I caught this act in Feb at the Lamorinda ti-city councils meeting at St Mary's College. Many of the pro-development forces, who stand to benefit financially from high rise, high density development, were present in force, as I am sure they also will be tonight in Orinda. Everyday citizens at that Feb meeting were dismayed andperplexed by this MTC/ABAG presentation. Their outsider-driven vision of Orinda is considerably more urban-looking than what Orinda citizens put forth in recent city-sponsored downtown planning workshops. Orinda citizens should attend tonight, to judge for yourself, just how out-of-touch this proposal is. If nothing else, save your printer caretridge by picking-up a hard-copy of the bloated 112-page handout for this agenda item. Presentations of this material in Berkeley and Concord have agitated their citizens considerably. Most of the everyday citizens expressed their strong preference for "None of the Above", which, of course, was not offered as an alternative to the self-serving questions. Judge for yourself, if this presentation is a sham with a pre-conceived conclusion. Decide for yourself if someone is really listening to and accomodating citizen input, or if you are simply witnessing a blatant sales pitch, directed at your elected officials,attached to the velvet hammer message of "Play Ball, or you won't get your fair share enitlement of the county-collected property tax, which the city needs for road maintenance."

Owen Murphy

As a Miramonte grad and 20 year Orinda resident I'm thrilled to see the town considering adding some more development to Orinda. We called it Borinda growing up - and the movie theater helped - but so little has changed.

My dad is now 70+ and needs a smaller home in his community of 40 years. 40! He wants to stay near his church, his pharmacist, his friends, and BART. But he can't care for a yard or a big home. What to do? Where can you do this in Orinda? Orinda can responsibly grow to allow my dad, young adults and others a few housing choices in Orinda.

A little more there in Orinda will be good for it, and better for its future.

As an Acalanes grad (not sure what that has got to do with anything but what the hell, the other guy said it -} ) and a decades long resident blessed to have had our parents with us until recently I can only say my Dad would never have gone into a highrise downtown transit condo - no matter how close it was to his bank and other haunts. Mom would have gone but she would have hated us for it. Both valued their space, their quiet time together and I'm not sure a downtown development would have fit their picture of life in their Golden Years.

I have no problem with "high density housing" development in Orinda, as long as: (i) it is high-end/luxury (no "affordable" units other than seniors-only developments), (ii) access roads leading directly to BART and the 24, and (iii) extra school bus service (including OIS and Miramonte).

My concerns are that we maintain Orinda's high cost of housing / exclusivity and mitigate any impacts on cross-town traffic. If there is a legal/PC way to get that done, then I'm in. If the plan is to build a cheap place to house SF's Barristas and include Section 8 units, then sign me up for the protest vigils.

If we do it right, we get a more vibrant retail district that will benefit all of us. I we get it wrong, we'll dilute what is special about Orinda in furtherance of some socialists' utopian dreams....

I attended Tuesday's Orinda City Council Meeting & read through part of the report. It appears that city staff did get the message from citizens that we do not want our small city center & arteries in the center of town clogged with greatly increased housing. Their report pointed out the unique character of Orinda, open spaces, & infrastructure as limits. Likewise, several Council Members specifically told staff that the numbers from the MTC and ABAG were completely unrealistic and to push back now on any expectation that these will be met. These numbers would increase the population of Orinda 2-3 times the increase that has occurred in 25 years, an absurd proposition on the face of it. Staff had much more conservative estimates that were in line with development already planned.
I think the Orinda City Council Members (and their staff) have actually listened to what the citizens of Orinda told them over the last year. Orindians want to maintain the semi-rural character of their downtown and don't want the unusually small streets of Orinda to be further clogged. Orinda has special problems -- the downtown is actually an entrance ramp to the freeway. It's hard to get to 24 East through town right now. More density there would make it impossible. Orinda citizens do not want to pay for the collateral damage of downtown development such as unfunded infrastructure needs (roads, sewers, fire trucks). I left hopeful that the council will continue to listen to voters.

Thanks for sharing that, CP. I know there are a lot of factors to balance, but there must be some way to reverse the decline/collapse of retail on both sides of the 24. I get depressed every time I drive by Phair's or walk around Theatre square (although that's getting a bit better). I assume potential buyers of homes in Orinda who do some due diligence come away with the same impression. Is that what we want?

Also, attendance is down at our schools and so is the tax base. Not good trends. I'm in favor of some high-end condos coupled with better retail. What's wrong with that? If we do it right, the increased tax base will HELP (not hurt) the funding of local infrastructure needs.

BTW, can you point me to the report?

