OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Walnut Creek Design Review Commission Study Session on Sunnyvale Development – February 4, 2026

City Council — Wednesday, February 4, 2026
BodyWalnut Creek, California
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, February 4, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:00:01
Transcript — Verbatim
0:23

That's 15 seconds.

0:24

So thanks.

0:26

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

0:32

Can we do a roll call, please?

0:35

Thank you, Chair.

0:36

Commissioner Case.

0:38

Here.

0:38

Commissioner Riley.

0:39

Here.

0:40

Vice Chair Basting.

0:41

Here.

0:42

Chair Newsom.

0:43

Here.

0:44

All are present.

0:45

We have a quorum.

0:47

Thank you.

0:49

Next up is the consent calendar.

0:52

Do we have anything to put on the consent calendar?

0:54

Staff has no recommendations.

0:56

Okay, so we move on to public communications.

0:59

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

1:05

Under the Brown Act, commissioners cannot act on items raised during public communications, but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed to request clarification.

1:15

Refer an item to staff.

1:18

Any public communications?

1:21

Outside of this subject, which is the public hearing coming up.

1:26

Okay, good.

1:27

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

1:30

Oh, something outside, sorry.

1:35

If you 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.

1:44

I see we have a few.

1:46

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.

1:52

You'll be called up in order.

1:54

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

2:03

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

2:10

No, no, no, no.

2:12

Okay, very good.

2:15

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.

2:23

Does staff have a presentation?

2:27

Yes.

2:27

Looks like you do.

2:29

So why don't you go ahead?

2:51

So good evening, design review commissioners.

2:53

My name is Gerardo Victoria.

2:55

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

2:58

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

3:10

So just some site context.

3:12

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.

3:21

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

3:30

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

3:37

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

3:42

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.

3:59

So the project description is to demo two existing single family residences and accessory structures.

4:08

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.

4:21

Uh the project has density bonus, which is requesting 14 waivers from the development standards, new landscaping, a new bioretention area, new two-foot concrete retaining walls, and a six-foot privacy fence or fences.

4:37

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

4:41

They include a valley oaks and black walnuts.

4:45

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.

4:59

So just a timeline of where we are.

5:04

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.

5:22

The project will be scheduled at Planning Commission for their consideration at a later date.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Environmental Protection██████████████████████████████████34%
Affordable Housing███████████████████████████27%
Public Engagement████████████████████20%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████11%
Transportation Safety████4%
Procedural███3%
Public Safety█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Walnut Creek Design Review Commission Study Session on Sunnyvale Development – February 4, 2026

The Design Review Commission held a study session to review the proposed Sunnyvale Single Family Residential Development at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. The project includes demolition of two existing homes, construction of an eight-lot subdivision with eight two-story single-family homes (one affordable unit), a private street, and removal of 35 trees (including 11 highly protected). The applicant seeks a density bonus under SB 330 with 14 waivers from development standards. The commission provided comments to inform later Planning Commission consideration.

Consent Calendar

  • No items were placed on the consent calendar.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Jill Lick Demandy (1689 Suncrest Court) opposed density, citing traffic, loss of privacy from two-story homes, tree removal impacts on wildlife (owls, squirrels), and requested a seven-foot fence instead of six feet.
  • Michael Mancy (1689 Suncrest Court) opposed eight two-story units, calling for three to four single-story homes, and lamented loss of trees and view.
  • Jason Bowman (1715 Sunnyvale Avenue) expressed privacy concerns due to four units overlooking his property, and stated six units would be more reasonable.
  • Laura Cottrell (1687 Suncrest Court) opposed tree removal (especially oaks), noted loss of foliage screen, and worried about increased traffic and noise.
  • Amanda Welch (1691 Suncrest Court) opposed density, noting that ADUs could effectively make nine units, and criticized removal of 11 highly protected trees.
  • Shua Diel (1715 Sanibel Avenue) expressed shock at density, privacy concerns (four houses 11 feet from fence), and estimated 64 people potentially living next door.
  • Martin (neighbor) opposed variances on setbacks, questioned fire safety, traffic, and noted difficulty of tree removal permits for homeowners versus developer.
  • Hillary Heibel (Maggie Lane) advocated for saving tree #14, questioned why homes are not townhomes, requested eight-foot fences, and raised concerns about private road maintenance.
  • Dave Dunning (Maggie Lane) noted loss of tall bushes along property line, requested higher fences (eight feet) to prevent views from new homes.

Discussion Items

  • Staff Presentation (Gerardo Victoria, Assistant Planner): Presented site context (0.93 acres, zoned Residential-8), project description (eight lots, one affordable unit, density bonus of 30.5% over base of six units, 14 waivers including reduced lot sizes and front yard setbacks), tree removal (11 highly protected), and stated project meets objective standards. Staff requested commission input on subdivision, design review (site layout, architecture, landscaping, colors/materials), density bonus, tree removal/drip line permits.
  • Commissioner Questions:
    • Commissioner Case asked about ADU purpose and parking. Applicant (Doug Cummins, Dollin Group) replied ADUs provide flexibility for rental or family use; no separate parking required by city code.
    • Commissioner inquired about tree removal allowance; staff explained criteria based on tree health and development necessity, with final decision by Planning Commission if trees cannot be saved.
    • Commissioner asked about traffic study; staff noted referral to traffic division found standards met, no separate report required.
  • Applicant Rebuttal (Doug Cummins, Justin Joseph – civil engineer, Onica Carpenter – landscape architect):
    • Windows: Bullet windows at stairs limit visibility; second-floor rear set back 50-60%, egress windows required.
    • No height variance; roof pitch of 4:12 allows height up to 27 feet (within code).
    • Fence/retaining wall: six-foot wood fence on two-foot retaining wall; new development sits ~2 feet lower than adjacent properties, so neighbors see eight-foot total from their side.
    • Tree #14 location: near driveway turnaround, under asphalt – likely cannot be saved.
    • Driveway located on church side due to historic drainage patterns.
  • Commissioner Deliberation:
    • Chair Newsom: Architecture and landscaping fine but concerned about site design; limited authority due to state density bonus law.
    • Commissioner Case: Recommended raising perimeter fence to seven feet (maximum allowed) to improve privacy; suggested selecting larger or faster-growing replacement trees for canopy, and preserving as many shrubs as possible.
    • Vice Chair Basting: Echoed limited authority; noted tree removal and density decisions rest with Planning Commission; recommended applicant confirm seven-foot fence and increase screening; questioned environmental review finding of no habitat value given public testimony about owls and wildlife.
    • Commissioner Riley: Supported higher fence and larger perimeter trees.
    • Secretary summarized: Increase fence height to seven feet, enhance perimeter canopy with larger species.

Key Outcomes

  • The commission will forward its comments to the Planning Commission for final action on the major subdivision, design review, density bonus, and tree removal permits.
  • Key recommendations: Raise perimeter fences to seven feet (maximum allowed), select larger or faster-growing replacement trees (e.g., 36-inch box or fast-growing species) to maximize canopy, and reconsider the environmental finding regarding wildlife habitat.
  • The commission acknowledged it has no authority to reduce density or number of stories under state density bonus law (SB 330).
  • No formal vote was taken; the session was advisory only.

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 to 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 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 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 we're leading up to the public uh public hearing here, so now that'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? 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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com