Wed, Jan 7, 2026·Walnut Creek, California·City Council

Design Review Commission Study Session on Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2026-01-07)

Discussion Breakdown

Zoning and Planning76%
Environmental Protection12%
Public Engagement5%
Engineering And Infrastructure4%
Public Safety2%
Transportation Safety1%

Summary

Design Review Commission Study Session on Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2026-01-07)

The Design Review Commission held a study session on a proposed eight-lot single-family subdivision at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue, focusing on design review elements (site layout, architecture, landscaping, colors/materials), density bonus/waivers, and major tree removals. Commissioners emphasized that state housing laws and SB 330/density bonus provisions significantly limit the City’s ability to reduce density or deny a compliant project, and that several key issues (especially tree removal and broader planning considerations) will ultimately be decided at the Planning Commission.

Consent Calendar

  • None (staff had no recommendations).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Jill Lick Demandy (Suncrest Court, backs up to site): Expressed concerns about increased traffic/parking, loss of privacy due to tree removal and two-story homes, wildlife displacement (owl, squirrels), requested higher fencing than six feet, and asked about construction logistics (temporary loss of fencing affecting pets).
  • Michael Mancy (Suncrest Court): Stated strong opposition to the proposed density and two-story scale; opposed extensive tree removal and said it would block views and increase overlooking; stated preference for fewer homes (e.g., “three houses, four at the most”) and single-story.
  • Jason Bowman (1715 Sunnyvale Ave, adjacent): Raised privacy and shading/daylight concerns due to close spacing and two-story height; stated the project felt unusually dense for the area and requested fewer units (six or four).
  • Laura Cottrell (Suncrest Court): Focused on privacy impacts from removal of shared fence-line foliage, wildlife impacts (owls), and traffic/operations impacts (deliveries/garbage) associated with added units and ADUs.
  • Amanda Welch (Suncrest Court): Opposed tree removal and density; expressed concern that ADUs could effectively increase unit count and traffic/parking; stated Sunnyvale Ave is already busy with speeding and that street parking enforcement is lacking.
  • Shua Dial (1715 Sunnyvale Ave): Opposed density and requested relief on setbacks and fencing; stated privacy/safety and noise concerns; expressed mental-health concerns from loss of quiet and increased overlooking; speculated that ADUs could greatly increase occupancy.
  • Martin (neighbor): Raised concerns about traffic, future possibility of ADUs being sold separately if laws change, setback waivers, and fire safety; compared the project’s tree-removal process to his own experience as more difficult.
  • Hillary Heibel (Maggie Lane, behind site): Focused on design concerns—requested saving Tree #14, questioned why side windows are needed given privacy impacts, asked why the proposal is single-family rather than townhomes/condos, requested taller fencing (up to eight feet), and raised concerns about management issues on a private road.
  • Dave Dunning (Maggie Lane): Stated that tall shrubs along the east property line providing privacy would be removed, worsening privacy impacts; requested higher fencing and asked for a written commitment on fence height, stating he believed a higher fence had been discussed with the developer.

Discussion Items

  • Staff presentation (Assistant Planner Gerardo Victoria):

    • Project description: Demolish two existing single-family residences and accessory structures; construct an 8-lot subdivision with private street and hammerhead turn; build eight two-story single-family homes (with one affordable unit); include ADUs within the homes; install bioretention area and a five-foot dedication along Sunnyvale Avenue; build retaining walls and privacy fencing; remove 35 trees, including 11 highly protected trees.
    • SB 330 and density bonus framework: Explained City review limits under SB 330 when objective standards are met; project cannot be denied if compliant, and density cannot be reduced without specific health/safety findings.
    • Density bonus: Base density rounded to six units; with one low-income unit, applicant seeks a 17% density bonus leading to a total of eight homes.
    • Waivers: Applicant requested 14 waivers, including reduced lot sizes compared to the R-8 minimum.
    • Traffic/fire review: Staff stated the project was routed to traffic and fire; it is meeting standards and therefore a traffic report was not required.
    • CEQA: Staff anticipated using an infill exemption and stated the site has no value as habitat for endangered/rare/threatened species and would not cause significant effects (traffic/noise/air/water).
  • Applicant responses (Doug Cummins, Donald Group Architecture; Justin Joseph, CBG Civil Engineers; Onica Carpenter, Ripley Design Group):

    • ADUs: Applicant stated ADUs are intended to provide flexible housing options (e.g., rental income, family use) and are not sold separately from the primary home. Applicant stated ADUs do not trigger additional parking requirements, and the plan includes guest parking.
    • Privacy/window design: Applicant stated “bullet”/transom-style windows are used at stair areas to limit views, and some bedroom windows are required for fire egress; stated second-floor massing is partially set back.
    • Fence/retaining wall: Civil engineer explained a six-foot wood fence atop a two-to-three-foot retaining wall in many areas; stated the new development is generally lower than adjacent residential properties by about two to three feet, affecting how the perceived fence height reads from each side.
    • Tree #14 location: Landscape architect identified Tree #14 as located near/within the proposed road/turnaround area (near lot 8), with the trunk area implicated by paving.
    • Driveway/private street alignment: Civil engineer stated the layout is driven by grading and maintaining historic drainage patterns across the site.
    • Height clarification: Staff clarified the zoning height is 25 feet, but additional height is allowed with a qualifying roof pitch; applicant’s roof pitch (noted as 4:12) was stated to meet the requirement.
  • Commissioner comments:

    • Commissioners generally stated the architecture, materials, and overall design approach were acceptable, but expressed discomfort with site density impacts and tree loss.
    • Multiple commissioners emphasized limited Commission authority due to SB 330/density bonus laws, and that Planning Commission will be the key decision-maker for major issues (including tree removal findings).
    • Commissioners recommended:
      • Clarifying and maximizing perimeter fence height (discussion centered on seven feet as an allowable perimeter fence height, and reducing confusion where plans show six feet plus retaining wall).
      • Maximizing perimeter screening and canopy, including exploring faster-growing and/or larger-canopy species (while acknowledging tradeoffs between box size and growth rate).
      • Considering whether existing shrubs/screening must be removed and whether additional screening can be added.
    • Chair raised concern that staff’s CEQA-related statement that the site has “no value as habitat” conflicted with public testimony about wildlife; recommended applicant be prepared to address mitigation/answers at Planning Commission.

Key Outcomes

  • Public hearing/study session completed with non-binding Design Review Commission feedback to inform the forthcoming Planning Commission review.
  • Key direction/themes to carry forward:
    • Improve/clarify privacy mitigation, especially perimeter fence height and screening/landscape canopy along adjacent residential boundaries.
    • Ensure clear documentation regarding fence height (including relationship to retaining walls and relative grades).
    • Acknowledge that tree removals and broader development constraints will be addressed at Planning Commission, within SB 330/density bonus limits.

Meeting Transcript

That's 15 seconds. So, thanks. Thanks for coming and attending the November 19th Design Review Commission. Uh, can we do a roll call, please? Thank you, Chair. Um, 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 consent calendar. Do we have anything to put on the consent calendar? Staff has no recommendations. Okay, so we move on to public communications. Then 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. I see there's a lot of people here. Oh something outside. Sorry. If if you go 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 gonna 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. 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.