Well, I am not the best person to answer this. However, this is my understanding.
1. Council was advised by experts that such building would not produce more revenue;
2. Citizens completed strategic planning & were against this, prefering to MAINTAIN THE SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of Orinda;
3. Our infrastructure can't handle much building...roads are dinky, freeway access is already a problem;
4. Infrastructure for building costs taxpayers now & forever...need new fire trucks for taller buildings; need more firemen etc...never ever pays for itself in future and citizens don't want to subsidize;
5. Citizens want facelifts; better use of such properties as the fenced one across from Library, etc.
6. Existing businesses do not want the construction you suggest, as it would drive them out of business and they would be unlikely to return. Just talked to one owner last week and still said same thing.
7. Voters will be up-in-arms if this gets pushed through against their will. I would suggest that's why former Mayor Tom McCormick received least votes the last election. People felt he was ramming through his agenda against the will of the citizens. The public is aware now. Won't be able to pull the wool over their eyes and shove through growth without political consequences to elected officials.
8. Council is talking about spending nearly a million dollars on a new General Plan, when we don't have money to pave roads. That's going to be the next fight.

MTC and ABAG are part of a scam to increase density against the will of the voters. In our democracy, the voters always get their way in the long run.

Our local governments need to resist rezoning for higher density in every way possible until the people get a chance to vote this nonsense down. It may require a statewide proposition.

Voters will not look kindly on local leaders who fail to defend our towns from undemocratic do-gooders.

Orinda's city council DID take a surprisingly strong stand against the MTC/ABAG growth allocations for Orinda. They actually instructed the Planning Director to roll back his proposed compromise housing quota for the downtown, and committed to no number at all. Well done! The clincher for council members seemed to be that ANY FIGURE submitted to MTC/ABAG during this process, would likely find its way into a housing quota, which would, in turn, create risk over the MTC-controlled release of tax revenues, already entitled to the city. This fear certainly seems legitimate.

MTC/ABAG aren't going away. This was just a skirmish in a much longer term campaign. Ongoing citizen vigilance is going to be required. Because Orinda has a BART station, the downtown seems destined to continue its designation as a Priority Development Area (PDA) in the MTC/ABAG development-speak. It's not a stretch for some citizens to conclude that MTC/ABAG want to "penalize" Orinda residential neighborhood property values and threaten the quality of its schools, for a transit decision made four decades ago. Some would say that is wrong.

Orinda's BART station does not dictate that we must build downtown. That's just the easiest solution. 2 problems need to be addressed for the MTC/ABAG: 1) decreasing green house gases & 2) helping to house the increasing population of the Bay Area. Orinda citizens could come up with a myriad of ways to do both that don't involve building up in the downtown area: 1) there isn't enough BART parking..we need to provide parking at or near BART. Or we need shuttle services running at the times needed and parking at those satellite locations. We could decrease gases by use of more solar energy, better insulation, etc. Building tall buildings downtown and bringing more people to those areas that are already almost impassable due to pedestrian traffic is not the only solution and is not the right solution. More housing could be provided with 1 bedroom in-law apartments, now permitted, but few are built. The city could hold workshops to show people how to do this, to stimulate such "in-fill." One thing we do NOT have to do is change our Master Plan. The MTC/ABAG will accept our current plan as an pre-existing constraint. If we change it, they will move in for the kill and we will have to do more to comply.
Looking from the perch at the top of the library steps, the presenter from MTC/ABAG said to me outside the meeting with a smile looking toward our beautiful hills, "I bet Orinda will look pretty much the same 25 years from now." We all do love the serenity.

Got it. When you said "scam" I thought fraud perpetrated to make money. This is more like a bad government run amuck and there is plenty of that to be found around Lamorinda lately. Thanks for your explanation. I concur, I just had it filed under another name!!

Spencer, Funny that you should mention Europa, as they are one of the businesses that would be driven out by tearing down the buildings and construction for years. I sat next to a restaurant owner on the theater side of town during the workshops and he was vehemently against this development and said if he was forced to move out, his business would be destroyed and he would never return. Walk up and down the streets and walk into the businesses that would be displaced and ask them if they want to be displaced. You know they will say NO. Your story doesn't make sense on the face of it. What business owner wants to be out of business for a year or more. Your numbers aren't the full story, either, as I am sure you are well aware.

I think we should be careful to not place too much weight on the opinions of existing retailers. The status quo isn't working, and yet many small retail shops will favor the status quo if they fear that the alternative will bring new competition and higher rents (along with new opportunities). Some existing guys will thrive and some will be displaced by those we choose to support with our future retail dollars. It's called the free market, and it's the best way we know how to give people what they want.

If we want better local retail choices (I do), we should look at successful retail districts in high-end "semi-rural" communities and ask ourselves: "How can we attract businesses like that and make them successful?" I'm not talking about national chains. I'm talking about local and regional entrepreneurs who are already succeeding in other locations.

