Wed, Dec 3, 2025·Walnut Creek, California·City Council

Design Review Commission Study Session on 1725 Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2025-12-03)

Discussion Breakdown

Zoning and Planning76%
Environmental Protection15%
Procedural4%
Transportation Safety2%
Engineering And Infrastructure2%
Affordable Housing1%

Summary

Design Review Commission Study Session on 1725 Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2025-12-03)

The Design Review Commission held a study-session-style public hearing on an SB 330 / Density Bonus single-family subdivision proposal at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. Staff and the applicant presented an 8-lot private-street subdivision with one affordable unit, significant tree removals, and multiple development-standard waivers. Public testimony focused on opposition to the project’s density and two-story massing, privacy impacts, traffic/parking concerns, and the loss of mature trees and habitat. Commissioners emphasized the limited discretion under state law, while forwarding design-focused feedback (notably fencing and perimeter screening) for Planning Commission consideration.

Consent Calendar

  • None (staff had no recommendations).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Jill (resident, 1689 Suncrest Ct): Expressed opposition to the project’s density; raised traffic/overnight parking concerns; objected to tree removal and loss of privacy from two-story homes; asked about wildlife impacts; requested taller perimeter fencing and clarity on construction logistics (dogs/fence removal timing).
  • Speaker (husband/neighbor): Expressed strong opposition to “eight units at two stories”; cited loss of views, privacy impacts, and tree/habitat removal; stated preference for fewer homes and single-story development.
  • Jason Bowman (resident, 1715 Sunnyvale Ave): Raised concerns about privacy (multiple units overlooking), setbacks/light impacts, and overall over-squeezing/exemptions; stated some support for development in principle but said 6 units would be more reasonable.
  • Laura Cotchell (resident, 1687 Suncrest Ct): Objected to loss of shared foliage screening; cited owl presence and desire to save at least one major healthy oak; raised concerns about traffic/parking impacts with ADUs/deliveries/garbage.
  • Amanda Welch (resident, 1691 Suncrest Ct): Strongly opposed, emphasizing tree removal and traffic/parking enforcement; argued ADUs could effectively increase units (“eight…but…ADU…makes it nine”); questioned real-world garage parking; raised privacy impacts.
  • Shua Dial (resident, 1715 Sunnyvale Ave): Opposed due to privacy, setback waivers, and fence height; stated project would negatively affect mental health and work-from-home environment; speculated ADUs could increase population/units and increase noise/traffic.
  • Martin (neighbor): Opposed based on traffic, variances, and concern ADU rules could change over time; raised concerns about fire-related setbacks/mitigation; compared difficulty of prior homeowner tree-removal permitting to the current proposal.
  • Hillary Heibel (resident, Maggie Ln): Focused on design changes rather than opposing infill generally; advocated to preserve “tree 14” for canopy; questioned why the project is single-family rather than townhomes/condos; requested taller fencing (up to 8 feet); raised concern about private road and parking enforcement.
  • Dave Dunning (resident, Maggie Ln): Emphasized removal of tall privacy bushes along property lines; requested higher fences due to elevation differences/raised foundations; stated he believed there had been an understanding with the developer about higher fencing.

