Wed, Jan 21, 2026·Walnut Creek, California·City Council

Design Review Commission Study Session on 1725 Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2026-01-21)

Discussion Breakdown

Zoning and Planning63%
Environmental Protection13%
Procedural9%
Affordable Housing8%
Engineering And Infrastructure6%
Transportation Safety1%

Summary

Design Review Commission Study Session on 1725 Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2026-01-21)

The Design Review Commission held a study session/public hearing on the proposed “Sunnyvale” single-family subdivision at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. Staff and the applicant presented an 8-lot, two-story subdivision using State Density Bonus Law (including one affordable unit) and multiple development-standard waivers. Public testimony focused on neighborhood impacts—privacy, tree removal and habitat loss, traffic/parking, and fence height—while commissioners emphasized their limited discretion under SB 330/Density Bonus rules and concentrated their feedback on perimeter screening, fence height, and landscaping.

Consent Calendar

  • None (staff had no recommendations).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Jillik Demandy (resident, 1689 Suncrest Ct): Expressed concern about increased traffic and existing overnight street parking; opposed extensive tree removal due to privacy loss; raised privacy concerns from two-story homes; requested taller fencing (noting seven feet as a possibility); asked about construction logistics when fences come down (pets/dogs).
  • Michael Mansy (resident, 1689 Suncrest Ct): Expressed strong opposition to the project’s density and two-story massing; opposed tree removal and cited loss of views and wildlife habitat; stated preference for fewer homes (e.g., “three…four at the most”) and single-story.
  • Jason Bowman (resident, 1715 Sunnyvale Ave, adjacent): Raised privacy and light impacts; cited minimal separation/“gaps,” and stated concern about two-story overlooking (including pool); said the proposal appears to “squeeze as much as they can” via exemptions; stated preference for fewer units.
  • Laura Cotchell (resident, 1687 Suncrest Ct): Opposed loss of shared foliage along fence line; expressed concern about owl habitat and tree removals; raised concerns about increased traffic and service/delivery activity; called eight units “shocking.”
  • Amanda Welch (resident, 1691 Suncrest Ct): Opposed tree removal and overall density; argued ADUs could functionally increase occupancy/units; raised concerns about traffic/pedestrian safety and garage underutilization leading to on-street parking; objected to removal of “majestic” protected trees.
  • Shua Dial (resident, 1715 Sunnyvale Ave): Expressed shock at eight units and requested waivers; raised privacy/safety/mental health concerns related to proximity and overlooking; questioned noise impacts; suggested potential high occupancy if ADUs are used.
  • Martin (neighbor): Raised concerns about cumulative impacts (traffic, parking, fire safety); objected to multiple setback/other waivers; questioned whether future law changes could allow ADUs to be sold separately; noted speeding/racing and accidents on Sunnyvale Ave; contrasted difficulty of homeowner tree removal permits with this proposal.
  • Hillary Heibel (resident, Maggie Ln): Asked to preserve “tree 14” (described as creating a canopy); questioned extensive side windows and why development is single-family rather than townhomes/condos; requested higher fencing (suggested “eight” feet) due to elevation/privacy; raised concerns about private road management.
  • Dave Dunning (resident, Maggie Ln): Stated tall bushes along property lines also provide privacy and would be removed; said combined elevation/foundation height would reduce effectiveness of a six-foot fence; requested written confirmation of higher fence and noted prior discussion with developer about taller fences.

Discussion Items

  • Staff presentation (Assistant Planner Gerardo Victoria):

    • Project: demolition of two existing single-family residences and accessory structures; construction of 8-lot subdivision with private street/hammerhead; eight two-story single-family homes; one affordable unit; new landscaping, bioretention area, retaining walls, and fencing; 5-foot land dedication along Sunnyvale Ave.
    • Density Bonus/SB 330: Site ~0.93 acres; base density rounded to 6 units; with one low-income unit, applicant uses State Density Bonus to reach 8 units and requests 14 waivers. Staff stated review is limited under SB 330 if objective standards are met and the project cannot be denied absent required findings.
    • Waiver examples discussed: lot size reduced (8,000 sq ft standard vs. ~4,100 proposed); front setback reduced (20 ft standard vs. 4 ft proposed).
    • Trees/CEQA: 35 trees proposed for removal, including 11 highly protected trees; staff stated 8 removals were approved by city arborist due to poor health; staff anticipated using an infill exemption under CEQA.
    • Traffic: Staff stated project was routed to traffic and meets standards; a traffic report was not required. Fire review indicated private street/access met standards.
  • Applicant responses (Doug Cummins, Donald Group Architecture; Justin Joseph, CBG Civil Engineers; Onica Carpenter, Ripley Design Group):

    • ADUs: Applicant stated ADUs are intended as flexible space for homeowners (e.g., rental income, family/“boomerang kids”); not to be sold separately from the home. Applicant stated ADUs do not trigger separate-unit parking requirements; guest parking stalls are provided.
    • Privacy/windows: Applicant described “bullet”/transom windows along sensitive sides (e.g., stair locations) to limit direct views; stated certain rear/bedroom windows are required for fire egress; noted second-floor portions are set back relative to first floor to reduce massing.
    • Height: Applicant stated they were not requesting a height variance; staff clarified the zoning height is 25 feet with allowance for additional height if roof pitch meets a specified minimum (applicant providing a steeper pitch), so the proposal can comply.
    • Fence/grade relationship: Civil engineer explained a six-foot wood fence atop a ~2–3 foot retaining wall in areas; described relative grades such that the effective perceived height differs depending on which side is higher.
    • Tree 14 identification: Landscape architect identified “tree 14” as located near the internal roadway/turnaround area (near lot 8 alignment).
    • Driveway placement: Civil engineer stated driveway/private street alignment was driven by grading and maintaining the historic drainage path across the site.
  • Commission deliberation/comments (Chair Newsom; Commissioners Case, Riley; Vice Chair Basting):

    • Commissioners repeatedly noted limited authority under Density Bonus/SB 330 and that Planning Commission is the later decision-maker.
    • General support for the architecture/colors/materials and acknowledgement that grading/overall design approach appeared reasonable.
    • Key commission focus areas for recommendations:
      • Perimeter fence height: Multiple commissioners supported increasing fencing on edges facing neighbors “as high as” feasible/allowed, and encouraged clearer resolution with neighbors.
      • Perimeter screening/canopy: Commissioners suggested exploring larger/faster-growing species and maximizing perimeter canopy/screening to mitigate privacy and tree-loss concerns.
      • Tree impacts/environmental claims: Chair raised concern about the statement that the site has “no value” as habitat, noting testimony about owls and other wildlife and suggesting the applicant be prepared to address/mitigate those concerns at Planning Commission.

Key Outcomes

  • No formal vote recorded in the transcript provided (study session input to be forwarded).
  • Commission direction/recommendations to carry forward (for Planning Commission consideration):
    • Pursue increased perimeter fence height (noted discussion of up to 7 feet as an allowed perimeter fence height, and attention to effective height with retaining walls/grades).
    • Strengthen perimeter landscape screening and consider species selection to achieve more canopy over time.
    • Encourage clearer project materials/plan notes to reduce confusion (e.g., fence height depiction and related details).
    • Flag community concerns regarding tree removal/habitat, privacy, and neighborhood traffic/parking for fuller response at the Planning Commission stage.

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. 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 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 I also want to have to ask. Have any of the commissioners had any ex parte communications about the projects on 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.