Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drive Through Restaurant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Walnut Creek design panel backs Taco Bell study session but urges saving trees, rethinking tower and circulation
Summary
The Walnut Creek Design Review Commission on June 4 reviewed plans for a new Taco Bell with a dual‑lane drive‑through at 1960 Tice Valley Boulevard and recommended forwarding the project to the Planning Commission with conditions to preserve trees, reduce tower and signage impacts and improve site circulation.
Get email alerts on the Drive Through Restaurant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Walnut Creek Design Review Commission on June 4 reviewed plans for a new Taco Bell with a dual‑lane drive‑through at 1960 Tice Valley Boulevard in the Rossmore Shopping Center and offered a positive recommendation to the Planning Commission while urging changes to preserve trees, reduce visual impact and improve site circulation.
The commission’s comments asked the applicant to pursue alternatives to removing two large sycamore/London plane trees the neighbors and several commissioners described as screening for the adjacent single‑family neighborhood; to reconsider the tower, color palette and illuminated signage; and to prioritize intuitive circulation and preserve more parking rather than remove additional trees. Commissioners said they would not support removing trees that meet the city’s protected‑tree definition.
Staff and applicant presentations described the project as an approximately 1,500‑square‑foot Taco Bell with a dual‑lane drive‑through (one lane reserved for mobile orders), a small interior dining area and an outdoor patio. Chip Griffin, principal planner, said the pad was studied in the planned development (PD) and CEQA documents for the center and noted the project could be exempt under CEQA Guideline 15303; the staff report also cites a mitigated negative declaration adopted by the City Council in 2020 for the PD. Applicant representative Chris Sizz of Diversified Restaurant Group said the drive‑through stack on site can accommodate up to 15 cars and, based on franchisee experience in the East Bay, the project team expects typical queues of about eight cars.
Neighbors who live behind Safeway at Rossmore told the commission they oppose tree removal and raised traffic, safety, light and late‑night hours as concerns. Steve Shevinsky, a Rossmore resident, said the center’s parking and circulation have become busier as new tenants have opened and voiced safety concerns for elderly residents and people crossing the lot. Karen Bates, who said her house overlooks Rossmore Parkway, told the commission, "I saw in the plans that, that they would like to stay open till 2AM. And, I mean, that's just out of the question," and asked that the tower not face the neighborhood. Several speakers asked the commission to protect two long‑standing sycamores they said exceed the city’s nine‑inch diameter threshold.
In a rebuttal, Sizz said the indoor dining room would close at midnight and "the drive through is all that would be open till 2. And if there's nobody coming, we're gonna close early." He also told the commission Taco Bell uses reheating methods that the franchisee said produce minimal cooking odors and that the operator conducts a closing checklist to pick up trash on the property.
Commissioners repeatedly urged that the applicant examine circulation alternatives so queuing does not conflict with Safeway’s tenant‑protected area and the shopping‑center drive aisles. Several commissioners suggested sacrificing some parking stalls in the interior lot rather than removing large street trees that provide a screen between the center and adjacent homes. The commission’s formal direction to staff and the applicant was a positive recommendation to forward the use permits and design review to the Planning Commission with comments: seek ways to avoid the protected‑tree removals, lessen the tower/signage visibility to residents, and prioritize intuitive circulation and safety. The commission noted the tree removals as presented did not have support for removal of protected trees.
Next steps: the project will be heard by the Planning Commission for consideration of the conditional use permit, design review and any tree‑removal approvals.