Discussion Items

  • Staff presentation (Gerardo Victoria, Assistant Planner)
    • Project description: Demolish 2 existing single-family homes and accessory structures; build 8-lot subdivision with private street/hammerhead, eight two-story homes, one affordable unit, 5-foot land dedication, bioretention area, retaining walls/fencing, and removal of 35 trees (including 11 “highly protected” trees).
    • SB 330 constraints: If objective standards are met, review is limited and the project cannot be denied; density cannot be reduced without specific health/safety findings; standards vest to June 2025 pre-application.
    • Density bonus: Base density rounded to 6 units; with one low-income unit, staff described a 17% density bonus enabling rounding to 8 homes.
    • Waivers: Applicant requesting 14 waivers, including reduced lot size (8,000 sq ft required vs. ~4,100 proposed) and reduced front setback (20 ft required vs. 4 ft minimum proposed).
    • Trees/CEQA: Staff anticipated using a CEQA infill exemption and stated the site has no value as habitat for endangered/rare/threatened species; noted some removals were approved by the City arborist due to poor health.
    • Traffic/fire: Staff stated traffic division and fire reviewed and found the project meets standards; no traffic report required.
  • Commission Q&A (ADUs, trees, traffic)
    • Commissioners sought clarification on ADU purpose and parking.
    • Chair raised questions about how removal of highly protected trees is allowed and whether traffic reporting is required.
  • Applicant responses (Doug Cummons, Dollar Group Architecture; Justin Joseph, CBG Civil Engineers; Onica Carpenter, Ripley Design Group)
    • ADUs: Intended to provide flexible housing for homeowners (e.g., rental income or family use); not sold separately; optional layout allows converting ADU area to a bedroom.
    • Parking: ADUs do not trigger separate parking requirements if not sold as separate units; plan shows nine parallel guest stalls along the private street.
    • Privacy/window design: Use of bullet/transom windows at stairs in privacy-sensitive locations; rear egress windows required by code; second floors are partially set back to reduce massing.
    • Fence/retaining: A 6-foot wood fence sits on a ~2–3 foot retaining wall in many areas; engineer described relative grades (project lower than adjacent residential areas in places), affecting perceived height.
    • Tree 14 location: Landscape architect indicated Tree 14 is near the center of the proposed road (near lot 8/turn area), making preservation difficult.
  • Commission clarification (height)
    • Staff clarified that although the zone height is 25 feet, additional height is allowed with roof pitch; applicant’s 4:12 pitch meets the standard (no height variance needed).

Key Outcomes

  • No formal action/vote recorded (study session with comments to be forwarded).
  • Commission feedback to carry forward to Planning Commission:
    • Explore increasing perimeter fence height (commissioners discussed maximizing allowable height, including references to 7-foot perimeter fencing).
    • Strengthen perimeter screening/canopy by considering larger or faster-growing tree species and additional shrub screening where feasible.
    • Acknowledge and flag community concerns about tree loss/habitat, privacy, and traffic/parking, noting that Planning Commission is the primary decision-maker for several issues (including ultimate determinations tied to tree removal and broader project entitlements under state law).
  • Next steps: Project to be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration at a later date.

Meeting Transcript

That's 15 seconds. So thanks. Thanks for coming and attending the November 19th Design Review Commission. Can we do a roll call, please? Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Case. Here. Commissioner Riley. Here. Vice Chair Basting. Here. Chair Newsom. Here. All are present. We have a quorum. Thank you. Next up is the consent calendar. Do we have anything to put on the consent calendar? Staff has no recommendations. Okay, so we move on to public communications. And this portion of the meeting is reserved for comments that are not on the agenda. Under the Brown Act, commissioners cannot act on items raised during public communications, but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification, refer an item to staff. Um any public communications? Outside of this subject, which is the public hearing commitment. Okay, good. Um I see there's a lot of people here. Oh, something outside, sorry. If you if you're gonna come up and speak on any subject, um, we're gonna need a yellow comment card, and those are in the back right there, so fill them out. I see we have a few. Um, so go ahead if you're gonna come up, fill out your card. So we're ready when it's time for you to come up. You'll be called up in order. So, I mean, we're leading up to the public uh public hearing here, so now it's what I have to ask. Have any of the commissioners had any ex parte communications about the projects on? No, no, no, no. Okay, very good. So now we're gonna open up the public hearing, and looks like we have one item in the public hearing, which is the Sunnyvale development. Does staff have a presentation? Yes, looks like you do. So why don't you go ahead, Geraldo? So good evening, design review commissioners. My name is Gerardo Victoria. I'm an assistant planner with the community development department. The project before you today is the Sunnyvale Single Family Residential Development located at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. So just some site context. The general plan designation for this site that's right here outlined in yellow is single family medium, which allows three to six dwelling units per acre. The zoning, which is located down here is residential eight, and it is surrounded by other single family homes to the right. If you're standing on Sunnyvale Avenue, to the right is the Taiwanese cultural center located right here. The front picture is the front of the property, and the bottom picture right here. There's a driveway on the right hand side that comes down, and this is taken on the interior of the parcel where you see the single-family home, accessory structures here, and on the front, there's also an existing single-family residence.