OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Design Review Commission Study Session on Sunnyvale Development - December 3, 2025

City Council — Wednesday, December 3, 2025
BodyWalnut Creek, California
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, December 3, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:00:00
Transcript — Verbatim
0:20

That's 15 seconds.

0:21

So thanks.

0:23

Thanks for coming and attending the November 19th Design Review Commission.

0:29

Can we do a roll call, please?

0:32

Thank you, Chair.

0:33

Commissioner Case.

0:35

Here.

0:35

Commissioner Riley.

0:37

Here.

0:37

Vice Chair Basting.

0:38

Here.

0:39

Chair Newsom.

0:40

Here.

0:41

All are present.

0:42

We have a quorum.

0:45

Thank you.

0:46

Next up is the consent calendar.

0:49

Do we have anything to put on the consent calendar?

0:51

Staff has no recommendations.

0:53

Okay, so we move on to public communications.

0:56

And this portion of the meeting is reserved for comments that are not on the agenda.

1:02

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.

1:15

Um any public communications?

1:18

Outside of this subject, which is the public hearing commitment.

1:23

Okay, good.

1:24

Um I see there's a lot of people here.

1:27

Oh, something outside, sorry.

1:32

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.

1:41

I see we have a few.

1:43

Um, so go ahead if you're gonna come up, fill out your card.

1:47

So we're ready when it's time for you to come up.

1:49

You'll be called up in order.

1:51

So, I mean, we're leading up to the public uh public hearing here, so now it's what I have to ask.

2:00

Have any of the commissioners had any ex parte communications about the projects on?

2:07

No, no, no, no.

2:09

Okay, very good.

2:12

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.

2:20

Does staff have a presentation?

2:24

Yes, looks like you do.

2:26

So why don't you go ahead, Geraldo?

2:48

So good evening, design review commissioners.

2:50

My name is Gerardo Victoria.

2:52

I'm an assistant planner with the community development department.

2:55

The project before you today is the Sunnyvale Single Family Residential Development located at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue.

3:07

So just some site context.

3:09

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.

3:18

The zoning, which is located down here is residential eight, and it is surrounded by other single family homes to the right.

3:27

If you're standing on Sunnyvale Avenue, to the right is the Taiwanese cultural center located right here.

3:34

The front picture is the front of the property, and the bottom picture right here.

3:40

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.

3:56

So the project description is to demo two existing single-family residences and accessory structures, construct an eight-lot subdivision with a private street, construct a five-foot land dedication fronting Sunnyvale Avenue, eight two-story single family homes, one of which will be an affordable unit.

4:28

New two-foot concrete retaining walls and a six-foot privacy fence or fences.

4:34

Removal of 35 trees, 11 of which are highly protected in Walnut Creek.

4:38

They include a valley oaks and black walnuts.

4:42

The project was filed under SB 330 application in June of 2025, and the development application, which is before you today, was filed in July of 2025.

4:58

So just a timeline of where we are.

5:01

We are here before you tonight for your input at a study session for the major subdivision, the design review, which includes the site layout, the architecture, the landscaping, the colors and materials, the density bonus, the tree removals, and the tree drip line encroachment permits.

5:19

The project will be scheduled at planning commission for their consideration at a later date.

5:26

So under SB 330, city review is limited if the project meets all the applicable standards, which means it cannot be denied.

5:37

Density cannot be lowered without specific findings of health and safety impacts.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning and Planning█████████████████████████████████████████████76%
Environmental Protection█████████15%
Procedural██4%
Transportation Safety█2%
Engineering And Infrastructure█2%
Affordable Housing█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Design Review Commission Study Session on Sunnyvale Development

Note: The transcript indicates the chair opened the meeting on "November 19th," but the provided date for this summary is December 3, 2025. This discrepancy is noted.

The Design Review Commission held a study session on December 3, 2025, to review and comment on a proposed eight-lot single-family subdivision at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. The project includes demolition of two existing homes, construction of eight two-story homes (one affordable unit), a private street, tree removals, and a density bonus under SB 330. The commission had no voting authority; their input will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final decisions.

