Wed, Dec 17, 2025·Walnut Creek, California·City Council

Design Review Commission Study Session on Sunnyvale Avenue Subdivision (2025-12-17)

Discussion Breakdown

Zoning and Planning69%
Environmental Protection11%
Transportation Safety10%
Community Engagement4%
Engineering And Infrastructure4%
Affordable Housing2%

Summary

Design Review Commission Study Session on 1725 Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2025-12-17)

The Design Review Commission held a public hearing/study session on an SB 330 / Density Bonus single-family subdivision at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. Staff and the applicant presented an eight-lot proposal with one affordable unit, significant tree removal, and multiple development-standard waivers. Public testimony focused on opposition to the project’s density and two-story massing, tree and habitat loss, traffic/parking impacts, and privacy concerns. Commissioners emphasized the legal limits on reducing density under state law, while providing comments intended for the Planning Commission—especially on fencing height and perimeter screening.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Jill Lick Demandy (Suncrest Court, backs to site): Expressed concern about increased traffic/overnight street parking, loss of privacy from two-story homes after tree removal, wildlife displacement (owl, squirrels), and asked for higher fencing and clarity on construction logistics (fence removal timing, dogs).
  • Neighbor (spoke after Jill; spouse of prior speaker): Stated strong opposition to the density (eight homes replacing two), opposed tree removal and two-story height, cited loss of views and privacy; said 3–4 single-story homes would be acceptable.
  • Jason Bowman (1715 Sunnyvale Ave, adjacent): Raised privacy and light impacts, describing the project as significantly denser than surrounding properties; suggested 6 units or fewer would be more reasonable; noted the applicant appeared to be seeking “as much as they can” via exemptions.
  • Laura Cotchell (1687 Suncrest Court): Opposed loss of shared foliage screen and tree removal; expressed concern about traffic/parking and service activity (deliveries/garbage); urged saving at least one major oak if possible.
  • Amanda Welch (1691 Suncrest Court): Expressed being strongly against the project; argued ADUs could function like additional units and worsen traffic/parking; stated concerns about people not parking in garages and existing abandoned vehicles; opposed removal of “majestic” highly protected trees.
  • Shua Dial (1715 Sunnyvale Ave, adjacent): Described being shocked by the plan and number of exceptions; expressed privacy and safety concerns (views into pool), noise concerns, and said impacts would be very negative for mental health; speculated higher population from ADUs.
  • Martin (neighbor): Raised concerns about variances/waivers, traffic, and future possibility of ADU rules changing; questioned fire-related setback adequacy and mitigation; noted speeding/racing and accidents on Sunnyvale.
  • Silary Heibel (Maggie Lane, behind site): Requested saving “tree 14” for canopy; questioned why there are windows on all sides; asked why not townhomes/condos; advocated higher fences (up to 8 feet) for privacy; cautioned a private road could create parking/enforcement issues.
  • Dave Dunning (Maggie Lane): Emphasized privacy loss from removal of tall bushes along east property line; stated six-foot fencing is ineffective given raised foundations; said he previously believed higher fences were agreed and asked for that commitment in writing.

Discussion Items

  • Staff presentation (Assistant Planner Gerardo Victoria)

    • Project description: Demolish two existing single-family homes and accessory structures; build an 8-lot subdivision with private street and hammerhead turn; eight two-story homes (all same floor plan: 3 bed/2.5 bath plus ADU, with an option to convert ADU area to a bedroom); one affordable unit; 5-foot land dedication along Sunnyvale; retaining walls and fences; remove 35 trees, including 11 highly protected.
    • SB 330 / Density Bonus framing: Review is limited if objective standards are met; project cannot be denied if standards met; density cannot be lowered without specific health/safety findings.
    • Density bonus: Base density rounded to 6 units; with one low-income unit, staff described a 17% density bonus leading to rounding that allows 8 homes.
    • Waivers: Applicant requested 14 waivers (examples cited: lot size reduced from 8,000 sf to ~4,100 sf; front setback reduced to 4 feet—staff corrected earlier staff report error that had said 3 feet).
    • Trees: City arborist approved 8 removals due to poor health; remaining removals, including highly protected trees, would be evaluated through the city’s two-step process and ultimately by the Planning Commission as part of project approvals.
    • Traffic: Routed to traffic division; staff stated project meets standards and no traffic study required.
    • CEQA: Staff anticipated using an infill exemption, stating no significant effects for traffic/noise/air/water quality and no habitat value for endangered/rare/threatened species.
  • Applicant responses (Doug Cummins, Donald Group Architecture; team)

