Lafayette design commission continues review of proposed two‑story house after neighbors raise privacy, tree and drainage concerns

The Lafayette Design Review Commission voted June 22 to continue consideration of a proposed two‑story house and detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 3961 South Paradale, directing the applicant to return with revisions focused on roof massing and tree preservation.

Planner Arley Cassidy told the commission the project would demolish the existing one‑story house and replace it with a two‑story residence and a detached ADU above a partially submerged gym; Cassidy said the staff report recommended the commission find the project exempt from CEQA (categorical exemptions for demolition and new single‑family construction) and adopt Resolution 20264 approving the project subject to listed conditions and any additional conditions the commission might add. Cassidy also summarized referrals and said engineering had outstanding drainage comments that should be resolved at building permit.

The applicant’s architect, Greg Hegy of KSH Architects, described a “classic‑proportioned” house with a rich materials palette and a dense landscape plan. Hegy said the ADU was intended primarily as pool support space with a small kitchenette and bathroom and that the lower level is partially embedded into the hillside.

Multiple neighbors spoke during public comment. Jim Morty, who lives at 3939 South Paradale, said his main concern was the proposed ADU and potential for new two‑story structures to loom over existing yards; he also asked whether trees removed near the creek would be replaced with mature specimens or with smaller plantings that would take decades to provide the same privacy. Audrey Gore (3953 South Paradale) told the commission the new second story would be out of proportion with her block and asked whether windows on the north elevation could be frosted or relocated to preserve privacy. Resident and nearby real‑estate professional speakers said they had worked with the design team and found the project generally well handled, while David Matcher (3967 South Paradale) pressed the commission on technical drainage concerns, warning that the current plans’ bubble‑up drains could retain water year‑round and create mosquito problems unless the stormwater design is adjusted.

Commissioners praised the project’s articulation and materials but repeatedly said the roof pitch and overall massing made the house read as excessively tall compared with adjacent single‑story homes. After discussion about sight lines, tree removal and the timeliness of replacement plantings, commissioners moved and seconded to continue the item so the applicant could return with substantial redesign work emphasizing a less massive roof profile and a clearer tree‑preservation/planting strategy. The motion carried; the commission did not set a specific return date at the meeting and noted the applicant could negotiate a date with staff.

What happens next The applicant will revise plans and coordinate with staff on roof massing alternatives, landscape and tree‑preservation measures, and drainage responses to engineering comments. Staff said ADU details that trigger building‑permit review (kitchen/sanitation clarifications) and engineering concerns would be resolved during permit review.

Reporting note: Staff presented the project materials and numerical quantities as in the staff report: the record lists the existing single‑story house as about 2,369 square feet and the proposed two‑story dwelling at roughly 5,066 square feet; staff said the grading plan showed approximately 125 cubic yards of cut and 775 cubic yards of fill (about 900 cubic yards total).