Judge blocks hillside project: Laurel Way planned development ‘not legal’

The developer’s attorney, Bill Warhurst, told the Daily Journal Wednesday that Weiner’s decision is under review and that a decision to appeal has yet to be made.

The judge’s decision vacates the city’s approval of the Laurel Way Joint Venture Planned Development Permit and the city’s certification of a revised environmental impact report on the findings the lots on Laurel Way were not created legally.

“We are worried about risky and dangerous hillside construction,” said Save Laurel Way’s Beverly Purrington. “We are delighted with the judge’s decision.”

The judge’s decision does not mean, however, that the lots cannot someday be developed, city spokeswoman Meghan Horrigan told the Daily Journal Wednesday.

“Building new homes in a hillside area like Laurel Way is a complex endeavor with many different interested party viewpoints. The city appreciates the court’s guidance and will consider the court’s decision as it evaluates the proposed development of upper Laurel Way,” Horrigan said.

The city has not decided yet whether to appeal the decision, she said.

The developer first approached the city with the proposal in 2007 but attempts to develop on Laurel Way date back to the 1960s when the city argued that development of the lots posed substantial risks, Purrington said.

The developer sought to build 16 houses and a bi-level road on 4.75 acres of never-developed, steeply-sloped, wooded hillsides.

Save Laurel Way, a grassroots community group that filed the civil lawsuit, hopes Weiner’s decision “serves as a wake-up call for the city” that development is not suitable for the area.

City planners have continued to present new hillside regulation recommendations to the Planning Commission as recently as Jan. 20 that Save Laurel Way calls “vague.”

Weiner’s ruling states that the “facts and law do not support a finding that there are 16 legal lots upon which 16 homes can be built and do not support a finding that the property owners have a vested right to develop each of the 16 alleged lots.”

The city made its decisions based on the advice of staff and assertions made by the project owners that the lots had been legally transferred or created, Weiner wrote in her decision.

Weiner wrote in her decision that the city’s “factual and legal error infects the entirety of the decision-making process leading to the granting of a Planned Development Permit, the entry of Resolutions, and certification of the Revised Final EIR.”

The city had argued that the lots were lawfully created through a 1926 subdivision map long before the area was annexed by the city. Weiner, however, ruled that the city could not prove that finding.

bill@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102