Neighbors Challenge 8‑Unit Sunnyvale Subdivision in Walnut Creek Over Tree Loss, Privacy and Parking

Walnut Creek — The Design Review Commission heard extensive public opposition on Nov. 19 to a proposed eight‑lot single‑family subdivision at 1725 Sunnyvale Avenue that would remove dozens of trees and use a state density bonus to reach eight homes, including one affordable unit.

Assistant planner Gerardo Victoria opened the study session saying the 0.93‑acre site is designated single‑family medium and zoned R‑8, with a base density of about 5.58 units that rounds to six. He said the applicant is using state density bonus provisions (SB 330) and a 17% density bonus to reach an eight‑home maximum and is requesting about 14 waivers from development standards, including a reduced minimum lot size (proposed 4,100 sq. ft. vs. the 8,000‑sq. ft. requirement) and a reduced front setback (staff clarified the proposed minimum front yard setback is 4 feet). (Assistant planner Gerardo Victoria)

Why it matters: Neighbors said the plan would replace two existing homes and dozens of mature trees with eight two‑story houses and attached ADU options, increasing visibility into backyards, reducing habitat and straining parking and street safety. At the session several residents asked commissioners to recommend that the applicant preserve more trees, raise the perimeter fence and clarify window placement to reduce sight lines into adjacent yards.

Residents’ concerns: Jill Lick Dimanti, whose property backs the site, said Sunnyvale already has heavy street parking and that ‘‘the density of the project will really affect traffic even further’’ and that removing protected trees will eliminate privacy and wildlife habitat. Michael Manci called eight two‑story homes ‘‘way too much’’ for a parcel that previously held two houses. Jason Bowman, who lives adjacent to the site, said small rear setbacks and second‑story windows would overlook his pool and backyard and suggested six or four units would be more reasonable. (Jill Lick Dimanti; Michael Manci; Jason Bowman)

Applicant and staff responses: Applicant architect Doug Cummins said the ADUs are designed as optional internal units to provide a housing type for homeowners, not as separately sold condominiums, and that current parking calculations apply because the ADUs are not proposed as separate legal units. He also said Lot 8 was shifted away from the shared lot line, stairwells will use high ‘‘bullet’’ windows to limit sight lines, and the second‑story massing was pulled back in part to meet egress and setback requirements. Civil engineer Justin Joseph explained that the project’s grading requires the private street and pad layout to follow historic drainage paths; he said a typical 6‑foot fence on top of a roughly 2–3‑foot retaining wall will appear as 8 feet from the lower new lots but will read as 6 feet from higher neighbor properties. Staff reported the project had been routed to the city traffic division and to fire, both of which indicated the project meets applicable standards for the private street and lot access. (Doug Cummins; Justin Joseph; Gerardo Victoria)

Tree removals and planting plan: Staff said the project proposes removal of 35 trees, 11 of which staff identified as highly protected (including valley oak and black walnut specimens); eight removals have been recommended by the city arborist for poor health and six trees would remain. The applicant’s landscape architect, Annika Carpenter, identified the tree labeled 'Tree 14' as located near the turnaround across from Lot 8. Staff said the applicant proposes 20 replacement 24‑inch box trees and recommended using larger perimeter stock or faster‑growing species to provide screening sooner. (Gerardo Victoria; Annika Carpenter)

Commission feedback and next steps: Commissioners largely praised the architecture and landscape design but said the site plan and tree losses are the principal concerns. Commissioners noted limits imposed by state density bonus law and recommended the applicant clearly note perimeter fence height on plans (staff suggested indicating a 7‑foot perimeter fence to avoid confusion), consider larger or faster‑growing perimeter trees, and continue coordination with neighbors on privacy mitigation. The commission reiterated that its study‑session comments are advisory and that the Planning Commission will make final determinations on waivers and any tree removals requiring a higher body review.

The public hearing was closed after applicant rebuttal. The project is scheduled to return for Planning Commission review; staff and the applicant were asked to provide clearer notes on fence heights, precise location and status of Tree 14, and options for larger perimeter plantings and window treatments to reduce neighbor sight lines.