Mayor Fay asked if there wasn’t any reason why they couldn’t have 35 feet as the standard but also test alternatives at 45 and 55 feet. This might make the EIR more expensive but this would also maintain the City’s flexibility.

Mr. Buckley said this is a bit late to add this complexity into the EIR process.

The Notice of Preparation needs to be done and staff needs to start on this tomorrow.

Commissioner Iverson said she believes they have to do that as part of the scoping requirement, but she suggested not confusing what is done with an EIR with what you do for real life. She would be in favor of staff’s recommendation and then dropping down.

Councilmember Kosla said just because they say 55 feet is the cap, he asked what would happen if someone uses the density bonus and go up to 80 feet. He asked if a supplemental EIR would need to be done.

Mr. Buckley said this is a complicated question and something they discussed with the EIR consultant as to what they analyze; allowable or allowed with density bonus. Most places go with what is allowed by the code. Perhaps there is a way to deal with that with the alternative analysis, as well.

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Commissioner Hubner said if someone came in with an 85 foot proposal and the City has an EIR that is 55 feet, they would require a new EIR. Mr. Buckley said he believes at that point you would have a ministerial project not subject to environmental review.

City Attorney Wolff said for CEQA purposes the key is ‘reasonably foreseeable’. The discussion has focused on the fact you can have a height limit but you know that density bonus projects will come through and they are likely to use waivers and concessions, etc. to get themselves up to the 55 feet.

It might be this is what is analyzed in the EIR not because it is the height limit the City ends up approving but instead because it is the reasonably foreseeable height development might come through at.”
It follows that in order to control height, the height limit is irrelevant and what matters in density. If you want to avoid tall buildings downtown, you need to minimize density to the point that density increases, plus waivers of the height limit and waivers of any step-back requirements, do not destroy the village feel.

The DPP actually adopts a policy of maximum heights of 35-45 feet. See Table 1-A on slide 10, referring to “2.1.4C Downtown Implementing Policies” here:
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/01182023ProposedDPP/file/111323990730 4 The DPP itself generally sets a 45 foot height limit. But given that height limits are virtually automatically waivable, you need to work backwards and determine the density (after bonus) that will limit actual height to that policy.

You guestimate the density that will entitle a developer to obtain that height.

Multiply that density by 0.75 to generate the density you should adopt (this is assuming a 35% density bonus). Example: if you adopt a density of 30 d.u./acre, with bonus it becomes 41. Reversing that: 41 times 0.75 equals 30.

With a density after bonus of 41, you are looking at 5, 6, or 7 stories, with no step back.

Thus, even at a planned density of 30 d.u./acre, you will get 41 d.u./acre, and exceed the height set by the policy. You certainly don’t want greater density.

In the real world, we are going to get density bonus projects, but you can and should minimize the impact. Consideration of the DPP should be postponed.

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Note: the objective design standards aren’t even completed.

Nick Waranoff
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Max Heninger
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:48:52 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Max Heninger
[email protected]
17 Timber, Lane
Lafayette , California 94549
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: seth mazow
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:48:53 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.
seth mazow
[email protected]
3700 Hillview Street
Oakland, California 94602
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Lowen Baumgarten
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:48:55 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Lowen Baumgarten
[email protected]
711 Walker Ave, Apt 202
Oakland, California 94610
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Ryan Meckel
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:48:55 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Ryan Meckel
[email protected]
180 Dakota Ave
Santa Cruz, California 95060
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Isaiah Berke
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:48:57 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Isaiah Berke
[email protected]
305 McMillan Dr
Santa Cruz, California 95060
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Roberto Garuti <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:45 PM
To: Julie Tamayo
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Senior Administrative Assistant Tamayo Julie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

You're not even pretending to care for people that can't afford a home or the environment or anything else except for the entitlement of your most affluent / old residents.

Roberto Garuti
[email protected]
2597 Oak Road A
Walnut Creek, California 94597
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Katherine Walley
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 7:35:37 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Katherine Walley
[email protected]
315 Westcliffe Circle
Walnut Creek , California 94597
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Jonathan Singh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Orinda Planning
Subject: Gateway site in Orinda should be removed from Housing Element Hello,
I am with East Bay For Everyone, an organization advocating for better housing policy throughout Contra Costa and Alameda counties. We are concerned at the inclusion of the Caltrans Gateway parcel as a site for low-income housing in Orinda. It is over half a mile from the nearest home and is also far away from schools, shops, and jobs. We are concerned that no developers will bid because of the site's distance from other populated areas of Orinda. This site should be removed from the Housing Element.

Orinda should instead commit to developing housing at the BART station within the City. Residents of Orinda and organizations like East Bay For Everyone have asked for more homes to be built next to Orinda BART. Orinda should also make changes to its zoning and approval processes to permit more duplexes and small apartment buildings.

