image credit: www.terracesoflafayette.com
image credit: www.terracesoflafayette.com
The controversial Terraces of Lafayette development project can finally move forward, after the California Supreme Court last week denied a request for review from project opponents Save Lafayette.
The decision likely ends more than two years of litigation against the City of Lafayette and developer O’Brien Land Company over the city’s approval of the 315-unit project, slated for Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads.
“The courts have once again affirmed that the city complied with the Housing Accountability Act and the California Environmental Quality Act in its environmental review and approval of this 20 percent affordable housing project,” Lafayette Mayor Carl Anduri said in a statement, posted on the city’s website. “The litigation is over, and we should now focus on welcoming new residents to our community.”
In November 2022, a state court of appeals upheld a superior court’s 2021 decision that the city’s 2013 environmental review report complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the city properly followed the state’s housing accountability act in approving the project. Save Lafayette sued the city in 2020 to overturn the city council’s approval of the project. The group said there were environmental, general plan and zoning consistency issues.
The council approved the project in August 2020, after more than nine years of planning by O’Brien Land Company, which is planning to offer 63 of the 315 units at below-market-rate units.
Community members had a long list of concerns about the project, including wildfire safety and the project’s traffic study.
The development will sit on a 22-acre parcel on Deer Hill Road, just west of Pleasant Hill Road and north of state Highway 24, near Acalanes High School. Plans are for seven three-story buildings and seven two-story structures.
Supporters say the dense residential development, about a mile and a half from Lafayette BART, is the type of transit-friendly housing called for in regional planning efforts including Plan Bay Area 2050, a long-range plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
Opponents said the project is inconsistent with the city’s semi-rural character and would make traffic worse near key commute routes.
27 comments
Looks like it will be right next to Sierra Ranch.
One of their driveways will be directly across Deer Hill Rd, from the Sierra Ranch driveway, yes.
Wow, the Residents already voted Against single family homes at that location and YES….they definitely are against this Ridiculous plan.
Who cares what the People who pay Your paychecks want though!!
Lafayette’s elected officials serve as volunteers and do not earn a paycheck from the city. The the law was clear when Measure L was balloted: If voters rejected the down-zoning provisions in Measure L, then the current zoning (which allows multi family development) would remain in effect, thus allowing the planned 315 unit development.
Save Lafayette inexplicably campaigned AGAINST the Measure L compromise, opting instead to allow the 315-unit proposal. In so doing, Save Lafayette apparently planed to pull off an in probable Hail Mary through a novel litigation strategy. Oops.
So when you’re stuck in gridlock on Pleasant Hill Road c. 2026, be sure to thank Save Lafayette for betting on a divisive, scorched earth all-or-nothing gambit!
Wow! Hopefully people can get a great window view of the freeway gridlock!
Save Lafayette’s little stunt made the project cost more money. Shame on them. Good for the Court.
Waste of money for the Attorneys. I would love to live there–probably too expensive now.
Save Lafaytte can move out now.
Sorry, But Lafayette will no be better because of these cluttered villages.
Wasn’t this job allowed to bypass the communities will because of the BART scam loophole?
How many of these new residents will actually be riding BART to work……we need accountability and follow up.
I’ll bet maybe 1 resident will use BART.
Scam, and government always ruins the free market with their pet feel good projects.
How do you figure “government always ruins the free market” here? O’Brian Homes sought to develop these apartments on privately owned parcel.
It was Save Lafayette which unsuccessfully sought to impose government restrictions on the a private firm’s plan to build on private property. Save Lafayette’s gambit failed.
The result, for better or worse, is in fact the outcome that private sector market participants wanted (and to which they were legally entitled) from the outset.
TO DO LIST
Slumping hillside? I grew up in Lafayette and more than likely these things will go sliding down the hill. Would love to know who’s left holding the bag on the loan for the complex when that happens
Lomarinda Larry
I grew up in Lafayetter and that hill slides frequently. Wonder who will be left holding the bag on the construction loan when that happens. Or better yet who will be on the hook when the development lands on Deer Hill Rd, damages the road, watermains, sewer lines etc.
@WellFolks – The private financial backing for the site is not the city’s concern. Whoever lent the loot has had ample opportunity to underwrite the hazard risk.
Free markets are wonderful.
Lomarinda Larry
The city does have their stinky little fingers in the financing some how. And then there is an engineering report that on page such and such talks about potential sliding as that entire area does slide. The area had 2 significant slides during the 4 years I attended Acalanes and has minor slides most years.
