Orinda Wasted $1 Million on Legal Fees
A group, Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation ("OSEE"), won a lawsuit against The City of Orinda, successfully challenging the legally required Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for Orinda's plan for downtown development called Plan Orinda (which includes the Housing Element ("HE") and the Downtown Precise Plan ("DPP")). The HE includes the state-mandated housing; the DPP would add many more housing units than the state requires and isn't due until 2026. Plan Orinda could add as many as 1,618 new housing units downtown, which the EIR found would have a "significant" adverse impact on emergency evacuation in the event of a wildfire.
The Court decided on February 22, 2024 that the EIR "does not comply with CEQA's informational and disclosure requirements in its analysis of Wildfire Impact.." (CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act.) "Because the EIR . does not provide the public and decision-makers with sufficient information to understand the magnitude of the impacts of the [Plan Orinda] on evacuation in the face of wildfire hazards, the City did not have sufficient information to balance the benefits of the [Plan Orinda] against its adverse impacts, after mitigation, and the City's Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore not supported." (Contra Costa Case No. N23-0579, 2/24/2024.)
Orinda should withdraw the DPP, and consider a redistribution, away from downtown, of the state-mandated upzoning for new housing. Instead, it continues to oppose withdrawal of the DPP, even though the DPP is not due for two years.
Orinda has incurred legal fees of approximately $1 million. Its defense was handled by the law firm in which the city attorney is a partner. It rejected my repeated suggestion that it take advantage of the court's free, non-binding mediation program, and have a retired justice from the court of appeal provide an independent evaluation of the case before trial and possibly save the city legal fees.
The legal fees could better have been spent on mitigating the significant adverse impact on wildfire evacuation that the EIR found downtown development will cause. A first step would be repealing the DPP.
Nick Waranoff
Orinda
Orinda home values
As the Orinda homeowner's insurance crisis deepens and some of the most valuable real estate in the world becomes essentially worthless, my thoughts turn to PG&E. Looking back on many of the historic "wildfires" that decimated communities all over Northern California over the past decade a clear theme emerges: PG&E's poorly maintained and outdated power-lines were the cause. They've admitted it in court. So how is this crisis not (at least in part) of their making? Why doesn't their liability extend to those of us who are now being so deeply impacted as a result of their negligence? I think PG&E should be forced to pay CA home insurers to offset the absurd situation they've put us in. I know it's just a fantasy because it seems only the bad guys win these days, but a boy can dream...
Jack Kelly
Orinda
A group, Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation ("OSEE"), won a lawsuit against The City of Orinda, successfully challenging the legally required Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for Orinda's plan for downtown development called Plan Orinda (which includes the Housing Element ("HE") and the Downtown Precise Plan ("DPP")). The HE includes the state-mandated housing; the DPP would add many more housing units than the state requires and isn't due until 2026. Plan Orinda could add as many as 1,618 new housing units downtown, which the EIR found would have a "significant" adverse impact on emergency evacuation in the event of a wildfire.
The Court decided on February 22, 2024 that the EIR "does not comply with CEQA's informational and disclosure requirements in its analysis of Wildfire Impact.." (CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act.) "Because the EIR . does not provide the public and decision-makers with sufficient information to understand the magnitude of the impacts of the [Plan Orinda] on evacuation in the face of wildfire hazards, the City did not have sufficient information to balance the benefits of the [Plan Orinda] against its adverse impacts, after mitigation, and the City's Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore not supported." (Contra Costa Case No. N23-0579, 2/24/2024.)
Orinda should withdraw the DPP, and consider a redistribution, away from downtown, of the state-mandated upzoning for new housing. Instead, it continues to oppose withdrawal of the DPP, even though the DPP is not due for two years.
Orinda has incurred legal fees of approximately $1 million. Its defense was handled by the law firm in which the city attorney is a partner. It rejected my repeated suggestion that it take advantage of the court's free, non-binding mediation program, and have a retired justice from the court of appeal provide an independent evaluation of the case before trial and possibly save the city legal fees.
The legal fees could better have been spent on mitigating the significant adverse impact on wildfire evacuation that the EIR found downtown development will cause. A first step would be repealing the DPP.
Nick Waranoff
Orinda
Orinda home values
As the Orinda homeowner's insurance crisis deepens and some of the most valuable real estate in the world becomes essentially worthless, my thoughts turn to PG&E. Looking back on many of the historic "wildfires" that decimated communities all over Northern California over the past decade a clear theme emerges: PG&E's poorly maintained and outdated power-lines were the cause. They've admitted it in court. So how is this crisis not (at least in part) of their making? Why doesn't their liability extend to those of us who are now being so deeply impacted as a result of their negligence? I think PG&E should be forced to pay CA home insurers to offset the absurd situation they've put us in. I know it's just a fantasy because it seems only the bad guys win these days, but a boy can dream...
Jack Kelly
Orinda
Reach the reporter at:
Lamorinda Weekly, Moraga CA