2 2 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563
Communications Received from the Public
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 3, 2026
ITEM G.1 – ORDINANCE 26-01
Name Pages
Caroline Utz 1
Brian Griggs 2-12
Nick Waranoff 13-25
Michele Jacobson 26
From: Caroline
To: Sheri Smith
Subject: Feb 3 Council Mtg
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:10:13 PM
Hello Sheri,
The council has my support for converting 23 Altarinda Rd to housing.
Caroline Utz
Sent from my iPhone
1 23 Altarinda Investors, LLC
935 Moraga Road, Suite 200
Lafayette, California 94549
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 31, 2026
To: Christine Thompson, Principal Planner-City of Orinda ([email protected]) From: Brian Griggs, ([email protected])
Re: Rezoning and General Plan Amendments for 23 Altarinda, Orinda This Memorandum is written to serve as an “Applicant Statement” in connection with the City Council’s consideration of the Rezoning and General Plan Amendment for the property I own at 23 Altarinda Road in Orinda. The intent is to provide supplemental information for the City Council and Public which we believe is significant for the City Council’s deliberations at upcoming City Council meeting on February 3, 2026.
At the November 25, 2026 Orinda Planning Commission meeting, there was one public comment which expressed wildfire/evacuation concerns and questioned why 23 Altarinda should be rezoned to allow for residential uses. The commentor also expressed concern about creating a “slippery slope” such that if 23 Altarinda were to be rezoned, additional properties previously identified for rezoning in connection the Downtown Precise Plan (which was decertified/rescinded on October 9, 2024) might additionally request rezoning.
The following comments address these two concerns and also provide a brief fiscal and economic analysis of the potential development of the property as a residential project versus the continued use of the property as medical/therapist offices.
WILDFIRE EVACUATION
Wildfire/evacuation concerns have been the basis for the ongoing efforts of the City to balance required compliance with the State’s Housing Element requirements with these legitimate wildfire/evacuation concerns of many Orinda citizens. The well documented lawsuit by concerned citizens of the City of Orinda has been resolved and the recertification of the Plan Orinda Final EIR on March 18, 2025 and the December 2, 2025 rezoning of 26 of the 77 parcels which were previously identified in the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) (which was decertified/rescinded on October 9, 2024) met the requirements of the Housing Element. 23 Altarinda was analyzed in the Plan Orinda Final EIR along with the other properties in the DPP however the concerns about wildfire evacuation, in connection with the requested rezoning (and allowed residential use) warrant further input. Specifically, if one looks at (1) the trip generation and existing use of the property compared to the potential use of the property for a residential development (which the rezoning would allow) and (2) the location of the property compared to the locations of the other properties previously considered for rezoning as a part of the DPP, 23 Altarinda is unique.
As outlined in the trip generation analysis prepared by W-Trans Traffic Engineers (see Attachment A), 23 Altarinda’s current use as a medical/office building has an increased exposure for wildfire evacuation of its occupants when compare to the maximum sized residential project which could be developed on the property at the new maximum density of 25 units per acre. The current .73- 2 23 Altarinda Investors, LLC
935 Moraga Road, Suite 200
Lafayette, California 94549
acre site would allow 19 units under the new zoning however with the use of State Density Bonus Law, the unit count could increase to 38 units by providing specified numbers of affordable housing units. The analysis therefore is conservatively based on the maximum number of potentially allowed units and as noted, the trip generation is modeled to be less than the existing use.
Aside from the quantitative data from the trip generation comparison, the full safety profile comparison is not captured as the existing medical use creates unique risks that a residential project would reduce. The existing medical uses maintain a high population of staff and patients, whereas a residential project would be largely dormant during business hours as the current therapist practices which occupy the majority of the building create a constant stream of vehicles in 45 and 60 minute intervals. In a daytime wildfire evacuation emergency, the vehicles exiting a residential site would be negligible compared to the existing medical use as the residents would have a much greater sense of familiarity and would be much more likely to utilize the northern evacuation route versus adding additional traffic to the potential congestion which would likely occur to the south.