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 density, citing increased traffic, loss of privacy from two-story homes, removal of habitat (owls, squirrels), and requested taller perimeter fences (7 feet) and better screening.
  • Unnamed speaker (husband of Jill) vehemently opposed the eight two-story units, calling for a maximum of three to four single-story homes, and objected to tree removal and loss of views.
  • Jason Bowman (1715 Sunnyvale Avenue) expressed concerns about density, narrow setbacks (11 feet) overlooking his pool, and privacy. He felt six units would be more reasonable.
  • Laura Cotchell (1687 Suncrest Court) opposed removal of shared foliage, loss of owl habitat, and increased traffic and parking issues due to density.
  • Amanda Welch (1691 Suncrest Court) opposed the project, highlighting that the ADU could become a ninth unit, traffic congestion, parking overflow onto Sunnyvale Avenue, and loss of 11 highly protected trees.
  • Shua Dial (1715 Sunnyvale Avenue) raised concerns about four adjacent houses, privacy loss over his pool, impacts on mental health, noise, and that the ADU could multiply occupancy to 64 people.
  • Martin (neighbor) opposed variances, traffic, fire safety risks, and questioned why 35 trees (including protected ones) could be removed when homeowners face strict rules.
  • Hillary Heibel (Maggie Lane) requested saving tree #14 (a tall canopy tree), asked why townhomes weren't considered instead of single-family homes, and requested 8-foot fences on the back side and clarification on private road parking enforcement.
  • Dave Dunning (Maggie Lane) noted removal of large bushes (15-25 ft) along the property line that currently provide privacy, and requested higher fences (since his home is on a raised foundation), stating the developer had previously agreed to higher fences.

Discussion Items

  • Staff Presentation (Gerardo Victoria): Presented the project details: 0.93-acre site zoned R-8, base density of 6 units, density bonus of 30.5% for one affordable unit allows 8 homes. 14 waivers requested (e.g., minimum lot size 4,100 sq ft vs. 8,000; front setback 4 ft vs. 20 ft). 35 trees to be removed, 11 highly protected (valley oaks, black walnuts). Staff used in-field CEQA exemption. The commission was asked to comment on site layout, architecture, landscaping, colors/materials, density bonus, tree removal, and tree drip line encroachment.
  • Applicant Rebuttal (Doug Cummons, Justin Joseph, Onica Carpenter): Addressed privacy with bullet windows and rear-bedroom setbacks; fence height of 6 ft on a 2-3 ft retaining wall (total effective height: 8 ft from lower side, 6 ft from higher side). Tree #14 is located within the proposed road (asphalt) and cannot be saved. Driveway location was dictated by grading and drainage.
  • Commissioner Comments: All commissioners expressed sympathy for neighbors but noted limited authority under state density bonus law. They highlighted that density, number of stories, and many waivers are essentially mandated. They suggested:
    • Increase perimeter fences to 7 feet (maximum allowed) facing neighbors.
    • Select larger and faster-growing replacement trees on the perimeter to restore canopy.
    • Preserve or add more screening shrubs along fences.
    • The Planning Commission should scrutinize the CEQA finding that the site has no wildlife habitat value, given public testimony about owls and other animals.

Key Outcomes

  • No formal votes were taken; the meeting was a study session to gather input.
  • The commission directed staff to forward the following recommendations to the Planning Commission:
    • Increase perimeter fence height to 7 feet on the sides facing residential neighbors.
    • Use larger or faster-growing tree species for replacement trees (e.g., 24-inch box minimum, but consider species that grow quickly to restore canopy).
    • Maintain or add screening shrubs along property lines.
    • Ensure the applicant addresses wildlife habitat concerns (owls, squirrels) in the environmental review at the Planning Commission.
  • The project will proceed to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and final decisions on the subdivision, tree removal permits, and other approvals.

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com