Wed, Nov 5, 2025·Walnut Creek, California·City Council

Design Review Commission Special Meeting — Porsche Dealership Study Session (2025-11-05)

Discussion Breakdown

Miscellaneous23%
Arts And Culture20%
Environmental Protection17%
Procedural10%
Veterans Affairs10%
Zoning and Planning9%
Transportation Safety3%
Engineering And Infrastructure2%
Active Transportation2%
Economic Development1%
Technology and Innovation1%
Community Engagement1%
Public Engagement1%

Summary

Design Review Commission Special Meeting — Porsche Dealership Study Session (2025-11-05)

The Design Review Commission (DRC) held a special meeting with a quorum to approve a 2026 calendar and conduct a study-session public hearing on a proposed three-level Porsche dealership and service center at 2nd Avenue and North Main Street. Staff and the applicant team presented the project design, requested zoning-related deviations (via a Planned Development rezone), signage, tree removals, landscaping, circulation, lighting, and operational concepts. Public testimony was generally supportive of replacing a long-blighted corner, with multiple speakers requesting specific safety and neighborhood-protection conditions (especially restricting test drives and turn movements on 2nd Avenue), and raising concerns about demolition impacts, privacy, lighting, deliveries, and construction disruptions.

Consent Calendar

  • Adopted the 2026 commission and council calendar (roll call vote 3-0: Case, Riley, Newsom).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Tammy Kerr (Eco Performance Builders, 1511 2nd Ave): Expressed concern about traffic and safety on narrow 2nd Avenue (box trucks, frequent deliveries, pedestrians/kids/bikes). Raised concern about construction impacts on business logistics.
  • Jessica Clark (Larkey Park neighbor/homeowner off 2nd Ave): Stated she was generally in favor of the proposal, but requested conditions:
    • Explicitly prohibit test drives (sales and service) on 2nd Avenue into the residential neighborhood.
    • Post “no right turn” signage at the 2nd Avenue driveway to reinforce.
    • Requested more aesthetic landscaping and expressed concern about the fence appearing unfinished.
  • Patty Mitchell (Larkey neighborhood; referenced Larkey Park Neighbors United): Expressed support for the project and support for limiting neighborhood access/traffic as requested by others. Said the corner has been “awful” for years and considered the dealership an asset compared with a drive-through. Requested sidewalk extension further down 2nd Avenue if feasible.
  • Steve Signorelli (read statement for Natalie Signarelli, 15 Varton Court): Not “necessarily opposed,” but raised concerns and requests:
    • Assurances and communication about demolition air quality/dust/toxic hazards.
    • Clarification/visualization of perceived height from adjacent homes.
    • Requested “10 o’clock lights out” as a neighborhood-protection measure.
  • Lana Georgieva (24 Varton Court): Raised concerns as an immediate neighbor about:
    • Demolition impacts (dust/asbestos/rodents),
    • Height effects on sunlight and privacy,
    • Traffic and U-turns near the cul-de-sac with children present,
    • Light pollution from third-floor parking/lighting,
    • Wall height/extent and how it affects specific homes,
    • Noise from deliveries after hours, trash pickup, car washes, compressors/tools, and shop operations.
  • Eric Payton (part owner, Mass A’s Sports Bar): Said he was not opposing the project, but expressed concern about displacement/relocation of Mass A’s after 31 years. Requested that if Mass A’s relocates within Walnut Creek, the city give “100% consideration” to retaining their 2 a.m. liquor license and treat them as an established local business.

Discussion Items

  • Project overview (Staff—Simmer Gill, Senior Planner)

    • Proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of a three-level dealership/service center on three parcels to be merged.
    • Zone: Service Commercial; auto dealership permitted by right, with design review required for new construction.
    • Operations/layout: showroom entry at corner; service customer drop-off from 2nd Ave; employee-only access points; inventory parking in basement and on roof.
    • Program details stated: 22 service bays; inventory parking identified as 87 (basement) and 76 (roof); 49 surface stalls for customer parking/display.
    • AB 2097: staff noted project qualifies for parking-requirement exemption due to proximity to Pleasant Hill BART, but applicant is providing parking.
    • Planned Development (PD) rezone deviations requested:
      • FAR: redefine FAR to exclude certain accessory/support areas (primarily parking/mechanical/storage) and use gross lot area for calculation.
      • Height: keep 30-foot cap but define base elevation at the highest existing grade on a sloped site; staff stated this does not add height and has been used on other sloped projects.
    • Tree removals: 21 trees proposed for removal; 17 approved by city arborist (poor health/species). 4 highly protected (three valley oaks and one blue oak) to be considered by Planning Commission; applicant would pay tree valuation into the city tree fund if removed. 14 off-site neighboring trees to be protected; staff noted one previously considered for removal would be protected.
    • Signage: two wall signs (each 91 sq ft); two monument signs; total sign area 274 sq ft; sign exception needed (ordinance allows 200 sq ft for single-tenant building). Monument signs proposed at 24 sq ft and 14 sq ft.
    • Design standards: staff said one guideline and one standard are not met due to uncovered display parking along North Main and surface customer parking along primary frontage, requiring Planning Commission waivers.
  • Applicant/team presentation (Steven Scanlan; James Spence, architect)