Thank you,
Jonathan
‐‐
Jonathan Singh
Email: [email protected]
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Drummond Buckley
To: Winnie Mui
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: BART Comments to the Orinda Housing Element Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 10:26:18 AM
From: Tim Chan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Cc: Abigail Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>; Carli Paine <[email protected]>; Kamala Parks <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: BART Comments to the Orinda Housing Element Hi Drummond,
As a follow-up to the letter we sent on January 19, 2023, we want to clarify the intent.

It’s important that the City knows we support transit-oriented development (TOD) on the Orinda BART station parking lots, even if you aren’t prepared to include it in the current Housing Element.

Further, we want to be sure that the City understands our development process and what it takes for a station area to get ready for TOD, with appropriate zoning as a crucial preliminary step. While Caltrans owns the Orinda station land, we are looking forward to partnering with them and you to make TOD possible. Our letter also intended to affirm that development of the parking lots will require the same or greater level of effort for BART and the city as TOD projects on BART-owned land.

We look forward to meeting with you and other stakeholder agencies after the current Housing Element is finalized to begin the process of ensuring that the Orinda BART station area is prepared for TOD well in advance of the next Housing Element cycle.

Sincerely,
In Office: Mon-Wed
Remote: Thu & Fri
Tim Chan
Group Manager - Station Area Planning
BART Planning + Development
2150 Webster St., 8th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(C) 510.406.8985
From: Tim Chan
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:55 AM
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) To: [email protected]
Cc: Abigail Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>; Carli Paine <[email protected]>; Kamala Parks <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: BART Comments to the Orinda Housing Element
Hi Drummond, please find our comments to the Orinda Housing Element and direct questions and comments to Kamala Parks. Thanks.

In Office: Mon-Wed
Remote: Thu & Fri
Tim Chan
Group Manager - Station Area Planning
BART Planning + Development
2150 Webster St., 8th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(C) 510.406.8985
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Sophia DeWitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Orinda Planning
Subject: Comment on Orinda's Housing Element
Dear Ms. Prasad:

I am writing on behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) to provide comment on the City of Orinda's Housing Element currently under your review. Founded in 1984, EBHO mobilizes the power and expertise of our 400+ organizational and individual members to advocate for affordable housing and tenant protections in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

We are particularly concerned about the inclusion of the Gateway parcel in the city's Site Inventory. After consulting with affordable housing developers in our membership, they, and we, believe the site would not be competitive for Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The site is far from the rest of the residential or commercial development in the City of Orinda, and hence any amenities to support future residents. Without tax credits, the site is financially infeasible and the site is not viable for affordable housing development and should be removed.

The Orinda BART station, by contrast, would be a much better site for affordable housing development. With its proximity to transit as well as many amenities in the heart of Orinda, it would be much more competitive for the Low Income Housing Tax Credits that would be necessary for the project to pencil and actually get built for families who need housing.

Thank you for considering these comments as part of your review. We look forward to continuing to follow this process.

Sincerely,
Rev. Sophia DeWitt
Senior Director of Programs

EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS (EBHO)
510‐663‐3830 ext. 313 | [email protected]
538 Ninth Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
Join us or renew your membership for 2023! Thank you for supporting our efforts to protect, preserve and create affordable housing for all!
"Remember who you are and what you represent."‐‐ Mills College motto "Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable…Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle, the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

D.1.l
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Jamie Salcido
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:38 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
I don’t believe the City of Orinda is genuinely planning for the much needed housing required by the State. We are in a housing crisis and we need everyone to do their part, in good faith.

Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

Its complete lack of access to essential services via walking/biking/transit, which are critical for many affordable housing tenants, is troubling. There are already stark inequities in access to important necessities like grocery stores for underserved communities, as many low income families live in food deserts where they don’t have access to the most basic nutritious foods.

Its proximity to the freeway also suggests Orinda is inequitably segregating affordable units in the least desirable area with the most noise and poorest air quality, which can lead to dangerous health outcomes in infants and children, who are often the beneficiaries of affordable housing units. There is also a severe fire risk in this area, which could lead to devastating consequences for a more dense multi family development.

It is heartbreaking to see a California city with such disregard for any sense of responsibility for the inequities they have historically contributed to, given the documentation of racist covenants in the Lamorinda area, strictly prohibiting ”non-Caucasians,” and other exclusionary practices that have led to what is currently an enclave of almost exclusively wealthy, White and Asian families, and only 5% Latino and 1.2% Black families—far below the Contra Costa County average of 26% Latino and 8% Black.

Orinda, do better. We need to correct for the racist and classist planning of the 20th Century.

