Council Upholds Appeal of Laurel Way Project to Neighbors’ Delight

The Laurel Way project is unique, Mayor Jeff Ira said at Monday night’s City Council meeting. There is no developer for the 18 single-family home project, just a coalition of landowners who want to build homes on their property.

But with no updated project application and an insufficient environmental impact report (EIR), the council unanimously voted to send the development back to the Planning Commission.

When the original project application was filed back in 2007, not all of the parcel owners in the area had authorized the homeowner joint venture to act on their behalf. The joint venture voluntarily withdrew its application when the Planning Commission learned of this failure, and a new application is in progress.

However, the homeowners wanted the City Council to proceed with a hearing on the EIR appeal based on the old application. Neighbors opposed the project.

Resident Carrie Simon of the Laurel Way Area Neighbors Association said the EIR fails to address several critical impacts and although it found no significant environmental impact, evidence shows there will be several substantial effects.

“This project is outsized and ambitious for such a steeply sloped area,” Simon said.

The city's staff raised two primary areas of concern: the geological makeup of the land due to steep slopes and incorrect information about the proposed sizes of the homes.

The city still needs to clarify just how large the homes can be based on floor area ratios.

John Hanna, the lawyer representing the homeowners, said it was unfair that their homebuilding has been delayed as the city works on floor area ratios. He said floor areas should be looked at house by house. 

Neighbors have had a long list of concerns about the development since it was first proposed. Beyond the steep slope of the land, some cited concerns about the land’s serpentine soil, which they say makes for fragile foundations.

Resident Nancy Krosse said a creek that flows through the proposed development has “torrential waters” during the winter.

“When water moves, it takes a lot of things with it,” Krosse said. “I don’t want to see people losing their investments.”

She said she has spent about $50,000 on French drains and repairs for constant cracks.

Simon also pointed to the disruption that the construction would cause for possibly 10 years, the maximum proposed timeline for the project.

“There will be air, noise and dirt for 10 years,” Simon said.

Hanna disputed several of the neighbors' concerns. He pointed to consultants who said the geological problems could be mitigated.

Many spoke about the impact on existing trees, wild lilies and the creek habitat, which they said would disrupt the idyllic environment in the area.

“The wildlife corridor is like an oasis in wall-to-wall residential area,” said resident David Jefferson. “You’ll destroy one of the last natural habitats in the area.”

But the landowners seeking to develop characterized the area as a “dump site.”

“It’s a waste site for cars, oil drums and garbage,” said Bob Cervenka, whose son owns one of the lots. “A development will clean this site.”

He and another landowner cited increased property tax revenue and economic opportunities from developing the parcels.

“If [the neighbors] wanted vacant land, they could have purchased it at the time that I did,” said Brian Cervenka. “I just want to build a home on my land.”

Landowner Michelle Ross owns three lots, but only one has a home to abide by city regulations. The other two are vacant.

“I got the lots for cheap because they’re sub-standard, highly sloped lots,” she said. “And the city shouldn’t violate its own regulations by building homes there.”

City Attorney Pamela Thompson took issue with some of the language used in the environmental impact report. She and other staff members said phrases like “to the extent feasible” provided little clarity about the project.

“The [report] has squirrely adverbs and no precise language,” said resident Richard White.

The joint venture will have the opportunity to submit another application to the Planning Commission.