Design Review Commission Study Session for Sunnyvale Development - January 7, 2026

Note on meeting date: The transcript references a meeting on "November 19th," but per the official instruction, the meeting is dated January 7, 2026. This summary uses the provided date.

The Design Review Commission held a study session for a proposed eight-lot subdivision at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. The project, filed under SB 330, includes demolition of two existing single-family homes and accessory structures, construction of eight two-story single-family homes (one affordable unit), a private street, removal of 35 trees (11 highly protected, including Valley Oaks and Black Walnuts), new retaining walls and fences, and 14 requested waivers from development standards. Staff presented the project as consistent with objective standards; the commission's role is to provide input before the Planning Commission's final decision. The project cannot be denied under SB 330 if it meets applicable standards.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Multiple neighbors (Jill Lick Demandy, Michael Mancy, Jason Bowman, Laura Cottrell, Amanda Welch, Shua Dial, Martin, Hillary Heibel, Dave Dunning) expressed strong opposition citing:
  • Excessive density (8 units on a lot previously with 2 houses, plus potential ADU conversion to 9 units)
  • Removal of 35 trees, including 11 highly protected, eliminating wildlife habitat (owls, squirrels, raccoons) and privacy screens
  • Loss of privacy due to two-story homes overlooking adjacent backyards and pools
  • Increased traffic, parking congestion on Sunnyvale Avenue (already busy with abandoned vehicles and speeding)
  • Inadequate six-foot fences, given grade differences that result in neighbors on higher ground looking into development
  • Noise and mental health impacts from 64+ potential residents
  • Concerns about fire danger and private road maintenance
  • Several speakers requested higher fences (7–8 ft) and preservation of at least some healthy trees (e.g., tree #14)
• Speaker Jill Lick Demandy also noted the city does not enforce parking bans on Sunnyvale Avenue.
• Speaker Dave Dunning mentioned he had met with the developer and believed higher fences had been agreed upon, but the plans still show six feet.

Discussion Items

• Commissioner questions and comments:
  • Commissioner Case asked about ADU purpose (to provide housing flexibility, not sold as separate units) and parking (no additional parking required for ADUs per city code).
  • Commissioner Case expressed concern over tree removals but acknowledged limited authority; noted the Planning Commission will make the final decision on tree removal permits.
  • Commissioner Riley asked about driveway location (determined by existing drainage patterns, with slope draining toward the church side).
  • Commissioner Riley commented on site design: architecture and landscaping are acceptable, but density and tree loss are troubling; cited state law constraints.
  • Vice Chair Basting suggested increasing perimeter fences to seven feet and selecting larger, faster-growing canopy trees on the perimeter to mitigate privacy and habitat loss.
  • Chair Newsom echoed that the commission's hands are tied on density, stories, and tree removal under state law; recommended that the applicant confirm seven-foot fences and address habitat claims (the environmental review states no endangered species, but neighbors reported owls and other wildlife).
• Applicant rebuttal:
  • Doug Cummins (Dollar Group Architecture) explained that rear windows are limited (bullet windows at stairs, egress windows set back over 20 feet from property line), no height variance (roof pitch allows 27 ft vs. 25 ft standard).
  • Justin Joseph (civil engineer) clarified that the six-foot wood fence sits atop a 2–3 ft retaining wall; the development sits lower than adjacent neighbors, so neighbors see an 8–9 ft total height, while the development sees 6 ft from their side.
  • Landscape architect pointed out tree #14 is within the proposed private street asphalt near lot 8, making preservation impractical.

Key Outcomes

• No formal vote taken; meeting was a study session for input.
• Commission consensus on recommendations to the Planning Commission:
  • Increase perimeter fence height to seven feet (the maximum allowed) to improve privacy.
  • Select larger or faster-growing tree species for perimeter landscaping to enhance canopy and screening.
  • Address the habitat claim: the environmental review's statement that the site has no value for endangered species should be reexamined given public testimony about owls and other wildlife.
  • The applicant should consider preserving as many healthy trees as possible, though the commission acknowledged limited ability to influence density or stories.
• Next steps: The project will proceed to the Planning Commission for a final decision on the major subdivision, design review, tree removal permits, and density bonus waivers. The Design Review Commission's comments will be forwarded.