I simply do not understand the "do nothing" crowd. If we are hostile to any new investments, where will we be in 10, 20 or 30 years?

cp - you obviously don't understand what the Retail Leakage Report said, plus the follow up analysis. 200 new housing units in the downtown would add $1.6 million of spending that Orinda business establishments could capture. Another $3.7 million would continue to leak away from Orinda assuming the shopping behaviors of new residents are consistent with current resident's shopping patterns, and the current retail supply stays at the same level. Beyond sales tax revenue the issue of revenue enhancement from new development, or redevelopment, makes a strong case for change. Example: had Theater Square never been built the property would generate approximately $22,000 today in property taxes; last year the owners paid over $350,000 in property taxes. Not to mention 25,000sf+ of offices with over 110 employees available to shop and support local businesses. Plus parking, new restaurants, retail and services. Or, in your opinion, let the property remain "as is". Fortunately for you most property owners agree with your theory which is why 75% of downtown buildings, built before 1968, and remain underparked, underutilized, pedestrian unfriendly, lacking of retail synergy and depth. Did Gertrude Stein get her cities mixed up when she said "there's no there there" when referring to Oakland? Don't worry, you have plenty of disinterested property owners on your side watching their old building further deteriorate.

There are a lot of points to address here...I'll address one here.
1. Spencer said "Property owners have the right to redevelop." Go ahead. No one is stopping them. I have the right to "redevelop" my home. I have to follow the City's Planning rules. So do the "property owners" who want to redevelop. Cities have planning rules for good reasons.

As to changing that rules so that a few can get rich, the city council wisely held workshops led by professionals and the verdict is in. Orinda citizens have decided that they want to MAINTAIN THE SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of their city. And voters backed that up by knocking Tom McCormick out of office for trying to ram through his build, build, build agenda against their will. (From what I have heard, citizens not only prefer semi-rural, low key atmosphere, but think their property values are increased by it. People move here for that quality.)

This is not a stupid electorate. This is not a town where you can pull the wool over the eyes of citizens. This is a highly educated, highly informed citizenry. Citizens do not want to live in an urban area. They do not want the crime and congestion associated with development, to say nothing of the long term cost of additional infrastructure that the citizens must pay in taxes forever. Nor do they want to endure the construction, loss of businesses that have been her forever, either. If you want another type of referendum beyond the 2 already held, pay for one. You'll lose.

BTW, did you know that for the same valuation, Berkeley residents pay approximately 50% more in property taxes? That's what happens when you have unfunded infrastructure payments going on into infinity. The Fire Chief told me we would need larger fire trucks to deal with taller buildings. We don't have a building that could shelter such a truck or trucks. Presumably, we would need more firepersons. Roads also get more traffic and need repair sooner. These costs are not paid by the developers. They are paid by all of us in our property taxes. If you want to pay more property taxes so that the developers can get rich, please just write a check now and donate the money to a fund you can set up for this purpose. When it's enough to fund all off the interest, go forth. Otherwise, Orinda will be like our Federal Government, spending money we don't have.

One other point about the "mixed-use retail/residential near transit" projects that some, especially ABAG, push for. As a lecturer I recently heard said, "far too often they end up as vacant retail storefronts topped by three stories of bankrupt residential". Look at the Mercer in Walnut Creek. Everything ABAG could want, and right next to the very active downtown retail district and BART -- but there is no pedestrian traffic, multiple vacant spaces, and the shops that are there, rather than "vibrant," are nail salons and day spas. I saw another similar such misfire in downtown Napa the other day.

Some folks like living in a serene town and don't mind driving a town or two over to do their discretionary shopping. Sure, Orinda doesn't have Walnut Creek's downtown, but in exchange for that we also don't get the traffic, noise and crime that comes along with that. Yay!

There are dozens of towns in the Bay Area that are exactly like what ABAG supporters want to see. Please leave at least Orinda for the rest of us. I'm sure anyone who desperately wants to live in that other kind of town can easily find housing in Pleasant Hill and still be close by.

Jason - so your point is do nothing? Figures. Leave certain properties like they are, with low assessments and property taxes, or improve them to gain, among other things, revenue enhancement. Simple choice. Be careful about your love for Walmart, their interest in acquiring Rite Aids west coast division is more than a casual rumor. They want to put their grocery-only stores in former markets and drug stores in middle-market communities. They will be opening 3 stores next year in the Tri Valley in old markets. Don't think they wouldn't love to be in the Rite Aid building on Orinda Way. BTW how's your Safeway doing now that Whole Foods has joined the Lafayette grocery parade? What makes you think they are such a lock to stay in Orinda when most residents shop elsewhere? Think about it, they control the lease for many years and could easily sublease to a non-grocer (oops another hardware store?) and service Orindans in the Moraga (most South Orindans shop there anyway) and Lafayette stores. Why is McCaulou's and Hollyhock both closed on Sundays? Lack of sales or disinterest by the Village Square owner David McCaulou? Ponder those questions while I work on paving over OCC. No need to get back to me though, I already know the answers.

