Consultant Planner Monica Ly presented a staff report to the Lafayette City Council during its March 23 meeting regarding the Mount Diablo Condominiums project – a development proposal for a site located on the corner of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Second Street in downtown Lafayette that currently features a one-story commercial building. 

    The proposal is to demolish the one-story building and replace it with a six-story mixed-use residential development that includes structured parking. The new development would feature ground-floor commercial space and 31 for-sale condominium residential units. These units would be a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom options. The proposal has 28 market-rate units and three below-market-rate units: two very low-income and one moderate-income. The project also includes the removal of 18 protected trees with replacement trees provided in accordance with city requirements.

    The property owner, OUTDO Lafayette LLC, filed a preliminary application and an application for a Design Review Commission (DRC) study session in April 2025. In May, the DRC held a study session to review the early version of the project. 

    The staff report highlighted several design changes OUTDO Lafayette made after the DRC recommended denial of the project on Feb. 9 due to concerns with the project’s height, lack of meaningful step-backs, and insufficient landscaping. However, after revisions the DRC voted to recommend approval of the project. 

    On March 2, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and received written and oral testimony, including public comment, a staff report, and presentations from the applicant team. During the hearing, commissioners discussed several aspects of the proposed project, including the requested waivers, as well as parking circulation and accessibility, according to the staff report. 

    At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted (4-0-1) to adopt Resolution 2026-02 recommending that the City Council approve the project, subject to the conditions of approval. The preliminary application was deemed complete at this time.

    A significant portion of the council’s March 23 meeting focused on the placement of the project’s below-market-rate units. In the design Ly presented, two very low-income units were placed on the second floor next to the parking garage. However, city code requires that affordable units be dispersed proportionately throughout a building. Ly explained that placing smaller, 900 square foot below-market-rate units on the second floor helped visually shield the garage and prevented major structural and plumbing realignments on upper floors.

    Ultimately, under the State Density Bonus Law, the developer is entitled to one concession, or waiver of a local requirement. OUTDO Lafayette initially hoped to provide a three-bedroom below-market-rate unit in exchange for using their concession to waive the city’s public art requirement, but the city council informed them that they would have to use it to bypass the dispersion requirement instead.

    The council then asked questions regarding logistical and design elements. This included the choice to change a commercial unit to a live-work unit, the usage of solar power, trash pickup logistics, and the project’s massing and materials.

    During the public comment portion of the meeting, Will Newhart requested that the city council deny the project, saying it is out of character for Lafayette, and contrasts the city’s usual semi-rural charm – similar concerns raised by design review commissioners in the report notes. 
    Mayor Carl Anduri said he was happy to have housing in this location, but would not have wanted six stories and so close to the sidewalk, and expressed his frustration in terms of this huge building going in, but said he believed it looked better than buildings going into Walnut Creek. He asked the developer to consider larger trees in the landscaping to mask the base of the building.

    The council took two votes regarding the project: one on the dispersion of below-market-rate units, and one on the project resolution. The vote on dispersion was deadlocked 2-2 (Council Member Susan Candell was absent). Consequently, the developer can use their concession to waive the city’s public art requirement. The council unanimously voted in favor of project resolution with the amendment that provides for protection during construction of the oak tree on Second Street across from the project site.