Orinda resident Nick Waranoff filed a formal opposition letter with the City Council on Sunday, Sept. 13, challenging the city's proposed 200-unit downtown "Housing Pool." Waranoff argues the plan violates state law and could trigger costly litigation.

The letter, addressed to all five council members ahead of the Tuesday, Sept. 15 Downtown Precise Plan work session, targets a staff proposal that would allow up to 200 additional housing units downtown beyond what the state housing mandate requires. Staff recommended the council hold the work session and provide direction on revisions to the Downtown Precise Plan, including the Housing Pool concept.

Waranoff's central argument: the Housing Pool functions as a housing cap, which is banned under SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act. He noted the staff report itself describes the pool as a "defined unit cap." SB 330 bars any ordinance that "acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period."

Orinda qualifies as an "affected city" under SB 330 because it lies within the San Francisco–Oakland urbanized area identified by the U.S. Census Bureau, according to Waranoff's letter.

"The Housing Pool Plan is illegal, because SB 330 prohibits 'caps,' which this is, and it exposes the city to substantial liability regardless of whether you believe it is lawful," Waranoff wrote in the public communications packet.

To illustrate the financial risk, Waranoff attached a 2019 letter from a former Walnut Creek city attorney warning the City of Lafayette it could face Housing Accountability Act fines of $3.15 million to $15.75 million if it unlawfully denied a housing project, citing a separate, unrelated case in which a court awarded $32 million in damages against the Town of Mammoth Lakes as an example of the financial risk cities face in land-use disputes. He also cited Pleasanton's housing cap case, in which the city lost and paid nearly $2 million in legal fees. Waranoff warned that YIMBY Law and East Bay for Everyone could file suit immediately if the pool is adopted.

Evacuation modeling challenged

Waranoff also challenged the Ladris wildfire evacuation modeling that staff used to conclude adding 200 units would increase evacuation times by only minutes. He argued the model addressed evacuation of only zones 9 and 10, near Highway 24, covering roughly 2,800 addresses. Orinda has approximately 7,500 residential parcels.

He pointed to the council's own certified environmental findings in Resolution 13-25, adopted March 18, 2025, which stated that adding 700 units downtown "would substantially increase evacuation constraints" and the impact "would remain significant and unavoidable." Waranoff argued that conclusion contradicts the staff's position that 200 more units would have minimal effect.

The city renewed its two-year Ladris contract on July 21 at a cost of $252,700, according to Lamorinda Weekly.

Orinda's litigation history

The city has been here before. The previous lawsuit by Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE) over the Plan Orinda environmental review cost the city roughly $1 million in legal fees, according to a statement then-Mayor Darlene Gee made at a July 4, 2024, city event, as reported by Lamorinda Weekly in September 2024. OSEE has threatened to bring a new suit against the city related to the Downtown Precise Plan, Lamorinda Weekly reported.

Waranoff also argued the 200-unit increase would strain police, fire and ambulance services without any impact fee in place to offset the demand. He noted that neighboring Moraga charges a police impact fee and Dublin charges a fire impact fee.

The council has not scheduled a formal vote on the Housing Pool. No public response from city staff, Planning Director Lashun Cross, City Manager Linda Smith, or any council member on the SB 330 argument appears in available public records. The outcome of the Tuesday, Sept. 15 work session has not been confirmed.