The Lafayette City Council on Monday approved the 12-home Samantha Townhomes project on Stuart Street, denying the appeal of a neighboring school saying the development will bring too much traffic to the area.
The city’s planning commission signed off on the project on June 7. The dozen town homes will be built on two vacant parcels on Stuart Street, requiring the removal of 14 trees.
Appellants Jeffrey and R. Ann Whitehead are the owners of The Child Day Schools, also on Stuart Street.
They said the project will eliminate public parking available to their business and the development’s driveways will be hazardous to pedestrians walking to the school.
The land is at the east end of downtown, adjacent to state Highway 24, on the east side of Stuart Street. The project will consist of three buildings and will include two units of below-market-rate housing, meeting the city’s inclusionary housing requirements, according to a staff report.
Councilmembers said they understood the school’s concern about increased traffic endangering children walking through the area, but applicant Bay Area Urban Development met the necessary requirements to develop the site.
Lafayette Mayor Susan Candell said she wished the city had some leeway to require the developer to include underground parking, precluding the town homes from having driveways near the school. “But we literally can’t. Our hands are tied,” Candell said.
20 comments
Follow the money…
Just say No….
All the dollars in the right pockets.
Done deal.
Seems every city council nowdays has their heads up their azzes, it’s all about making more tax money.
I think it’s more about state law and more laws are coming in September. Do a search for “SB9 California” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9&showamends=false
This bill will allow 4 units on a lot where today only a single home is allowed. I think its 2 homes and 2 granny units.
Both Washington and Sacramento are driving an agenda to end local control of zoning and pack suburbs with more people they believe will vote in a certain way. It’s incumbent on all of us to elect local board members and mayors who vow to oppose to the fullest extent of the law any such mandates coming from Sacramento and Washington.
Surprise Surprise Surprise you could see this coming a mile away.A little something in there pockets for Christmas.
If you have no control, why are you even there ????
State law requirement
Your school brings too much traffic to the area. It’s 12 homes. So most likely 24 cars or less, which most will be parked the majority of the time or already gone before school starts and back home after school let’s out. Makes no sense.
Yes, exactly
Wow you mean a council had a public meeting and did not do what the people want
And instead Lined their own pockets with cash and political blue chips
And yeah the line of
But we literally can’t
Is the best bag of bull shirt
Ever slapped on the asses of a city snd its people
And if you think those builders are paying taxes you must be a dem
And if you think the illegals housed there will pay any taxes
being on section 8
You again must be a dem
We the hard working American citizens will pay a measure tax or increased gas tax or higher property taxes to foot the bill for councils reaping the dem agenda on us
We are being sold out and no one cares
Our children are being taught to hate us
as hard working American citizens working toward a better future for our children and a still free America
Still makes me laugh when people show up to these council meetings thinking
That is will somehow make a difference to people that don’t have to listen or appease the people
The same people who actually thought hey
You know what
Let’s have a council of people who we give absolute power to
over our money and children and taxes and our property and our city
Yeah that sounds great
Man we are really smart
I wonder why this wasn’t in the constitution or bill of rights
That the people be governed in each city by people with absolute power and over the citizens and their rights
Nice job voters again you really know how to screw yourselves over and over again
Man you voters are sure showing yourselves to do real good
Come on man !!
This is like eminent domain almost. I think this is wrong. Tired of money being in charge instead of the good for the people. Ugh!
.
Sheezus…. Ya’ll with the conspiracy theories are whack.
.
Public officials and public employees are required to disclose business and property interests on a “Form 700”. Contact with Lafayette City Clerk if you want to be informed rather than shooting from the hip behind your keyboards.
.
If the Lafayette City Council wanted to make underground parking a primary policy, they should revise their General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to make it a requirement in certain areas UNLESS exempted through sound reasoning which would be required to be stated in their findings to render such a decision.
.
Btw, parents of school children are more hazardous drivers than area residents. Just camp out in front of Walnut Acres Elementary (in Walnut Creek) during the morning drop-off if you want to witness the madness. I kid you not… double parking, doors flying open in the traffic flow, cut-throughs, instant pullouts, and … it can be real crazy.
.
People crave the “way towns used to be” and flock to Disneyland Main Streets et al…yet willingly ruin their own towns.
“Lafayette Mayor Susan Candell said she wished the city had some leeway to require the developer to include underground parking,”
Why is the town unable to pass and enforce zoning and building codes? You can’t make a rule that defines how many parking spaces are needed based on the number of bedrooms and square footage? You can’t make a rule that defines where vehicle entrances and exits are located and that they have unobstructed sight lines to where pedestrians may be present?
Because ‘leeway’ means the developer doesn’t want the added expense?
Councilmembers said they understood the school’s concern about increased traffic endangering children walking through the area, but applicant Bay Area Urban Development met the necessary requirements to develop the site.
In other words shut up and sit down.
it appears that Bay Area Urban Development
got a blm pass and the treat of riots is what scared the skirts off the city council
if so why not say so
why not tell the people you represent that you are compromised and can do nothing in their interests and they should leave the city
why hold them hostage as well to urban development threats
and mr “Form 700”
are you employing the fauci defense
of well it says it here on this form that they dont do that
so it must not be true
please
defending bullying by a developer is
just not accepted still
maybe in a year or 2
right now the councils are supposed to work for the people not developers using urban as a verb
The best government money can buy. What more needs to be said?
Comments are closed.