In order to address the stated concern that other un-zoned, but identified DPP properties might use 23 Altarinda’s rezoning as a precedent, 23 Altarinda possesses a unique location with dual evacuation routes, one of which bypasses the downtown entirely and this is significant given the primary wildfire concern in Orinda is the evacuation constraints. In the recent litigation over the City’s Housing Element and the Downtown Precise Plan, opponents of development in the downtown area described the risk as the result of a “chokepoint” or a “bottleneck” where feeder streets converge on a single intersection (Moraga Way/Camino Pablo). As shown on Attachment B, an overwhelming majority of the Downtown Precise Plan sites are "upstream" of this intersection and thus potentially subject to roadway capacity failure during peak flow or evacuation. 23 Altarinda is "downstream" and has two distinct paths of evacuation as shown on the image below.
3 23 Altarinda Investors, LLC
935 Moraga Road, Suite 200
Lafayette, California 94549
FISCAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REZONING FOR RESIDENTIAL USES Should the City Council support the rezoning and provide the opportunity for 23 Altarinda to be developed, there would be significant Fiscal and Economic Benefit’s which would result from a new development. Attachment C provides a comparison of an assumed 19-unit residential condominium project (e.g. the maximum density allowed without the use of State Density Bonus Law) versus the existing medical/office building. As noted in the attachment, not only does the assessed value increase more than 10x, there are significant additional annual spending projections and one-time impact fee benefits to the City. Should the actual development be the maximum size (38 units) as potentially allowed using State Density Bonus Law, the estimates in Attachment C would be doubled.
SUMMARY
In summary, the stated general concerns about Wildfire Evacuation in Orinda are warranted given the unique roadway infrastructure of Orinda and lack of well-defined exit routes. Not all locations previously considered for re-zoning to allow residential uses under the Downtown Precise Plan have the same existing uses as one another nor are the locations of each of the un-zoned, DPP sites similar. 23 Altarinda is unique in both its existing high traffic volume medical use in comparison to a potential use as a residential development and in the fact the location, from a Wildfire Evacuation perspective (e.g. the dual directions for exiting), is superior to a vast majority of potential new residential development sites. We encourage the City Council to consider these aspects when deliberating on our application and also consider the benefits of the rezoning which would allow the opportunity to propose a new, much needed residential housing project on the property. Absent the rezoning, there will be no opportunity for such a development and the benefits associated therewith.
4 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
January 28, 2026
Altarinda Investors, LLC
c/o Brian Griggs
935 Moraga Road, Suite 200
Lafayette, CA 94549
Trip Generation Estimate for 23 Altarinda Road
Dear Mr. Griggs;
As requested, W-Trans has evaluated the anticipated change in trip generation for 23 Altarinda Road in the City of Orinda associated with a proposed change in use. The site is currently developed with a 5,779-square-foot medical office building and could potentially be redeveloped with up to 38 multi-family residential units. The purpose of this letter is to provide trip generation details for the current and potential uses.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the potential project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, 2025, for “Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit” (ITE LU #221). This rate is applicable to buildings having three to ten floors.
Because the site is currently occupied by a medical/therapy office building, the trip generation of the existing use was considered. “Medical-Dental Office Building – Stand-Alone” rates (ITE LU #720 were applied to the existing use.
The expected trip generation for a potential residential project is indicated in Table 1, with deductions taken for trips made to and from the existing use at the site, which would cease with the construction of the potential development. A 38-unit housing project would be expected to generate an average of 169 trips per day, including 14 trips each during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Compared to the existing use, the 38 housing units would be expected to generate 28 fewer trips on a daily basis, including five fewer during the morning peak hour and six fewer during the evening peak hour.
Table 1 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Existing
Medical-Dental Office -5.779
ksf
34.03 -197 3.21 -19 -14 -5 3.42 -20 -6 -14
Proposed
Multifamily Housing 38 4.46 169 0.38 14 3 11 0.38 14 9 5 Total -28 -5 -11 6 -6 3 -9
Note: du = dwelling unit; ksf = 1,000 square feet; occ rm = occupied room Conclusion
The potential change in land use from a medical office to housing units would be expected to result in a reduction in the number of trips generated by the site on a daily basis as well as during both peak hours.
Attachment A5
Mr. Brian Griggs Page 2 January 28, 2026
This trip generation was based on the maximum potential number of units that could be developed. If a project is ultimately proposed that contains fewer units, the reduction in trips compared to the existing use would be greater.
Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dalene J. Whitlock, PE (Civil, Traffic), PTOE
Senior Principal
DJW/djw/ORI008.L1
Attachment A6
Figure 2-4 DPP Sites West of State Route 24
Attachment B7
Figure 2-5 DPP Sites East of State Route 24
Attachment B8
Fiscal Impact & Comparative Benefit Analysis
Subject Site: 23 Altarinda
Jurisdiction: City of Orinda, CA
Scenario: Replacement of 5,779 sq. ft. Medical Office with 19 Residential Condominiums
1. Executive Summary: The "Net New" Benefit
Replacing the existing medical office with the proposed 19-unit residential project results in a 13-fold increase in assessed value.
While the residential project introduces new service populations (residents), the massive increase in Property Tax revenue ($27.7M net new value) creates a permanent Fiscal Surplus for the City’s General Fund.
Fiscal Indicator Current Use
(Medical Office)
Proposed Use
(19 Condos)
Net Benefit to
City
Assessed Value $2,300,000 **$30,000,000** + $27,700,000 Annual Property
Tax (City Share)
~$1,610 / year $21,000 / year + $19,390 / year
Annual Resident
Spending
$0 ~$850,000 + $850,000
(Local Econ)
One-Time Impact
Fees
N/A ~$400,000 + $400,000
(Capital)
Attachment C9
2. Revenue Analysis: Property Tax Lift
The primary fiscal benefit to Orinda is the reassessment of the land and improvements from the 1970s/80s tax basis to current market value.
o Valuation Assumption: $30,000,000 Aggregate Sales Price o Tax Rate: 1.0% Ad Valorem (Standard Proposition 13 base) o Orinda General Fund Share: Estimated at 7.0% of the 1% base (conservative estimate for Orinda; remaining ~93% goes to Schools, County, and Fire District) A. Comparison of Property Tax Revenue (Annual)
Line Item Current Medical
Office
Proposed
Residential
Net Increase
Total Assessed Value $2,300,000 $30,000,000 + $27,700,000 1% Tax Collected
(Total)
$23,000 $300,000 + $277,000
City General Fund
Share (7%)
**$1,610** $21,000 + $19,390
B. Property Transfer Tax (Recurring & One-Time)
Orinda collects a Real Estate Transfer Tax on property sales. o Rate: $1.10 per $1,000 (City receives 50%, or $0.55 per $1,000). o Current Use: $0 (No sales activity).
o Proposed Use (Initial Sale): $30,000,000 $\times$ 0.00055 = $16,500 (OneTime). o Proposed Use (Turnover): Assuming 10% of units resell annually = ~$1,650/year (Recurring).
Attachment C10
3. Expenditure Analysis: Net Cost of Services (Updated) o Proposed Population: 19 units $\times$ 2.2 persons = 42 Residents o Current Occupants: 5,779 sq. ft. Medical Office @ 150 sq. ft./person $\approx$ 39 Employees (Updated from 23)
o Cost Assumptions:
○ Resident Cost Factor: ~$400/year
○ Employee Cost Factor: ~$100/year
Service Category Current Use
Costs (39
Employees)
Proposed Use
Costs (42
Residents)
Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual
Cost
~$3,900 ~$16,800 Increase of
~$12,900
4. Net Fiscal Impact Summary (General Fund)
Annual Impact
New General Fund Revenue (Property
Tax + Transfer + Sales Tax) + $30,630
New Service Costs (Net increase over
current use)
- $12,900
NET ANNUAL FISCAL SURPLUS + $17,730
Attachment C11
5. One-Time Fees (Orinda Specific)
In addition to the annual surplus, the project triggers significant one-time fees based on the 2024-2025 Master Fee Schedule. These are "capital infusions" that the current Medical Office does not provide.
Fee Category Calculation Basis (Est.) Total to City
Park Dedication Fee $15,644 per unit (Condo rate) $297,236 Transportation Impact
Fee
$3,531 per unit (Multi-Family) $67,089
Drainage Impact Fee Based on Impervious Surface ~$15,000 School Fee Approx. $5.17 per sq. ft. of
assessable residential space
~$100,000
TOTAL ONE-TIME FEES ~$364,000
Attachment C12
From: Nick Waranoff
To: Brandyn Iverson; Darlene Gee; Janet Riley; Cara Hoxie; Latika Malkani Cc: Sheri Smith
Subject: Objection to Item G(1) on Agenda for Feb. 3, 2026 -- 23 Altarinda Road Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 11:19:14 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and other members of the Council: I write to oppose rezoning 23 Altarinda Road. I apologize in advance for the length of this email, but there are many issues. The Amended Packet on this item, including the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations, contains 90 pages (Packet Pages 41 through 131) and was not issued until Saturday after I brought to omission of the most important document, the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations, to the attention of Staff.
