City Council approves 90-unit Oak Hill Road apartment despite neighbors' concerns

The Lafayette City Council on June 9 approved a 90-unit, seven‑story for‑sale residential project at 1001 Oak Hill Road, finding the proposal exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and granting waivers and concessions allowed under state density‑bonus law.

The project, proposed by Project Oak Hill LLC, will replace three existing commercial buildings and include 11 below‑market units, roughly 2,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space, 178 parking spaces and 52 bicycle spaces. Staff and the applicant said the project meets the state law requirements that limit local review to objective standards and allow certain development concessions. "The project is categorically exempt from CEQA," contract planner Jean Iceberg told the council during the staff presentation.

Why it matters: Lafayette included the site in its housing element and the project will add 90 housing units to the city’s housing supply, including units counted under both the state density‑bonus law and the city’s inclusionary ordinance. Council action followed recommendations from the Design Review Commission and Planning Commission and resolves whether state density‑bonus concessions apply and what objective waivers the council will permit.

Most important facts: The applicant requested multiple waivers to downtown objective standards and local development standards, including reduced front setbacks and upper‑story stepbacks. Under state density‑bonus calculations the project is required to provide a set number of very‑low‑income units (five, based on the base zoning), and the proposal also meets the city’s inclusionary obligations by providing a mix of moderate‑ and very‑low‑income units. Staff’s conditions of approval include requirements for final landscape plans, on‑site samples of materials and colors, undergrounding utilities at the corner of the site, a contribution toward an adjacent aqueduct pathway and additional tree‑protection conditions for off‑site protected trees.

Details, debate and public comment: The council heard a lengthy staff presentation about compliance with the housing element, the scope of waivers the state density‑bonus law allows, and the project’s proposed tree removals and mitigation. Neighbors expressed concern about building height, the massing of four stories before upper‑story stepbacks, driveway access for Terrace Way and privacy and noise impacts for adjacent residences. Tony Lombardo, an owner of a nearby property, said the development would replace the neighborhood’s views with a retaining wall and could displace tenants who work from home. Another neighbor, Ian Bayard, asked whether a retaining wall owned by a third party could be removed to improve the narrow segment of Terrace Way used for access.

Representatives of local housing‑advocacy organizations and Inclusive Lafayette urged approval, saying the project adds much‑needed housing, including below‑market units, in a transit‑served location. Raymond Amaral, representing a regional carpenters union, asked the council to consider prevailing‑wage and local‑hire requirements for construction.

The applicant said the design was shaped to reduce impacts, that utility relocation and storm‑drain questions would be resolved in the permit phase, and that the project team had met repeatedly with immediate neighbors to work through driveway and servicing concerns. Brian Griggs, representing the applicant, described landscaping on upper terraces and other changes intended to reduce visible massing and said the team would underground utilities and work with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District on access and laddering for firefighting.

Council action and technical conditions: The council adopted a resolution approving the project and the staff‑recommended conditions of approval, including a one‑year entitlement extension to two years, sample material review on‑site before construction, a requirement to underground an overhead line and transformer at the corner of the site, and final landscape plans with species, sizes and soil volumes. Councilmembers and staff noted the city’s limited discretion over certain items because the state density‑bonus statute constrains denial of concessions tied to the bonus; as a result councilmembers said their authority to deny specific waivers was narrow.

Outcome and next steps: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution finding the project exempt from CEQA and granting the necessary waivers and concessions. Conditions require further, more detailed engineering and landscape work at the building‑permit stage; staff will check compliance with fire‑district access requirements, tree mitigation, utility relocation, final construction staging plans and required affordable‑housing agreements before issuance of building permits.

Closing note: The project will proceed to the building permit and construction phases subject to the conditions the council imposed. Neighbors and advocacy groups said they would continue to monitor final design and permit-stage details such as landscaping, driveway access and tree protection.