Personally I don’t care what the build as that is all California can do is build the state into oblivion. And Lafayette can build to the moon and back. Most of my friends and I haven’t been to Lafayette in years because the traffic is hideous. It is no longer the nice small town I grew up in. It’s turned into more ugly azz urban sprawl. Just another example of CA developers ruining a place that was nice to grow up and live in
Nice job “Save Lafayette”! I keep thinking that first project to build apartments was meant to bait people like the Save Lafayette crowd, after the first uprising about the apartments, they came back with the really nice 44 house deal. The more BS about that project and I believe the owner said screw you, I’m building a big apartment complex.
I am all for new infrastructure and maintenance. The levy system in California is in poor shape. We need to challenge the leadership to grasp that concept before spending on projects such as that bullet train. My understanding is that eminent domain was used to acquire several parcels of land. The owners are still awaiting just compensation for that.
Eminent domain was NOT used to acquire the parcel on which the Terraces will be built. That fallow lot has been owned by the same family for many decades, and the owners struck a deal with a private developer to build the apartments on their own private property. The owners’ compensation was negotiated at arm’s length between sophisticated without any government coercion. Save Lafayette, a socialist faction, sought government intervention to thwart what was otherwise a private market undertaking consistent with the parcel’s zoning at the project’s inception.
I have a relative who is a developer (not on this project). I’d say he has the ethics of a rattlesnake except I respect rattlers and don’t want to insult them. He could not care less about his projects causing traffic congestion, overcrowding the schools or the eventual issues with hillside slumping. He likes to travel internationally to ski and buy expensive stuff.
TO DO LIST
Slumping hillside? I grew up in Lafayette and more than likely these things will go sliding down the hill. Would love to know who’s left holding the bag on the loan for the complex when that happens
What’s hilarious is that Lafayette hasn’t learned from this and have failed to submit a compliant housing element to the state housing and community development agency, making them vulnerable to the so called “builder’s remedy.” This provision in state law says that until the city submits a housing element to HCD that complies with the law (something Lafayette hasn’t done) the city must approve any residential development that is either 20% affordable to low income residents or 100% affordable to moderate income residents.
This means that as it stands today A DEVELOPER CAN BUILD BASICALLY ANYTHING THEY WANT ANYWHERE IN LAFAYETTE as long as it is 20% affordable and the city is legally required to approve it. This includes building apartment buildings in single family neighborhoods and pretty much anywhere else they want to build.
High density housing, look how well it’s working for antioch . . . .
Save Clayton failed as well. That developer went big and did the same thing after trying to work with residents. 80 plus units on three acres. Court denied litigation against city and developer.
More and more and more development, building, loss of open space, congested traffic, people, corrupt government, crime, inadequate infrastructure, smog, trash and garbage……
Welcome to the new Los Angeles.
If neighbors don’t want something built on someone else’s property, they need to BUY the property (or raise donations to do so) and transfer the land to a conservation trust.
Demanding that local governments infringe on private property owners’ right to develop their own land offends free market principles.
Only socialists would seek to limit private property rights under color of law.
Half Truth. The “privately” owned property project was still interfered with by government sticking their nose in and demanding a certain percentage of Low Income units.
If anyone can really do what they want…..is it really okay for the Neighborhood Loser to convert his house to a homeless shelter???
“Low income” mean’s families earning over $100k in CoCo county. A married couple consisting of two teachers each making ~$50k and raising a couple babies hardly constitute “neighborhood losers.”
Oddly, brand new below market rate” condos in Lafayette are priced at over $600k, about the “market rate” value of established condos.
The rationale to subsidize housing for such affluent folks certainly perplexes me; just allow enough market rate housing to absorb demand and get taxpayers off the hook.
That is how they are able to justify a development by claiming low-income housing is being provided.
Lomarinda Larry
The city does have their stinky little fingers in the financing some how. And then there is an engineering report that on page such and such talks about potential sliding as that entire area does slide. The area had 2 significant slides during the 4 years I attended Acalanes and has minor slides most years.
Personally I don’t care what the build as that is all California can do is build the state into oblivion. And Lafayette can build to the moon and back. Most of my friends and I haven’t been to Lafayette in years because the traffic is hideous. It is no longer the nice small town I grew up in. It’s turned into more ugly azz urban sprawl. Just another example of CA developers ruining a place that was nice to grow up and live in
Lamorinda Larry I am well aware of eminent domain used to acquire land parcels for the bullet train. I was referring to the fact that developers use their selfish tactics in order to achieve their goals. Regardless of boots on the ground.
Comments are closed.