INTRODUCTION
What is the value of a human life? Applicant’s and the Staff’s position is that alleged fiscal benefits from a construction project that might be built someday – a project not before the
Council at this hearing -- outweigh the risk to human life that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found would be caused by adding housing. As a policy matter, the Council should reject that position.
As a legal matter, the city cannot legally rezone any site for housing beyond those already rezoned pursuant to the certified Housing Element, because (1) the EIR determined adding housing downtown would have a “significant and unavoidable” impact on evacuation in the event of a wildfire; (2) as a result, (a) all feasible mitigations must be adopted, and the “no project” alternative is a feasible mitigation that must be adopted, and (b) a “project” such as the proposed rezoning cannot be approved absent a valid Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”) but the Staff Report fails to discuss this critical document that staff is asking you to adopt, and there is no substantial evidence to support the proposed SOC. Absent substantial evidence, it cannot be adopted. Naked assertions are not substantial evidence.
The SOC has glaring deficiencies, discussed below, and the required substantial evidence is utterly lacking. The SOC does not cite any evidence in the record.
Moreover, the alleged benefits from rezoning this one site are already present 13 in the 26 sites rezoned pursuant to the Housing Element. The SOC contradicts itself; it states that rezoning this site, which is not part of the Housing Element, is needed to achieve the objectives of the Housing Element update.
Adding this site could open the door to adding many more applications on nonhousing element sites, yet each additional housing unit, according to the EIR, worsens evacuation in the event of a wildfire. The sites in the Housing Element, embodying Orinda’s compliance with the state housing mandate, is the place to draw the line.
Worst of all, staff is recommending, and the Applicant is arguing, that the “fiscal” benefits to the City should outweigh the risk to human life by worsening evacuation in the event of a wildfire. That callous approach must be rejected.
PRELIMINARILY, THE TWO-STEP APPROACH (SEPARATING
REZONING FROM AN ACTUAL PROJECT) SHOULD BE REJECTED
Staff and the Applicant are asking for a rezoning without any actual residential construction project. A rezoning without an actual construction project should be rejected, because the alleged benefits only accrue from an actual construction project.
Staff and Applicant conflate an analysis of a hypothetical residential development, which is not before the Council, with a proposed zoning amendment, which is the matter before the Council. Consideration of a proposed development not before the Council is speculative and therefore irrelevant. Many of the alleged benefits that are claimed will accrue from the rezoning are benefits that only accrue if and when an actual residential project is built, yet there is no evidence in the record of any residential project.
Staff is inconsistent on this issue. In terms of mitigation, Staff defers the issue:
“Any development project will have to address topics of recommended analysis as submitted by public agencies and comply with standard project conditions, but those project conditions are not known at this time.” (Packet Pg. 46.) Yet benefits from a hypothetical project are presented to support the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations.
But given that the “project conditions are not known at this time,” they should not be considered as potential project benefits.
14 There is no reason to rezone this property when 26 Housing Element sites have already been rezoned. The rezoning is quite recent and we have not seen what may develop (pun intended).
FACTS
The EIR Determined Adding Housing Will Have a Significant and Unavoidable Impact on Emergency Evacuation, Which Will Endanger Lives
Each iteration of the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for Plan Orinda determined that, even under current conditions, emergency evacuation is severely constrained and that adding any housing would have a “significant” adverse impact on safe emergency evacuation and that notwithstanding any mitigation, such impact would be “unavoidable” despite mitigation.
The Supplemental Evacuation Analysis in the PREIA “concludes that Plan Orinda would measurably worsen the already-constrained evacuation condition in Orinda due to the addition of more evacuees needing to travel through already congested intersections along their evacuation routes.” (p. 4.14-35 here: https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/275619-
5/attachment/WhKGFMLoyLHliVNNxcWz1ansICDI1fVkvwGx0ebi67QOG9 _mQBEYoTsltCVARURjQhnTK-j1J4UcIlTA0 .)