    • Applicant described a “modern/urban” dealership concept consolidating operations into one building, with reduced external activity and internalized functions.
    • Positions stated by applicant:
      • Asserted no queuing/stacking on streets because service is appointment-based and processing is internal.
      • Stated belief the project would reduce traffic on streets by consolidating current multi-parcel operations and internalizing circulation; said Porsche traffic is largely relocating within Walnut Creek.
      • Stated support for neighborhood compatibility: enclosed building, STC-rated assemblies, an 8-foot CMU sound wall, shielded lighting, and timers.
      • Stated emissions from service operations would be captured and filtered (as described).
    • Architect detailed circulation separation between customers vs employees/inventory, truck delivery and trash areas, and lighting design targeting zero spill at property lines.
  • Commissioner questions & discussion

    • Commissioners discussed a neighbor request for a turn restriction at the 2nd Avenue driveway (framed as “left turn only/no right turn” depending on direction) and applicant said it could be addressed via wayfinding/signage.
    • Commissioners asked about lighting hours; architect could not provide specific hours, but said client is open to city needs.
    • Chair questioned whether test drives could be directed away from 2nd Avenue; applicant stated a condition requiring test drives to go directly to North Main Street would be agreeable and that test drives typically avoid neighborhoods.
    • Chair emphasized neighbor experience (visibility, noise, rooftop equipment), requested full cutoff so no light sources are visible from west side.
    • Staff clarified no conditional use permit/operational plan was required because auto sales/service are permitted by right.

Key Outcomes

  • DRC provided study-session feedback (no formal action/vote on the project).
  • Recommendations to be forwarded to Planning Commission included:
    • Support for turn-management at the 2nd Avenue driveway (left-turn-only / no-right-turn concept) and discouraging neighborhood cut-through.
    • Consideration of physical design measures (curb/geometry) in addition to signage to encourage desired turning.
    • Reinforce commitment to zero light spill, with emphasis that light sources should not be visible from the west/residential side, including rooftop/parking deck lighting.
    • Include demolition/construction best practices (dust control, idling limits, mud control, etc.) as conditions typically applied through permitting/CEQA-related conditions as applicable.
    • Expressed support for requested FAR/height measurement approach and that the proposed signage exception appeared proportional to the development.

Other Business / Announcements

  • Staff reminded Chair/Vice Chair about a Friday morning meeting with the mayor and commission chairs (breakfast meeting). The Vice Chair was noted as unavailable; Chair indicated attendance.

Meeting Transcript

Okay. Yeah. So let me know when to go. Go. Okay. Well, welcome to this special meeting of the design review commission October 22nd, 2025. May we do a roll call, please? Thank you, Chair. Uh Commissioner Case. Here. Commissioner Riley. Here. Chair Newsom. I'm here. Uh Vice Chair Basting is on vacation, and she has phoned in her absence of many weeks ago. And so, but we have a quorum. Great. Okay, so moving on to the consent calendar. Um, it looks like we have one item on the consent calendar, which is the adoption of the twenty twenty six council of commission and council calendar. Um, any discussion about that? Okay. So we just take a roll call vote then. How about that? Yes. Yes. We'll make a motion to adopt it. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Case. Yes. Commissioner Riley? Yes. Chair Newsom. Yes. Motion carries. Okay. And I don't believe there's any other items to pull onto the consent calendar. So we'll just move on to public communications. This portion of public communications is for items not on the agenda. Um, under the Brown Act, commission cannot act on items raised during public communications, but may respond briefly to statements made, or questions posed, requests clarification or refer items to staff. Do we have any public communication beyond uh what's going to be in the public hearing? No cards. Okay. We'll move we'll move on. So before we go to the public hearing, um, let's have a disclosure of XPA communication. Has anybody contacted either of you regarding the public hearing? No, no. So we're going to move on to the public hearing. And I believe there's one item. And it's the Porsche dealership.