• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Daniel S. Gonzales

What you need to know about Commercial Real Estate | 408.280.0535

  • Home
  • About Daniel S. Gonzales
  • Documents of interest
  • Blog

Protracted legal odyssey ends in victory for Lafayette housing development

January 24, 2023 by Daniel S. Gonzales Leave a Comment

A twelve-year saga of pitched battles between housing advocates, developers and an obdurate NIMBY (“Not in My Backyard”) assemblage was finally resolved last month by California’s First District Court of Appeal.  In a victory for California housing proponents, the City of Lafayette’s approval of the 315-unit Terraces of Lafayette project has been upheld against the challenges of the Save Lafayette organization, putting an end to an arduous conflict that has been credited with birthing the YIMBY (“Yes in My Backyard”) movement and sparking lawmakers to shore up California’s Housing Accountability Act.

As reported by Miller, Starr & Regalia, the law firm that represented the developer throughout this ordeal, this project began as a 315-unit apartment proposal consisting of 14 residential buildings, a clubhouse, a leasing office, carport and garage parking, and internal roadways.  This development was to be built on a 22.27-acre site subject to a general plan designation and zoning that would have allowed a total of 779 units plus a density bonus on the property under a use permit.

This project then endured a labyrinthine review process, starting with Lafayette’s former city manager’s request that the developer consider a density reduction.  As a result, the developer and the City of Lafayette entered into an agreement that contemplated an alternative proposal for the construction of 44 or 45 single-family detached homes, public parkland, and other amenities.  If this alternative proposal were either not approved or subject to legal challenge, however, this agreement allowed the developer to resume processing the original apartment project.

Based on the scope of the development under this agreement, the City of Lafayette granted several approvals, including, inter alia, the certification of a supplemental EIR.  These actions then triggered a series of lawsuits and other opposition tactics by NIMBY groups and others, including a referendum and a campaign for city council, aimed at stopping even the reduced density of this project.  As a result, the developer elected to process the original apartment project, as allowed pursuant to its agreement with the City of Lafayette, giving rise to further NIMBY litigation over the sufficiency of the supplemental EIR.

Ultimately, after continued opposition and litigation against the development of the project, the trial court rejected the NIMBY’s petition challenging the EIR, and a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously to reject the NIMBY’s appeal in favor of the developer.  The ruling hinged on the mandates of the Housing Accountability Act, establishing the value of this legislation in promoting the construction of housing in California, even as this case prodded the legislature to enact SB 167 and SB 330 to further beef up its provisions.  Given the torturous process here, the question is whether even more strengthening of state controls over local restrictions against building more housing is needed ().

The ruling in this case (Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette, et al.) may be found here.

Filed Under: housing, nimby

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Sign up for Updates

  • Hidden
    MM slash DD slash YYYY
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Helping you avoid risk, maximize profit, and protect your long term real estate appreciation

Mr. Gonzales is in private practice, providing representation, advice and counsel in complex real estate, corporate, and business transactions on behalf of public and private institutions, businesses, and individuals.

This material has been prepared by Daniel S. Gonzales for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising, a solicitation, or legal advice. Neither delivery nor transmission of this material or the information contained herein is intended to create, and receipt thereof does not constitute formation of, an attorney-client relationship. The reader should not rely upon this information for any purpose without seeking legal advice from a licensed attorney. The information contained in this material is provided only as general information and is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete. Daniel S. Gonzales expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this material.

Recent Posts

  • 2023 update of California ADU laws
  • My own ADU project!
  • ND’s Fitzgerald Institute for Real Estate brings fresh vitality to housing issues
  • Mountain View and Los Altos Hills targeted for “builder’s remedy” projects
  • Protracted legal odyssey ends in victory for Lafayette housing development
Copyright © 2023 Daniel S. Gonzales