The state housing mandate required Orinda to meet its RHNA by upzoning to allow a specified number of new housing units. Orinda prepared a housing element which satisfied all of these requirements. The housing element designated approximately 26 sites to meet the state housing mandate. The zoned capacity of these sites is 160% of the state housing mandate because the housing element only counted 60% of proposed zoning towards RHNA (60% of 160 = 96 [rounded to 100].) (see Table 5-5A in the Certified Housing Element, at page 137, listing the Housing Element sites downtown) https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/6thCycleHEAdoptedCertified On top of that, a 25% buffer was added. (See para. R of Resolution 09-23 adopting the Housing Element
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/CCResolution09-23 )
Projects on those sites with 20% affordability are processed ministerially under 15 existing law.
The Housing Element sites selected were, as required by HCD, the most likely to be developed based upon interviews with the property owners, developer interest, and for the non vacant sites the likelihood that they could be redeveloped given existing tenants etc.
In terms of downtown, through which most residents who are evacuating will need to pass, the housing element alone (excluding the now rescinded DPP) provides for zoning for 700 new housing units. If one considers the state density bonus, which most developers take advantage of, the capacity that has been added downtown is over 1,000 units. This zoning has recently been enacted; but the ink is barely dry.
Thus, the city has rezoned as required by the state housing mandate and the housing element, and this capacity is now in place. The City should limit housing to those sites.
Orinda is the community most at risk in the State of California “In 2019, a Stanford researcher identified the Orinda-Moraga area alongside Pacific Palisades as two areas at risk of an especially expensive fire disaster. In the East Bay community, like Pacific Palisades, the hills, weather and overgrown vegetation could birth a fire that could burn many homes quickly.
Narrow roads could make it difficult for firefighters to reach the flames.” https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/housing-development-firecalifornia-20136604.php Some residents trying to evacuate the recent fire in Pacific Palisades died; some faced “gridlock.” https://www.latimes.com/9ysu-m0m1jk-123 Now that Pacific Palisades has tragically been destroyed by a wildfire Orinda holds the unenviable title of number 1.
Public safety is the most important responsibility of the Orinda City Council That responsibility includes safe emergency evacuation. The City Council cannot do anything that undermines safe emergency evacuation. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty and the height of irresponsibility to decide that adding some housing is more important than saving lives, to put it bluntly. 16 The location of the subject site proposed to be rezoned is such that some, most or all residents would likely head the St Stephen’s drive interchange due to gridlock at the Camino Pablo Interchange. CalTrans “recommended several highway operation studies, a travel demand analysis, and addressing potential construction related impacts” per staff report.
These include an evaluation of the St. Stephens Drive interchange, in addition to other locations, that were not analyzed in the traffic studies that are part of the various iterations of the EIR.
ARGUMENT
I.
THE PROPOSED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT
A. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is Required.
The proposed ordinances and resolutions, including but not limited to the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations, cannot legally be adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-26 (Packet Pg. 55 et seq.) correctly states:
D. The Final EIR concluded that Plan Orinda, including the Project, would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts in the following environmental subject areas: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, and Wildfire.
E. The Final EIR also identified that Plan Orinda, including the Project, would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding wildfires.
F. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has determined that findings regarding the significant impacts of the Project, which was analyzed as part of Plan Orinda, must be made and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
G. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has determined that a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required, as there are unmitigable environmental impacts that result from the Project, which was analyzed as part of Plan Orinda.
17 The Staff Report, however, glaringly fails to discuss the proposed SOC that staff recommends the Council sign. It fails to present any substantial evidence supports the issuance of the SOC that it acknowledges is required.
B. The Proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations is Deficient.
The proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations (Packet Pg. 58 et seq. in the Amended Agenda, issued Saturday afternoon), is deficient.
State law compels rejection of the proposed rezoning because there is no substantial evidence that could form the basis for a finding that is required for a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the guidelines under the California Environmental Quality Act. There is no evidence of any specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefit that outweighs or could outweigh the risk of loss of human life.