    • ADUs: Stated purpose is to provide flexible housing for homeowners (rental income, family members); not sold separately from the main home; optional conversion to a bedroom.
    • Parking: Applicant stated that because ADUs are not sold separately, they do not change the project’s parking calculation; staff noted city does not require additional parking for ADUs.
    • Privacy design: For Lot 8 adjacency, stated the home was moved further from lot line; bullet/stair windows intended to limit side-yard viewing; rear second floor is set back; certain bedroom windows required for fire egress.
    • Fence/grade (Civil engineer Justin Joseph): Explained a 6-foot wood fence on a roughly 2–3 foot retaining wall; described relative grade differences—project generally lower than adjacent residential areas by about 2–3 feet, affecting perceived fence height from each side.
    • Tree 14 (Landscape architect Onica Carpenter): Identified tree 14 location near the center of the internal road/near the turnaround area, implying constraints due to roadway placement.
  • Commissioner questions/clarifications

    • Asked about ADU intent and parking.
    • Asked about removal of highly protected trees and how it is allowed (staff explained ordinance process and Planning Commission authority).
    • Asked whether there was a height variance; staff clarified height rule: 25 feet base, with additional height allowed when roof pitch meets required minimum (applicant’s pitch cited as meeting the standard).
    • Asked why driveway/private street layout is on the cultural center side; civil engineer attributed to historic drainage/grading requirements.

Commissioner Comments

  • Commissioner Case: Said architecture/landscape/grading appear fine; main discomfort is site design and density impacts, but noted limited commission authority under state law; expressed dislike for tree/habitat loss and difficulty of adapting higher density in a predominantly single-family context.
  • Commissioner Riley: Recommended maximizing fence height (as allowed) along residential edges and continued neighbor coordination; urged consideration of larger/faster-growing perimeter canopy species to improve screening and neighbor compatibility.
  • Vice Chair Basting: Echoed limitations due to state law; recommended applicant clearly indicate maximum allowable fence height on plans to avoid confusion.
  • Chair Newsom: Emphasized commission’s limited control over density and stories for density bonus projects; called tree removals “atrocious” and said Planning Commission has key authority; supported higher fences and more screening/shrubs; flagged that the statement that the site has “no value” as habitat may need a stronger mitigation response at Planning Commission based on testimony.

Key Outcomes

  • No consent items were acted on.
  • Public hearing/study session completed with commission comments for forwarding to the Planning Commission.
  • Primary directives/recommendations to carry forward:
    • Clarify and, where allowable, increase perimeter fence height (commissioners repeatedly referenced 7-foot perimeter fencing as the maximum allowable).
    • Improve perimeter screening/canopy through species selection and potentially reconsidering the replacement tree mix for faster or more effective screening.
    • Provide clearer responses at Planning Commission regarding habitat/wildlife impacts in light of public testimony challenging the staff CEQA/habitat assertions.
    • Ensure plan clarity on privacy measures (window placement/bullet windows) and grading/fence height relationships.

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. Any public communications? Outside of this subject, which is the public hearing coming up. Okay, good. Um I see there's a lot of people here. Oh something outside, sorry. If you 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 cards 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 I also want to 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. 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. New two-foot concrete retaining walls, and a six-foot privacy fence or fences.