Lafayette design panel questions scale, density of proposed 120‑unit senior living complex

Lafayette 'At a Oct. 27 study session, city staff and an applicant team presented a proposal for a three‑story, 120‑unit senior residential building on four contiguous parcels at the Eileen/Stewart site. Arlie Castell, the project planner, told the Design Review Commission the packet is preliminary and "a study session does not include a formal action." The project as presented would include 89 assisted‑living units, 31 memory‑care units, a subterranean garage and substantial regrading.

The property spans roughly 53,058 square feet (1.22 acres) and was rezoned under Lafayette's housing element to C‑160 (East End Commercial‑60), Castell said. The applicant's materials note about 24,000 cubic yards of cut are proposed to create a subsurface parking garage below three levels of living units; the applicant's package also includes a nine‑year‑old arborist report cataloging 60 trees on or adjacent to the site, 55 of which the submittal identified for removal.

The project team explained programmatic choices. Architect Aaron Clark said memory‑care units would be secured on the lowest residential floor in a "donut" circulation pattern intended for residents who wander, and described shared dining, wellness and circulation spaces. Owner Jim Preeti described landscaping already planted under a 2017 adopt‑the‑highway permit and said the team has sought to reduce height to comply with the zoning measurement.

Commissioners pressed on three central technical issues. Castell said the site's base density is 60 units per acre; at 1.22 acres that yields roughly 73 units under a straight 60/acre calculation. The proposed 120 units therefore substantially exceed the base density. Castell noted an applicant could pursue a state density bonus tied to on‑site affordable units but said the applicant had not filed such an application in the study packet. "They would then be able to use whatever, affordable units they are including in their base proposal to request a density bonus," Castell said.

Commissioners also flagged height and massing. Staff measurements presented a 65 feet 6 inches measurement from the lowest grade to the roof in one elevation, which Castell said exceeds the city's 60‑foot measurement for the zoning; the applicant later said design changes brought the building to 60 feet in the most recent revisions. Commissioners asked the applicant to provide cross‑sections that show how building height compares to Highway 24, the apartment complex to the south and neighboring homes.

Several neighbors raised property and access concerns during public comment. Resident Jenny Sweetland said portions of the historical roadway and implied easement have been abandoned and that her frontage improvements have been in place for years; she said the proposal would place a large retaining wall 8–10 feet from her front porch. A representative of the adjacent Samantha Townhomes, Candace Lee, asked where mechanical equipment and kitchen exhaust would be located and requested acoustical and emissions studies and clearer documentation of the Stewart Street easement or title.

The applicant team responded that mechanical and exhaust siting and noise studies typically occur during design development and noted assisted‑living facilities generally receive nonemergency responses from first responders. Project architect Clark and operations partner Jason Reyes emphasized the proposal is for assisted living, not skilled nursing, and described typical day‑to‑day operations.

Commission feedback emphasized scale, massing and context. "The project is too dense," Commissioner Armin said. Other commissioners echoed concerns about a long, unrelieved southern elevation visible from the city and asked for greater articulation, more robust landscape buffering and scaled sections that show the building in relation to the freeway and adjacent structures. Staff reiterated no formal approvals were proposed and asked the applicant to return with updated technical reports, a current arborist report, parking calculations tied to a clarified land‑use classification, and sections showing context.

The item was a study session only; no decision was made and no formal motion was taken. Staff advised the applicant to update studies and return for formal review once application materials are complete.