Instead, the SOC takes a smorgasbord approach. Such an approach is not legally permissible. An SOC is deficient if it “has not adequately disclosed its reasons for coming to this conclusion.” (Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1032.) A Statement of Overriding Considerations also must “state the specific reasons to support its action” and be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Guidelines, section 15093(b); County of San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 86, 100-101.)
CEQA Guidelines section 15093 provides in full: “(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.’”
Any statement that this balancing need not be made because it would be comparing apples to oranges, is simply wrong.
One relevant portion of the proposed SOC concerns Hazards and Hazardous 18 Materials relating to wildfire, which would remain “would be significant and unavoidable.” (Packet Pg. 95.)
A second relevant portion concerns wildfire. (Packet Pg. 98 et seq.) The “project” in this case is the proposed rezoning.
“Development facilitated by Plan Orinda, including the Project, would be in and near a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) or Very High FHSZ. By adding additional residents to already constrained evacuation routes, Plan Orinda, including the Project, would substantially increase evacuation constraints. This conclusion is supported by the additional evacuation constraint analysis performed by PlaceWorks and attached as Attachment 1 to the Response to Comments document in the Revised Final EIR. While implementation of Safety Element policies and Mitigation WFR-1 and WFR-4 through WFR-14 would help reduce this impact, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.” (Packet Pgs. 98-99. Emphasis added.)
The actual SOC begins on Packet Pg. 106. None of the factors mentioned is more important than avoiding loss of life, which may occur if the Project is approved.
The first bullet point refers twice to “input” the city has received but there is no evidence in the record of that input; merely an assertion of such input.
The fiscal impact approach is deplorable and must be rejected. Human life cannot be valued.
The bullet point that mentions increasing revenue from a higher property tax is false and misleading. Likewise, the Applicant’s Fiscal Impact and Comparative Benefit Analysis is flawed.
But worse, the notion advanced by Staff and by the Applicant that the Council can, should or would put a dollar value on the risk to human life is deplorable. That is the nicest that can be said about it.
There are other flaws with the proposed SOC as well.
Staff is conflating property tax from new construction (which is not before the Council) with a property tax increase from the rezoning (which is 19 zero).
The assessed value mentioned is prior to the sale to the applicant in March 2025 for $2,250, 000, which will increase the property tax assessed value to a figure in excess of that.
https://www.fastbackgroundcheck.com/address/23-altarinda-rd-unit215/orinda-ca-94563 Orinda receives only 7% of property tax payments to the county.
There is no evidence cited to support the assertions in the draft SOC.
Similarly, Applicant’s Fiscal Impact analysis is flawed because it assumes 19 residential condominiums will be built. (See Applicant’s Statement, Attachment C.) But the residential development described in Applicant’s statement is not before the Council for approval; only a rezoning is before the Council. Moreover, many of the details in Applicant’s Fiscal Impact analysis are unsupported by any evidence, such as “annual resident spending” on the “Local Econ” – and seems inflated. The $19,390 city share of property taxes is insignificant.
The Development Impact Fees are a wash – they cover the impact and can only be spent on the impact; those sums are not “unrestricted free money.” Most or all of the bullets ignore the fact that pursuant to state law and the housing element, the city has rezoned 26 sites downtown, and that those sites provide all of the benefits discussed; there is no evidence that rezoning one more site will add any benefit.
The final bullet on page 107 incorrectly states that if this site is developed it will help the City meet its “RHNA” and comply with “SB 35”. The City met its “RHNA” when its housing element was certified. Rezoning this site is NOT needed for Orinda to meet its RHNA because Orinda has already met its RHNA.
SB 35, referred to in the proposed SOC, has been superseded by SB 423, enacted several years ago.
SB 423 concerns the mid-cycle review of how many housing permits have been issued and its requirements do not justify this rezoning. SB 423 (that the Staff Report refers to as SB 35) provides that a determination will made mid-cycle (January 2027) whether a city has issued building permits for each income category equal to one-half of its RHNA. If a city has not, an applicant can 20 obtain ministerial review if it meets other requirements.
Orinda’s RHNA is described in Resolution 09-23 adopting the Housing Element: “A. State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of Gov. Code) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023- 2031 to accommodate the City of Orinda’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 1,359 housing units, comprised of 372 very-low income units, 215 low-income units, 215 moderate-income units, and 557 above moderate-income units.” (https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/CCResolution09-23 ) Orinda has zero chance of meeting, at mid-cycle in January 2027 (one year from now), the target of having issued building permits equal to half of its RHNA, for each income category. Although I have been unable to obtain up to date numbers of issued building permits from the Planning Department, it is clear that Orinda has not issued building permits anywhere near one-half of its RHNA for each income category, and will not do so within the next year.
