Wed, Feb 4, 2026·Walnut Creek, California·City Council

Design Review Commission Study Session on 1725 Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2026-02-04)

Discussion Breakdown

Environmental Protection34%
Affordable Housing27%
Public Engagement20%
Engineering And Infrastructure11%
Transportation Safety4%
Procedural3%
Public Safety1%

Summary

Design Review Commission Study Session on 1725 Sunnyvale Ave Subdivision (2026-02-04)

The Design Review Commission held a study session/public hearing on the proposed Sunnyvale single-family residential development at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue. Staff presented an SB 330 / Density Bonus project proposing demolition of two existing homes and construction of an 8-lot subdivision with a private street, including one affordable unit. Public testimony focused on opposition to the project’s density, tree removal, privacy impacts, fence height, and neighborhood traffic/parking concerns. Commissioners emphasized limited discretion under state law but forwarded design-oriented feedback—especially fencing and perimeter canopy screening—for Planning Commission consideration.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Jill Lick Demandy (Suncrest Court, backs to site): Expressed concerns about increased traffic/parking on Sunnyvale Ave; loss of privacy from removal of trees and two-story homes; wildlife displacement (owl, squirrels); requested taller perimeter fencing and clarity on construction logistics affecting pets.
  • Michael Mancy (Suncrest Court): Stated strong opposition to the project’s density and two-story massing; opposed removal of trees and loss of views; said fewer homes (3–4) and/or single-story would be more acceptable.
  • Jason Bowman (1715 Sunnyvale Ave, adjacent): Raised privacy, light, and massing concerns; stated the project feels much denser than surrounding area and said fewer units would be more reasonable.
  • Laura Cottrell (Suncrest Court): Emphasized privacy impacts from removal of shared foliage along fence line; expressed concern about losing oak habitat (owls); raised concerns about added activity/traffic from ADUs and service/delivery trips.
  • Amanda Welch (Suncrest Court): Expressed strong opposition to tree removals and density; argued ADUs could functionally increase occupancy; raised concerns about garage non-use leading to street parking; stated Sunnyvale Ave traffic is already heavy and enforcement is lacking.
  • Shua Diel (1715 Sunnyvale Ave, adjacent): Opposed density and requested relief from setback reductions; emphasized privacy/safety and noise impacts; voiced concern about potential high occupancy and resulting neighborhood impacts.
  • Martin (neighbor): Raised concerns about variances/waivers, setbacks, traffic and speeding, fire safety, and the possibility that ADU rules could change in the future.
  • Hillary Heibel (Maggie Lane, behind site): Requested consideration to preserve Tree #14 for canopy; questioned why the project is single-family rather than townhomes/condos; requested taller fences (suggested 8 feet); raised concerns about private-road parking enforcement.
  • Dave Dunning (Maggie Lane): Warned that tall bushes along property lines would be removed, reducing privacy; requested higher fencing due to elevation differences and raised foundations; stated he believed a higher fence had been previously discussed with the developer and wanted it confirmed.

Discussion Items

  • Staff presentation (Gerardo Victoria, Assistant Planner)
    • Project description (factual): Demolish 2 existing single-family residences; build 8 two-story single-family homes on ~0.93 acres with a private street; include one affordable unit; construct a 5-foot land dedication along Sunnyvale Ave; install new landscaping, bioretention area, retaining walls, and privacy fencing; remove 35 trees, including 11 “highly protected” trees (including valley oaks and black walnuts).
    • State law constraints (factual): Under SB 330, review is limited if objective standards are met and the project cannot be denied on many grounds; density cannot be reduced without specified health/safety findings.
    • Density bonus (factual): Base density calculated as 6 units; one low-income unit enables density bonus to reach 8 units; applicant requests 14 waivers from development standards.
    • Clarification/correction (factual): Staff corrected a report error—minimum front setback proposed is 4 feet (not 3 feet).
    • Traffic/fire review (factual): Staff stated the project was routed to traffic and fire, meets standards, and a traffic report was not required.
  • Applicant responses (Doug Cummins, Dollin Group Architecture; Justin Joseph, CBG Civil Engineers; Onica Carpenter, Ripley Design Group)
    • ADUs (factual + applicant intent): ADUs are part of each home plan to provide flexible housing (e.g., rental income or family use) and are not sold separately; applicant stated parking calculations would differ if ADUs were separate-sale units.
    • Privacy/window design (factual): Applicant described use of bullet/transom windows at certain side locations (notably near Lot 8) and stated rear second floors are substantially set back; noted some bedroom windows are required for fire egress.
    • Fence/retaining wall (factual): Applicant team described a 6-foot wood fence on top of a ~2–3 foot retaining wall in many areas; stated the site generally sits lower than adjacent residential properties by ~2–3 feet.
    • Tree #14 location (factual): Landscape architect identified Tree #14 as located near/within the private road area near Lot 8, with the trunk under proposed asphalt.
    • Driveway placement rationale (factual): Civil engineer stated driveway/private street alignment was driven by grading and maintaining historic drainage patterns.
    • Height question (factual clarification): Staff stated the zone allows 25 feet, with additional height allowed if minimum roof pitch is met; applicant roof pitch was stated as meeting that standard.
  • Commissioner comments (positions and requested refinements)
    • Commissioners repeatedly stated their discretion is limited on density/number of stories due to SB 330 and density bonus law.
    • Multiple commissioners expressed concern/opposition to extensive tree removal and habitat loss, but noted final authority and broader findings would occur at Planning Commission.
    • Commissioners encouraged clearer and/or increased perimeter fencing (noting discussion of 7-foot maximum perimeter fencing) to address privacy.
    • Commissioners encouraged more effective perimeter screening/canopy via tree species selection and/or additional landscaping, while recognizing practical constraints on immediate canopy size.
    • Commissioners noted neighborhood concerns about traffic, privacy, and wildlife and wanted those concerns clearly addressed in later hearings.

Key Outcomes

  • No consent calendar actions were taken (staff had no consent items).
  • Public hearing conducted and closed after testimony and applicant rebuttal.
  • Direction/feedback to carry forward (non-binding): Commission’s main takeaways for Planning Commission consideration included:
    • Pursue higher perimeter fencing (discussed as up to 7 feet, with clarification needed to avoid confusion where retaining walls change perceived height).
    • Increase perimeter canopy/screening (evaluate tree species/placement to maximize screening and neighborhood compatibility).
    • Recognize and document community concerns regarding tree removals, privacy, traffic/parking, and wildlife, noting these issues would be revisited at Planning Commission under applicable criteria and state-law constraints.

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.