Jamie Salcido
[email protected]
233 Las Lomas Way
Walnut Creek, California 94598
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Justin Truong
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:39 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Justin Truong
[email protected]
33 Junior Terrace
San Francisco , California 94112
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Mitch Conquer
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:40 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
It is climate arson and extremely inequitable to put low income housing next to a highway. If Orinda wants to allow housing next to the highway, it'd be a great place for the type of housing that is the worst for the environment, such as single-family homes with large yards.

Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Mitch Conquer
[email protected]
145 Casitas Ave
San Francisco, California 94127
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Michael Tessaro
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:41 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Michael Tessaro
[email protected]
15780 East Alta Vista Way
San Jose, California 95127
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Ryan Lester
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:42 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Ryan Lester
[email protected]
1125 E 18th St
Oakland, California 94606
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Howard Cohen
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:43 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Howard Cohen
[email protected]
3272 Cowper St
Palo Alto, California 94306-3004
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Stephanie Beechem
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Please reject Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:47 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
I'm writing to urge you to remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Stephanie Beechem
[email protected]
523 Fairmount Ave
Oakland, California 94611
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Justin Truong
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:48 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Justin Truong
[email protected]
33 Junior Terrace
San Francisco, California 94112
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Carole Gonsalves
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:52 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Carole Gonsalves
[email protected]
1497 Los Rios Dr
San Jose, California 95120
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Lynn Luther
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:53 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Lynn Luther
[email protected]
1080 Butler Ave.

Santa Rosa, California 95407
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Lin Griffith
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:54 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Lin Griffith
[email protected]
3937 High St
Oakland, California 94619-2211
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Susan Dalcamo
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:41:55 AM
Associate Planner Mui Winnie,
Dear Orinda Planners and HCD Reviewers,
Please remove the Caltrans Gateway parcel from your housing element and put those 200 units of affordable housing near BART instead.

1. We're concerned Caltrans will release the site but no developers will bid because it's so far from resources and in a severe fire-risk zone.

If this is not possible, Orinda, at a minimum, should commit to running a shuttle between this site and BART.

Susan Dalcamo
[email protected]
1708 Golden Rain Road, Unit 8
Walnut Creek, California 94595
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Donna Johnke <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 5:21 PM
To: Orinda Planning; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Use of Caltrans property for low income housing I am a resident of Orinda, and I am concerned that the City of Orinda may be bending toward a very vocal minority who over the years, have opposed any type of development or improvement in the downtown of Orinda.

I grew up in Lamorinda and remember the downtown and village to be “charming” with many shops, and restaurants throughout. That all seemed to go away during the 1980’s for reasons, I don’t know as I was living out of state.

Returning to Orinda 10 years ago, I was encouraged at the development of Theatre Square, and hoped that this type of mixed use development would continue. Orinda is fortunate to have BART access. The fact that BART literally cuts the downtown in half also creates a wonderful opportunity to create multilevel or mixed use housing around it. This would add to the downtown aesthetic and create an interesting and diverse community. Access to public transportation is really essential as the current road infrastructure surrounding the downtown can not sustainably support increased car traffic.

Ironically, the argument is being made by Save Orinda that increased housing in the downtown will substanitally increase the risk of an inability to evacuate in case of wildfire. This reasoning is unfounded in that evacuation of the downtown will be easier due to its access to Highway 24, and the downtown being more “firesafe” by code than the forested hillsides surrounding the town. Save Orinda is advocating that all the high density, affordable housing be placed on the Cal Trans property adjacent to the 24 and Gateway. To meet all of the state housing mandate numbers, units will have to be built in to that parcel as well. However, affordable housing should be thoughtfully interspersed throughout the community. In my opinion, the downtown would greatly benefit overall from the inclusion of affordable housing. A case in point of the success of multistory housing in the downtown is the Orinda Senior Village and the Eden Housing projects. The upcoming Vista Verde project demonstrates that multi level housing can be convenient, functional and attractive.

Multilevel, mixed purpose units would greatly improve the overall “livability” of the downtown, by providing opportunities for a diverse group of residents young and old with reasonable housing alternatives while creating more choices for shopping and dining. Let’s do this housing element right! Please do not create an overly dense housing monstrosity at just one end of town, with a poor walkability score. Pushing affordable housing to one corner of a city has never turned out to be a good idea. Let’s not repeat past planning mistakes. If Lafayette, Concord, Walnut Creek and yes even Oakland can do this, we can too. Let’s make Orinda a great place to live for everyone.

Donna Johnke
17 Lost Valley Drive
Orinda, CA 94563
D.1.l
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda)

Orinda City CouncilJanuary 31, 2023

Orinda City Council
January 31, 2023