Thus, rezoning this small parcel, with the size of the development unknown, will have no material impact on meeting SB 423 targets.
The draft SOC fails to explain that. Absent from staff’s presentation is any indication of the number of building permits issued and how many are required to meet the mid-cycle targets in January 2027. With or without development of this project, Orinda has zero chance of meeting those targets.
Note that the only consequence of failing to issue sufficient building permits is that an applicant for a project may be able to obtain ministerial review if it meets the other requirements of the section. The builder’s remedy is NOT a consequence. There are so many other ways that an applicant can obtain ministerial processing that this consequence is largely immaterial and in any event is inevitable. This consequence is of far less significance than risking loss of human life.
C. The decision whether to issue an SOC requires balancing.
Staff is fond of quoting the judge saying an SOC is an “apples to oranges” comparison (Packet Pg. 108), but actually the Judge said something different; as the full quote makes clear, the judge was talking about “quantifying” each (“There is no math or science that allows an EIR’s analysis to quantify how one does or doesn’t outweigh the other.”) (Packet P. 108)
21 The Council is required to balance the risk to life against the benefits of the rezoning project, as the draft SOC makes clear in its first sentence: “CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the benefits of a project against its significant unavoidable impacts.” (Packet Pg. 106.) Again, the Staff Report does not even discuss these issues.
The statement of overriding considerations regarding the housing element illustrates this: The statement was valid because the state housing mandate was a specific legal requirement.
A revised Statement of Overriding Considerations was issued, but only as to adoption of the Housing Element and Safety Element.
The Housing Element parcels are the most logical place to draw the line and to prevent a worsening of evacuation, parcel by parcel.
D. All Feasible Mitigations Must Be Adopted. Limiting New Housing to the State Mandate is a Mitigation That Must Be Adopted
Limiting new housing downtown is a “mitigation” and where an impact is “significant and unavoidable,” all feasible mitigations must be adopted.
Under the CEQA statute and guidelines, a mitigation measure is ‘feasible’ if it is ‘capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.’ (§ 21061.1; and see Guidelines, § 15364; League To Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Pres. Found. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 160.)
Applying this standard, limiting new housing to the state mandate – the Housing Elements sites -- is clearly feasible.
The Judge ruled in the Minute Order:
CEQA mandates that the City in the EIR mitigate all significant impacts found in the EIR to a level of less than significant. (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 525; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1 subds. (a) and (b) [“(a) The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant 22 effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. [¶] (b) Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.” (emphasis added)]; 21100 subd. (b) [an EIR shall include “a detailed statement setting forth ... [¶] (1) All significant effects on the environment of the proposed project. [¶] (2) In a separate section: [¶] (A) Any significant effect on the environment that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented.”].) As the California Supreme Court has explained, “if the County were to approve a project that did not include a feasible mitigation measure, such approval would amount to an abuse of discretion.” (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 526.)
(Minute Order, p. 25.)
The discussion of the “no project alternative” (Packet Pg. 104) is deficient, and the “no project alternative” is a feasible mitigation that must be adopted. This section of the SOC is an erroneous and incomplete word-processing of an earlier SOC, and it does not acknowledge that 26 Housing Element sites have been rezoned.
An alternative must be considered if “most [not all] of the basic objectives of the project” can be achieved (See Guidelines, § 15126.6(a).) The statement that “this alternative … would not accomplish any of the four Housing Element Update project objectives” is an oxymoron because:
23 Altarinda Road isn’t even in the Housing Element (see Table 5-5A in the Certified Housing Element, at page 137, listing the Housing Element sites downtown)
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/6thCycleHEAdoptedCertified and thus cannot be said to be required to accomplish housing element objectives.
The “four Housing Element Update project objectives” are not defined or explained in the SOC.