Hi Spencer,
You state that current property owners could tear down and rebuild when leases end.
Okay, so what? I could tear down and rebuild too.
You are stating the obvious.
Let them.
What you are really saying is that we should also change our General Plan to make it more lucrative for them to do so, and the rest of us should pick up the long term tab for the infrastructure.
No one is stopping them from rebuilding within the current General Plan.
cp

Ladies and Gents -

Good discussion here. Thanks for keeping it on point and civil.

Much obliged,

Editor

Last comment from me, I hope!
Did you see the new Orinda 2011-2012 Chamber of Commerce Directory? What's on the cover? Orinda's beautiful open space hills...turn a couple pages and more beautiful hillside...page through...more photos of hillsides and golf course, and parks and recreation....that's from the Chamber of Commerce! We are semi-rural and even the Chamber of Commerce celebrates that about Orinda.

Yes, this has been a good discussion. It was good to see. I have been watching the issue for some time and think the light may be finally beginning to dawn for MTC and ABAG - chartered to sell this package of "vibrancy" to locals who may not have bothered to run the numbers. That isn't going to happen in Orinda. People were questioning the numbers - and motives - of this effort almost from the start. I'm hoping they start to see the light about other, equally illogical and misguided efforts either currently underway or about to be. Everyone is very busy in this area so it does take them a while to see that something is wrong, but they do wake up to it pretty fast once they discover the issue.

Kristina Lawson is a real estate attorney and city council member recently elected in Walnut Creek. When she was interviewed by the endorsement committee of the Democratic Party, on which I served, I asked her questions about development in WC. One of her answers yielded that WC was millions in debt for the costs of development that were not met by the developer and it caused or was adding to WC's fiscal crisis. Think of it this way. A developer comes along and sells you a new swimming pool. It's only $50,000 he/she states. You put it in. Your taxes go up. Your water bill goes up. You have to pay someone to clean it, because you are too busy working to pay for it. It needs repairs. You have to pay extra insurance because someone might drowned.
Orinda citizens are very savvy. They know development, like swimming pools, are not paid for at the end of the building phase.

Yes, Ms. Lawson's explaining the public policy implications of Walnut Creek's prior development decisions and generalizing from WC's huge (I think she said 11 million) debt from development does seem irrelevant. Why learn from the mistakes of other cities. That would be wise. Instead, let's make the same mistakes here!

Seems the conversation is devolving into gibberish. Over and out.

Lots of talk about experts and "The Report." Where is it? I fear that this is a philosophical debate pretending to be a factual one. For me, I'd like some plan that takes us off the "retail ghost town" trajectory. If we can incent this by allowing a limited amount of higher density (and height) residential, I would consider that trade IFF the units are NOT affordable and if the developers pay for any additional infrastructure. I would not go into debt (literal, or off-balance sheet unfunded liabilities not matched) too much to make that happen.

As for our magical mythical "semi rural" (what does that mean, anyway?) charm, I don't see how that is impacted much by some isolated mixed-use zones. Just drive or walk 200 yards in any direction and you'll be back in the trees. Especially if new stuff is near BART or existing stuff, it's not clear to me that the incremental encroachment would be noticeable to many people.

I trust the local voters to make the right decision. The people who created ABAG, MTC, and AQMD do not.

Looking at the numbers they expect Orinda to grow by 1,459 by 2035. I can do the math and say it will be above that much sooner
Eden 70 Units app140 people
Gateway/Wilder 245 homes average 3-4 people per home app 700-1,000
Pulte 120 Units app 240
JM/Lavenida site 21 homes app 60-80 people
Astoria app 80
Castlegate app 40
Southwood Valley app 50-70 ppl
Sleepy Hollow app 12-15 ppl
10 more random homes and we got the numbers
but if we add Grow Orinda's downtown we will double

I think, going forward, we Californians have to accept greater density relative to that which we enjoy now. That applies to already "urban" areas like SF, SJ and Oakland as well as "suburban" areas like Orinda and WC. To pretend otherwise, whether mandated by some state agency or not, is to ignore the realities that historical reflection and current demographics portend.

I believe that we in Orinda need to do our "proportional fair share" in terms of accommodating regional growth imperatives. This will include a welcomed injection of somewhat-urban (and retail) life into downtown Orinda that will, if well done, ultimately benefit our city, IMO.