Design commission forwards 90‑unit Oak Hill project with 11 affordable units, seeks parking and facade details

The Lafayette Design Review Commission on March 10 voted to forward a proposed 90-unit development on Oak Hill Road to the Planning Commission, with commissioners asking the applicant for more detailed information on mechanized parking, the south‑facing facade and landscape plans.

Staff told the commission the project site, between Mount Diablo Boulevard and Highway 24, proposes demolition of three commercial buildings (about 9,000 square feet), merger of four parcels, and construction of a seven‑story building containing 90 residential units including 11 below‑market‑rate (BMR) units and about 2,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial. The applicant said the project now meets the city’s inclusionary requirement and no longer is seeking a concession; it proposes 183 parking spaces, 52 bike spaces and roughly 17,000 square feet of open space (about 34 percent of the site).

Staff described several changes since a January study session: the inclusionary unit mix was revised to meet proportional requirements, retaining walls were reduced in height, the driveway/garage access was reconfigured to use an existing legal access easement (rather than a proposed extension), and additional trees were added along the south elevation to soften the parking level.

The applicants—developers identifying themselves as SHA Development partners with representatives on the record—said the project is proposed under state density bonus law, which enabled the unit count and required a set of waivers related to parking, building height and upper‑story stepbacks. Staff said the project complies with the downtown objective design standards and the new SRD‑60 zoning district and that the site is included in the city’s housing element; staff also stated the project is categorically exempt from CEQA from a design‑review forwarding perspective. The applicants noted ongoing, required coordination with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for high‑rise protections and with Republic Services on refuse handling; they said building permits will be conditioned on those referrals.

Commissioners expressed consistent praise for the project’s massing, courtyard and material palette but raised three recurring requests: (1) provide detailed engineering and operation assurances for the proposed mechanized parking/lift system and how the internal garage circulation will function; (2) revise or add architectural expression on the south elevation—commonly visible to pedestrians and drivers on Oak Hill—to break its strong vertical rhythm; and (3) provide more detailed landscape plans showing tree species, planting depths and maintenance provisions for terraces and planters.

Several commissioners said they were satisfied with changes since January—particularly the move to meet the inclusionary unit mix—but emphasized that the Planning Commission and staff should confirm technical details of parking operations and fire protection. The commission then voted to forward the application to the Planning Commission with the comments recorded on the public record. The motion passed by voice vote (all present voted "Aye").