Design Review Commission Study Session – November 19, 2025

On November 19, 2025, the Walnut Creek Design Review Commission held a study session to review the proposed Sunnyvale single-family residential development at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. The meeting included a staff presentation, public testimony from neighbors, applicant rebuttal, and commissioner comments. The commission provided recommendations for the project, which will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action.

Consent Calendar

• No items were placed on the consent calendar; staff had no recommendations.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jill Lick Demandy (1689 Suncrest Court): Opposed the project, citing increased traffic, loss of privacy from tree removal and two-story homes, wildlife habitat loss, and concerns about fence height and construction logistics.
• Michael Mansy (same address): Strongly opposed the density (eight units vs. two), loss of trees, and two-story height blocking views. Preferred three or four single-story units.
• Jason Bowman (1715 Sunnyvale Avenue): Concerned about density, lack of gaps between units, light from west, height, and privacy overlooking his pool. Suggested six units would be more reasonable.
• Laura Cottrell (1687 Suncrest Court): Opposed due to privacy loss from two units facing her property, shared foliage removal, loss of oak trees and owl habitat, increased traffic and parking.
• Amanda Welch (1691 Suncrest Court): Appalled by density, tree removal (especially 11 highly protected trees), traffic on Sunnyvale Avenue, parking overflow, and noted that ADU could make it nine units.
• Shua DL (1715 San Diego Avenue): Shocked by eight units, privacy concerns with four houses adjacent, close setbacks (11 feet), noise, and potential for 64 people (16 units with ADUs).
• Martin (neighbor): Concerns about height variance, traffic, potential future sale of ADU units, variances from fire standards, and difficulty of tree removal for homeowners vs. developer.
• Sillary Heibel (Maggie Lane): Lobbied to save tree #14, questioned why not townhomes, requested taller fences (8 feet) on back side, and warned about private road parking issues.
• Dave Dunning (Maggie Lane): Noted removal of tall bushes along east property line, privacy loss due to raised foundations, and requested higher fences (agreed with developer previously but plans show 6 feet).

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Assistant Planner Gerardo Victoria presented the project: demolition of two existing homes, construction of eight two-story single-family homes (one affordable), a private street, 5-foot land dedication, bioretention area, retaining walls, and removal of 35 trees (11 highly protected). The project is filed under SB 330 and seeks a 30.5% density bonus (from base 6 units to 8 units). Applicant requests 14 waivers from development standards (e.g., reduced lot size to 4,100 sq ft from 8,000 sq ft, reduced setbacks). Height is within code with pitched roof allowance (25 ft plus up to 4 ft). Staff requested commission comments on site layout, architecture, landscaping, colors/materials, density bonus, and tree removal permits.
• Commissioner Questions:
  • Commissioner asked about ADU purpose and parking. Applicant responded ADUs provide flexible housing (rental or family), not sold separately, and no additional parking required by code. Guest parking includes nine stalls.
  • Commissioner asked about tree removal process. Staff explained two-step ordinance: arborist evaluation then planning commission decision based on development feasibility. Commission makes recommendation only.
  • Commissioner asked about traffic and fire standards. Staff noted project met standards; no traffic report required.
• Applicant Rebuttal:
  • Addressed window design: bullet windows at stairs limit visibility; rear second floors set back 50-60%.
  • Confirmed no height variance; roof pitches meet code.
  • Explained fence heights: 6-foot wood fence on top of 2-3 foot retaining wall, meaning neighbors on higher ground see about 8 feet, while new development sees 6 feet from their side.
  • Identified tree #14 as located in the future roadway (under asphalt) and thus cannot be saved.
  • Civil engineer explained driveway location on church side due to historic drainage pattern.
• Commissioner Comments:
  • Commissioners expressed sympathy for neighbors but noted limited authority under state law (SB 330) to deny or modify density, height, or stories. The project is consistent with objective standards.
  • Recommendations for the project as it goes to Planning Commission:
    1. Increase perimeter fences to the maximum height of 7 feet (where allowable by code) to enhance privacy.
    2. Enhance perimeter landscaping with larger, faster-growing tree species (e.g., 36-inch box trees where appropriate) to provide more canopy and screening.
    3. Address the potential habitat value of the site (owls, squirrels, etc.) in the environmental review (CEQA), as the current exemption claims no significant habitat.
  • One commissioner noted the tree removal is “atrocious” but this decision lies with the Planning Commission.
  • The commission had no authority to change site layout, density, or number of stories.

Key Outcomes

• The commission did not vote; this was a study session to provide input to the Planning Commission.
• Formal recommendations: (1) raise perimeter fence to 7 feet, (2) select larger/species trees for perimeter landscaping, (3) better address wildlife habitat in CEQA analysis.
• The project will be scheduled for the December 17, 2025 Design Review Commission meeting (if needed) and later go to the Planning Commission for final action.
• The commission also noted that the December 3, 2025 meeting may be canceled due to lack of agenda items.