The evidence in the record shows that the 26 rezoned Housing Element sites are more than sufficient to achieve the City’s objectives; a 2017 report from the Urban Land Institute Tech. Assist. Panel concluded, “Up to six 40-unit [i.e., 240 units] mixed-use residential projects could be allowed in the Village District.” The Housing Element rezoning adds a minimum of 700 units, far 23 more than the 240. Proposed in the ULI report. See page 24 here https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/file/659064530560?
s=ijrzdcotiv6h4hol8kgv2ehrcwqnc4el
The SOC’s mention that the issue is a “policy” decision is insufficient.
Exercise of discretion regarding “policy” decisions is not unrestrained. A policy decision “still must have a foundation in the record.” (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 718.) For the foregoing reasons, the ordinances, resolutions, and SOC cannot be adopted.
II.
REZONING THIS PARCEL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
THE EIR
Rezoning this parcel is not consistent with the EIR, because the EIR did not include a traffic study or evacuation analysis of the interchange at State Route 24 and St Stephens Drive.
CalTrans commented on this, but Staff ignores that comment.
The Statement of Consistency with the EIR simply assumes that the additional vehicles would not be a material change. But there is NO evidence.
The most recent evacuation analysis (Draft Partially Revised EIR) determined that the St. Stephens/SR 24 interchange would be “constrained” under all three scenarios. (See Tables 7, 8 and 9, pages B-19 to B-21.) https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/275619-
5/attachment/WhKGFMLoyLHliVNNxcWz1ansICDI1fVkvwGx0ebi67QOG9 _mQBEYoTsltCVARURjQhnTK-j1J4UcIlTA0
The Supp. Evac. Analysis also commented on roads near the SR 24 / St.
Stephens interchange, including a vehicle counts for Orinda Woods Drive and for Honey Hill and Via Las Cruces. (See id. at pages 4.14-42 and B-35.) Looking at these counts, cars from a project built at this site (who likely would evacuate towards St. Stephens Drive rather than towards Camino Pablo) would be a 10% to 25% increase. That is significant.
It is illegally inconsistent to defer consideration of the added impact, on the stated ground that “project conditions are not known at this time” (Packet Pg. 46) while at the same time counting fiscal benefits from a project whose “conditions are not known at this time.”
24 III.
THE PROPOSED REZONING IS ALSO ILLEGAL SPOT
ZONING
The proposed rezoning is also illegal spot zoning. (See Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1268 ("The essence of spot zoning is irrational discrimination.")) Conferring a special benefit can be illegal spot zoning. (Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302.) Here, the opportunity to make a profit is being conferred on the property without any public benefit.
CONCLUSION
You cannot put a price on the value of a human life. The Council should not consider economic benefits, especially given that 26 Housing Element sites have been rezoned. The rezoning only recently occurred; the ink is barely dry; and additional rezoning that will increase the risk of loss of life should not be undertaken.
If you allow this site to be rezoned, where do you draw the line when the next applicant comes along? I respectfully submit that the law allows only one place to draw the line: the 26 housing element sites is the only place to draw the line because only the legal compulsion of the state housing mandate warrants overriding the “significant and unavoidable” adverse impact on evacuation.
For the foregoing reasons, the Council is legally required to reject the proposed rezoning.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Waranoff
25 From: Michele Jacobson
To: Sheri Smith
Subject: City Council 2/3/26 meeting agenda Item G(1)- 23 Altarinda Road rezoning Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 9:20:14 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. public comment
The California Superior Court ruled that planning for density beyond what was required in Orinda’s Housing Element was not legally justifiable given the EIR’s findings of significant negative impacts on wildfire evacuation capacity and the limitations included in the City Council’s Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC).
The Court agreed with the City that it was allowed to override the significant degradation of wildfire evacuation capacity expected from adoption of the Housing Element because the City was legally obligated by the State to adopt the Housing Element as submitted. But the Court determined that the City did not meet the legal requirements in the SOC to go beyond what the State had mandated. As a result, the City substantially reduced the amount of planned housing in the final Housing Element and Plan Orinda.
The proposed rezoning of 23 Altarinda Rd would increase the allowed density of downtown beyond what is already allowed via the final Housing Element, directly contradicting the Court’s orders. To avoid defying the Court, the Council could balance the rezoning of Altarinda Rd with a simultaneous and equivalent reduction of density on another parcel(s) in the existing Plan Orinda Housing Element. Otherwise the City would be exposing itself to the exact same legal challenge that they have already lost.
Thank you
Michele Jacobson
Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE)
26